BYU’s newly updated Honor Code is at odds with LDS Church’s LGBTQ rules

[smac97]

From the Tribune: BYU’s newly updated Honor Code is at odds with LDS Church’s LGBTQ rules

Quote

LGBTQ students at Brigham Young University celebrated three years ago, when The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ flagship school quietly deleted from the Honor Code a ban on “homosexual behavior.” For the first time, many students began holding hands or kissing in public. Others took the moment to come out as queer.

Then, a month later, the Church Educational System administrators who oversee BYU’s campuses issued a statement clarifying that despite the deleted language, “same-sex romantic behavior” wasn’t compatible with the Honor Code.

Last week, CES restored language to the code explicitly prohibiting LGBTQ affection — now called “same-sex romantic behavior.” Though the ban had never really lost its effect, for some students the official restoration of it still felt like a gut punch.

This is getting pretty stale.

Everyone knows about the Honor Code at BYU.  To call a minor - and what should be unnecessary - clarification of it a "gut punch" is maudlin and melodramatic.

Quote

“It’s heartbreaking to see it repeated over and over again that queer students aren’t welcome,” said Gracee Purcell, a BYU psychology major. “Every time they reinstate and repeat it, it hurts a little more.”

Students with same-sex attraction are welcome.  They are just being required to adhere to the same standard that applies to everyone else.

Quote

The Honor Code, a set of guidelines that employees and students are expected to follow, is enforced by the administration on the main campus in Provo, as well as BYU–Idaho, BYU–Hawaii and Ensign College in downtown Salt Lake City. It instructs all community members to live “a chaste and virtuous life, including abstaining from sexual relations outside marriage between a man and a woman.” The new language adds that “living a chaste and virtuous life also includes abstaining from same-sex romantic behavior.”

As has always been the case at BYU.  It is patently unreasonable, even intellectually dishonest, to imply that this is new or unexpected.

Imagine if CES felt obligated to add language stating "living a chaste and virtuous life includes married students not engaging in romantic behavior with persons other than their spouse."  Do married students at BYU really need to be specifically told this?  

Quote

In an FAQ list included with the announcement, CES noted that the ban on same-sex behavior does not represent a change in LGBTQ policies. Disciplinary responses to students holding hands, kissing or going on dates with members of the same sex will “be handled on a case-by-case basis to help each student feel the love of the Savior and to encourage them to live their gospel covenants and university/college commitments.”

The announcement declared that “LGBTQ students are a welcomed and valued part of the campus community and share a common identity with every student as sons and daughters of God.” A BYU spokesperson referred media requests about the Honor Code to the church, which declined to comment beyond the news release.

After the CES announcement, three groups for queer BYU students or alumni — the RaYnbow Collective, the Out Foundation, and Understanding Sexuality, Gender & Allyship — released a joint statement on social media acknowledging that, while they oppose any prohibition of same-sex romantic behavior, the updated language is in some ways a step toward transparency.

“I’m just glad people can now finally see explicitly what’s happening,” said Evelyn Telford, one of the vice presidents of USGA, a community group for queer BYU students that is not affiliated with the university. “There’s no way to get around it that they are openly being discriminatory to queer students.”

By this reasoning, the Honor Code also discriminates against married students (because they are prohibited from "romantic behaviors" outside of their marriage).

Quote

Purcell argued that the new Honor Code language means queer couples can be disciplined even if they are following the same chastity guidelines assigned to straight couples.

The Honor Code applies on an individual level.  And it applies to everyone in the same way.  So Purcell is incorrect here.

Quote

This, she said, is out of step with the church’s overall policy.

“Depending on where you are, who your religious leaders are, you can actually date people of the same sex with very little church repercussions,” said Purcell, 20, who is also president of the RaYnbow Collective. “At BYU, that usually gray line within the church is a hard line. Anything that they deem homosexual behavior, or same-sex romantic behavior, is not allowed.”

The Church is bending over backwards trying to accommodate people with same-sex attraction.  That it is not bending as far at BYU (or in the mission field, or for employees of the Church, etc.) doesn't mean much.

