- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I think that this update deserves its own thread. The following was written by carburetor:
Quote:The 2020 CES Honor Code states: “Live a chaste and virtuous life, including abstaining from any sexual relations outside a marriage between a man and a woman.”
As of August 30, 2023, this will change to: “Live a chaste and virtuous life, including abstaining from sexual relations outside marriage between a man and a woman.
Living a chaste and virtuous life also includes abstaining from same-sex romantic behavior.“ I am both entertained and bothered by this because it draws attention the losing battle in which the Church is engaged. After all, who can possibly define what constitutes romantic behaviour? It has long been argued that romance is a cultural invention rather than being a real thing — and it certainly isn’t quantifiable.
This appears to be a poorly thought out attempt to proscribe certain behaviours. By so doing, the authors have fallen into the trap of black-and-white thinking. After all, where is the demarcation line between supportive, platonic same-sex behaviour and romantic same-sex behaviour? There isn’t one because the two types of behaviour are simply fuzzy positions on a scale. Individual perception is far more important, and people’s perceptions differ wildly. Stating same-sex anything simply smacks of alarmist, negative posturing yet again.
The law of chastity is all that is required. It isn’t necessary to spell out what people can or can’t do within that law because that ends up missing stuff out that people will then feel justified in doing. Individuals (same sex or opposite sex) need neither to be romantic nor engage in sexual relations to break the law of chastity — so why spell out certain behaviours? Before you know it, the honor code will include an entire same-sex, letter-of-the-law section, describing hundreds of behaviours that aren’t permitted:
- Never look at another student of the same sex with any degree of admiration or interest. If you do so by accident, be sure to look away within 10 seconds.
- Never compliment a student of the same sex on their attire or physique.
- If you hug a student of the same sex upon encountering or leaving them, maintain an air of indifference and pat them firmly on the back within two seconds to indicate that the hug means nothing and is now over.
- If you shake the hand of a student of the same sex, be sure to release your grip within three seconds. Shake only in a professional manner.
And so on.
:crazy: Quote:As of August 30, 2023, this will change to: “Live a chaste and virtuous life, including abstaining from sexual relations outside marriage between a man and a woman. Living a chaste and virtuous life also includes abstaining from same-sex romantic behavior.”
Interesting.
For a long time we have said here that there is nothing in the law of chastity that would prevent unmarried people of the same sex from acting romantically the same way the unmarried people of the opposite gender often act (Holding hands, giving back scratches, kissing, etc.). It appears that this change is an effort to have some rule to justify discipline if two guys walk around campus holding hands.
😥 In addition, students have long hoped and pushed for a revision of the facial hair policy. This honor code update makes no changes to the previous facial hair policy. Beards are still forbidden. Mustaches are still allowed. From the Q&A released by the church Quote:Is there a change in the expectations for LGBTQ students?
There are no changes to the LGBTQ policies. CES is deeply committed to helping all our students, including our LGBTQ students, feel both the love and covenant expectations of the Savior. Same-sex romantic behavior has been and continues to be contrary to the principles included in the CES Honor Code. 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. All students will continue to be encouraged to live their gospel and university/college commitments.
Can members of CES campus communities who identify as LGBTQ or have same-sex attraction be disciplined for behavior like going on a date, holding hands or kissing?
Same-sex romantic behavior is not compatible with the principles included in the CES Honor Code. As in years past, each situation 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.
Can members of CES campus communities who identify as LGBTQ or have same-sex attraction be disciplined for behavior like going on a date, holding hands or kissing?
Yes….
😥 Roy wrote:
Beards are still forbidden. Mustaches are still allowed.
I’m not going to pull my punches here. This is an idiotic position.Which looks more professional, studious, virtuous, or whatever — a short, neatly trimmed beard or an unkempt walrus mustache? It’s absurd. Saying that one is OK while the other is not has nothing to do with anything remotely chaste, godly, or whatever. It is simply an expression of outdated, conservative prejudice.
