BYU Board of Trustees approved honor code changes in early 2020

[blueglass]

In early 2020 the board of trustees approved removing this section of the honor code:

Quote

Homosexual Behavior

Brigham Young University will respond to homosexual behavior rather than to feelings or attraction and welcomes as full members of the university community all whose behavior meets university standards. Members of the university community can remain in good Honor Code standing if they conduct their lives in a manner consistent with gospel principles and the Honor Code.  One's stated same-gender attraction is not an Honor Code issue. However, the Honor Code requires all members of the university community to manifest a strict commitment to the law of chastity. Homosexual behavior is inappropriate and violates the Honor Code. Homosexual behavior includes not only sexual relations between members of the same sex, but all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings.

With the Feb 2020 honor code changes no training, explanations, or help was given to the honor code office or administration at BYU before the release.  They were blind sided.  Elder Holland with fellow board of Trustees as co-signers approved removing the Homosexual Behavior section of the honor code.  When confusion among faculty, honor code staff, and students arose did any member of the Board of Trustees immediately organize a conference call with the honor code office of his beloved university, or with the president of BYU to immediately provide training and explanation?   It took 2 weeks to send a letter via an errand boy - Paul Johnson the commissioner.  The rationale provided for the removal of the Homosexual Behavior section on the FAQ section is bogus and smells like misdirection.  The difficulty, confusion, and chaos was created by the Board of Trustees. 

Another example.  In the implementation of the Nov 2015 policy of exclusion when I was serving in the bishopric at the time there was no warning, training, or explanation on how to implement this awful policy of exclusion given to local leadership before it was released.  Our stake president had no help to offer us.  We all waded through the confusion, misdirection, and awful feelings of disappointment.  Elder Snow as Church Historian articulated his concern with how this was not well planned.  "It didn't seem well thought out, it was an amendment to the handbook, why would we lead with we don't bless the children of gay and lesbian parents!  -  it didn't make sense to me, it was hard for me I'm very very glad they reversed it."

Friendly fire erupts when the effects of ineptitude in leadership leaves people distraught.  When leadership cannot be trusted to be transparent, and when they do not show up to clarify we have to trust in the Lord to help us choose what is right.  What we can't do is descend to worship false gods as the children of Israel,

Quote

Exodus 32:1  "When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said, “Come, make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don’t know what has happened to him.”
 

 

[rongo]

Do you have a source that proves that it was approved by the Board of Trustees? If true, that would be not good, given that they let the Honor Code Office take the fall for it, and also given the two weeks (that felt a lot longer) of radio silence until Elder Johnson remanded the changes. 

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Elder Snow as Church Historian articulated his concern with how this was not well planned.  "It didn't seem well thought out, it was an amendment to the handbook, why would we lead with we don't bless the children of gay and lesbian parents!  -  it didn't make sense to me, it was hard for me I'm very very glad they reversed it."

Source please

[bluebell]

49 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Friendly fire erupts when the effects of ineptitude in leadership leaves people distraught.  When leadership cannot be trusted to be transparent, and when they do not show up to clarify we have to trust in the Lord to help us choose what is right.  What we can't do is descend to worship false gods as the children of Israel,

 

I'm not sure what the scripture and the last paragraph are supposed to mean.  Are you saying that it was Moses' fault that the children of Israel decided to create the golden calf?

[JustAnAustralian]

1 hour ago, blueglass said:

released.

There could well have been training or further instructional letters planned had the policy not been leaked. 

 

1 hour ago, blueglass said:

was no warning, training, or explanation on how to implement

It was pretty much a copy-paste of the polygamists policy. Did you ever get training specifically for that? Have you you training specifically for every single thing in the handbook?

 

1 hour ago, blueglass said:

When leadership cannot be trusted to be transparent

You seem to be going back and forth between transparency and ineptitude. They are different things.

