No More 'Disciplinary' Councils; Excommunication

[smac97]

10 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Equating a same sex couple who are committed to each other and are legally married  to adulterers and fornicators is offensive to the extreme.  Please stop it.

Huh.  So fornication is a severe sin in your view?

I guess I don't understand the rules.

Thanks,

-Smac

[BlueDreams]

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Until relatively recently (last few decades or so) I believe it would not have been common for healthy married couples in the Church to do something so drastic as to have themselves surgically sterilized. Perhaps the Church leaders thought those who considered it at all would likely seek ecclesiastical counsel first, and the instruction was put in there to guide priesthood leaders who were confronted by it. 
 

I think it became something of a fad among the baby boom and later generations. 
 

The above is only a guess, so don’t bind me to it. As I said, I think it should have been made more widely known before now. I say this because I know of couples who had it done and probably never gave a thought to whether the Church discourages it. 

I've only met one person who's given it a thought because the church discourages it. I regularly talk to couples about reproductive choices and decisions they've made or are planning to make a lot. A lot of couples got it done once they were finished having children (usually after child 2-4....usually 3 or 4). I've met no one who's chatted with their bishop about it and incorporated him into their birth control choices. I work with largely LDS populations and most of the ones who've had the procedure are active good members.

I wouldn't call something that's been happening more regularly for a few decades and spanning a few generations a fad....that's not exactly short-lived.  

With what you're saying, maybe they have a picture of it that is not actually based in what members generally decide with it but is tied to some of the larger cultural trends you hear about (such as people deciding they never want to have children in their 20s and get a procedure then). I hope they one day change the wording because to me it seems contradictory to their overall method of leaving birth control choices up to the couple. Maybe it will be now that the statement will be more available. Hopefully they'll hear more stories like BB''s which are more common with decisions like this. They're rarely made on a whim, almost never made as a first or second solution to birth control, and almost always made when a couple are done having children because of health, age, or numbers (they have as many as they want or feel well raising). 

 

With luv,

BD

 

  

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

I am not saying sexual relations within a same sex marriage aren’t considered a sin like fornication or adultery, I am saying such behaviour is not “fornication” or “adultery” and to call them such is inaccurate. 

The Handbook would appear to agree because it offers a third option that is not fornication or adultery, but “same sex relations”.  If the Church viewed sexual relations in a same sex marriage as fornication or adultery, they wouldn’t use the third category of “same sex relations”. 

I think this may be correct.  Prior to the legalization of same-sex marriage, homosexual behavior was not categorized as either "fornication" or "adultery," but was a sexual sin in and of itself.

Previously, there was obviously the potential for "overlap" between these categories.  An unmarried person could at once commit the sins of "fornication" and "same sex relations" by engaging in the latter.

Similarly, a gay-but-in-a-heterosexual-marriage man could at once commit the sins of "adultery" and "same sex relations" by cheating on his wife with another man.

The overlap is not necessary, though.  Engagin in same sex relations is a per se violation of the Law of Chastity.  Under all circumstances, regardless of marital status.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Hopefully someday we won't see members accepting silly things like same-sex marriage is comparable to rampant adultery or fornication.  

So you think fornication is immoral?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Duncan]

Is there a provision for having your name removed? is that still an option? I wonder what they would call it in these days, "Defriending of BFF"

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I don't see that happening at this time.  I was agreeing with you.

But, over the very long term, I see the move to/from principle-based and detailed/prescriptive as a back and forth process.  Long term I think it will swing back toward being more detailed/prescriptive but I don't have specific thoughts on sections or how that might come about.  I believe that the free-thinking side of us pushes for more principle-based direction.  Our current leaders are giving that to us.  As we get further and further over to that side, we'll start asking questions, demanding specifics... and so, at that time, our leaders will accommodate us.  And, we'll move back towards a detailed and prescriptive model.  And so it goes.

As I said, I think this is just our human nature.  It's not bad or wrong.  Just is what it is.

I understand, i was referring to future changes in the case of the pendulum swinging away from what I've observed for the last 10 years or so (I think I even recall a step toward simplification in the late 90s / early 2000s).