Again, nobody can claim to be unaware of the scope and parameters of the Honor Code at BYU.  Purcell's pearl-clutching routine just isn't persuasive.

Quote

Though the Honor Code’s strictures may not change how LGBTQ students are disciplined at BYU, in practice, Telford is concerned the change could increase isolation.

“It’s going to make us all a bit more nervous to be out and doing things with our friends,” said Telford, 22, who said she’s worried that simply hanging out with people of the same sex could lead to punishment. “Most of us are just trying to go to school here. Most of us are just trying to make it by. And now that there’s such vague language, it feels like people are looking at you all the time to see if you’re going to slip up and do something wrong.”

Oh, malarky.  Imagine a married BYU student saying this: “Most of us are just trying to go to school here. Most of us are just trying to make it by. And now that there’s such vague language, it feels like people are looking at you all the time to see if you’re going to slip up and do something wrong.”

It's not that difficult. 

Same-sex romantic behavior is categorically prohibited.  For everyone.

Sexual behavior outside of marriage (as that terms is defined by the Church) is categorically prohibited.  For everyone.

Romantic behavior by married students with someone other than their spouse is categorically prohibited.  

Quote

Telford said she’s often asked why queer students come to BYU in the first place. She said academic opportunities, location, affordability and family ties at BYU are all factors students might consider, adding that there are other students who, like her, didn’t realize they were queer until getting to college.

“It’s such a personal decision to be at BYU,” she said, “and your sexuality shouldn’t mean you don’t deserve a place there.”

I quite agree.  She does have a place at BYU.  But that place requires her to adhere to the same code of conduct that applies to everyone else.

Heterosexual students have "sexuality," too, but they must constrain expressions of it to the parameters of the Honor Code.  

Quote

As the school year at BYU begins, Telford said she and other queer students in USGA plan to keep meeting regularly, resisting the isolation of being on a campus where expressing themselves isn’t officially welcome.

"Expressing themselves" = "Violating the Honor Code they agreed to abide by as a precondition for admission to BYU."

Yes, BYU doesn't "officially welcome" violation of the Honor Code.  I'll stipulate to that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[blackstrap]

So, an unmarried hetero couple found walking hand in hand across campus could be reported to the Honor code folks , right ? 

Is any thought given to cultural differences where 2 men or 2 women holding hands is quite the norm in some countries , ie. Latin America. ? 

[Thinking]

Quote

handled on a case-by-case basis

Well that clears it up.

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Students with same-sex attraction are welcome

I don’t know that this is true. In fact I hold anecdotal evidence that they are not necessarily welcome, at least by other students and it is I believe church and school policies that reinforce (unintentionally)  maltreatment by other students. 

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

This is getting pretty stale.

This thread again? 

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

Everyone knows about the Honor Code at BYU.  To call a minor - and what should be unnecessary - clarification of it a "gut punch" is maudlin and melodramatic.

“Look, we tried to take some of the language out that made us look bad and you idiots thought we actually meant that things were changing? How maudlin and melodramatic to think that way. We meant that we didn’t want to say it was against the Honor Code but assumed you would know it is still against the Honor Code because….obviously. Fine, we will put it back in. The sacrifices we make for you people. Sheesh.”

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Church is bending over backwards trying to accommodate people with same-sex attraction.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!

‘When you’re accustomed to privilege, equalitybeing marginally less homophobic feels like oppressionan excessive sacrifice that those ingrates never appreciate.“

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

Students with same-sex attraction are welcome.

They are really not. Unless by “welcome” you mean “tolerated as long as you don’t identify yourself in any way or make anyone uncomfortable by being in any way stereotypically or explicitly queer”.

[california boy]

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

Imagine if CES felt obligated to add language stating "living a chaste and virtuous life includes married students not engaging in romantic behavior with persons other than their spouse."  Do married students at BYU really need to be specifically told this?  

By this reasoning, the Honor Code also discriminates against married students (because they are prohibited from "romantic behaviors" outside of their marriage).

The Honor Code applies on an individual level.  And it applies to everyone in the same way.  So Purcell is incorrect here.