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Source please

it starts around the 27 mark

[CV75]

16 hours ago, blueglass said:

In early 2020 the board of trustees approved removing this section of the honor code:

With the Feb 2020 honor code changes no training, explanations, or help was given to the honor code office or administration at BYU before the release.  They were blind sided.  Elder Holland with fellow board of Trustees as co-signers approved removing the Homosexual Behavior section of the honor code.  When confusion among faculty, honor code staff, and students arose did any member of the Board of Trustees immediately organize a conference call with the honor code office of his beloved university, or with the president of BYU to immediately provide training and explanation?   It took 2 weeks to send a letter via an errand boy - Paul Johnson the commissioner.  The rationale provided for the removal of the Homosexual Behavior section on the FAQ section is bogus and smells like misdirection.  The difficulty, confusion, and chaos was created by the Board of Trustees. 

Another example.  In the implementation of the Nov 2015 policy of exclusion when I was serving in the bishopric at the time there was no warning, training, or explanation on how to implement this awful policy of exclusion given to local leadership before it was released.  Our stake president had no help to offer us.  We all waded through the confusion, misdirection, and awful feelings of disappointment.  Elder Snow as Church Historian articulated his concern with how this was not well planned.  "It didn't seem well thought out, it was an amendment to the handbook, why would we lead with we don't bless the children of gay and lesbian parents!  -  it didn't make sense to me, it was hard for me I'm very very glad they reversed it."

Friendly fire erupts when the effects of ineptitude in leadership leaves people distraught.  When leadership cannot be trusted to be transparent, and when they do not show up to clarify we have to trust in the Lord to help us choose what is right.  What we can't do is descend to worship false gods as the children of Israel,

 

What item from the OP is the most important, in your mind, to discuss?

[blueglass]

On 8/27/2021 at 6:29 PM, rongo said:

Do you have a source that proves that it was approved by the Board of Trustees? If true, that would be not good, given that they let the Honor Code Office take the fall for it, and also given the two weeks (that felt a lot longer) of radio silence until Elder Johnson remanded the changes. 

The BYU Board of Trustees approves all changes to the honor code before they are published.  "By accepting appointment, continuing in employment, being admitted, or continuing class enrollment, each member of the BYU community personally commits to observe these Honor Code standards approved by the Board of Trustees  “at all times and in all things, and in all places” (Mosiah 18:9):

The most recent version was approved by the board of trustees on Wed 12-Feb-2020, and published exactly 1 week later on 19-Feb 2020.  The archive.org snapshots of the webpage confirm the publication date 1 week after approval.  Here is the site listing members of the board of trustees https://catalog.byu.edu/about-byu/administration

first presidency and 4 members of the quorum of 12, presiding bishopric member, 2 women Jean B. Bingham and Bonnie Cordon.  From board of trustees minutes published in the past homosexual behavior and identify have been discussed which was explicitly codified in the honor code.  For example board of trustees minutes approved the outright ban of those identified as homosexuals on 25-Jan-1968 which was later reversed by the board of trustees on 19 April 1973. 

Edited August 29, 2021 by blueglass

[blueglass]

On 8/27/2021 at 6:49 PM, Calm said:

Source please

I tried to transcribe the question asked by Peggy Fletcher Stack to Elder Snow as best I could.  He also interviewed with Rick Bennett not sure if the topic came up.  https://gospeltangents.com/category/elder-snow/

 

[blueglass]

On 8/27/2021 at 7:13 PM, bluebell said:

I'm not sure what the scripture and the last paragraph are supposed to mean.  Are you saying that it was Moses' fault that the children of Israel decided to create the golden calf?

From reading Exodus 32 in vs 7-8 the Yahweh shares spy-cam footage with Moses as he has been on the mountain awhile receiving revelation.  The LORD is very upset. ¹⁰ Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.”   Yahweh is thinking of destroying all the people he just liberated.  Moses works with him to think about it a different way and to remind the LORD of his promise to the patriarchs.  How can they inherit the promised land if you destroy them?  Essentially you would be breaking your own promise given to Abraham.  14 Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened."  

The problem is what Moses does when he descends and sees the golden calf in person.  his anger burned and he threw the tablets out of his hands.  It's not clear if what Moses does next was instructed by the LORD. 

