CH1 Now online for all membership

[ttribe]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Here again is an instance of erroneously that which is impossible and that which is unlikely.

So, no, I don't believe it is at all likely where the Church leaders as a body would get so far off the rails that defending them becomes an "evil unto itself."

I see it much more likely that wrongdoing would be on the part of those who incessantly attack the Brethren. I see that happening all the time. On this very board, even.

 

I believe either you or I misread the original statement.  I understood it to mean that the defense becomes so out of control and aggressive that it becomes an evil unto itself; not that the Brethren did something that caused any defense to be evil.  I believe the point of the proposed thought exercise was to make us think whether defense, even of something righteous, can cross lines of what is appropriate and/or righteous.

[stemelbow]

59 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And yet you applaud someone for accusing the Church of curtaling a member's "freedom of the press" because they object to him vilifying the Church on the Internet. Sure seems like a sense of entitlement to me.

That’s not true.  I’ve not said anyth Ng about vilifying the church.

59 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Meaning you enjoyed his allegation that the Church abridges one's "freedom of the press" because they object to him vilifying the Church on the Internet? Combine this with your remark that the Church behaved worse than the Pharisees, and you are batting a thousand with over-the-top hyperbole today.

So it was a paraphrase with your own subjective spin? Then you shouldn't have put it in quotation marks.

K.  

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yeah.

So drawing comparisons between General Authorities and Pharisees was "in bad taste," but not "pejorative" or "disparag{ing}."

Thanks s not what I did.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Quite an impressive example of hairsplitting.

Right.  'Cuz publicly comparing LDS leaders to Pharisees on an LDS message board is an exercise in clinical, detached objectivity.  Not designed to offend or demean at all.

-Smac

It was meant that challenge that which I find problematic.  

[hope_for_things]

21 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I believe either you or I misread the original statement.  I understood it to mean that the defense becomes so out of control and aggressive that it becomes an evil unto itself; not that the Brethren did something that caused any defense to be evil.  I believe the point of the proposed thought exercise was to make us think whether defense, even of something righteous, can cross lines of what is appropriate and/or righteous.

Your interpretation is correct about how I was originally articulating my point.  It’s the idea that a defense of something can become evil in its intensity or by the method.  It really has nothing to do with what is being defended.  I’m talking about the tactics of defense and when those tactics become evil unto themselves because they in essence are immoral.  

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Your interpretation is correct about how I was originally articulating my point.  It’s the idea that a defense of something can become evil in its intensity or by the method.  It really has nothing to do with what is being defended.  I’m talking about the tactics of defense and when those tactics become evil unto themselves because they in essence are immoral.  

I think the BoM war chapters have some interesting ideas about when defense is morally justified and under what circumstances and limitations.  Christianity has a very checkered past with respect to using religious justification for very egregious ends.  As soon as Christianity gained power then power was abused.

I think we can look at lessons in our own history including in Mormonism where ends justifying the means kinds of rationale has been used in very inappropriate ways.  Hopefully a thoughtful reflection on this history can help us to be better people.   

[Gray]

53 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Non-sequitur.

 

You're not using that correctly.

Edited November 17, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

56 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I always thought the phrase Lord’s Annointed was specifically referring to church leadership, maybe I misinterpreted that?  

 It comes from the Bible. The Lord's anointed would be the king. But if you take the endowment seriously, that should apply to everyone who's been endowed.

 

56 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Criticism vs. evil speaking can be quite subjective.  I think the culture doesn’t model very healthy discussions in this way.  Elder Oaks recent talk criticizing the notion of loyal opposition is a case and point example of intolerance for certain critiques.  The negative consequences of this perspective leads to clashes and shaming and blaming instead of honest disagreement and dispassionate dialogue.  

 

Yes, well constructive criticism is actually vitally important to the health of any organization. Without it they will all deteriorate eventually.

[Rain]

9 hours ago, rongo said:

True, but almost nobody knows about it. Trust me on this; people are very, very surprised when they learn this.

The only way people would know about it is if the Brethren said something about it, instead of simply putting it in the policies section. That is like signs posted according to law for zoning changes or whatever, with small print in legalese. Nobody reads these, but the government can rightly claim that it was open and legal. 

If the Brethren really want people to counsel with bishops before having elective contraceptive surgery, then it shouldn't be buried in the handbooks and never, ever (not even once) mentioned by GAs in more read/accessed venues. I have no problem whatsoever with the policy and counsel; I just think it is extremely poorly communicated in this case. 

 

8 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

As long as members don't expect to get information about their church directly from the church, but instead from Google, then you're right. It's out there. They just have to be willing to look at outside sources and then not feel betrayed when they realize the church could have told them directly but chose not to.

