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

[Zakuska]

Wouldn't such a view require the Church to disqualify an action that was legal as grounds for discipline?  In other words - legal to drink, smoke pot, fornicate, look at porn, lie to a friend, etc - then the church would not be following the law of the land for disciplining such behaviors?

It doesnt work like that. According to the D&C a Bishop (hereinafter judge in Israel, "JII") must first determine if any civil laws have been violated, if they have the JII is legally obligated to deliver said violater to civil Authorites. At that point he makes a determination if any church laws have also been broken and then takes appropriate ecclesiastical disciplinary actions as needed.

In every single one of your cases above, depending on where the person lives It may or may not be against the law. (did you know lieing to a friend is against the law of the USA lookup "bearing false witness")

Polygamy laws fit right in this scenario too. The church is obligated to report violators to the US government (currently they do) then the church has also chosen to excommunicate them. None of these violates the law when discipline is envoked.

However, If civil law is not violated then the JII can go ahead and discipline ecclesiastically as needed or not at all.

However the SSML is different.

The JII would look at the case, no Civil law is violated, but it does violate church law. But in this particular case he can't just discipline because in so doing he violating protected class legislation.

[SmileyMcGee]

Well, you make the question unanswerable, given your above comments, and make it largely a matter of personal value judgment -- which in Western civilization is the standard by which we judge nearly everything, i.e., personal perception is everything, and there are no absolute standards.  Everything is relative and based on the social construction of reality.  Any other notion is gauche.

I don't see how I could attribute morality to anything but personal preference, however that preference is determined. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Minds and attitudes change.  This happens all the time including within the church.  Polygamy is a good example.  This core practice was jettisoned.  I'm sure you are aware of  BY, WW and others stating that would never happen.

Regarding this notion (waiting around for "minds and attitudes" to change) Dr. Peterson has a humorous blog post today.

 

There are people out there working very hard to save us Mormons from ourselves and, by redefining our faith to accord more fully with current secular-progressive ideology, to try to make Mormonism less of a force for evil, hatred, exclusion, sheer obsolescence, and cruel harm.

 

Like the Buddha, who found enlightenment but nevertheless graciously chose to remain in this rather dismal life in order to help others attain enlightenment too, some of them have chosen to remain members of the Church.  As the Latin credo says of Jesus, qui propter nos homines et nostram salutem descendit de coelis ["For us and our salvation He came down from heaven"].

 

There’s a bit of a power struggle, of course:  The really deficient old white males who monopolize the highest offices in the Church refuse to hand their power over to those who should have it.

 

But the effort goes on, and we simple-minded Neanderthals should feel both honored and grateful for that:

 

But take heart, sunstoned and sjdawg and rockpond and gray. Dehlin's 40-year prophecy is just 39 years, 2 months, 3 weeks, 1 day, 6 hours, 8 minutes and 28 seconds away from fulfillment. You might even live to see it.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Russell C McGregor]

It doesnt work like that. According to the D&C a Bishop (hereinafter judge in Israel, "JII") must first determine if any civil laws have been violated, if they have the JII is legally obligated to deliver said violater to civil Authorites. At that point he makes a determination if any church laws have also been broken and then takes appropriate ecclesiastical disciplinary actions as needed.

In every single one of your cases above, depending on where the person lives It may or may not be against the law. (did you know lieing to a friend is against the law of the USA lookup "bearing false witness")

Polygamy laws fit right in this scenario too. The church is obligated to report violators to the US government (currently they do) then the church has also chosen to excommunicate them. None of these violates the law when discipline is envoked.

However, If civil law is not violated then the JII can go ahead and discipline ecclesiastically as needed or not at all.

However the SSML is different.

The JII would look at the case, no Civil law is violated, but it does violate church law. But in this particular case he can't just discipline because in so doing he violating protected class legislation.

Really?

What does the "protected class legislation" say?

That the "protected" (or privileged) class can demand that all rules be suspended in their favour?

Do you have a reference to support this absurd claim?

[Zakuska]

Eh?

Doesn't pass legal muster?

