Changes at BYU after Advisory Council's study on sexual assault

[Ygridiron4ever]

Now the only outstanding "issue" that has come up over the past year and a half which has not been addressed is the LGBTQ issues with the honor code. If they come up with some kind of honor code adjustment that doesn't single out a group for different treatment, I don't think anyone would have legitimate complaints that have been so newsworthy of late.

Some interesting movement in that area as well with the newly re-launched "Mormon and Gay" page on the official LDS.org website. The church is working hard to address the issue in a way that clearly acknowledges the changing worldly light in which the LGBT 'condition' is being cast while maintaining eternal doctrinal understanding.
It was once the position that "gay" was a choice and a lifestyle, and that one could be same-sex attracted and Mormon. But not gay and Mormon.
If I read the new language right, the church now accepts the titles lesbian and gay similarly to how it once viewed the identifier "same sex attracted."
So a person can now be gay and hold a temple recommend, as long as they truthfully answer questions the same way a celibate heterosexual does.

That has trickle down to BYU.

[mtnradio]

I'm waiting on the final version to decide if this is a positive change or shuffling chairs on the deck of the Titantic.

I don't know or understand why the new confidentiality protections (which are flawed in their own right) are extended to Title IX office "complainants", but the proposed amnesty only applies to "victims". I assume there is a difference between a complainant and a victim--otherwise why use different words?

Who decides which complainants qualify as victims, and which are not bona fide victims. The Honor Code Office? Do they get investigated until they can demonstrate they are really victims and not merely non-victim complainants? If so, we are right back at square one.

Sno ... I think I remember that you may be an attorney (if I'm wrong ... my apologies, I hate to tar innocent people with that! ). I am an attorney, and yes, complaintants are not necessarily victims. Read any police report about DV and you'll find complainants and victims ... the Complainant is the person who reported it to the authorities, the victim is the one who was violated (not all reported victims are victims ... but I digress). So, you then raise a great question, who determines which persons are, in fact, victims? Will the Title IX office have investigators? What will be their authority? AND, lest we forget the innocent till proven guilty principle (largely a myth in today's world) ... who will determine that the offender is an offender? Perhaps that is deferred to police and courts ...

It'll be interested to see what happens ...
(By way of disclaimer, my daughter goes to BYU, my son lives in Provo, and if some jerk assaulted my daughter and my son or I found out, I don't believe the jerk would live long enough for me to get down there to kill him, much less worry about the Title IX office! )

[KingCoug]

Notice I didn't side one way or another on my comment. I just said that is the one outstanding thing--and if they did something there, what complaints would people have about the school?

You turned it into "who wants to see gay people holding hands and kissing at BYU!?!"

Per the latest guidance from the church on same-sex attraction, these descriptions are given:
"Identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual or experiencing same-sex attraction is not a sin and does not prohibit one from participating in the Church, holding callings, or attending the temple."
...
"Sexual relations are reserved for a man and woman who are married and promise complete loyalty to each other. Sexual relations between a man and woman who are not married, or between people of the same sex, violate one of our Father in Heaven’s most important laws."

I wouldn't have a problem or worry that BYU isn't being "LDS-enough" if they went with that standard. Having sex outside of marriage or between people of the same sex would be honor code violations. Forget about hand-holding, kissing, or whatever else. The LGBTQ people would then only have the complaint that married heterosexual couples can have sex but a homosexual couple can't. But that makes lines much clearer and easier to defend.

One can say "the honor code is fine the way it is"--but it has already undergone two significant revisions this year alone.

Now the only outstanding "issue" that has come up over the past year and a half which has not been addressed is the LGBTQ issues with the honor code. If they come up with some kind of honor code adjustment that doesn't single out a group for different treatment, I don't think anyone would have legitimate complaints that have been so newsworthy of late.

Some interesting movement in that area as well with the newly re-launched "Mormon and Gay" page on the official LDS.org website. The church is working hard to address the issue in a way that clearly acknowledges the changing worldly light in which the LGBT 'condition' is being cast while maintaining eternal doctrinal understanding.
It was once the position that "gay" was a choice and a lifestyle, and that one could be same-sex attracted and Mormon. But not gay and Mormon.
If I read the new language right, the church now accepts the titles lesbian and gay similarly to how it once viewed the identifier "same sex attracted."
So a person can now be gay and hold a temple recommend, as long as they truthfully answer questions the same way a celibate heterosexual does.

That has trickle down to BYU.

First, anyone paying attention in some of the more recent General Conferences would have heard the Brethren encourage homosexuals not to define themselves as "gay" or "lesbian" but stressed to identify themselves as children of Heavenly Father. The obvious intent to maintain a more eternal outlook and not get caught up in these labels that didn't exist before this life and won't in the hereafter. The more homosexuals in the Church come to identify themselves in this way, including dwelling on the "I was born this way" issue, the more they'll feel justified in acting on those feelings and relate more to current social and political trends (the philosophies of men) than Gospel doctrine.