CFM, with less prescriptive lessons and reliance upon authoritative-style teaching, seems to be training the disciples of Christ in how to become more independently grounded and resilient in seeking and gaining spiritual knowledge and conversion through the Spirit, and i think a similar approach is being taken with the handbooks, not only by virtue of organization, tone and content,  but their general distribution to membership. I'm not sure if the horse can get back into the barn (not that it should!), the horse being the benefits of emphasizing the balance of individual discernment with community order falling under the priesthood keys or presidency, revelation, etc.

New issues and questions seem to be coming faster and more furiously, aided by science and technology on one hand and global natural and political threats on the other. My thought is that there is only so much the human mind / human nature can keep up with, especially intellectually in light of increasingly sophisticated inputs (e.g.AI and virtual reality). It seems to me the more nimble approach is a supportive, underlying fabric at the spiritual or intuitive (albeit intentionally so) level.

Edited February 20, 2020 by CV75

[JAHS]

11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Is there a provision for having your name removed? is that still an option? I wonder what they would call it in these days, "Defriending of BFF"

They still call it resignation. They don't really describe how to do it in the handbook. Most subjects related to it are about what to do with members who have resigned.

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I understand, i was referring to future changes in the case of the pendulum swinging away from what I've observed for the last 10 years or so (I think I even recall a step toward simplification in the late 90s / early 2000s).

CFM, with less prescriptive lessons and reliance upon authoritative-style teaching, seems to be training the disciples of Christ in how to become more independently grounded and resilient in seeking and gaining spiritual knowledge and conversion through the Spirit, and i think a similar approach is being taken with the handbooks, not only by virtue of organization, tone and content,  but their general distribution to membership. I'm not sure if the horse can get back into the barn (not that it should!), the horse being the benefits of emphasizing the balance of individual discernment with community order falling under the priesthood keys or presidency, revelation, etc.

New issues and questions seem to be coming faster and more furiously, aided by science and technology on one hand and global natural and political threats on the other. My thought is that there is only so much the human mind / human nature can keep up with, especially intellectually in light of increasingly sophisticated inputs (e.g.AI and virtual reality). It seems to me the more nimble approach is a supportive, underlying fabric at the spiritual or intuitive (albeit intentionally so) level.

I hope you are right.  And you could be.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think the handbook does that because definitions have become fuzzy with the relatively recent legalization of same sex marriage. 

Yes.  Which is, imo, a pretty good indication we should as well.

[Duncan]

28 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I understand, i was referring to future changes in the case of the pendulum swinging away from what I've observed for the last 10 years or so (I think I even recall a step toward simplification in the late 90s / early 2000s).

CFM, with less prescriptive lessons and reliance upon authoritative-style teaching, seems to be training the disciples of Christ in how to become more independently grounded and resilient in seeking and gaining spiritual knowledge and conversion through the Spirit, and i think a similar approach is being taken with the handbooks, not only by virtue of organization, tone and content,  but their general distribution to membership. I'm not sure if the horse can get back into the barn (not that it should!), the horse being the benefits of emphasizing the balance of individual discernment with community order falling under the priesthood keys or presidency, revelation, etc.

New issues and questions seem to be coming faster and more furiously, aided by science and technology on one hand and global natural and political threats on the other. My thought is that there is only so much the human mind / human nature can keep up with, especially intellectually in light of increasingly sophisticated inputs (e.g.AI and virtual reality). It seems to me the more nimble approach is a supportive, underlying fabric at the spiritual or intuitive (albeit intentionally so) level.

I think it was Elder L. Tom Perry who said the more complex the situation the simpler the approach has to be and hopefully it'll get resolved. Like the Astronauts in space who couldn't figure out how to write in pen and they came up with all kinds of solutions but the Russians just used a pencil-I don't know if that;s even true but you know what I mean

[JAHS]

Old Handbook
Artificial insemination of single sisters is not approved. Single sisters who deliberately refuse to follow the counsel of Church leaders in this matter are subject to Church discipline. 😬😨

New Handbook
Artificial insemination of single sisters is not approved. Single sisters who pursue this may have some privileges of Church membership restricted. 😌
 

Interesting haw they have softened the wording on things like this.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, cherryTreez said:

Not if pregnancy means death or permanent damage to you and a baby. Then you both get it done and double and triple checked to make sure.  