The Church is bending over backwards trying to accommodate people with same-sex attraction.  That it is not bending as far at BYU (or in the mission field, or for employees of the Church, etc.) doesn't mean much.

Again, nobody can claim to be unaware of the scope and parameters of the Honor Code at BYU.  Purcell's pearl-clutching routine just isn't persuasive.

Oh, malarky.  Imagine a married BYU student saying this: “Most of us are just trying to go to school here. Most of us are just trying to make it by. And now that there’s such vague language, it feels like people are looking at you all the time to see if you’re going to slip up and do something wrong.”

It's not that difficult. 

Same-sex romantic behavior is categorically prohibited.  For everyone.

Sexual behavior outside of marriage (as that terms is defined by the Church) is categorically prohibited.  For everyone.

Romantic behavior by married students with someone other than their spouse is categorically 

prohibited.  For everyone

Something is seriously wrong with a person who cannot see the difference between a person who can find someone to liove and marry and someone who is prohibited from ever finding love and marrying or even dating 

[smac97]

On 9/1/2023 at 11:09 AM, california boy said:

Quote

Imagine if CES felt obligated to add language stating "living a chaste and virtuous life includes married students not engaging in romantic behavior with persons other than their spouse."  Do married students at BYU really need to be specifically told this?  

By this reasoning, the Honor Code also discriminates against married students (because they are prohibited from "romantic behaviors" outside of their marriage).

The Honor Code applies on an individual level.  And it applies to everyone in the same way.  So Purcell is incorrect here.

The Church is bending over backwards trying to accommodate people with same-sex attraction.  That it is not bending as far at BYU (or in the mission field, or for employees of the Church, etc.) doesn't mean much.

Again, nobody can claim to be unaware of the scope and parameters of the Honor Code at BYU.  Purcell's pearl-clutching routine just isn't persuasive.

Oh, malarky.  Imagine a married BYU student saying this: “Most of us are just trying to go to school here. Most of us are just trying to make it by. And now that there’s such vague language, it feels like people are looking at you all the time to see if you’re going to slip up and do something wrong.”

It's not that difficult. 

Same-sex romantic behavior is categorically prohibited.  For everyone.

Sexual behavior outside of marriage (as that terms is defined by the Church) is categorically prohibited.  For everyone.

Romantic behavior by married students with someone other than their spouse is categorically prohibited.  For everyone

Something is seriously wrong with a person who cannot see the difference between a person who can find someone to love and marry and someone who is prohibited from ever finding love and marrying or even dating 

First, something is seriously wrong when a person, despite being intelligent and well-educated and informed, cannot articulate a "difference" he nevertheless treats as self-evident and obvious.

Second, I was arguing by analogy.  That is, I was examining traits shared by two otherwise dissimilar things.

Third, I think it is unreasonable for a BYU student to publicly profess shock and disappointment at the Honor Code when she knew perfectly well what it was, what it means, how it is interpreted, how it is applied, and so on, all prior to coming to BYU.  

Fourth, I reject the notion of a one-to-one correlation between "love" and sexual intercourse.

Fifth, plenty of heterosexual students at BYU - all of them, in fact - must constrain their sexual behaviors to the parameters of the Honor Code and the Law of Chastity.

Sixth, there are hundreds upon hundreds of colleges and universities where same-sex behavior is allowed.  I therefore find it patently unreasonable for BYU students to A) voluntarily apply for admission to BYU, B) agree in advance to abide by the Honor Code, C) receive substantial benefits inherent in taking one of the limited slots at BYU, and D) while or after receiving those benefits, decrying the Honor Code they agreed to follow as a precondition for admission.  If BYU was the only game in town, I'd have a bit more understanding for and patience with complaints about the Honor Code.  But it ain't, so I don't.

Seventh, "same-sex romantic behavior" is categorically prohibited.  Nobody can do it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 6, 2023 by smac97

[MustardSeed]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I therefore find it patently unreasonable for BYU students to A) voluntarily apply for admission to BYU

So let’s be honest. Not welcome. 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, MustardSeed said:

So let’s be honest. Not welcome. 