Of what laws is the Church in breach?

Protected class laws.

 

So, in your view, the Church cannot legally withhold a Temple recommend for fornication. Or smoking. Or drinking. Or non-tithepaying.

After all, the law permits all of those activities.

Your comparing meat loaf to mole hills. A Temple recommend is not equal to church membership. There's a big difference.

Anti-Discrimination laws could bring down the membership and excommunication portion of this policy. If some one had a gutsy enough lawyer to try it.

At that point the church would have to elevate baptism and baby blessing away from mere membeship processes to keep them out of those "filthy unclean homosexuals hands".

We will have to bring back the the catechumen class into the church. To differentiate between the unwashed masses. The member in training. Then the washed members.

 

The Church regularly excommunicates people for adultery. The law permits adultery.

It does?

It's illegal in 23 of the 50 states.

https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8&q=adultuery%20laws%20in%20the%20usa&oq=adultuery%20laws%20in%20the%20usa&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.4272j0j7

According to the D&C AND Handbook 1 the Bishop/SP in those 23 states are obligated to report said adultery to the police. Only then can they also decide to impose church discipline.

 

The Church regularly excommunicates people for apostasy, and yet the law not only permits but protects people who leave the Church and rail against it.

I Agree.

Apostasy isn't against the civil law since its strictly defined as a violation of church law.

However, There could be an objection made to the church defining gay marriage as Apostasy in violation of anti-discrimination laws.

 

What "contractual obligation" is that?

Are you labouring under the delusion that we are breaking the law if we don't permit every kind of licentiousness the civil law permits?

Do you really think the laws of God are always, everywhere and exactly equal to the laws of man?

Not at all. But according to church law (You know our Canonized D&C from God himself in this dispensations) We must hold every civil law inviolate.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Zakuska

[Daniel2]

Does the new Policy even pass legal scrutiny?

There is a foundational doctrine in the LDS church which states we must abide by the laws of the land. You can read about it in D&C 98.

This is doubly reinforced by the New Testament: Romans 13: 1-14

So the LDS church is doubly bound to abide by the laws of the land. It's a contractual relationship between heaven and earth and both sides must abide by the contract for the relationship to work. Therefore any policy that grants or denies membership based on laws that are legally binding on the other side cannot stand. Based on this fundamental principle, the new church Policy as it stands now, doesn't pass legal muster.

Since the law of the land recognizes SSM as legal the church must also recognize it to abide by its contractual obligations and cannot use that as grounds for excommunication. This same principle is what allows and actually requires the church to excommunicate for polygamy.

This makes the definition of SMM in the new policy as apostasy and grounds for excommunication, illegal, because it breaks the contractual obligation of the church to recognize that marriage civilly.

To maintain the structural integrity of this contract between heaven and earth, all religious rights associated with initiation of a membership record must be decoupled from heavenly rights. This would include Baby Blessings and Baptism.

By doing this both sides of the contract are maintained.

 

Huh...?  I don't follow the reasoning here.

 

But I'm happy to say that I have no problem with the legality of the church's policy identifying that individuals who enter same-sex marriages are committing apostasy and should be subject to church discipline, including excommunication, and fully support the church's legal autonomy in doing so.  The church's decision to do so doesn't violate any anti-discrimination laws.

 

Church leaders have upheld the legal recognition of same-sex marriage (Dallin Oak's recent comments that county clerks should uphold the law by extending marriage licenses when required by the conditions of their job, for example).

 

But beyond honoring and sustaining the law in public places, the church isn't legally bound to recognize such marriages as spiritually valid within the doctrines of the Faith.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Daniel2

[Scott Lloyd]

Absolutely, we are often not ready for things our leadership could reveal.  Brigham said it was as hard to put new ideas into the Saints heads as it was to pound a hickory knot with a piece of cornbread for a wedge, and a melon for a hammer. (para.)

 

I'm trying to find the interview where Oaks said we (as a people) might not have been ready before 1978.  Unfortunately there is a lot of anti-Mormon crap that comes up in my browser when I search for race and priesthood and Oaks.

