Scott Lloyd Posted March 4, 2020 Author Posted March 4, 2020 7 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: Except he did directly consult the handbook, and those in authority at the school. He looked at the changes, and got explicit confirmation. What in the handbook would have given him explicit confirmation that it is now OK with the Church to date or kiss others of the same sex in a non-platonic way?
Lemuel Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Sorry to say I see some dereliction in the HCO contributing to this whole sorry affair, I am sorry, dear, but to question the HCO's practices is to question the Ministry, and by extension, the Minister himself. I am a tolerant woman, but the one thing I will not stand for is disloyalty.
Calm Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 1 minute ago, Meadowchik said: Listen to it. It directly relates to the topic of his class, and he ties it in. He explains that the HCO office is adamant that disrespect of LGB students can be reported to the HCO, and he mentions that a BYU student was fired from a recruitment firm for a homophobic remark at work, and that these new Honor Code rules can better prepare the students for working in the real world. Good point. He does take it into spiritual waters by talking about testimonies, but perhaps BYU is still pushing the every teacher a religion teacher policy that so irritated my logic and chemistry professors (my logic prof iirc did one favourite quote of a prophet at the beginning of the semester and said that was it and the Chem prof just blew it off). If so, can't really fault him on taking it there, though the actual content was over he top imo.
Meadowchik Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: What in the handbook would have given him explicit confirmation that it is now OK with the Church to date or kiss others of the same sex in a non-platonic way? The removal of the language that explicitly forbade it.
Lemuel Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 13 minutes ago, smac97 said: I credit the professor for attempting "due diligence" (contacting the Honor Code Office). However, I think the professor should have used common sense. I don't think he did. I also question the propriety of a professor using class time to talk about a sensitive topic that has little to no bearing on the subject matter of the class. Basically, it seemed like he turned his class into his personal soap box. BYU students are not paying to listen to him pontificate about his personal sociopolitical opinions. -Smac BYU professors are evaluated by students on how well they bring gospel topics into the classroom.
Calm Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: He could also be speaking as one who doesn't want BYU graduates to get fired for homophobic remarks in the workplace. I have no doubt that was part of his motivation. But iirc he also said that anyone questioning the change was not sustaining the prophet and leaders of the Church...and that has nothing to do with worrying about job issues.
Calm Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 2 minutes ago, Lemuel said: BYU professors are evaluated by students on how well they bring gospel topics into the classroom. Thank you for the update.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 4, 2020 Author Posted March 4, 2020 4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: What did the Deseret News report about it? Did it cite HCO officials? I don’t know. These days I don’t read the paper every day, and other than today’s story, I don’t know what, if anything, they have reported on this topic. It’s a good question, though. Do you know if the Tribune cited HCO officials? All I remember seeing is the statement from Carri Jenkins, the university spokeswoman, who did not confirm that dating, hugging and kissing was now acceptable among gay students.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 4, 2020 Author Posted March 4, 2020 8 minutes ago, Lemuel said: I am sorry, dear, but to question the HCO's practices is to question the Ministry, and by extension, the Minister himself. I am a tolerant woman, but the one thing I will not stand for is disloyalty. Buzz off. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted March 4, 2020 Author Posted March 4, 2020 7 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: The removal of the language that explicitly forbade it. I thought the language was in the Honor Code, not the Church handbook. Were you referring to the Church handbook?
Calm Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Buzz off. Believe they are being sarcastic: http://www.moviequotedb.com/movies/harry-potter-and-the-order-of-the-phoenix/quote_10680.html 1
Scott Lloyd Posted March 4, 2020 Author Posted March 4, 2020 13 minutes ago, Lemuel said: BYU professors are evaluated by students on how well they bring gospel topics into the classroom. 10 minutes ago, Calm said: Thank you for the update. I wonder if that refers to official, university-sponsored evaluations or to those private, rate-your-professor websites that proliferate on the internet these days.
Meadowchik Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I don’t know. These days I don’t read the paper every day, and other than today’s story, I don’t know what, if anything, they have reported on this topic. It’s a good question, though. Do you know if the Tribune cited HCO officials? All I remember seeing is the statement from Carri Jenkins, the university spokeswoman, who did not confirm that dating, hugging and kissing was now acceptable among gay students. I don't know. I am blocked because I'm in Europe. So I really was asking you. 6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I thought the language was in the Honor Code, not the Church handbook. Were you referring to the Church handbook? I meant the handbook. It would presumably help to establish the legitimacy of BYU's discriminatory practices by showing a religious basis for them, thus protecting itself from legal recourse. (??)