Yes, let's be honest: Welcome, on the same conditions as are applied to everyone else.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Yes, let's be honest: Welcome, on the same conditions as are applied to everyone else.

Thanks,

-Smac

No.  Because I can make out with my hetero boyfriend all is well! 

Edited September 1, 2023 by MustardSeed

[Nofear]

4 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

No.  Because I can make out with my hetero boyfriend all is well! 

For legalistic purposes, it is useful to distinguish between content and impact. The rules/content are the same. The impact of the rules are not the same (since a homosexual couple can't physically express their affection in the same way a heterosexual couple can).

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

No.  Because I can make out with my hetero boyfriend all is well! 

Yes.  Because the Law of Chastity and the Honor Code apply to everyone.  Nobody can engage in same-sex behavior.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 9/1/2023 at 1:53 PM, Nofear said:

Quote

No.  Because I can make out with my hetero boyfriend all is well! 

For legalistic purposes, it is useful to distinguish between content and impact. The rules/content are the same. The impact of the rules are not the same (since a homosexual couple can't physically express their affection in the same way a heterosexual couple can).

The Honor Code applies to individuals.  And it applies to everyone regardless of inner-felt sexual orientation/desire.  Nobody can engage in same-sex behavior.  

The "impact" to the individual, then, remains the same.

Feelings and desires are, in my view, insufficient grounds to claim "disparate impact," even for "legalistic purposes." 

A heterosexual BYU student who wants to be sexually active outside of marriage cannot claim that the Honor Code disparately impacts him because regardless of his desires, he agreed to constrain his behavior to the parameters set in the Honor Code.  He faces the same constraints all other BYU students do.  That he may subjectively chafe more against those constraints more than some other student (who is quite willing to abstain from sex outside of marriage) is neither here nor there.

I commented on this back in 2018:

Quote

4. All of Us Are Held to the Same Standard:

Elder Oaks has spoken of the ongoing debate about "evidence or theories suggesting that 'there is substantial evidence for genetic influence on sexual orientation,'" about sexual behavior being "profoundly influenced by psychosocial factors such as parental and sibling relationships (especially during the formative years) and the culture in which we live," and how all of this is part of a "highly complex subject on which scientific knowledge is still in its infancy" and that "most scientists concede that the current evidence is insufficient and that firm conclusions must await many additional scientific studies."  The Church, having taken this into account, holds all members of the Church to the same standard of sexual conduct (see above).

People with same-sex attraction are asked to abide by the same standards as anyone else. There is no shortage of widowed, divorced, not-yet or never-married church members who are commanded to be celibate. Those who are married are commanded to confine their behavior to certain parameters.

5. Feelings are Not Determinative of Morality (Where God Has Spoken):

This one is pretty straightforward, but it still gets glossed over.  A lot.

A married man doesn't get to have an adulterous affair because he desires it. 

A married man doesn't get to enter into polygamy because he desires it.

An unmarried person doesn't get to have sex because he desires it.

And, yes, members of the Church do not get to engage in homosexual behavior, even if they desire it.  

Desires are not determinative of the standard. God has prohibited adultery amongst His children. God has also prohibited same-sex behavior amongst His children. It is true that some of His children want to (and do) engage in adultery. This is wrong. It is also true that some of His children want to (and do) engage in same-sex behavior. This is wrong. The same standard applies to all church members.

This board is chalkablock full of threads and posts explaining how homosexual members are treated differently because they cannot fulfill their desires.  But if we take desires out of the equation, and simply look at the standard of behavior imposed on church members, we see that the same standard is applied across the board. Once we see that, all the various arguments presented in this thread, based as they are on homosexuals being downtrodden because of their unfulfilled desires, fail.

I should clarify something: I don't begrudge anyone their pursuit of happiness.  I wish them the best.  However, in my community, in my voluntary association with other like-minded persons who belief in the Restored Gospel, we must come to grips with the reality that God will sometimes command us to do things that may be unpopular or difficult to understand.  Sexual behavior is a big part of life.  An important part.  It makes sense that God would impose regulations about it.  It would also make sense that "The World" might disagree with those regulations.  So we need to take a good hard look at what the prophets and apostles and the scriptures are saying, and make sure we are on the right track.  

