Davies out for HC violation

snoscythe wrote:

I learned all I needed about the HC my first semester at BYU --- a couple guys on my floor came back drunk and got 4 service hours; another guy went to eat in his PJs and got 8 service hours.........

Yeah, my roommate got in trouble with the Bishop and then the HC office (when the Bishop pulled an EE for the summer) for Levi-lovin' with a girl in the ward. We told people who asked why he wasn't in school that Fall that he got reported by a professor for repeated grooming violations and that the HC finally suspended him for a semester.



That story is what I think about every time I hear someone getting punished by the HC for silly things.

The PJs guy went through the temple around the same time and on his mission a month later. The others laughed about their false repentance and went out and got drunk again, as well as other HC violations of an even more serious note. The PJ guy likely got a harsher penalty because he would not go on bended knee and kiss the ring and beg forgiveness.......



I am all for the HC, but non-academic violations should be handled by the Bishops.

88Coug wrote:

88Coug wrote:
I learned all I needed about the HC my first semester at BYU --- a couple guys on my floor came back drunk and got 4 service hours; another guy went to eat in his PJs and got 8 service hours.........

Yeah, my roommate got in trouble with the Bishop and then the HC office (when the Bishop pulled an EE for the summer) for Levi-lovin' with a girl in the ward. We told people who asked why he wasn't in school that Fall that he got reported by a professor for repeated grooming violations and that the HC finally suspended him for a semester.



That story is what I think about every time I hear someone getting punished by the HC for silly things.

The PJs guy went through the temple around the same time and on his mission a month later. The others laughed about their false repentance and went out and got drunk again, as well as other HC violations of an even more serious note. The PJ guy likely got a harsher penalty because he would not go on bended knee and kiss the ring and beg forgiveness.......



I am all for the HC, but non-academic violations should be handled by the Bishops.

And not only should it be handled by the bishops, but there should be a stringent code of when to report it, and when not to. And it should be spelled out clearly for bishops that take their jobs waaaay too seriously (especially those that are retired, and have nothing else to do - like my bishop...Holy cow! You'd think that not home teaching is the worst affront against God a man can make...)



I have heard that Brandon's gf is pregnant. That would be an issue to report to the institution. That would also explain why the decision came quick, and there is much up in the air about his standing with the university and his future bball career (is he going to marry her, etc etc).



I would have a hard time letting him back on to the team if I were a coach or a player. What a selfish action to be taken by an individual, over the team. What a shame that 11 guys (allegedly) controlling themselves have to suffer because one guy (allegedly) can't.

Anyone who argues for a stringent code of when and how to do everything should join the Catholic faith. The LDS faith is based on individual circumstances and handling. Yes, it's through imperfect people, but I for one am grateful for it.

hawkwing wrote:
Anyone who argues for a stringent code of when and how to do everything should join the Catholic faith. The LDS faith is based on individual circumstances and handling. Yes, it's through imperfect people, but I for one am grateful for it.

Amen

88Coug wrote:
I am all for the HC, but non-academic violations should be handled by the Bishops.

The two different colored parts of your statement don't agree with each other. Either you are all for the HC or you are for bishops handling non-academic violations.



I think the HC people work very closely with bishops in all cases of HC violations, even the academic violations.



Also, what about the case of the violator not being a Mormon or not even being a Christian at all, whom will the non-academic violation be handled by then.



What about the case where it's a moral violation and the person belongs to a group who doesn't look up this type of violation as something terrible or what about Word of Wisdom violations or even soft drug violations. Who should handle these?



The image of the school is actually the reflection of the student body. I think it's important that the school to protect its image and it even has the right to protect its image by telling its students what standards they have to live up to. If the kid doesn't want to abide by those standards, nobody is stopping him from going elsewhere.



Besides, who knows what Brandon is feeling about what is happening? I simply wish him the best and hope that he can work his way through the mess.

hawkwing wrote:
Anyone who argues for a stringent code of when and how to do everything should join the Catholic faith. The LDS faith is based on individual circumstances and handling. Yes, it's through imperfect people, but I for one am grateful for it.

Don't suppose for one second that you can tell me what to do with my own life.



I was merely suggesting they should have suggestions when things are appropriate to bring to the hc office, and when they aren't.



(I have plenty of personal examples in my life of Bishop's overstepping their grounds, but here I am still, though I guess I should go join the Catholic church according to a few of you.)

BlueIsBetter wrote:

Anyone who argues for a stringent code of when and how to do everything should join the Catholic faith. The LDS faith is based on individual circumstances and handling. Yes, it's through imperfect people, but I for one am grateful for it.

Don't suppose for one second that you can tell me what to do with my own life.



I was merely suggesting they should have suggestions when things are appropriate to bring to the hc office, and when they aren't.