 

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

Members can ask bishops about obscure topics like vasectomies.  And/or many (most?) of those topics are also covered in Handbook 2, which has been available to the world for years....

 

I was one of those surprised 17 years ago.  It never once occurred to me to talk with my bishop.  Didn't need to. 

With Type 1 diabetes, pre-eclampsia with HELLP, and premature babies you can bet we prayed every single time we considered getting pregnant.  My doctors were not thrilled about it.  Especially after the second.  I finally had to tell my doctor before the last one that I had prayed and I felt strongly about having another one.  I was going to have one and if she couldn't deal with it then she needed to tell me so I could find another doctor.  

During my last pregnancy we prayed again. Under no uncertain terms we were told not to have another one and that I should have surgery. 

So a couple of years later a group of friends and I were talking.  One of them had a husband in the bishopric.  He had brought home his handbook and she read it.  She told me what it said.  

Now I in some ways am the poster child for that section.  This fit me " Surgical sterilization should be considered only if (1) medical conditions seriously jeopardize life or health".  And this" Such conditions must be determined by competent medical judgment and in accordance with law." And this; " the persons responsible for this decision should consult with each other... and should receive divine confirmation of their decision through prayer."

But this did not: "the persons responsible for this decision should consult with ...with their bishop". I had no clue I was supposed to do that according to the handbook. As someone who strives to be obedient I didn't quite feel betrayed, but it really, really bothered me.  Not so much that I was supposed to go into the bishop, but that I didn't know till after the fact.  

To this day the ONLY time I hear about it is when someone talks about it being in the handbook.  You don't hear about it in RS lessons.  You don't hear about it conference.  I didn't even hear about it in the adult session of stake conference.  I find that I am usually more informed about a lot of things than those around me.  

I'm curious Smac.  If you didn't know about it, would you and your wife gone to see the bishop about it?  Would you have googled it?  Would you have thought it was any different than using any other birth control as far as the church is concerned?  Or would you have just sincerely talked it over with your wife and prayed about it?

Edited November 17, 2017 by Rain

[Guest]

On November 15, 2017 at 12:06 PM, Ginger Snaps said:

Title says it all 😊

https://www.lds.org/manual/handbook-1-stake-presidents-and-bishops?lang=eng

Will this be source material for class material, or just resource matiral,  for Bishopric,s, and Priesthood leadership alone? 

 

 

 

[Calm]

Eons ago when I first got married my bishop informed me matters of birth control were between me, my husband, and the Lord.  I had consulted with my bishop then and therefore felt no need to consult again when I had my tube tied.

[Rain]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

Eons ago when I first got married my bishop informed me matters of birth control were between me, my husband, and the Lord.  I had consulted with my bishop then and therefore felt no need to consult again when I had my tube tied.

That would be consistent with True the Faith: "

If you are married, you and your spouse should discuss your sacred responsibility to bring children into the world and nurture them in righteousness. As you do so, consider the sanctity and meaning of life. Ponder the joy that comes when children are in the home. Consider the eternal blessings that come from having a good posterity. With a testimony of these principles, you and your spouse will be prepared to prayerfully decide how many children to have and when to have them. Such decisions are between the two of you and the Lord."

"As you discuss this sacred matter, remember that sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved. While one purpose of these relations is to provide physical bodies for God’s children, another purpose is to express love for one another—to bind husband and wife together in loyalty, fidelity, consideration, and common purpose."

And President Hinckley and the 1983 handbook of instructions:

"The Lord has told us to multiply and replenish the earth that we might have joy in our posterity, and there is no greater joy than the joy that comes of happy children in good families. But he did not designate the number, nor has the Church. That is a sacred matter left to the couple and the Lord. The official statement of the Church includes this language: ‘Husbands must be considerate of their wives, who have the greater responsibility not only of bearing children but of caring for them through childhood, and should help them conserve their health and strength. Married couples should exercise self-control in all of their relationships. They should seek inspiration from the Lord in meeting their marital challenges and rearing their children according to the teachings of the gospel’"

Or the gospel topics on birth control.

And pretty much what I had always heard as well.

So first, these are the kind of things I HAVE run into over the years.  They are the kind of things that never made me question going to the bishop.

And second, they are inconsistent with the CHI words on sterilization. 

 

Edited November 17, 2017 by Rain

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

That would be consistent with True the Faith: "

If you are married, you and your spouse should discuss your sacred responsibility to bring children into the world and nurture them in righteousness. As you do so, consider the sanctity and meaning of life. Ponder the joy that comes when children are in the home. Consider the eternal blessings that come from having a good posterity. With a testimony of these principles, you and your spouse will be prepared to prayerfully decide how many children to have and when to have them. Such decisions are between the two of you and the Lord."