I can't speak, in this thread, as to all of the complexities surrounding same-sex attraction. It is a complex and difficult topic. However, I can speak to what the Restored Gospel has said about it, which is that acting on such inclinations is sinful and requires repentance. Likewise, those who succumb to inclinations to engage in behaviors which are likewise prohibited (adultery, fornication, improper violence, greed, etc.) are also committing sin and must repent.

I see no reason to privilege same-sex attraction and separate it from any of the other types of mortal predilections which, if acted upon, violate the commandments of God. I know that currently the socially popular and politically correct thing to do is capitulate to eroding social mores, ditch the scriptures and the prophets, and to instead go with what the Great-and-Spacious-Building tenants are telling us to do. Sadly, there are some Latter-day Saints are who are listening to these voices, but there are also those that are not, and who as a result are getting an earful of bigotry and hatred for clinging to the Iron Rod.

Well, so be it. To finish up King Benjamin's instruction: "But this much I can tell you, that if ye do not watch yourselves, and your thoughts, and your words, and your deeds, and observe the commandments of God, and continue in the faith of what ye have heard concerning the coming of our Lord, even unto the end of your lives, ye must perish. And now, O man, remember, and perish not."

I'll end with this encouragement from our Lord: "These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 4 by smac97

[LoudmouthMormon]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  Because the Law of Chastity and the Honor Code apply to everyone.  Nobody can engage in same-sex behavior.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but is this not analogous to a hypothetical 'proper grammar and speech code' with a 'no Spanish accent' policy that applies equally to everyone?  

[The Nehor]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, let's be honest: Welcome, on the same conditions as are applied to everyone else.

Thanks,

-Smac

So if a university had a dress code that stipulated that wearing LDS temple garments on campus is grounds for expulsion would you argue that members of the Church are actually welcome there and are just expected to abide by the rules that apply equally to all?

[smac97]

On 9/1/2023 at 2:27 PM, The Nehor said:

So if a university had a dress code that stipulated that wearing LDS temple garments on campus is grounds for expulsion would you argue that members of the Church are actually welcome there and are just expected to abide by the rules that apply equally to all?

As the prohibition intentionally targets Latter-day Saints, I would say no, they are not welcome, but yet, they are being held to the same standard.

The Honor Code at BYU, however, does not target anyone, intentionally or unintentionally.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited June 5 by smac97

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Quote

Yes.  Because the Law of Chastity and the Honor Code apply to everyone.  Nobody can engage in same-sex behavior.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but is this not analogous to a hypothetical 'proper grammar and speech code' with a 'no Spanish accent' policy that applies equally to everyone?  

I don't think so. 

First, the "hypothetical" remains purely that.

Second, the prohibition against same-sex behavior pertains to a moral/religious component of BYU, whereas "a hypothetical 'proper grammar and speech code' with a 'no Spanish accent'" would not.

Third, "Spanish accent" is, or may be, a nonvolitional thing, whereas constraining one's sexual behavior is volitional.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Nofear]

45 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Honor Code applies to individuals.  And it applies to everyone regardless of inner-felt sexual orientation/desire.  Nobody can engage in same-sex behavior.  

The "impact" to the individual, then, remains the same.

Oh, I agree with the first statement. Nor do I oppose the Honor Code. Same law, applied equally to everybody, can have different impact though. A law that enforces a dollar limitation on insulin treatment costs has more impact on a diabetic than a non-diabetic who has no need of insulin treatment.

[LoudmouthMormon]

BTW, I personally know two non-straight LDS folks who are (by all accounts) doing their best to walk their best discipleship-with-Christ walk, both are in their 2nd decade of doing so, and both are happy doing so.  (One I know closely enough to be confident in that assessment, the other is an online acquaintance who I know less well, but is active and keeps a current temple recommend.)

So yeah, it happens.  