Second, the relaunching of the website isn't really a sign of much change, as much as some wished it was and some media outlets have portrayed it as. For instance, as long as they have lived the law of chastity, gays have been able to hold a recommend for a long time. That's not new. While the Church continues to make an effort to reach out to gays, the doctrine of the Church hasn't and won't change because it's eternal doctrine. The Lord's doctrine. So those people inside and outside the Church, who are wishing and waiting for the day the homosexuality will be embraced and accepted, besides showing a shocking ignorance and unbelief of Gospel principles, are setting themselves up for disappointment.

Third, one wonders the reasons some, including on this board, want so much to appeal to the world. To capitulate in an effort to appease groups that are hostile to the Church and Gospel. I'm reminded of what President Benson said years ago about some members "not being so much concerned about bringing the Gospel into the world as they are bringing the world into the Gospel." That certainly fits more than a few posters on Cougarboard who were mad - not at the LGBT groups or the Big 12 - but at BYU for not getting the invite.

Sure, the HC could say something like "no sex before marriage" and leave it at that. But that would be a foolish move. It wouldn't satisfy those critics who will never be satisfied until the Church bends to their will. Nor, as I pointed out before, would it address the issue of homosexual couples showing affection. Sorry but that should not just be "forgotten about." That's a problem even if they aren't having sex. But it is not a problem for heterosexual couples, as long as they don't have premarital sex, but is allowed and even encouraged as people often find their spouses while attending.

It's important to maintain a distinction and highlight the differences between heterosexual and homosexual lifestyles and relationships. The world wants us to believe it's only about "love" and that's all that matters. And it seems some in the Church, either because they agree with this philosophy or because they simply want to appease the world, are buying into this on one level or another.

I would finish with this question -

What is BYU's role?

Is it to reflect the beliefs and standards of the Church, even if those things are treated with contempt and hostility by critics? After all, are we not always talking about BYU sports being a way to introduce the world to the Church?

Or is it to slowly do away with, alter, or minimize these beliefs and standards in an effort to passify critics and fit in more with the world? And for what? A mess of pottage in the form of an P5 invite? To no longer be on the hit list of some LGBT or feminist group?

[1967cougar]

King Coug -
That was excellently stated. I thank you for expressing my feelings so well. You have earned my respect.

[Isola]

On the OT, I think it looks like a good change. I read through the recommended language on amnesty and it looks good (pages 31-31).

BYU exists to provide an educational environment consistent with the ideals and principles of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. The BYU Honor Code and its observance by the campus community are essential components of BYU’s religious mission.

At BYU, being a victim of sexual misconduct is never a violation of the Honor Code. Brigham Young
University strongly encourages the reporting of all incidents of sexual misconduct and will provide appropriate services to victims. Sexual misconduct includes dating violence, domestic violence, sexual harassment, sexual assault, and stalking. BYU’s goal is to maintain a safe, respectful campus climate, free of sexual misconduct.

The university recognizes that victims or witnesses of sexual misconduct might be hesitant to report an
incident to university officials if there are Honor Code violations, such as alcohol use, drug use, or consensual sexual activity outside marriage occurring at or near the time of the sexual misconduct. To help address this concern and to encourage the reporting of sexual misconduct, names of victims or witnesses reporting sexual misconduct will not be shared by the Title IX Office with the Honor Code Office, unless at the request and written permission of the reporting student or if the health or safety of others is at risk.

Moreover, neither a reporting victim nor a witness in an incident of sexual misconduct will be subjected to university discipline for an Honor Code violation occurring at or near the time of the reported sexual misconduct unless the health or safety of others is at risk. However, with victims or witnesses who have violated the Honor Code the university reserves the right to initiate discussions regarding therapy options and educational programs, such as addiction-recovery programs, to fulfill its commitment to help students and benefit the campus community.

To encourage the reporting of sexual misconduct, the university will also offer leniency for other Honor Code violations that are not directly related to the incident but which may be discovered as a result of the investigatory process. Such violations will generally be handled so that the student can remain in school while appropriately addressing these concerns.

I think that looks pretty good. Amnesty for victims and witnesses should address a bunch of concerns. Leniency for other Honor Code violations with the stated goal of keeping them at the university.

I think it does a good job of addressing both victims' concerns and the University's concerns.

[hawkwing]

Here's the only question that matters to me:

If BYU had announced these changes two weeks ago, does this change the Big XII's decision?

I actually happen to know for a fact that these changes were ironed out several weeks ago and the Big12 lawyers and everyone knew about them and were on board with them.

[BroncoBot]

Here's the only question that matters to me:

If BYU had announced these changes two weeks ago, does this change the Big XII's decision?

I actually happen to know for a fact that these changes were ironed out several weeks ago and the Big12 lawyers and everyone knew about them and were on board with them.

wait... what?
I thought the big xii didn't discuss individual schools...