"As you discuss this sacred matter, remember that sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved. While one purpose of these relations is to provide physical bodies for God’s children, another purpose is to express love for one another—to bind husband and wife together in loyalty, fidelity, consideration, and common purpose."

And President Hinckley and the 1983 handbook of instructions:

"The Lord has told us to multiply and replenish the earth that we might have joy in our posterity, and there is no greater joy than the joy that comes of happy children in good families. But he did not designate the number, nor has the Church. That is a sacred matter left to the couple and the Lord. The official statement of the Church includes this language: ‘Husbands must be considerate of their wives, who have the greater responsibility not only of bearing children but of caring for them through childhood, and should help them conserve their health and strength. Married couples should exercise self-control in all of their relationships. They should seek inspiration from the Lord in meeting their marital challenges and rearing their children according to the teachings of the gospel’"

Or the gospel topics on birth control.

And pretty much what I had always heard as well.

So first, these are the kind of things I HAVE run into over the years.  They are the kind of things that never made me question going to the bishop.

And second, they are inconsistent with the CHI words on sterilization. 

It is quite possible that the handbook has not be updated to match other more public instruction.

I would choose the more public instruction if there are contradictions.

[Rain]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is quite possible that the handbook has not be updated to match other more public instruction.

I would choose the more public instruction if there are contradictions.

That is possible. However, 33 years seems a long lag time. 

[ksfisher]

34 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is quite possible that the handbook has not be updated to match other more public instruction.

I would choose the more public instruction if there are contradictions.

I think the church, as reflected in the handbooks as well as other instructional material, considers birth control and surgical sterilization to be two different things.   One leaves options open, while the latter closes that door completely.  

[Thinking]

This topic went from cheers because the availability of CH1 was finally unrestricted to defending the Church for restricting its availability.

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, Rain said:

That is possible. However, 33 years seems a long lag time. 

Yep...

Got to wonder.  Doesn't make a lot of sense.

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I think the church, as reflected in the handbooks as well as other instructional material, considers birth control and surgical sterilization to be two different things.   One leaves options open, while the latter closes that door completely.  

They are willing to talk about abortion, see no reason why they wouldn't talk about sterilization as a form of birth control because that is the sole purpose of sterilization   It makes no sense to say it isn't birth control.  I think you are seeing a difference that isn't there.

It is different from other forms of birth control, that doesn't mean it is different than birth control.

[Rain]

7 hours ago, ksfisher said:

I think the church, as reflected in the handbooks as well as other instructional material, considers birth control and surgical sterilization to be two different things.   One leaves options open, while the latter closes that door completely.  

I can see that, but if all one had heard was saying that birth control was open, why would one figure that only some types were open? What would make one go search for more info when everything one had been taught was that it was between the couple and the Lord?

Really, as Rongo said, this is poor communication. It's like me telling my child "you can have a choice of donuts", but then have a rule that you don't specify at the time of "if you want the cream cheese donut come talk to me first because it is twice the calories of the others".

[rongo]

36 minutes ago, Rain said:

I can see that, but if all one had heard was saying that birth control was open, why would one figure that only some types were open? What would make one go search for more info when everything one had been taught was that it was between the couple and the Lord?

Really, as Rongo said, this is poor communication. It's like me telling my child "you can have a choice of donuts", but then have a rule that you don't specify at the time of "if you want the cream cheese donut come talk to me first because it is twice the calories of the others".

As you shared, the only time people become aware of the policy that I am aware of is after the fact, and like you, they are bothered that they didn't know. Not bothered by the policy, but bothered that they didn't know to consult with the bishop (which they gladly would have, had they known). I disagree with smac that these people should have known about it, because . . . internet. They don't even know enough to have questions about it, or to know that they should know about it . . .  

In our case, I knew about it because I had read the handbook. I didn't want to get it done. We were done having children, but still, it's so final. My wife physically could not have any surgery (including tubal ligation), due to her blood disorder and blood thinners, so it was all on me. She also can't have hormonal contraceptives because of the blood disorder (they may have caused it in the first place). After two "scares" where she was late (the last time quite late), I had to do it. In fact, this was the first time in my life that I seriously pondered whether abortion could possibly be a justified choice for observant, faithful LDS, in accordance with the handbook policy on abortion (my wife was adamant that if she were pregnant, we would trust in God and the priesthood. Me, I wasn't as adamant with the risk of losing her . . .).

But, other members who discussed thinking about surgical sterilization were surprised when I gently told them about the policy, and they were to a man (and woman) surprised --- they had no idea. 

Again, if the Brethren want people to counsel with bishops about this, it really needs to be directly communicated rather than simply put in the policies section and assuming that everyone seeks it out before it becomes an issue. Plus, as you indicated, the policy actually frowns on doing it for birth control reasons, which is 99% of the time that people are thinking and praying about it (as opposed to medically essential situations, like Rain or my wife). I think there needs to be an adult conversation about this in the Church, and that means directly addressing it, rather than assuming/hoping people read it before they do it . . . and then feel bad that they at least didn't know to consult.  

