The Proclamation Is Doctrine

[Buzzard]

Not trying to take a thread off on a tangent, but it wouldn't be the first time it's happened...

So the church has issued clear instructions to Bishops not to marry same sex couples. Bishops have secular authority to legally marry. If a bishop defies the church and marries a SS couple, we know he won't be a bishop five minutes later, but if performed in a state where SSM is legal, and the now ex-bishop signed the marriage license, would that marriage be legal? Remember, he would do it against specific, written direction from the church.

I don't know the answer, my guess is no, but what potential for a mess and a launching point for hostile news articles about the brave Mormon leader and the heartless church. Blech.

[jwhitlock]

You use the "shotgun approach" to try to make a point -->> priesthood and race, attitudes towards women (somehow women wearing pants is a doctrinal issue), law of consecration vs socialism, public relations.

 

 

I especially like the one about "loving consensual unions" as being supposedly taught by Joseph Smith. Never mind that Doctrine and Covenants 132 contradicts this in that it is clear that not all worldly contracts are condoned by God.

 

And to attribute such current SSM supporter buzz-phrases to Joseph Smith is really a fascinating spin.

[Duncan]

Not trying to take a thread off on a tangent, but it wouldn't be the first time it's happened...

So the church has issued clear instructions to Bishops not to marry same sex couples. Bishops have secular authority to legally marry. If a bishop defies the church and marries a SS couple, we know he won't be a bishop five minutes later, but if performed in a state where SSM is legal, and the now ex-bishop signed the marriage license, would that marriage be legal? Remember, he would do it against specific, written direction from the church.

I don't know the answer, my guess is no, but what potential for a mess and a launching point for hostile news articles about the brave Mormon leader and the heartless church. Blech.

 

 

in Canada SSM is legal but I have never heard of any discipline for any Bishops who marry a couple, I haven't ever heard of any who did marry anyone but it sounds like a grey area, the other thing is if a Bishop did marry a SS couple would he be defying the Church if they aren't clear where it's legal? Is he representing the Church or is he representing someone or some thing else?

[Calm]

Jeremy what do you mean by this?

"accept the sealings of loving consensual unions of whatever number of people who are then adopted into God's family"?

[daz2]

Interesting it refers to the "ecclesiastical" authority of bishops' not being used. Some bishops may also be sitting civil judges and empowered to perform civil weddings. Presumably this policy only applies to the bishop's exercising authority by virtue of being a bishop, and not be virtue of separate nonecclesiastical office he may hold. And presumably it does not apply at all to any other LDS who is authorized to perform weddings.

[Coreyb]

ideally yes, but the statement doesn't say anything about if you do marry a couple then you'd face church discipline but as I say the possibility of going to a LDS Bishop for a wedding is fairly remote

Not that remote, I know of one Bishop that it has happened to already

[Duncan]

Not that remote, I know of one Bishop that it has happened to already

 

 

was there ever any church discipline? 

[DBMormon]

Here we go again....  You will need to define Doctrine.  In the OP you seem to say you and the Church defines it as revealed truth but with the new race article we have now documented that the Doctrine of the 1940's can only be defined as present teaching of that time and not necessarily revealed truth.  So with that the Proclamation is indeed the current Doctrine of the Church but that means only current teachings and not revealed truth.  The word Doctrine has become a watered down multiple meaning word.

Edited January 12, 2014 by DBMormon

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Sigh.

 

In the 1800's Joseph Smith ordains black men to the Priesthood, and we come up with Doctrine to exclude them and only them. Joseph Smith turns a Priesthood Key to the Relief Society women, and we come up with Doctrines so we can still get to feel scandalized by pants on Sunday. Joseph Smith tries to get the Saints to share all things, and we come up with Doctrines explaining why Socialism is part of the Adversary's plan. Joseph Smith tries to get people to accept the sealings of loving consensual unions of whatever number of people who are then adopted into God's family (a teaching which could quite easily be extended to homosexual marriage) and we bow to the Victorian laws of the United States and come up with convenient Doctrines that (probably just coincidentally) allow us to feel smugly Moral because it makes us look just a little bit more like the conservative evangelical post-Apostasy Christianity that never wanted or accepted us. 

"Doctrine" comes the Latin doctrina meaning a body of teaching or learning, from doctor, meaning 'teacher', from docere, meaning 'to show, teach, cause to know', originally a causative of decere, meaning 'to be fitting', which brings us to the related word 'decent'. 

When we try to shut down discussion by just giving an authoritarian pronouncement (cf. D&C 121) that This Is Doctrine, we often seem to be implying that if something is capital-D Doctrine, it is therefore unquestionable, unchangeable, static, eternal. Which seems to me the antithesis of the entire concept of continuing revelation. We're supposed to learn new things, and gather up all the good and true, let the truth come from where it may. I think we should keep that in mind when we talk about Doctrine.

