The Truth!

I attended Ricks College when it was Ricks College, and then Ricks after it made the transition to BYU-Idaho. In all, about three years were spent in the cold desert of southeastern Idaho.

All of the Brigham Young University campuses have honor codes that are similar but differ in how these codes of conduct are applied. Brigham Young University Provo, the largest and most prestigious, lies in the middle. Their honor code enforcement is very moderate. If you violate your contract to live by the honor code, there will be consequences, but as a whole, people are free to live their lives and pretty much do what they want. They represent the middle ground.

Brigham Young University Idaho, the jealous little brother who suffered crisis of identity when it was pulled under the umbrella of BYU and lost its’ beloved name, is by far the most extreme and has the most restrictive honor code, banning shorts at all times on campus except in the gym, flip-flops, and heaven forbid if you did not shave that morning. The thinking that I found in Idaho was, this the law and you will live it, and we are going to make sure that you will.

I don’t fault them for having an honor and holding students to it, but it is a bit extreme to encourage students to tattle and spy on their roommates. While I was going there, I always had the feeling that I was being watched by someone wondering if I would get one of those dreaded phone calls from the Dean’s office (I had plenty of friends who did get those phone calls, and it was never a pleasant experience). During my time there, I had two roommates who were asked to leave, or rather, “asked” meaning,” we will not let you take any more classes at our institution, so we ask you to find another option for your higher education.”

Then there is BYU-Hawaii, the smallest and by far the most liberal of all the Church’s universities. The Polynesian culture has a strong influence on the way things are done at the University.

Instead of a spy on your neighbor way of doing things, there were those who litterally spied, they simply taught what is expected, and then expected the students to act accordingly. When students mess up, they are usually dealt with, but you will not find the long lines outside their Dean’s office, the way you might find at Idaho.

At all of the Universities, usually during the weekly campus wide assemblies, known as devotionals, at some point, usually at the beginning of the semester, the President of the university will talk about the school’s honor code. At Idaho, many students expressed that their agency had been taken away and that they were forced to abide the code of honor.

This must have gotten to fever pitch because during one of these beginning of the semester talks about the honor code, the president of BYU-Idaho stated that by signing to live the honor code, they gave up their agency.

I thought about this a lot. If I were to write about book about doctrinal principles, it would include a chapter entitled “Agency: A blessing and a burden”.

An important teaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is that human beings are free to choose between good and evil. This ability to choose has been termed free agency in the past, and moral agency or simply agency in recent times. Names aside, it is held that men and women are free for themselves, to make choices, and live their lives, according to either the will of God, or the will of the Devil, receiving the “wages of those they list to serve”.

Through agency human beings choose either eternal life, or misery and sorrow. But the question that must be asked is it possible for people to give up their agency, and through their choices, can they lose agency?

In reality, when someone signs an honor code, makes a covenant, or signs a contract with an employer, they are just as free as before they made the agreement. After making the agreement, the person can either honor the agreement, or break their contract; literally there is nothing preventing anyone form breaking a covenant then their own freedom to choose between good and evil and their own conscience.

I have often asked others, myself included,” What keeps you from drinking beer, doing drugs, or having sexual relationships outside of marriage?” The answer is you. God will not stop you, he will warn you, even plead with you through the spirit and the words of living prophets to do what is right, but he will never force any of his children to do good. That is not his plan and as long as people are in this mortal probation, they will have the ability to choose good and evil of their own free will.

Even if someone were to put a gun to your head and said,” do this or else” the choice would still be your own as to whether you complied or not. Pressure applied from external sources does not change the responsibility that rests on the individual to make the decision.

So when someone signs an honor code, have they lost their agency? NO! They have not. Their accountability has merely increased. Whether or not they choose to live the honor code remains within the realm of their responsibility.

Agency is a great blessing. Perhaps aside from the atonement of Christ, it is the most important gift that men and women have. While they have the power to choose, it must be realized that upon making a choice, the individual has chosen the consequence that is attached to that choice. A person, who has sex outside of marriage, has chosen temporary pleasure. They have also chosen the misery and sorrow that often comes when a relationship in which there is immorality comes to an end, or the Godly sorrow that is necessary in repenting for such sins.

In my calling I witnessed this in a major way as people who were close to me had to withdraw from priesthood service because of using their agency to choose evil and temporary pleasure. But with their decision to choose evil, they also chose the months required to repent of the things that they did which violated sacred covenants made in sacred places. The choice was always theirs, when they made their decision; they simultaneously chose the consequences to their actions.

In the Gospel we find a continuum of covenants with attached blessings. As people make covenants, they receive blessings. As they progress through the continuum, making covenants and receiving greater light and knowledge, they become more and more accountable. The individual is free to keep or violate the covenants, but cannot escape the wrath that comes from violated sacred promises.

At all the schools, the students are free to choose whether they will abide the honor code or not. While I may disagree with the philosophies that effect the enforcement of the Honor code, I agree with the overall goal of what they are trying to accomplish being; to provide a university education in a an environment of faith.

In the end, no one should forget that they have within him or her, to choose between Eternal life and damnation. There are only two ways, either the way of life and salvation, or death both possibly physical and definitely physical.

With this in mind, hopefully it will be understood that we are all free, but that there are consequences attached. But hopefully these things will help be us be happier and more productive saints.