(I have plenty of personal examples in my life of Bishop's overstepping their grounds, but here I am still, though I guess I should go join the Catholic church according to a few of you.)

And yet, aren't you trying to tell a bunch of other people who to live their lives? I'm sorry you've experienced some Bishops over stepping their bounds. I have seen it happen, but to give up what makes the Church special because of a few rare cases? That's ridiculous.



Bishops who overstep their bounds will be judged all the more harshly in the end because they SHOULD have used the spirit to discern the correct path as Judge in Israel. Those who were treated unfairly because of it will also get that understanding when it is their turn to be judged fairly.

hawkwing wrote:

hawkwing wrote:
Anyone who argues for a stringent code of when and how to do everything should join the Catholic faith. The LDS faith is based on individual circumstances and handling. Yes, it's through imperfect people, but I for one am grateful for it.

Don't suppose for one second that you can tell me what to do with my own life.



I was merely suggesting they should have suggestions when things are appropriate to bring to the hc office, and when they aren't.



(I have plenty of personal examples in my life of Bishop's overstepping their grounds, but here I am still, though I guess I should go join the Catholic church according to a few of you.)

And yet, aren't you trying to tell a bunch of other people who to live their lives? I'm sorry you've experienced some Bishops over stepping their bounds. I have seen it happen, but to give up what makes the Church special because of a few rare cases? That's ridiculous.



Bishops who overstep their bounds will be judged all the more harshly in the end because they SHOULD have used the spirit to discern the correct path as Judge in Israel. Those who were treated unfairly because of it will also get that understanding when it is their turn to be judged fairly.

Where did I tell "a bunch of other people how to live their lives" ?

BlueIsBetter wrote:

BlueIsBetter wrote:

Anyone who argues for a stringent code of when and how to do everything should join the Catholic faith. The LDS faith is based on individual circumstances and handling. Yes, it's through imperfect people, but I for one am grateful for it.

Don't suppose for one second that you can tell me what to do with my own life.



I was merely suggesting they should have suggestions when things are appropriate to bring to the hc office, and when they aren't.



(I have plenty of personal examples in my life of Bishop's overstepping their grounds, but here I am still, though I guess I should go join the Catholic church according to a few of you.)

And yet, aren't you trying to tell a bunch of other people who to live their lives? I'm sorry you've experienced some Bishops over stepping their bounds. I have seen it happen, but to give up what makes the Church special because of a few rare cases? That's ridiculous.



Bishops who overstep their bounds will be judged all the more harshly in the end because they SHOULD have used the spirit to discern the correct path as Judge in Israel. Those who were treated unfairly because of it will also get that understanding when it is their turn to be judged fairly.

Where did I tell "a bunch of other people how to live their lives" ?

Here! Here! From what I can tell you're not telling people how to run their lives, you're telling people how to run the school. Having an opinion on how something at the school we support in a bevy of different ways is being run is totally appropriate. Having a problem with the school telling people how to run their lives is not hypocritical, as Hawk just suggested. I'm sure he can normally tell the difference, but maybe he's distracted or something today.



It absolutely amazes me how many think we're out of line for suggesting changes to the way something is done at this school when those same people call for changes in the athletic department (coaching, player's positions) all the time. So many people on here are like, "If you don't like the honor code you don't have to come here!" or "If you don't like the honor code you don't like BYU!" Did those same people say, when some complained about the two quarterback fiasco a while back, "If you don't like that Bronco is using two quarterbacks, you just don't like BYU!"? No. Just cause we want something to change doesn't make us BYU-haters. Geez.

urroner wrote:

I am all for the HC, but non-academic violations should be handled by the Bishops.

The two different colored parts of your statement don't agree with each other. Either you are all for the HC or you are for bishops handling non-academic violations.



I think the HC people work very closely with bishops in all cases of HC violations, even the academic violations.



Also, what about the case of the violator not being a Mormon or not even being a Christian at all, whom will the non-academic violation be handled by then.



What about the case where it's a moral violation and the person belongs to a group who doesn't look up this type of violation as something terrible or what about Word of Wisdom violations or even soft drug violations. Who should handle these?



The image of the school is actually the reflection of the student body. I think it's important that the school to protect its image and it even has the right to protect its image by telling its students what standards they have to live up to. If the kid doesn't want to abide by those standards, nobody is stopping him from going elsewhere.



Besides, who knows what Brandon is feeling about what is happening? I simply wish him the best and hope that he can work his way through the mess.

I think what he meant was that he was in favor of AN honor code, not THE honor code as it currently stands. Obviously he wants it to be altered from it's current form is all.

BlueIsBetter wrote:

BlueIsBetter wrote:

Anyone who argues for a stringent code of when and how to do everything should join the Catholic faith. The LDS faith is based on individual circumstances and handling. Yes, it's through imperfect people, but I for one am grateful for it.

