Handbook Update, Gay Marriage, Apostasy, Resignations... (Merged Thread)

[Scott Lloyd 17,029]

 

I hesitate to start another thread on the subject of homosexuality, but I thought this change would be of interest to many here.  I'm thinking I'll let people comment for a bit and then shut it down because this debate gets old fast (acknowledging my own part in that).

 

The definition of Apostasy in Handbook 1 has been updated to now list being in a same-gender marriage.  Here's the text from Section 6.7.3:

 

Apostasy

 

As used here, apostasy refers to members who:

 

1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.

2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

3. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

4. Are in a same-gender marriage.

5. Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.

 

 

And apostasy, as defined in this section, means that a disciplinary council is mandatory.

 

The phrasing "as used here" is noteworthy. In effect it acknowledges that there are or may be definitions of apostasy apart from or that vary from what is in the handbook, but that the handbook puts forth a technical definition for the purpose of adjudicating cases that might come before a disciplinary council.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd 17,029]

It's in the updated Church Handbook 1.

 

It also means that in most cases a person excommunicated for this reason will need First Presidency approval for rebaptism. If someone is excommunicated for "moral" reasons a Stake President and Bishop can approve rebaptism. If it's for apostacy, it generally requires first presidency approval.

 

So the message seems to be clear. "GET OUT" and "STAY OUT".

 

This comes on the heels of Elder Ballard's talk at the World Conference of Families where he says that just as we shouldn't shun family, we shouldn't shun people who believe or act differently than we do. Excommunication is a pretty severe shunning.

The message is never "get out and stay out." Offenders are always welcomed and encouraged to humble themselves, earnestly repent and seek readmission into the fold of God.

 

It does make it pretty clear that there will be no minimizing of what God has declared to be sin and no excusing of it without full repentance.

 

And you do make an interesting point: Apparently, the Church now views entering into a same-gender "marriage" as an offense in a different category from merely engaging in homosexual (or, for that matter, illicit heterosexual) behavior.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Zakuska 658]

1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.

2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

3. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

What ever happened to the Eleventh Article of faith?

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our [own]1 conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

The handbook is nothing more than "Chains that bind" Joseph Smith was always complaining about those.

The By laws in the D&C say nothing about X-ing people for Apostasy?

For committing sin yes.

Is it a sin to go against leaders DICTATES?

Edited November 5, 2015 by Zakuska

[Duncan 5,341]

The phrasing "as used here" is noteworthy. In effect it acknowledges that there are or may be definitions of apostasy apart from or that vary from what is in the handbook, but that the handbook puts forth a technical definition for the purpose of adjudicating cases that might come before a judiciary council.

 

that idea can lead to the other idea of "Bishop Roulette", just play your cards right and get  a softie

[HappyJackWagon 6,561]

The message is never "get out and stay out." Offenders are always welcomed and encouraged to humble themselves, earnestly repent and seek readmission into the fold of God.

 

It does make it pretty clear that there will be no minimizing of what God has declared to be sin and no excusing of it without full repentance.

Okay. The message is "get out" and "we're going to make it harder for you to get back in."

 

How do you square the concept of excommunication with Ballard's call not to "shun"?

[Scott Lloyd 17,029]

Okay. The message is "get out" and "we're going to make it harder for you to get back in."

 

How do you square the concept of excommunication with Ballard's call not to "shun"?

Simple. Those who are excommunicated are not "shunned." They are welcome to attend worship services, and members are commanded to continue to minister to them in the hope they will repent and eventually be worthy to return to full fellowship.

[The Nehor 19,338]

Okay. The message is "get out" and "we're going to make it harder for you to get back in."

 

How do you square the concept of excommunication with Ballard's call not to "shun"?

Excommunication does not require shunning.

[Zakuska 658]

Okay. The message is "get out" and "we're going to make it harder for you to get back in."

 

How do you square the concept of excommunication with Ballard's call not to "shun"?

Dontcha know.... excommuncation is loving people.

I was castigated on a thread earlier this week for the mere insinuation that excommunication was shunning.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Zakuska

[Russell C McGregor 2,246]

What ever happened to the Eleventh Article of faith?

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our [own]1 conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

The handbook is nothing more than "Chains that bind" Joseph Smith was always complaining about those.

Umm, no. The Articles of Faith are an expression of what "We believe," the "we" in question being the Latter-day Saints.

Allowing others to worship how, where or what they may is not the same as allowing those others to hijack our worship.

[Scott Lloyd 17,029]

that idea can lead to the other idea of "Bishop Roulette", just play your cards right and get  a softie

On the contrary, setting down specific elements of definition serves to standardize the procedure, the opposite of enabling the playing of "bishop roulette."

Edited November 5, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor 19,338]

What ever happened to the Eleventh Article of faith?We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our [own]1 conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.The handbook is nothing more than "Chains that bind" Joseph Smith was always complaining about those.The By laws in the D&C say nothing about X-ing people for Apostasy?For committing sin yes.

That Article of Faith is not a mandate for allowing all men to worship God as they wish and also formally belong to the LDS church.

[Russell C McGregor 2,246]

I hesitate to start another thread on the subject of homosexuality, but I thought this change would be of interest to many here.  I'm thinking I'll let people comment for a bit and then shut it down because this debate gets old fast (acknowledging my own part in that).

 

The definition of Apostasy in Handbook 1 has been updated to now list being in a same-gender marriage.  Here's the text from Section 6.7.3:

Apostasy

As used here, apostasy refers to members who:

1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.

2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

3. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

4. Are in a same-gender marriage.

5. Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.

 

And apostasy, as defined in this section, means that a disciplinary council is mandatory.

I wonder if Mister Dehlin is going to amend his expectations. After all, this does not appear to be exactly the trajectory he was predicting for the Church.