Besides all campuses of BYU having the same dress standards (BYUI is no longer holier than thou BYU Provo), I thought the most interesting part of this change was prescribing specific questions for the ecclesiastical endorsements. Not that I think there shouldn’t be, I actually support the concept just as I supported standardizing questions for prospective missionaries and youth interviews thus taking away some of the factor of leadership roulette. What struck me about these questions though is how very similar they are to temple recommend questions (basically leaving out the ones related directly to the temple). And it’s not clear to me how the ecclesiastical endorsement for non-members will now be conducted. As I recall there was a fairly recent change so that everyone had to go to a bishop rather than clergy from another church, and I suppose the questions could be tailored for non-member (but I’m not sure they’re supposed to be). While I think it’s been true for a long time, there will be no more Jim McMahons at BYU. As a sort of aside, I am also aware that certain individuals at BYU (read athletes) get way more leeway than others (coming from a reliable source). And one note from the article that maybe me chuckle:
Quote:Yes. CES conducted focus groups at Brigham Young University, BYU–Idaho, and Ensign College to review, discuss, and gather input from students in the development of these changes.
The input of these randomly selected students was significant in developing and refining these updates. Students were enthusiastic about these adjustments and expressed their feelings that a focus on the Savior, combined with an emphasis on principles and expectations, would elevate dress, grooming, and behavior as students become more intentional and take increased ownership for dress and grooming decisions.
“Randomly selected!”
😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 Roy wrote:
As in years past, each situation 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.
Want to know which “years past” they hark back to? How about 1965?Let’s consider the words of Ernest L. Wilkinson, former President of Brigham Young University — whose name still graces the BYU Wilkinson Center. His speech, “Make Honor Your Standard,” has been removed from the official archive (
https://speeches.byu.edu/speakers/ernest-l-wilkinson/ ), despite five of his speeches remaining accessible. The missing speech was published in Deseret News, however, so a copy is easily found:https://www.newspapers.com/clip/94125938/make-honor-your-standard-page-1 President Wilkinson was serving as a senior, respected, and influential employee of the Church when he announced to the student body on September 23, 1965, “Nor do we intend to admit to our campus any homosexuals. If any of you have this tendency and have not completely abandoned it, may I suggest that you leave the university immediately after this assembly; … We do not want others on this campus to be contaminated by your presence.”
Note the word “tendency.” Have we moved on? You decide. Personally, I imagine the same types of comments are probably still being expressed behind closed doors in CES circles and the Quorum of the 12 and First Presidency.
Roy wrote:
Quote:As of August 30, 2023, this will change to: “Live a chaste and virtuous life, including abstaining from sexual relations outside marriage between a man and a woman. Living a chaste and virtuous life also includes abstaining from same-sex romantic behavior.”
Interesting.
For a long time we have said here that there is nothing in the law of chastity that would prevent unmarried people of the same sex from acting romantically the same way the unmarried people of the opposite gender often act (Holding hands, giving back scratches, kissing, etc.). It appears that this change is an effort to have some rule to justify discipline if two guys walk around campus holding hands.
😥
Agreed. They’ve made it clear in the past that it’s OK for a guy and a girl to walk around holding hands but it’s not OK for two guys or two girls to do so. Seems as though they’re just codifying it. This is part of the way the church treats LGBTQIA+ individuals unfairly.
Carburettor wrote:
Roy wrote:
As in years past, each situation 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.
Want to know which “years past” they hark back to? How about 1965?Let’s consider the words of Ernest L. Wilkinson, former President of Brigham Young University — whose name still graces the BYU Wilkinson Center. His speech, “Make Honor Your Standard,” has been removed from the official archive (
https://speeches.byu.edu/speakers/ernest-l-wilkinson/ ), despite five of his speeches remaining accessible. The missing speech was published in Deseret News, however, so a copy is easily found:https://www.newspapers.com/clip/94125938/make-honor-your-standard-page-1 President Wilkinson was serving as a senior, respected, and influential employee of the Church when he announced to the student body on September 23, 1965, “Nor do we intend to admit to our campus any homosexuals. If any of you have this tendency and have not completely abandoned it, may I suggest that you leave the university immediately after this assembly; … We do not want others on this campus to be contaminated by your presence.”