Don't suppose for one second that you can tell me what to do with my own life.



I was merely suggesting they should have suggestions when things are appropriate to bring to the hc office, and when they aren't.



(I have plenty of personal examples in my life of Bishop's overstepping their grounds, but here I am still, though I guess I should go join the Catholic church according to a few of you.)

And yet, aren't you trying to tell a bunch of other people who to live their lives? I'm sorry you've experienced some Bishops over stepping their bounds. I have seen it happen, but to give up what makes the Church special because of a few rare cases? That's ridiculous.



Bishops who overstep their bounds will be judged all the more harshly in the end because they SHOULD have used the spirit to discern the correct path as Judge in Israel. Those who were treated unfairly because of it will also get that understanding when it is their turn to be judged fairly.

Where did I tell "a bunch of other people how to live their lives" ?

Every single Bishop who deals with kids who take part in the Honor Code. All the kids who deal with their ecclesiastical leader on issues relating to the Honor Code.



Your plan is to take control out of the hands of those with Priesthood keys and set a rigid, unwieldy standard determined solely by you.

hawkwing wrote:

hawkwing wrote:

hawkwing wrote:
Anyone who argues for a stringent code of when and how to do everything should join the Catholic faith. The LDS faith is based on individual circumstances and handling. Yes, it's through imperfect people, but I for one am grateful for it.

Don't suppose for one second that you can tell me what to do with my own life.



I was merely suggesting they should have suggestions when things are appropriate to bring to the hc office, and when they aren't.



(I have plenty of personal examples in my life of Bishop's overstepping their grounds, but here I am still, though I guess I should go join the Catholic church according to a few of you.)

And yet, aren't you trying to tell a bunch of other people who to live their lives? I'm sorry you've experienced some Bishops over stepping their bounds. I have seen it happen, but to give up what makes the Church special because of a few rare cases? That's ridiculous.



Bishops who overstep their bounds will be judged all the more harshly in the end because they SHOULD have used the spirit to discern the correct path as Judge in Israel. Those who were treated unfairly because of it will also get that understanding when it is their turn to be judged fairly.

Where did I tell "a bunch of other people how to live their lives" ?

Every single Bishop who deals with kids who take part in the Honor Code. All the kids who deal with their ecclesiastical leader on issues relating to the Honor Code.



Your plan is to take control out of the hands of those with Priesthood keys and set a rigid, unwieldy standard determined solely by you.

What the hell are you talking about?



Planning to take holkd of priesthood keys? You are WAY off base here!



These attacks are unprovoked and completely uncalled for... Explain yourself...



(And you also haven't pointed out wherre I was telling people to live their lives...)



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

BlueIsBetter wrote:

BlueIsBetter wrote:

BlueIsBetter wrote:

Anyone who argues for a stringent code of when and how to do everything should join the Catholic faith. The LDS faith is based on individual circumstances and handling. Yes, it's through imperfect people, but I for one am grateful for it.

Don't suppose for one second that you can tell me what to do with my own life.



I was merely suggesting they should have suggestions when things are appropriate to bring to the hc office, and when they aren't.



(I have plenty of personal examples in my life of Bishop's overstepping their grounds, but here I am still, though I guess I should go join the Catholic church according to a few of you.)

And yet, aren't you trying to tell a bunch of other people who to live their lives? I'm sorry you've experienced some Bishops over stepping their bounds. I have seen it happen, but to give up what makes the Church special because of a few rare cases? That's ridiculous.



Bishops who overstep their bounds will be judged all the more harshly in the end because they SHOULD have used the spirit to discern the correct path as Judge in Israel. Those who were treated unfairly because of it will also get that understanding when it is their turn to be judged fairly.

Where did I tell "a bunch of other people how to live their lives" ?

Every single Bishop who deals with kids who take part in the Honor Code. All the kids who deal with their ecclesiastical leader on issues relating to the Honor Code.



Your plan is to take control out of the hands of those with Priesthood keys and set a rigid, unwieldy standard determined solely by you.

What the hell are you talking about?



Planning to take holkd of priesthood keys? You are WAY off base here!



These attacks are unprovoked and completely uncalled for... Explain yourself...



(And you also haven't pointed out wherre I was telling people to live their lives...)



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Ease up Blue...I think you may be reading way too much into the tone of his posts. He is not attacking you.

BlueIsBetter: I think you have mistaken me and taken something I said personally when it wasn't intended as such.



The point has been made by some people that Bishops should have set rules for how to handle HC violations and when to involve the HC Office and when not to. Likewise the HC Office should have specific set rules for how they handle each offense.