Scott Lloyd Posted March 4, 2020 Author Posted March 4, 2020 31 minutes ago, Nacho2dope said: I disagree with this, I think he has been pushing for this change. When he states that all of those who don't immediately agree with this don't have a testimony of the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12. That does not strike me as someone trying to bring clarity. I could very well be wrong and this is my opinion. Thanks Did he really say that? It does seem over the top.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 4, 2020 Author Posted March 4, 2020 3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: I don't know. I am blocked because I'm in Europe. So I really was asking you. I meant the handbook. It would presumably help to establish the legitimacy of BYU's discriminatory practices by showing a religious basis for them, thus protecting itself from legal recourse. (??) I’m blocked because the Trib has a paywall and I won’t pay for online access. Im not clear on how consulting the handbook would have confirmed that BYU deleted the wording from the honor code.
Lemuel Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I wonder if that refers to official, university-sponsored evaluations or to those private, rate-your-professor websites that proliferate on the internet these days. Official ones.
Meadowchik Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Did he really say that? It does seem over the top. This is what he said, basically assuming (reasonably imo) that the handbook comes through the Brethren:
Scott Lloyd Posted March 4, 2020 Author Posted March 4, 2020 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: This is what he said, basically assuming (reasonably imo) that the handbook comes through the Brethren: Not sure how reasonable this was. He was in effect tying his students’ fidelity to the Church to his impression (erroneous, as it turns out) that the honor code, in contravention of past teachings and practices in the Church, now authorizes romantic expressions between individuals of the same sex. I agree with Smac that it did not reflect common sense. Or, to put it another way, it was misguided zeal. Edited March 4, 2020 by Scott Lloyd
Meadowchik Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I’m blocked because the Trib has a paywall and I won’t pay for online access. Im not clear on how consulting the handbook would have confirmed that BYU deleted the wording from the honor code. Because the Honor Code changes its enforcement based on the handbook. It must have a religious basis to legally discriminate based on religious grounds. The Honor Code didn't change, as far as I know but the handbook change may impact what it can enforce. Here's the Honor Code: Edited March 4, 2020 by Meadowchik
Meadowchik Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Not sure how reasonable this was. He was in effect tying his students’ fidelity to the Church to his impression (erroneous, as it turns out) that the honor code, in contravention of past teachings and practices in the Church, now authorizes romantic expressions between individuals of the same sex. I agree with Smac that it did not reflect common sense. Or, to put it another way, it was misguided zeal. Um that is pretty much in his job, isn't it? Pointing at authoritative church sources (like the handbook and the HCO in this instance) and then passing the relevant info to his students. Again, this was by all appearances a system failure. Edited March 4, 2020 by Meadowchik 1
Scott Lloyd Posted March 4, 2020 Author Posted March 4, 2020 5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: Because the Honor Code changes its enforcement based on the handbook. It must have a religious basis to legally discriminate based on religious grounds. The Honor Code didn't change, as far as I know but the handbook change may impact what it can enforce. Here's the Honor Code: But the honor code WAS changed. The wording was deleted. To make it consistent with the handbook was the explanation given, but it’s still not clear to me at this late date how deleting the wording fostered consistency with the handbook. I don’t think it’s self evident. 1
Calm Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Did he really say that? It does seem over the top. From the trib: Quote Those who don’t like that change, the professor suggested, are questioning the faith. Brau believes disagreeing with the updates means believing that church leadership is wrong. “It amazes me because what they’re saying is they don’t have a testimony of the living apostles.” https://www.sltrib.com/news/education/2020/02/26/popular-video-this-byu/
Scott Lloyd Posted March 4, 2020 Author Posted March 4, 2020 6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: Um that is pretty much in his job, isn't it? Pointing at authoritative church sources (like the handbook and the HCO in this instance) and then passing the relevant info to his students. Again, this was by all appearances a system failure. There’s plenty of blame to go around.
provoman Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: What in the handbook would have given him explicit confirmation that it is now OK with the Church to date or kiss others of the same sex in a non-platonic way? Or should we ask "What is not in the General Handbook" CHI 2 chapter 21 has a section specifically about homosexual behavior. The General Handbook does not contain the same prohibition against homosexual behavior. Now if the CES/BYU standards are aligned with the General Handbook AND the General Handbook does not contain specific prohibitions against homosexual behavior,
pogi Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 I haven't read the whole thread, maybe this has been addressed, but if nothing has changed in the honor code, what was the purpose of the change? If nothing has changed other than the wording, it seems the original wording was more clear - why did they change it? 2
Recommended Posts