[LoudmouthMormon]

19 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Oh, I agree with the first statement. Nor do I oppose the Honor Code. Same law, applied equally to everybody, can have different impact though. A law that enforces a dollar limitation on insulin treatment costs has more impact on a diabetic than a non-diabetic who has no need of insulin treatment.

Is there such a thing as a policy/standard/honor code/rule/law that does NOT have different impacts on different people?

Like Homer Simpson, I have at least two rules in place because of me.  One was at my kid's elementary school - a "parents must cross at the crosswalk only" rule.  AFAIK, I was the parent that didn't cross at the crosswalk.  (We're not talking crosswalk in a street, we're talking parking lot to the sidewalk that took you to the school.)  This rule had an impact on me, and zero impact on everyone else.   (The 2nd rule was "no more than 3 ketchup packets per order of fries" rule at a McDonalds near the UofU in 1994, and it probably impacted maybe 20% of the clientele.)

[Calm]

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  Because the Law of Chastity and the Honor Code apply to everyone.  Nobody can engage in same-sex behavior.

Thanks,

-Smac

Would you think it makes sense to say the impact of the Law of Chastity is the same for kids under ten years of age as it is for college kids?  After all, neither group can engage in premarital sex without risking getting kicked out of BYU if they chose to attend.

The fact that the one group has no interest in having sex while the other is often very tempted to have it is irrelevant since the rules apply equally to both.

They are asking/requiring the same behaviour from both, to not give into temptation to have sex before marriage.  The fact that one group doesn’t need to work at avoiding temptation because they don’t experience it has nothing to do with how the impact of the law should be viewed.

PS:  obviously I don’t believe this, but it seems to me this is what your (Smac’s) argument is arguing.

Edited September 2, 2023 by Calm

[Nofear]

14 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Is there such a thing as a policy/standard/honor code/rule/law that does NOT have different impacts on different people?

I doubt such a one exists. Though, there are ones that are more disparately relevant to different populations than others (e.g. traffic laws vs laws that apply to single mother custody). I was just making a point that a law can be equally applied to everybody and have different degrees of impact on different populations. Not to disagree with smac97 so much as to help avoid the two talking past each other.

[Peacefully]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The Honor Code applies to individuals.  And it applies to everyone regardless of inner-felt sexual orientation/desire.  Nobody can engage in same-sex behavior.  

The "impact" to the individual, then, remains the same.

Feelings and desires are, in my view, insufficient grounds to claim "disparate impact," even for "legalistic purposes." 

A heterosexual BYU student who wants to be sexually active outside of marriage cannot claim that the Honor Code disparately impacts him because regardless of his desires, he agreed to constrain his behavior to the parameters set in the Honor Code.  He faces the same constraints all other BYU students do.  That he may subjective chafe more against those constraints more than some other student (who is quite willing to abstain from sex outside of marriage) is neither here nor there.

I commented on this back in 2018:

Thanks,

-Smac

It seems the inequality comes in when a heterosexual couple are within the bounds of the law of chastity if they express affection publicly by holding hands or kissing (a chaste kiss, of course). Gay students are not allowed to do the same with their same-sex boyfriend or girlfriend, so are held to a different standard. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The Honor Code applies to individuals.  And it applies to everyone regardless of inner-felt sexual orientation/desire.  Nobody can engage in same-sex behavior.  

The "impact" to the individual, then, remains the same.

The law against stealing applies to individuals, even stealing food.  And it applies to everyone regardless of any inner felt hunger/desire to eat.  No one can steal food.

The “impact” of the law remains the same for an individual that goes home to a table full of food prepared by a parent, a refrigerator full of food, a pantry full of food of food, and a life where they not only have never missed a meal they wanted to eat, but they often threw away plates and boxes full of uneaten food just because they didn’t like it as it is for an individual who goes home to an house where their parent spent the grocery money on drugs, the school breakfast program was shut down due to lack of funding, and they can’t remember the last meal where they got up from the table and felt full having missed more meals in their lives than they have received them.  But the law is the same and the impact is the same even if one steals to avoid starvation and the other steals because they are bored and think it would be fun.

Edited September 1, 2023 by Calm