I don't like that idea. It removes the spirit of discernment from those who have the keys to use it (Bishops). I like the idea that Bishops and the HC office review each case on a case by case basis and mete out discipline as whispered to by the spirit.



There is another religion out there that doesn't do that, but instead has a proscribed penalty for every 'sin.' The Catholic Church. Have premarital sex? Say 36 Hail Mary's and you're done, every time, no matter what the circumstances.



Thats the entirety of what I mean.

hawkwing wrote:
BlueIsBetter: I think you have mistaken me and taken something I said personally when it wasn't intended as such.



The point has been made by some people that Bishops should have set rules for how to handle HC violations and when to involve the HC Office and when not to. Likewise the HC Office should have specific set rules for how they handle each offense.



I don't like that idea. It removes the spirit of discernment from those who have the keys to use it (Bishops). I like the idea that Bishops and the HC office review each case on a case by case basis and mete out discipline as whispered to by the spirit.



There is another religion out there that doesn't do that, but instead has a proscribed penalty for every 'sin.' The Catholic Church. Have premarital sex? Say 36 Hail Mary's and you're done, every time, no matter what the circumstances.



Thats the entirety of what I mean.

I don't know if this is YOUR first time, but several people on here keep invoking the Catholic Church on this topic and it seems way off base to me. The CHURCH already has a system, aside from BYU, wherein they handle worthiness issues. Nobody is arguing against the church continuing that practice. They're arguing against them extending the practice to be included in the University. I don't see how people can't separate these two.



It's like I'm taking crazy pills. Saying you're against one aspect of the honor code doesn't make you anti-honor code any more than being against Obamacare makes you anti-America. Nor does being in favor of the honor code NOT involving itself with word of wisdom and chastity issues make us anti-word of wisdom or anti-chastity. Do people really not see the distinction?

hawkwing wrote:
BlueIsBetter: I think you have mistaken me and taken something I said personally when it wasn't intended as such.



The point has been made by some people that Bishops should have set rules for how to handle HC violations and when to involve the HC Office and when not to. Likewise the HC Office should have specific set rules for how they handle each offense.



I don't like that idea. It removes the spirit of discernment from those who have the keys to use it (Bishops). I like the idea that Bishops and the HC office review each case on a case by case basis and mete out discipline as whispered to by the spirit.



There is another religion out there that doesn't do that, but instead has a proscribed penalty for every 'sin.' The Catholic Church. Have premarital sex? Say 36 Hail Mary's and you're done, every time, no matter what the circumstances.



Thats the entirety of what I mean.

First off, I didn't make that point. I said there could be a set "level" where BYU and the HCO need to be involved (ie, pregnancies - repeat offenders that seem unrepentant, and unwilling to change through numerous attempts - I'm sure there are others I can think of given time) because some Bishops overact sometimes, and can sometimes be biased (yes, even racist or jealous of athletics).



- Your response was that I "should Join the Catholic church."



Then you claimed that I was "telling a bunch of people who (how) to live their lives"

- I asked you where, and you didn't tell me (because i wasn't previously)



Then you tell me that I am "trying to take control of priesthood powers" and that it is my "plan" etc etc etc.



I'm just wondering how and why any of this came about. I am not the one doing the misunderstanding here... I'm the one being told to join the catholic church, and that I am trying to seize priesthood keys that don't belong to me.



???

This is still unresolved for me.

BlueIsBetter - I apologize that my comment came across to you as a personal attack, I assure you none was intended. I simply wanted to affirm that the LDS Church is one that is based on individuals dealing with individuals on a case by case basis whereas the Catholic Church is one of rigid rules and procedures. I know which one I'd rather be under, and I believe you feel the same way in that regard.

Repentance and things of a spiritual nature belong and should stay with the Bishop. On occasion, because of the grievance of the sin civic authorities have to be notified and worked with. There are very specific rules and procedures for such and not an ounce of repentance or spiritual guidance is lost on having to follow them.



I do not see, especially since HC violations carry more civic type consequences in regards to a student's eligibility, why set rules and procedures can not be put in place as to when a Bishop needs to involve the HC Office.



Church and state need to be separate, but on occasion they have to collaborate and when they do, it's helpful to have some guidelines in place. I actually think if you were to ask BYU Bishops, they'd welcome the policies.

hawkwing wrote:
BlueIsBetter - I apologize that my comment came across to you as a personal attack, I assure you none was intended. I simply wanted to affirm that the LDS Church is one that is based on individuals dealing with individuals on a case by case basis whereas the Catholic Church is one of rigid rules and procedures. I know which one I'd rather be under, and I believe you feel the same way in that regard.

Thanks. I agree with you. I think Gunk said it really well. That's all I was intending.



I like the very personal nature of the atonement, and the personal applications of it in the church settings.