 

I will withdraw the assertion for now, and if I find it later I will share it.

 

 

No need to withdraw it, as I said I was not issuing a formal CFR.

 

I don't doubt that he said it, it's just that I'd be interested to see it if so.

KevinG, could this have been the interview that you had in mind, and is this the passage that you were thinking about?

 

Helen Whitney: I know you weren’t there, but you’ve obviously talked to people who were there. Is there anything that you could vivify for us? 

Dallin H. Oaks: What I heard about the revelation on the priesthood can’t add anything to the eyewitnesses that were there. But I would like to speak of that in terms of what I know about revelation. Revelation comes in a lot of different ways. God speaks to His children in many ways. A face-to-face vision of God is very rare. That was the First Vision of God to Joseph Smith. Another way that revelation comes is by the appearance of an angel. The Apostle Paul had that kind of experience. Revelation can also come in a dream or a vision. None of those were the experience in the revelation on the priesthood. Other ways that revelation comes are in comfort (feeling of comfort), information, communicating restraint, or impelling one to do something, or to give a feeling. 

I think in the context of the descriptions that I have heard from my Brethren in the Quorum of the Twelve about the revelation on the priesthood that was revelation that confirmed what they desired and gave them a feeling of rightness about the time. The prophet of the Lord, President Spencer W. Kimball, had pleaded with the Lord for guidance on this problem the Church faced as it became a worldwide church. It came in contact with more and more good and worthy and wonderful people who desired the blessings of the restored gospel and were blocked by the Church’s position that they could not receive the priesthood. And I think everyone in that room desired and wished and hoped that the Lord would say, “This is the time.” 

So they went to the Lord, I think with a semi-proposal, that this be done. But I was not there. I didn’t hear the words spoken. But I have the feeling that everyone felt the need, everyone felt the rightness of it. I say a “semi-proposal” because often when we pray for guidance we say, “I’m inclined to do this, is this right?” We look for confirmation. I’ve had that experience many times of confirming an action. Sometimes I’ll feel a restraint. I propose to do something and the feeling is profound: “Don’t do it!” And I think that as I’ve heard the explanations that this was a profound feeling to confirm the rightness and the timing of what was being asked, and the feeling was sufficiently profound and sufficiently individual that people have described it in different ways. But it fits for me within many revelatory experiences I’ve had in my life.

 

[Zakuska]

Anti Discrimnation laws against LGBT.

Twenty-two states plus Washington, D.C and Puerto Rico outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation, and nineteen states plus Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico outlaw discrimination based on gender identity or expression.[3] Hate crimes based on sexual orientation or gender identity are also punishable by federal law under the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. In 2012 the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not allow gender identity-based employment discrimination because it is a form of sex discrimination.[4] In 2015, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission concluded that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not allow sexual orientation discrimination in employment because it is a form of sex discrimination.[5][6]

 

Adoption of children by same-sex married couples is legal nationwide since June 2015. However, policies regarding adoption vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Some allow adoption by all couples, while others ban all unmarried couples from adoption.[7]

Civil rights for LGBT people in the United States are advocated by a variety of organizations at all levels and concentrations of political and legal life, including the Human Rights Campaign,[8] Lambda Legal, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_States

 

In 22 states if the church discriminates against LGBT couples they are breaking the civil law to which D&C 134 pledges we will never do.  This isn't the first time the church has broken its own laws though. They did it when they engaging in Prop 8 Contra  D&C 134:9

 

You bet the ACLU will be jumping on this policy.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Zakuska

[Gray]

Anti Discrimnation laws against LGBT.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_States

 

In 22 states if the church discriminates against LGBT couples they are breaking the law. Yopu bet the ACLU will be jumping on this policy.

 

Churches and private clubs are exempt from such laws. 

[Jeanne]

It would be ever so interesting to see what Ward members would be willing to accept..without the policy.  There are loving people that wouldn't think twice about SSM baby blessings and baptism.  The church has created this wall that doesn't need to be there.