You write beautifully, but these doctrines are not new to our Church or America. Are you suggesting anything goes, or that our leadership is just too old and too inept?

[CV75]

Here we go again....  You will need to define Doctrine.  In the OP you seem to say you and the Church defines it as revealed truth but with the new race article we have now documented that the Doctrine of the 1940's can only be defined as present teaching of that time and not necessarily revealed truth.  So with that the Proclamation is indeed the current Doctrine of the Church but that means only current teachings and not revealed truth.  The word Doctrine has become a watered down multiple meaning word.

I agree the word "doctrine" carries many possible meanings, all of which are valid. The way I unify them is to recognize that we are under covenant to abide the doctrines of the day, and if we don’t believe one or some of them (which is our God-given right), that is part of our test: given the constraints (real, perceived or imagined), transcend the doctrines and actually (not perceivedly or imaginarily) become charitable and Christlike (follow the doctrine of Christ per 3 Nephi 11) above every other consideration.

[Scott Lloyd]

"Leaders were asked to share this information with their members in appropriate settings."

 

Does this mean this is to be read in sacrament meeting? Where is an appropriate setting?

I think if the intent were that it be read in sacrament meeting, there would be a specific directive to that effect.

 

Short of that, there is conceivably a variety of settings in which local priesthood leaders might deem it appropriate to share the information.

Edited January 12, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Avatar4321]

Not trying to take a thread off on a tangent, but it wouldn't be the first time it's happened...

So the church has issued clear instructions to Bishops not to marry same sex couples. Bishops have secular authority to legally marry. If a bishop defies the church and marries a SS couple, we know he won't be a bishop five minutes later, but if performed in a state where SSM is legal, and the now ex-bishop signed the marriage license, would that marriage be legal? Remember, he would do it against specific, written direction from the church.

I don't know the answer, my guess is no, but what potential for a mess and a launching point for hostile news articles about the brave Mormon leader and the heartless church. Blech.

 

I think the marriages would be legal. Because they act with authority of the state to marry as well

[Stone holm]

A Bishop who performed a SSM would not only not be a Bishop long, but most likely wouldn't be a member for long. Regardless of whether the marriage was legal. There is no excuse or room for this type of behavior amongst Church leadership.

[Duncan]

A Bishop who performed a SSM would not only not be a Bishop long, but most likely wouldn't be a member for long. Regardless of whether the marriage was legal. There is no excuse or room for this type of behavior amongst Church leadership.

 

 

can you show something in the CHI that indicates this? 

[wenglund]

When we try to shut down discussion by just giving an authoritarian pronouncement (cf. D&C 121) that This Is Doctrine, we often seem to be implying that if something is capital-D Doctrine, it is therefore unquestionable, unchangeable, static, eternal. Which seems to me the antithesis of the entire concept of continuing revelation. We're supposed to learn new things, and gather up all the good and true, let the truth come from where it may. I think we should keep that in mind when we talk about Doctrine. 

 

To me, there are two ways that the capital-D Doctrine can be misused. One, is the extreme you suggest. The other is the opposite extreme, where there is so little structure and force behind doctrines or shared beliefs as to eliminate the important demarcation between living in the world and living of the world. The one entails the dangers of blinding closed-minded dogma, the other entails the danger of a rudderless mind that is easily tossed to a fro by the winds of pop culture.

 

It can be somewhat amusing to see the two bump up against each other.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

can you show something in the CHI that indicates this?

No not really. Trying to recall what happened to the leaders who ordained Africans before the ban was lifted. This would be a much more serious event.

[Calm]

The only one I remember who ordained someone and may sure that the press knew all about it was excommunicated.

[Stone holm]

The only one I remember who ordained someone and may sure that the press knew all about it was excommunicated.

 

Thanks, I thought that was the case, but didn't want to be CFRed.  I can't imagine any different result for performing a SSM.

[Calm]

I think it would depend on how they responded to any correction.  The guy who ordained a black man wasn't the least bit repentant...still isn't if I found the right website awhile back...in fact he's gone way extreme, I believe.

 

If someone after counseling acknowledged he had been in error, I think it is likely he would be released so as not to send the wrong message out there (because there would be a good chance given this day and age that it would have been made public by someone even if not the actual participants) that the policy was just a guideline and not fixed standard, but he might not be disciplined depending on why he did it in the first place.  I would be surprised if he wasn't given all the publicity should have made the Church's position very clear, but I am thinking there might be a small possibility that someone somewhere might not be aware of how strongly the position's been made as well as not aware of this announcement clarifying the policy.

[Stone holm]

I think it would depend on how they responded to any correction.  The guy who ordained a black man wasn't the least bit repentant...still isn't if I found the right website awhile back...in fact he's gone way extreme, I believe.