²⁷ Then he said to them, “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor."  3000 deaths later we then give definition to the meaning to be "set apart". 

My feeling and I may be wrong - is that Holland in speaking for the board of trustees and he speaks as if he obtained the will of the Lord to "set apart" a portion of the byu faculty, administrators, and students - but did he?  Is the entire board of trustees in consensus?  Did they review his talk beforehand?  Moses at first obtains by pleading and bargaining with the LORD a softened hand, yet when he descends he conducts a slaughtering of brothers, friends, and neighbors. 

 

[blueglass]

On 8/28/2021 at 10:46 AM, CV75 said:

What item from the OP is the most important, in your mind, to discuss?

I posted because I want to hear from others how they have obtained the will of the LORD in their own lives to help them obtain guidance and more expansive vision.  I need help in how to sift through my own fallible thoughts and feelings, biases.  honor code changes when first announced last year at byu brought great joy, peace and jubilation to friends and loved ones.  I thought this was progress after the policy reversal in april2019.  however when there was no clear direction for 2 weeks and national news organizations carried story after story, I became worried my joy may have been in vain.  really I would like to know how Holland would speak to his own grandson or grand daughter if she identified as lgbtq.  Would he say your sexual identity will be fixed in the next life, Elder Wickman 2006 "Gratefully, the answer is that same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence."  Would he say "because of God's great love for [you] those lesser kingdoms are still more wonderful than mortals can comprehend" - Elder Oaks Oct 2019.  We know he would say "I love you!" and weep and pray with them.   I am looking for a greater vision and outlook for the future. 

 

[OGHoosier]

On 8/27/2021 at 4:23 PM, blueglass said:

In early 2020 the board of trustees approved removing this section of the honor code

Did they remove the whole section or just the italicized section? 

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, blueglass said:

I posted because I want to hear from others how they have obtained the will of the LORD in their own lives to help them obtain guidance and more expansive vision.  I need help in how to sift through my own fallible thoughts and feelings, biases.  honor code changes when first announced last year at byu brought great joy, peace and jubilation to friends and loved ones.  I thought this was progress after the policy reversal in april2019.  however when there was no clear direction for 2 weeks and national news organizations carried story after story, I became worried my joy may have been in vain.  really I would like to know how Holland would speak to his own grandson or grand daughter if she identified as lgbtq.  Would he say your sexual identity will be fixed in the next life, Elder Wickman 2006 "Gratefully, the answer is that same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence."  Would he say "because of God's great love for [you] those lesser kingdoms are still more wonderful than mortals can comprehend" - Elder Oaks Oct 2019.  We know he would say "I love you!" and weep and pray with them.   I am looking for a greater vision and outlook for the future. 

 

I think the “Sunday School” answers address how to obtain personal revelation. That is how I obtained it, long before I ever attended a Sunday School class!

I would recommend that you act on your thoughts and feelings as they come to you in applying these steps and attitudes in obtaining personal revelation. You have nothing else to go by. The Lord will intervene as necessary to prevent you from wandering off too far. I am not one to tell someone they are wrong when they claim personal revelation; I have confidence that if they are acting in good faith, the Lord will lead them.

Knowing the private lives and thoughts of the Church leaders won’t help unless you know them personally on a private level. But the Lord has placed people within your circle that you do know, and that you can come to know better.

For what it’s worth, we can apply Elder Wickman’s words to human development: same-gender attraction does not exist for infants, and neither will it exist when they die decades later, and we are to become as little children in the meantime, regardless of when it does exist.  Elder Oaks also described the aim and potential for exaltation to the exact same audience, and how to treat those who simply disagree.

“[become] a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and [become] as a ^jchild, ^ksubmissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict* upon [you], even as a child doth submit to his father.”

* In this context, I think “inflict” means the commandments and covenants, attitudes and behaviors, etc. that change the natural man into a saint.

Edited August 29, 2021 by CV75

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

same-gender attraction does not exist for infants,

So opposite gender attraction falls into the same category I am assuming based on this approach?  Something that we won’t have in the next life?