[Gray]

Regarding this notion (waiting around for "minds and attitudes" to change) Dr. Peterson has a humorous blog post today.

 

But take heart, sunstoned and sjdawg and rockpond and gray. Dehlin's 40-year prophecy is just 39 years, 2 months, 3 weeks, 1 day, 6 hours, 8 minutes and 28 seconds away from fulfillment. You might even live to see it.

 

I thought you had abandoned your countdown clock. I'm happy to see you have not

[Scott Lloyd]

And yet you aren't kicking that family out of your rental unit.

 

I understand your point.  I believe that there should never be a conflict between the love of parents for a child and the truth of the gospel.  So, I think we need to take a step back and reexamine the whole situation.

Conceivably, she could kick them out, if the situation warranted it.

The principle holds true in any case.

No analogy applies in each and every particular. That doesn't invalidate the comparison.

[Zakuska]

Churches and private clubs are exempt from such laws. 

 

Oh... but you bet the ACLU is going to be fighting for those rights.

 

If Congress can make anti-Polygamy laws and regulate our religious practices.  You bet theyre going to create anti-gay discrimination laws and force them on us too. 1st amendment be da---d.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Zakuska

[Scott Lloyd]

I thought you had abandoned your countdown clock. I'm happy to see you have not

Can you believe it has been running for nearly a year? And if anything, we are farther away than ever before from fulfillment of the prediction.

[Zakuska]

The First Amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion, which means the government cannot require what you claim it can.

 

In fact, the majority opinion in the Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage explicitly recognizes the constitutional right of religious organizations to do as they see fit in this matter, as Elder Oaks pointed out in his recent speech to the Second Annual Sacramento Court/Clergy Conference:

 

 

(Emphasis mine)

 

If the 1st Ammendment "guarentees" free exercise of religion then how in the heck did all this happen Scott?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_Latter_Day_Saint_polygamy

 

Where was the first Amendment when our forefathers-and-their-wives-and their-children were hiding out in dugouts in the backwoods all over Utah running from the law? 1st amendment did them a lot of good.

 

There are no guarantees when the Government is involved.

 

As Brigham young once said in the Captial Building of Utah...

 

"If the Government of the United States, in Congress assembled, had the right to pass an anti-polygamy bill, they had also the right to pass a law that slaves should not be abused as they have been; they had also a right to make a law that negroes should be used like human beings, and not worse than dumb brutes. For their abuse of that race, the whites will be cursed, unless they repent."

 

What Congress wants Congress gets 1st Ammendment be da--d.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Zakuska

[Tsuzuki]

For those who do not give religion any credence, that may not matter at all.

Not all religions condemn homosexuality. You might as well call bacon an intrinsic evil.

[Rivers]

The proclamation may not even need revising, just supplemental spin:

"We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman..."

-One could argue that "procative power" is not the same as sexual intercourse, since sexual intercourse between sterile individual does not contain procreative power. This statement could therefore be seen as explanatory and not a moral judgment.

This part is really important. This, in my view, is is why we have such strict commandments concerning sexuality. Sex creates life. That is an extraordinarily significant power.

So should we could stop prohibiting gay sex since it doesn't create life?

[Russell C McGregor]

If the 1st Ammendment "guarentees" free exercise of religion then how in the heck did all this happen Scott?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_Latter_Day_Saint_polygamy

 

Where was the first Amendment when our forefathers-and-their-wives-and their-children were hiding out in dugouts in the backwoods all over Utah running from the law? 1st amendment did them a lot of good.

 

There are no guarantees when the Government is involved.

 

As Brigham young once said in the Captial Building of Utah...

 

"If the Government of the United States, in Congress assembled, had the right to pass an anti-polygamy bill, they had also the right to pass a law that slaves should not be abused as they have been; they had also a right to make a law that negroes should be used like human beings, and not worse than dumb brutes. For their abuse of that race, the whites will be cursed, unless they repent."

 

What Congress wants Congress gets 1st Ammendment be da--d.

Yes, governments have power to use force.

That doesn't mean the Church is wrong to have its own membership requirements.