Note the word “tendency.” Have we moved on? You decide. Personally, I imagine the same types of comments are probably still being expressed behind closed doors in CES circles and the Quorum of the 12 and First Presidency.
There’s actually a great deal of history with the honor code, which was initially put in place because of widespread cheating (hence the name). But it reached most of it’s current insidious infamy under the direction of Ernest Wilkinson (of “Wilkinson Center,” a main campus building). His successor, none other than Dallin Oaks, did little to change anything. Not only was this the era of anti- anything related to counter culture at BYU (beards and jeans included) it was also an era of very bad things for specifically gay men – including shock therapy performed on campus. And it was under Wilkinson (and continued until fairly recently) that students were required to rat on each other and there were truly spies (yes, secret police) among the students and faculty. It’s really all quite disgraceful IMO, and even more so that much of this still continues. Why does it continue? Follow the money (and I’m talking about donors, not tithing).
DarkJedi wrote:
I thought the most interesting part of this change was prescribing specific questions for the ecclesiastical endorsements. Not that I think there shouldn’t be, I actually support the concept just as I supported standardizing questions for prospective missionaries and youth interviews thus taking away some of the factor of leadership roulette. What struck me about these questions though is how very similar they are to temple recommend questions (basically leaving out the ones related directly to the temple).
This bit is the most impactful for me personally. As someone who is taking BYU-I classes online, I’m going to have to get one of these endorsements from my bishop in the nearish future to do another year of school. Since I’m a coffee drinker with my own interpretation on the WoW, I’ve felt I can honestly answer the WoW question for the TR interview by saying I understand and obey the WoW.
I’ve not been able to be as honest for the ecclesiastical endorsement interview. I don’t know if he was reading from a script, or using his own words, but for the WoW question he specifically asked about avoiding coffee, tea and alcohol. It would nice if the questions were worded more like the TR interview so it would be easier to answer yes honestly.
PazamaManX wrote:
DarkJedi wrote:
I thought the most interesting part of this change was prescribing specific questions for the ecclesiastical endorsements. Not that I think there shouldn’t be, I actually support the concept just as I supported standardizing questions for prospective missionaries and youth interviews thus taking away some of the factor of leadership roulette. What struck me about these questions though is how very similar they are to temple recommend questions (basically leaving out the ones related directly to the temple).
This bit is the most impactful for me personally. As someone who is taking BYU-I classes online, I’m going to have to get one of these endorsements from my bishop in the nearish future to do another year of school. Since I’m a coffee drinker with my own interpretation on the WoW, I’ve felt I can honestly answer the WoW question for the TR interview by saying I understand and obey the WoW.
I’ve not been able to be as honest for the ecclesiastical endorsement interview. I don’t know if he was reading from a script, or using his own words, but for the WoW question he specifically asked about avoiding coffee, tea and alcohol. It would nice if the questions were worded more like the TR interview so it would be easier to answer yes honestly.
The question as stated in the article seems to simply ask if the person obeys the word of wisdom. In that case you’re off the hook. Again, leadership roulette could play a role, I’m not sure if they have to ask the questions verbatim.
Quote:Student Ecclesiastical Endorsement Questions
Are you striving to deepen your testimony of God, the Eternal Father; His Son, Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost?
Are you striving to deepen your testimony of the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ?
Are you striving for moral cleanliness in your thoughts and behavior?
Do you obey the law of chastity?
Do you sustain the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators?
Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
Do you regularly participate in your church meetings and strive to keep the Sabbath day holy?