[OGHoosier]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

So opposite gender attraction falls into the same category I am assuming based on this approach?  Something that we won’t have in the next life?

Honestly, I'm not sure if it will exist in the same way. I'm aware of no particular scriptural evidence for that view. The closest thing of which I'm aware which would constitute that sort of evidence would be Joseph Smith's "same sociality" comment, but even then it's clear that not all aspects of human interaction will persist in the celestial kingdom, so I don't think that remark can be interpreted as exhaustive of all categories of human sociality. 

So I'm agnostic on the existence of post-mortal attraction. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

So opposite gender attraction falls into the same category I am assuming based on this approach?  Something that we won’t have in the next life?

Yes. We know sexual attraction and circumstance exist now, and this is the time to prepare to meet God.

Given (1) that our eternal natures were designed to act and not acted upon, rendering the power to evoke sexual interest, pleasure, or liking for someone or something (i.e., “attraction”) under our control, and (2) given that the “circumstance” (Wickman’s word, which places attraction – not sexuality – as the condition to which we are subject as mortals) would be removed, I would say that sexual attraction of any kind will not exist in the next life as follows: It is no longer sexual attraction; it becomes sexual choice. Sexuality (the capacity to have sex) is part and parcel of a perfect resurrected body, but the realization or use of this capacity is a matter of choice, and it renders the attendant blessings (physically, spiritually, temporally, eternally, and by extension, emotionally, mentally, socially, etc.).

If someone in the spirit world, fully informed, chooses in such a way that they cannot abide the covenants of exaltation, and their immortal activities are proscribed as a result, it is still their choice. These post-resurrection limitations are not the result of mortal enticement, attraction or circumstance, but of fully informed, post-mortal choice.

So, inasmuch as we often cannot choose our circumstances in this life of probation, we can still choose our eternal covenants in the next life. At the same time, the companionship of the Holy Ghost, which we can have irrespective of mortal sexual attractions and circumstance in this life, can help us in this life choose more like fully informed post-mortals (saints).

Edited August 30, 2021 by CV75

[Calm]

 

Quote

I'm agnostic on the existence of post-mortal attraction. 

I see no reason for the instinctive, hormonal and other nonconcious sexual attractions to exist in a perfected community that doesn’t need to be driven by physical desires to establish eternal relationships.  
 

But I could be wrong. Seems unlikely, but I get there by reason, not revelation, so not making any claims. 

Edited August 30, 2021 by Calm

[blueglass]

On 8/29/2021 at 5:47 PM, OGHoosier said:

Did they remove the whole section or just the italicized section? 

 

Yes they removed the entire section entitled "Homosexual behavior".  The honor code office confirmed that homosexual dating, displays of affection on campus would not be in violation of the honor code as long as they did not violate the law of chastity. 

As we can see here where same sex couples kissed in front of the honor code office without repercussions.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/21/us/brigham-young-homosexual-behavior-honor-code-trnd/index.html

 

 

[OGHoosier]

8 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Yes they removed the entire section entitled "Homosexual behavior".  The honor code office confirmed that homosexual dating, displays of affection on campus would not be in violation of the honor code as long as they did not violate the law of chastity. 

As we can see here where same sex couples kissed in front of the honor code office without repercussions.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/21/us/brigham-young-homosexual-behavior-honor-code-trnd/index.html

 

 

That CNN article doesn't clarify. The "section that banned homosexual behavior" could refer to the italicized section of your original quotation, or the whole section. The CNN article itself doesn't say anything about a section entitled "Homosexual behavior". Also, I see them working on a case by case basis, not a blanket endorsement like you say. Tack a CFR on for that as well. 

And the picture of the couples kissing doesn't mean anything about the textual changes, merely the public perception. 

I must reiterate my request for a CFR. What exactly was changed, the italicized section or the whole thing? 

[mgy401]

It is perhaps worth noting in this context that on the day the change was announced, BYU clarified via Twitter that even though the revised honor code emphasized on principles rather than specifics, the same conduct standards still applied.  This statement was attributed to Honor Code Office director Kevin Utt.