[The Nehor 19,338]

Dontcha know.... excommuncation is loving people.I was castigated on a thread earlier this week for the mere insinuation that excommunication was shunning.

I can castigate you again if you would like.....just for consistency's sake.

[Scott Lloyd 17,029]

What ever happened to the Eleventh Article of faith?

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our [own]1 conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

The handbook is nothing more than "Chains that bind" Joseph Smith was always complaining about those.

The By laws in the D&C say nothing about X-ing people for Apostasy?

For committing sin yes.

Is it a sin to go against leaders DICTATES?

Apostasy is a sin. It is the sin of rebellion.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Gillebre 267]

To me this is about clearly defining a boundary that seems like a gray area for some members of the Church who thrive in such undefined areas because the First Presidency hasn't "technically" said they could engage in something and still be considered in good standing with the Lord's authorized Church. This follows the prophetic pattern of teaching the commandments so that they will not be misunderstood. This addition to handbook 1 shines a beam of light on an issue some members would rather not think about (that engaging personally in same-gender marriage is a form of apostasy).

Edited November 5, 2015 by Gillebre

[HappyJackWagon 6,561]

Excommunication does not require shunning.

I suppose a lot depends on how we define "shunning".

 

 

shun

[sHən]

 

VERB

1. persistently avoid, ignore, or reject (someone or something) through antipathy or caution:

 

Excommunication is a rejection and the formal expulsion of a person from the community of the LDS church. It is the removal of membership and worse, it claims to be the removal of received priesthood ordinances. Excommunication is a form of shunning.

[Russell C McGregor 2,246]

Okay. The message is "get out" and "we're going to make it harder for you to get back in."

 

How do you square the concept of excommunication with Ballard's call not to "shun"?

By noticing the rather simple and uncontroversial fact that the two concepts are essentially unrelated.

To claim or imply that excommunication somehow equates to "shunning" is to blur two quite distinct ideas.

[Ahab 1,695]

I'm thinking #5 should be updated again to add the idea that members should not advocate teachings which are contrary to our Church doctrine.

Advocating teachings of another Church that agree with our Church teachings shouldn't be a problem.

[Russell C McGregor 2,246]

I hesitate to start another thread on the subject of homosexuality,

Really?

I hadn't noticed...

[The Nehor 19,338]

I suppose a lot depends on how we define "shunning".

 

 

Excommunication is a rejection and the formal expulsion of a person from the community of the LDS church. It is the removal of membership and worse, it claims to be the removal of received priesthood ordinances. Excommunication is a form of shunning.

Nope, some members may shun excommunicated members for good or bad reasons but it is not required. That is a social response to a formal procedure. The social response is not required. I am friends with two excommunicated members. By my association am I not shunning them as I should?

There are some situations in which I would shun an excommunicated person. If they spent their time heaping scorn on my faith, committed heinous sins, or something of that nature I would exercise my individual discretion and shun them. In those cases though I would shun them whether they were excommunicated or not.

[HappyJackWagon 6,561]

By noticing the rather simple and uncontroversial fact that the two concepts are essentially unrelated.

To claim or imply that excommunication somehow equates to "shunning" is to blur two quite distinct ideas.

Can you explain why excommunication isn't shunning?

 

If an excommunicated member raises their hand in a church class, are they more likely to be called on to speak, or be ignored?

When membership is rescinded, is there a reason that shouldn't be viewed as a rejection of the person within the community?

Are people who are excommunicated for "apostacy" not viewed cautiously by members as dangers to the community?

 

I've explained why I think excommunication is a form of shunning. I'd like a good explanation from someone who thinks it isn't.

[HappyJackWagon 6,561]

Nope, some members may shun excommunicated members for good or bad reasons but it is not required. That is a social response to a formal procedure. The social response is not required. I am friends with two excommunicated members. By my association am I not shunning them as I should?

There are some situations in which I would shun an excommunicated person. If they spent their time heaping scorn on my faith, committed heinous sins, or something of that nature I would exercise my individual discretion and shun them. In those cases though I would shun them whether they were excommunicated or not.

It is a formal shunning. Membership is rescinded. This is a formal shunning but you are right that there is also an informal shunning that often occurs as members follow the example of the institutional shunning.

[Russell C McGregor 2,246]

It is a formal shunning. Membership is rescinded. This is a formal shunning but you are right that there is also an informal shunning that often occurs as members follow the example of the institutional shunning.

This is boilerplate anti-Mormon propaganda.

And, needless to say, is false.

[The Nehor 19,338]

It is a formal shunning. Membership is rescinded. This is a formal shunning but you are right that there is also an informal shunning that often occurs as members follow the example of the institutional shunning.

Yep, covenants and membership are rescinded. As every offense on the apostasy list is a blatant rejection of the covenants being rescinded they really need to not whine about it. Take it up with God, or, if they do not believe in God as the leader of the LDS faith, again, they are rejecting their covenants.

Basically they need to get over it and own their decisions.

[Russell C McGregor 2,246]

Can you explain why excommunication isn't shunning?

Can you explain why a baseball game isn't a submarine?

I can: The two concepts are essentially unrelated.

There. Done.

 

If an excommunicated member raises their hand in a church class, are they more likely to be called on to speak, or be ignored?

Thank you for pointing out an example of how excommunication is not shunning. In churches that practice shunning, excommunicated members aren't allowed to attend church classes.

When membership is rescinded, is there a reason that shouldn't be viewed as a rejection of the person within the community?

Are people who are excommunicated for "apostacy" not viewed cautiously by members as dangers to the community?

 

I've explained why I think excommunication is a form of shunning. I'd like a good explanation from someone who thinks it isn't.

Yes, you've demonstrated how you try to equate two unrelated things.