Do you strive to be honest in all that you do, including keeping the commitments you have made?
The Church Educational System is supported and funded by the tithes of the Church of Jesus Christ. Are you a full-tithe payer?
Do you obey the Word of Wisdom?
Are you striving to live the teachings of the Church and keep the covenants you have made to this point in your life?
Are there serious sins in your life that need to be resolved with priesthood authorities as part of your repentance?
Honestly, I find this change infuriating and I’m extremely grateful that I’ve already graduated. It was hard enough having a faith crisis as a student, but it was at least possible to get by since the ecclesiastical endorsement only dealt with behavior and not testimony. Now it’s going to be much harder for anyone with doubts to continue attending.
There are MANY talented and bright students who attend BYU and adhere to a high standard of morality, yet question certain church teachings. In fact most of the smartest people I met at BYU probably fit into that category. This is going to alienate a lot of people.
As a student I was glad that I didn’t have everyone around me getting drunk or smoking weed, but I couldn’t have cared less if other students sustained church leaders or had “serious sins” they hadn’t confessed to a bishop. It seems clear the honor code’s goal is not to create a safe environment for living the gospel, but rather to enforce orthodoxy. Personally I see no reason why the standards for getting a temple recommend should be used as a basis for the ecclesiastical endorsement. BYU is not the temple, nor should it be.
This change is going to drive out a lot of students with doubts, and BYU will be worse for it.
With respect to LGBTQIA+ policies, it sounds like they’re explicitly codifying an unwritten order of things. I hate to see it go that direction. If they kept it unwritten they could have left things alone and at least pretended that the university was more welcoming than it actually is. Explicitly codifying it feels like a hard step backwards, even if just codifying existing practice. DarkJedi wrote:
And one note from the article that maybe me chuckle:Quote:Yes. CES conducted focus groups at Brigham Young University, BYU–Idaho, and Ensign College to review, discuss, and gather input from students in the development of these changes.
The input of these randomly selected students was significant in developing and refining these updates. Students were enthusiastic about these adjustments and expressed their feelings that a focus on the Savior, combined with an emphasis on principles and expectations, would elevate dress, grooming, and behavior as students become more intentional and take increased ownership for dress and grooming decisions.
“Randomly selected!”
😆 😆 😆 😆 😆
Something different stood out to me. Something I’m seeing more and more of, shoehorning Jesus into the conversation. I feel sometimes it’s done just so they can say they talked about Jesus. People say we aren’t talking about Jesus, well here you go, box checked. In this case it feels like they’re hiding behind Jesus. These policies are focused on Jesus, if you don’t like them your focus is on something other than Jesus.
That quote comes across like a big line. Students really said we love these policies because they focus on Jesus and they will elevate our dress, grooming, and behavior so we can be more intentional and take ownership of our decisions. They really said that? Did an old school church leader on an obedience committee enroll in BYU long enough to say they were a student so they could say students said something like that? Maybe they found students with old school attitudes that want the honor of being selected to be on the obedience committee one day to say something like that.
I’m going to focus on the Savior by taking increased ownership. One thing I want to do is intentionally grow a beard. Jesus had a beard. Oops. The policy that gives me that increased ownership over my grooming decisions says that I can’t.
That odd line from randomly selected students feels eerily similar to the updates they made to the For the Strength of Youth pamphlet. Now you have less rules than before, you have a degree of increased ownership. There, fixed it.
On the subject of updates to the ecclesiastical endorsement… Men are sometimes invited to participate in an ordinance in another ward. They have to prove that they have the PH and are in good standing to the leaders in the other ward. The shortcut that’s most often used to do this is a temple recommend. If they’re going this direction with the ecclesiastical endorsement I don’t know why they don’t take a similar approach. Just have the temple recommend be the ecclesiastical endorsement. Why go through a temple recommend interview twice?