[Damien the Leper]

So believing and asserting that there is a gay juggernaut is now a violation of the rules of participation on this board? Who made that declaration and when did it happen?

 

Let me be the test case: I here and now declare and affirm with certainty and without equivocation that the gay pressure groups do indeed constitute a juggernaut and that said juggernaut has been very effective and formidable in a very short time. Furthermore, some members of this movement are extremists in that they have no tolerance for such moderating measures as the Utah Compromise recently enacted by the Utah Legislature, or the current policy of the Boy Scouts of America, which allows sponsoring units to determine for themselves whether to appoint gay Scoutmasters. To the extent that individuals have taken on such a scorched-earth attitude, they constitute a threat to the First Amendment principles of religious liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of association, and they ought to be vigorously opposed.

 

There now. You or others may proceed to report me. I will await adjudication by the moderating team and will convey the resulting action (or inaction, as the case may be).

I apologize, Scott. I am going to retract and clarify because I believe that I agree with your post here.

The juggernaut does exist but I didn't want it to derail the thread as a result of a comparison I made.

[Zakuska]

Yes, governments have power to use force.

That doesn't mean the Church is wrong to have its own membership requirements.

Didn't say it was wrong. Just don't whine when some one in the LGBT and ACLU to try to get the government to force the issue again.

History tends to repeat itself.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Zakuska

[Damien the Leper]

I got the impression he was simply declaring it off topic for his own thread as you, iirc, have declared certain variations on a theme inappropriate for a thread you've started. He can confirm if I am wrong.

  

If that is what he means, then I would withdraw my challenge. I respect the prerogative of an individual to set the topical parameters of a thread he/she starts. As you correctly point out, I have done so myself.

Thank you both for your contributions and Calmoriah is correct. Apologies, again, for confusion, Scott.

[Ahab]

This part is really important. This, in my view, is is why we have such strict commandments concerning sexuality. Sex creates life. That is an extraordinarily significant power.

Let's revise/clarify that statement before we go any further. Sex, or sexual relations, perpetuates life in some cases. The word create works too but only as long as everyone understands we're not talking about creating from nothing.

So should we could stop prohibiting gay sex since it doesn't create life?

You know what their argument is on that point, don't you? Sexual relations between opposite sex couples doesn't always produce offspring so let's not make this about whether or not children could be produced. Edited November 19, 2015 by Ahab

[Russell C McGregor]

Protected class laws.

 

Your comparing meat loaf to mole hills. A Temple recommend is not equal to church membership. There's a big difference.

Anti-Discrimination laws could bring down the membership and excommunication portion of this policy. If some one had a gutsy enough lawyer to try it.

So you think governments should dictate to churches what moral criteria they have for membership?

Amazing!

 

At that point the church would have to elevate baptism and baby blessing away from mere membeship processes to keep them out of those "filthy unclean homosexuals hands".

Who are you quoting, Zak?

 

I Agree.

Apostasy isn't against the civil law since its strictly defined as a violation of church law.

However, There could be an objection made to the church defining gay marriage as Apostasy in violation of anti-discrimination laws.

Not in any plausibly free country.

 

Not at all. But according to church law (You know our Canonized D&C from God himself in this dispensations) We must hold every civil law inviolate.

No. It doesn't actually say that.

Doctrine and Covenants 134:

4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

10 We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

 

 

Regardless of whether there is any gang of privileged zealots willing to wage "lawfare" against the Church of Jesus Christ, the fact remains that it is in the right.

[rockpond]

The Church does not allow those who enter into polygamy to retain their membership; why should it allow this who enter into gay "marriage" to do so? One is just as wrong as the other.

 

I didn't say it should.  I was asked what I would recommend doing to make the church more welcoming to gay members.

[Gray]

Oh... but you bet the ACLU is going to be fighting for those rights.

 

If Congress can make anti-Polygamy laws and regulate our religious practices.  You bet theyre going to create anti-gay discrimination laws and force them on us too. 1st amendment be da---d.

 

I think you'd lose that bet.