 

If someone after counseling acknowledged he had been in error, I think it is likely he would be released so as not to send the wrong message out there (because there would be a good chance given this day and age that it would have been made public by someone even if not the actual participants) that the policy was just a guideline and not fixed standard, but he might not be disciplined depending on why he did it in the first place.  I would be surprised if he wasn't given all the publicity should have made the Church's position very clear, but I am thinking there might be a small possibility that someone somewhere might not be aware of how strongly the position's been made as well as not aware of this announcement clarifying the policy.

 

Trying to think of a set of facts where a Bishop would actually perform such a ceremony without intending it to be a protest or act of defiance, can't put any scenario together other than the possibility of being duped by a transvestite.  Can't imagine a Bishop not getting bounced out of the Church for having performed such a wedding -- he might be let back in by rebaptism, but I think it would be really tough to avoid getting bounced in the first place.

[rockpond]

Trying to think of a set of facts where a Bishop would actually perform such a ceremony without intending it to be a protest or act of defiance, can't put any scenario together other than the possibility of being duped by a transvestite.  Can't imagine a Bishop not getting bounced out of the Church for having performed such a wedding -- he might be let back in by rebaptism, but I think it would be really tough to avoid getting bounced in the first place.

 

Yeah, I made a similar comment to my bishop on Sunday morning when we discussed this announcement... I said that I can't imagine there is a bishop out there who thinks that it would be okay to use his ecclesiastical authority to perform a gay marriage.

 

I tend to think that one reason for this official statement is likely to have a very clear official statement for legal protection.  (Not saying that's the only reason, just "a" reason.)

[Stone holm]

Yeah, I made a similar comment to my bishop on Sunday morning when we discussed this announcement... I said that I can't imagine there is a bishop out there who thinks that it would be okay to use his ecclesiastical authority to perform a gay marriage.

 

I tend to think that one reason for this official statement is likely to have a very clear official statement for legal protection.  (Not saying that's the only reason, just "a" reason.)

 

I tend to agree, in fact I have slowly rationalized a lot of what the Church has done lately with this issue as primarily documenting a free exercise defense for the future -- otherwise, the pot stirring makes no sense, and a release like this to local leadership is kind of a "duh" moment.

[Calm]

Trying to think of a set of facts where a Bishop would actually perform such a ceremony without intending it to be a protest or act of defiance, can't put any scenario together other than the possibility of being duped by a transvestite.  Can't imagine a Bishop not getting bounced out of the Church for having performed such a wedding -- he might be let back in by rebaptism, but I think it would be really tough to avoid getting bounced in the first place.

The only possibility I can think of is a bishop in some place where gay marriage is not that big of a deal who is relatively new and unfamiliar with the CHI and for some reason doesn't check it first...which seems highly unlikely because surely he would check it to see how he is supposed to perform a wedding in the first place....but he might check the hard copy and not the online which I assume will have this announcement included soon and maybe the hard copy isn't clear about it. But one would think they would be a little insecure due to homosexual behaviour being identified as sinful even if they assumed that was likely because it was outside of marriage....iow, a completely clueless bishop about this issue who may exist somewhere.....given the lack of knowledge of some members, I can't quite rule it out in my mind.

[rockpond]

The only possibility I can think of is a bishop in some place where gay marriage is not that big of a deal who is relatively new and unfamiliar with the CHI and for some reason doesn't check it first...which seems highly unlikely because surely he would check it to see how he is supposed to perform a wedding in the first place....but he might check the hard copy and not the online which I assume will have this announcement included soon and maybe the hard copy isn't clear about it. But one would think they would be a little insecure due to homosexual behaviour being identified as sinful even if they assumed that was likely because it was outside of marriage....iow, a completely clueless bishop about this issue who may exist somewhere.....given the lack of knowledge of some members, I can't quite rule it out in my mind.

 

Alright, so you got me wondering and I decided to take a look at the what the handbook does actually say.  I looked at the online version of Handbook 1 (so that I would have the most up to date version although I'm not sure if they update the online version without sending out a new printed version).

 

Section 3.5 is the Marriage section and, within that, section 3.5.3 is titled Civil Marriage.  It does not make any references to the couple being one man / one woman.  The intro actually has the following statement:  "Civil marriages should be performed in accordance with the laws in the place where the marriage is performed."

 

The only specific reference I could find regarding gender is where it provides the script for the wedding and says that the church officer should not deviate from the script.  The script, of course, refers to husband and wife.

[Stone holm]

The only possibility I can think of is a bishop in some place where gay marriage is not that big of a deal who is relatively new and unfamiliar with the CHI and for some reason doesn't check it first...which seems highly unlikely because surely he would check it to see how he is supposed to perform a wedding in the first place....but he might check the hard copy and not the online which I assume will have this announcement included soon and maybe the hard copy isn't clear about it. But one would think they would be a little insecure due to homosexual behaviour being identified as sinful even if they assumed that was likely because it was outside of marriage....iow, a completely clueless bishop about this issue who may exist somewhere.....given the lack of knowledge of some members, I can't quite rule it out in my mind.

Surely we are not ordaining Bishops that are that clueless.