Arrakeen wrote:
Honestly, I find this change infuriating and I’m extremely grateful that I’ve already graduated. It was hard enough having a faith crisis as a student, but it was at least possible to get by since the ecclesiastical endorsement only dealt with behavior and not testimony. Now it’s going to be much harder for anyone with doubts to continue attending.I think church leaders are aware of a growing problem (problem from their perspective), they don’t know how to address it, so they fall back on what they know. A retrenchment.
I think they’re trying to stanch the bleeding.
The focus becomes trying to convince people of the truthfulness of the church and its claims to authority. People wouldn’t leave if they just understood just how true the church is.
- People want to leave because of the high demands. We’ll ease up a little on the commitments we ask of people but at the same time remind them where the line is drawn so it doesn’t become a slippery slope.
In my opinion the church focus entirely too much on measuring people’s loyalty to the church. We (as a church) care far, far, far, far too much about being seen as the “true” church. I know it’s my soapbox but the problem is the church’s collective deep-seated insecurity. If it were more secure in their place in the world there wouldn’t be all of this focus on testimony (about the church itself) and policing of belief.
The church needs to adapt to be more relevant in people’s lives. A “true” church is becoming more and more irrelevant as time goes on. Adapt.
A modified Joseph Smith quote:
I love that man better who doesn’t believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the one and only true church on Earth yet deals justice to his neighbors and mercifully deals his substance to the poor, than the person with a strong testimony that does neither.
With all of this thought policing over wrong and right belief, with all of this fixation over convincing others and ourselves of our authority, we’ve missed the mark. Teach people charity. Give people an example of mercy to follow so they can learn to be merciful. Who cares if you’re true. Who. Cares.
Perfect is the enemy of good. We’re so wrapped up in putting on airs of being a perfect church that we fail to even be a good church. We could be a church that more and more people wanted to be a part of if we dropped the insistence of being seen as the true church and looked for ways to go about doing good in the world.
nibbler wrote:In my opinion the church focus entirely too much on measuring people’s loyalty to the church. We (as a church) care far, far, far, far too much about being seen as the “true” church. I know it’s my soapbox but the problem is the church’s collective deep-seated insecurity. If it were more secure in their place in the world there wouldn’t be all of this focus on testimony (about the church itself) and policing of belief.
…
With all of this thought policing over wrong and right belief, with all of this fixation over convincing others and ourselves of our authority, we’ve missed the mark. Teach people charity. Give people an example of mercy to follow so they can learn to be merciful. Who cares if you’re true. Who. Cares.
Perfect is the enemy of good. We’re so wrapped up in putting on airs of being a perfect church that we fail to even be a good church. We could be a church that more and more people wanted to be a part of if we dropped the insistence of being seen as the true church and looked for ways to go about doing good in the world.
Your post very efficiently describes my issue with the church right now. I mentioned in another thread a few days ago that I watched a Catholic Mass streamed from our local parish. A big part of why I was curious enough to watch it is because I’ve been craving some spiritual nourishment lately and our church is not providing that. What I want is to feel uplifted and hear a lesson on how to be a good person. You know, typical Jesus stuff. What I get instead can range anywhere from a prosperity gospel talk to a talk about how great it is that we know about the plan of salvation. And those are on the best Sundays.
We’re so focused on being the “true church” that we seem to only focus on the stuff that makes us unique. Why talk about Christ when we can talk about how we’re the only church to have the priesthood. And then we wonder why other denominations don’t like to consider us part of the “Christian club” that we desperately want to be a part of for some reason.
Going back to the ecclesiastical endorsement, I’m probably going to have to start regularly going back to my own ward soon to increase my odds. This past year, my wife and I have been going to church with family and friends at their wards. Sitting with a loved one is the only way I can get through church each Sunday anymore. But because I’m not showing my face very often in the ward I’m assigned to, I get to play a round of leadership roulette and hope I’ll get the endorsement. As you said, the church likes to focus on measuring people’s loyalty.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.