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, Thinking said:

This topic went from cheers because the availability of CH1 was finally unrestricted to defending the Church for restricting its availability.

Thought the same.

[Tacenda]

11 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Will this be source material for class material, or just resource matiral,  for Bishopric,s, and Priesthood leadership alone? 

 

 

 

Second part. 

[stemelbow]

13 minutes ago, rongo said:

As you shared, the only time people become aware of the policy that I am aware of is after the fact, and like you, they are bothered that they didn't know. Not bothered by the policy, but bothered that they didn't know to consult with the bishop (which they gladly would have, had they known). I disagree with smac that these people should have known about it, because . . . internet. They don't even know enough to have questions about it, or to know that they should know about it . . .  

In our case, I knew about it because I had read the handbook. I didn't want to get it done. We were done having children, but still, it's so final. My wife physically could not have any surgery (including tubal ligation), due to her blood disorder and blood thinners, so it was all on me. She also can't have hormonal contraceptives because of the blood disorder (they may have caused it in the first place). After two "scares" where she was late (the last time quite late), I had to do it. In fact, this was the first time in my life that I seriously pondered whether abortion could possibly be a justified choice for observant, faithful LDS, in accordance with the handbook policy on abortion (my wife was adamant that if she were pregnant, we would trust in God and the priesthood. Me, I wasn't as adamant with the risk of losing her . . .).

But, other members who discussed thinking about surgical sterilization were surprised when I gently told them about the policy, and they were to a man (and woman) surprised --- they had no idea. 

Again, if the Brethren want people to counsel with bishops about this, it really needs to be directly communicated rather than simply put in the policies section and assuming that everyone seeks it out before it becomes an issue. Plus, as you indicated, the policy actually frowns on doing it for birth control reasons, which is 99% of the time that people are thinking and praying about it (as opposed to medically essential situations, like Rain or my wife). I think there needs to be an adult conversation about this in the Church, and that means directly addressing it, rather than assuming/hoping people read it before they do it . . . and then feel bad that they at least didn't know to consult.  

I'm happy its not mentioned nor taken seriously.  What you describe is annoying to me. 

If your wife was in a place health wise to not have babies and never would, then what's the question?  What if the praying about it made you feel you shouldn't have it done?  Prayer, of course, is no foolproof way of receiving divine guidance.  This policy, of course, just needs to be nixed altogether.  It's completely idiotic, as I see it, and no wonder it is not taken seriously, and is completely ignored. 

[ksfisher]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

They are willing to talk about abortion, see no reason why they wouldn't talk about sterilization as a form of birth control because that is the sole purpose of sterilization   It makes no sense to say it isn't birth control.  I think you are seeing a difference that isn't there.

It is different from other forms of birth control, that doesn't mean it is different than birth control.

It is birth control, I didn’t mean to imply it wasn’t.  But it is a form that, after the proceedure, takes away your options.  Other forms of birth control allow the couple to decide, to have a child at a later point.  That is the difference.  

[smac97]

13 hours ago, Rain said:

I'm curious Smac.  If you didn't know about it, would you and your wife gone to see the bishop about it? 

Hard to say.  I've known about the Church's position for a very long time.

The Church has a fairly "hands off" approach to most medical issues.  But it seems like medical treatment that pertains to fundamentals, such as gender reassignment surgery and procreation, are singled out for special attention and treatment.

13 hours ago, Rain said:

Would you have googled it? 

I would have spoke with my parents, who I suspect would have brought me up to speed on the Church's position.

And yes, I probably would have done some online research.  Even if the Church did not have Handbook 2 readily available online, I could probably triangulate the Church's position by using a variety of sources.

13 hours ago, Rain said:

Would you have thought it was any different than using any other birth control as far as the church is concerned?  

Permanently eliminating my ability to father children?  Yes, I would have given that a lot of thought and study.

13 hours ago, Rain said:

Or would you have just sincerely talked it over with your wife and prayed about it?

That too.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rongo]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But it seems like medical treatment that pertains to fundamentals, such as gender reassignment surgery and procreation, are singled out for special attention and treatment.

I'm not sure how "special" the "special attention and treatment" is, though, in the case of surgical sterilization. There are no consequences at all for not consulting the bishop at all. Obviously, the policy with sex-change surgery does carry membership consequences.

It's similar with cremation. The Church states that it doesn't recommend it, but there are no consequences at all if you do (and in fact, the Church recommends that temple clothing be worn for cremation if it happens). So, the Church not recommending it . . . how important is that, really? Obviously, good members are going to want to do what the Church recommends, and not do what the Church recommends you not do.