The issue wasn’t a lack of clarity from the HCO leadership; the issue was that a number of BYU students, faculty, and even (apparently) some underlings in the HCO just didn’t want to hear it and basically instigated a game of PR-chicken with the Church leadership; gambling that if they could make it appear that the Church/BYU had moved to the left, the leadership wouldn’t dare subject themselves to the media embarrassment that would result by dragging things back to the right.

It certainly would have been nice if the Church leadership had put the kibosh on the resulting insurrection/orgy more quickly, but the fact is that none were deceived who didn’t want to be deceived.  To be sure, there’s a great deal of ridiculousness at BYU.  But a lot of the things they do actually make sense if one is living the law of chastity with one’s mind as well as one’s body.  

Edited August 31, 2021 by mgy401

[2BizE]

I’m trying to understand the intent of this post.  Is the OP suggesting the BYU Board of Trustees is responsible for the multiple episodes of confusion being attributed to the Honor Code Office?

[blueglass]

18 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

That CNN article doesn't clarify. The "section that banned homosexual behavior" could refer to the italicized section of your original quotation, or the whole section. The CNN article itself doesn't say anything about a section entitled "Homosexual behavior". Also, I see them working on a case by case basis, not a blanket endorsement like you say. Tack a CFR on for that as well. 

And the picture of the couples kissing doesn't mean anything about the textual changes, merely the public perception. 

I must reiterate my request for a CFR. What exactly was changed, the italicized section or the whole thing? 

The entire homosexual behavior section was removed - not just the italicized section.  Just do a wayback machine check on this site:  https://policy.byu.edu/view/index.php?p=26 and compare the page on 14-Feb-2020 with the one on 19-Feb-2020 when they released the new honor code which was approved by the BYU board of trustees.

[blueglass]

18 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

 The CNN article itself doesn't say anything about a section entitled "Homosexual behavior".

As the title of the CNN article says, "Brigham Young University removes 'homosexual behavior' as an honor code violation, so same-sex couples might be allowed to kiss and hold hands." 

Quote

Kitchen said he spoke to the Honor Code Office on Thursday morning, and officers told him that they'll allow same-sex student couples to kiss, hold hands and date. They'll also no longer accept tips from other students or ecclesiastical leaders about "homosexual behavior" on campus, Kitchen said -- it'll all be self-reported.

 

[blueglass]

16 hours ago, mgy401 said:

It is perhaps worth noting in this context that on the day the change was announced, BYU clarified via Twitter that even though the revised honor code emphasized on principles rather than specifics, the same conduct standards still applied.  This statement was attributed to Honor Code Office director Kevin Utt.

The issue wasn’t a lack of clarity from the HCO leadership; the issue was that a number of BYU students, faculty, and even (apparently) some underlings in the HCO just didn’t want to hear it and basically instigated a game of PR-chicken with the Church leadership; gambling that if they could make it appear that the Church/BYU had moved to the left, the leadership wouldn’t dare subject themselves to the media embarrassment that would result by dragging things back to the right.

It certainly would have been nice if the Church leadership had put the kibosh on the resulting insurrection/orgy more quickly, but the fact is that none were deceived who didn’t want to be deceived.  To be sure, there’s a great deal of ridiculousness at BYU.  But a lot of the things they do actually make sense if one is living the law of chastity with one’s mind as well as one’s body.  

Name one way that removing the entire section on Homosexual Behavior improved BYU's understanding of the principles of the honor code and law of chastity taught by the church.

 

[mgy401]

 

4 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Name one way that removing the entire section on Homosexual Behavior improved BYU's understanding of the principles of the honor code and law of chastity taught by the church.

 

Oh, I don’t think I’d say that it improved anyone’s understanding of the principles themselves—as they stand, they’re not exactly rocket science.

But the change absolutely improved everyone’s understanding about which students and faculty members, given the chance, would slip into open warfare against those principles.  I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that we learned more in those two weeks, than we otherwise would have learned in five years.

”Hastening”, indeed . . .