As I’ve said, the policy as written allows for such exceptions. 

[Duncan]

7 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Old Handbook
Artificial insemination of single sisters is not approved. Single sisters who deliberately refuse to follow the counsel of Church leaders in this matter are subject to Church discipline. 😬😨

New Handbook
Artificial insemination of single sisters is not approved. Single sisters who pursue this may have some privileges of Church membership restricted. 😌
 

Interesting haw they have softened the wording on things like this.

I wonder how a Bishop would even know they have had this done? I wouldn't go around telling everyone how the child was conceived, yikes!!!!

[JAHS]

Interesting change on Birth Control:
Old Handbook:
Married couples should also understand that sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a way of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife.

New Handbook
Physical intimacy between husband and wife is intended to be beautiful and sacred. It is ordained of God for the creation of children and for the expression of love between husband and wife.  (but not strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds?)

 

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I wonder how a Bishop would even know they have had this done? I wouldn't go around telling everyone how the child was conceived, yikes!!!!

I think women who have this done would see themselves as not breaking the Law of Chastity and therefore when asked (and they surely would be asked once they were obviously pregnant or showed up at Church with a new baby wanting it to be given a name), would explain, especially if the other option was a council.

[Calm]

1 minute ago, JAHS said:

Interesting change on Birth Control:
Old Handbook:
Married couples should also understand that sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a way of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife.

New Handbook
Physical intimacy between husband and wife is intended to be beautiful and sacred. It is ordained of God for the creation of children and for the expression of love between husband and wife.  (but not strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds?)

 

Probably saw it as equivalent and trimmed as part of the simplifying process.

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Old Handbook
Artificial insemination of single sisters is not approved. Single sisters who deliberately refuse to follow the counsel of Church leaders in this matter are subject to Church discipline. 😬😨

New Handbook
Artificial insemination of single sisters is not approved. Single sisters who pursue this may have some privileges of Church membership restricted. 😌
 

Interesting haw they have softened the wording on things like this.

Maybe not softened so much as made more precise. Having privileges restricted is, in effect, discipline, but the new wording denotes more precisely what happens. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think under the old handbook the penalty would ever have been as severe as full excommunication (or as it is now phrased, withdrawal of membership). 

[pogi]

23 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I wonder how a Bishop would even know they have had this done? I wouldn't go around telling everyone how the child was conceived, yikes!!!!

If a single sister shows up pregnant to church...ya, the Bishop is going to have some questions for her. 

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I wonder how a Bishop would even know they have had this done? I wouldn't go around telling everyone how the child was conceived, yikes!!!!

The wording implies that the offense would not be merely undergoing the procedure but doing it after being counseled not to. 
 

Edited to add: Oops. Just re-read it. The old wording implies this but the new wording does not. 

Edited February 20, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

If a single sister shows up pregnant to church...ya, the Bishop is going to have some questions for her. 

what if she was married and was artificially inseminated by someone else, husband and her couldn't conceive and they went to a sperm bank

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

what if she was married and was artificially inseminated by someone else, husband and her couldn't conceive and they went to a sperm bank

Specified "single sister" in the handbook so not an issue with married couples...at least that particular section.

Edited February 20, 2020 by Calm

[Duncan]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

The wording implies that the offense would not be merely undergoing the procedure but doing it after being counseled not to. 

I dunno, why would anyone go to their Bishop about conception issues? Most likely he isn't a Dr. I take it that a single sister having this done wouldn't tell her Bishop until after conception and by that time it's to late for councilling.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The wording implies that the offense would not be merely undergoing the procedure but doing it after being counseled not to. 

And if she didn't ask, but went ahead and did it, then there would be no reason for a council in your view?

[cherryTreez]

30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As I’ve said, the policy as written allows for such exceptions. 

I wonder why you would need to talk to the bishop about it? I know that I don't want anyone outside my family knowing my medical problems. It's no one else's problem and I wouldn't want it out there at ward council or even the relief society president knowing about it. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I hope you are right.  And you could be.

It would be nice if this approach, which is very friendly to African/Asian attitudes is a sign of good things to come! :)