One of the things Latter-day Saints like to do is to build hedges or fences around laws. We don't watch R-rated movies, we don't date until we are 16. Mission rules are a good example of this and yes even the Honor Code. It is my personal opinion that these hedges or fences mirror those Laws of Moses that were given when the children of Israel were unready or unwilling to accept the law.
Is there something wrong with ALL R-rated movies? Of course not. Are some 16 year-olds emotionally mature enough to handle dating? Of course there are, there are many I think that are more mature than a lot of adults I know.
Interestingly enough when the current version of "For the Strength of Youth" was released R-rated movies was changed to movies that portray themes that are counter
to the gospel.
It has always amused me that BYU would have to rewrite the Honor Code to "make it more clear." What on earth is unclear about the fact that acting on urges is a sin and promoting anything that does encourage doing so is prohibited"
Notice I didn't even mention homosexuality here. I said urges and sin. I think that general statement applies to anything that would lead to sin. Lets change the word urge to temptations. Are there some temptations that we feel we can handle? That general statement should eliminate the specificness that should ALREADY be understood if you understand the Gospel. Avoid temptations that lead to fueling urges that lead to acting on sins. That's pretty simple. But isn't that what they taught us in Primary?
Do I need the church to rewrite the commandments so that I know the letter of the law when I attend a non church school? I would think those blessed enough to attend BYU on a sacred scholarship - BYU is funded by tithing, SHOULD be keenly aware of what is church doctrine. The spirit of the law should be what leads those students to want to be faithful and not look for loopholes. Many of those have served two years preaching this doctrine. Aren't these supposed to be the best and brightest young minds the church has brought up. Why does it need to be further clarified to them? Why do we need to build additional walls and hedges around laws that are already well established?
Or are we like the children of Israel, unready or perhaps unwilling to accept a law for what it is? Do we need the walls and hedges that often become substitute laws and often become what people feel is the law? If missionaries could be trusted to live the law I think except for a few circumstances there would be no need for mission rules. And I think most do. If a few BYU students would just accept the law they
wouldn't need to have the hedges or fences rebuild for them. Do we need to have the law rewritten so that it makes us feel better about ourselves? Why can't we just accept that certain things are sinful and just not do them?
It's the same with this pamphlet. We know what is and what isn't a sin. We really shouldn't have to have it spelled out for us. The Lord gives His children knowledge "line upon line, precept upon precept. What this tells me is that apparently the Church isn't ready for the whole law because we already have issues with the portions of the law that we already have and need these hedges and fences to
keep us from breaking it.