The following is written mostly to a Mormon audience. Many terms and ideas will only be familiar to those who have been members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints so the reader should not be surprised when they see words written in English that seem odd. They are used within the framework of an individual faith that definitely has its’ own culture and borders on being its’ own ethnicity.

A couple of weeks ago I was at home on Sunday night taking care of some things before retiring for the evening. Flipping through the channels I stopped on BYU television for a few minutes. It must have been an Education Week or Women’s Week talk, because most of the people in the audience were women, and it seemed like something that you would hear at either of the two conferences. The speaker was talking about an issue that troubles many, modesty.

I believe that the standard for modesty found in “For the Strength of Youth” is adequate. If any person will abide by the general principles found in that publication, they will be able to dress in a way that appeals to their own tastes but still maintain a standard of dress appropriate for Latter-day Saint youth and adults. The standard is very general and still, most of the responsibility falls on the shoulders of the reader to determine what is appropriate and inappropriate with the way they dress.

This general guideline, choose for yourself thinking, was in stark contrast to what was being presented that evening.

In about ten minutes it was apparent that she was extolling a standard that went far beyond what was taught in a church publication that has served as the standard for years. For her, it was not enough to merely cover up, avoid extremes in dress, and to refrain from wearing clothes that are overly tight and form fitting; it went far beyond that and also took into consideration quality of fabric, certain combinations such a sport coat with jeans in a casual situation, and other things that most people will not take into consideration when they buy clothes.

I am driven by style, cost, and fit when I buy clothes. If it fits, is cheap, looks good, and if I have the money to spend on clothes, then most likely that article of clothing will find its’ way into my closet and then, eventually, the floor of my room (I am a slob. A whole different essay altogether).

Simply put, following the standard espoused by the presenter went beyond a simple yes or no to a long cumbersome checklist. Whether or not to buy a pair jeans went from being a simple everyday thing, to a matter of salvation. This is ridiculous.

For some time I wanted to write about Pharisees and oral traditions that go beyond a given standard that is meant to allow the member to decide for themselves. This experience prompted me to write what follows.

In Jesus’ day there were different sects of Judaism, each with their own individual interpretations of aspects of the Law of Moses and the gospel that would replace it. They ran the spectrum from libertines to hard line conservatives with few, if any finding the middle ground. While many members of the Church are more familiar with the dangers of being liberal, they often do not consider the dangers of going beyond what has already been revealed and expected of members of the Church.

The group that was not the most conservative, but definitely had the greatest control over the people, were the Pharisees. The Pharisees felt that it was not enough to obey the ordinances and commandments found in the law of Moses and over the course of time, developed a separate set of practices that, if followed, would prevent a person from coming close to violating the commandments in the law. This tradition, or hedge about the law, has come to be known as the oral tradition.

Those familiar with Jewish society will know that the oral tradition was a burden; was not general and open to individual revelation in its’ application as are the standards of today; but spelled out how to act, or what to do in every situation. When the Apostle Paul said that the letter of the law killed but that spirit gives life, he was not only referring to the law of Moses, but to the oral tradition that had become such a burden to the children of Israel living at this time.

In the Gospels, Jesus decried the Pharisees and the oral tradition. He said that they go about the earth to make one convert, but even after person became converted, they became two times more the child of hell then before.

Standards are not an end unto themselves, but are a means of helping individuals living in a way to grow closer to deity. Salvation is found in the Atonement, and Commandments are the vehicle by which we receive of those blessings. Joseph Smith taught the Atonement was the gospel and that all things were appendages to it. Even modesty takes a backseat to the doctrine of the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

In the Book of Mormon, when the prophets saw that their people were straying for the path of salvation, they did not focus on behavior specific to the time and circumstances of the people, but they taught them about repentance and salvation through the Atonement. They taught them of resurrection, final judgment and the rewards or punishments that would come in the life hereafter. This either resulted in people repenting and being blessed, or receiving the judgment of God to their damnation.

The Apostle Paul talked about modesty in his epistles, but the majority of his epistles were intended to teach people about how to receive the grace of God, or what is expected of those who had accepted Gospel. He taught doctrine, understanding that this would have the greater effect on people as opposed to teaching behavior.

Recently, our modern Apostles, in their “Epistles” spend very little time teaching about behavior, or spelling out to the letter how one should apply a certain standard, but are teaching doctrine and by and large leaving interpretation up to the members, giving course correction when necessary.

The Gospel is eternal and will never change. Salvation will always be through Jesus Christ and his Atonement. The tastes of the World with regards to fashion, morality, political thought, and pretty much everything else will change. But the Gospel never will. Because the world is ever changing, it will be impossible to apply an oral tradition. More then ever there is a need to teach, and for people to found their lives on unchanging and eternal principles.

While modesty will always be an important topic, in must be kept in its’ proper context as an appendage to, or a teaching that branches out from, the Atonement.

This good sister had the best of intentions. But teaching behavior is much like painting the walls on the Titanic. While the walls may be in desperate need of fresh coat, time would be better spent in figuring how to plug the gaping hole in the hull.

If you want to make a meaningful impact, teach doctrine. As people repent, and are converted, the spirit will lead them to making changes in music, language, dress, and grooming.

There will be times when it will necessary to point out specifics, but the majority of time should be spent in teaching doctrine and then letting the individual act for themselves instead of constantly being acted upon.