Scott Lloyd Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 14 minutes ago, Calm said: Probably saw it as equivalent and trimmed as part of the simplifying process. And/or pursuant to reduction of word count, which appears to have been part of the goal. Conciseness is one of the aims of good editing.
Calm Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 1 minute ago, Duncan said: why would anyone go to their Bishop about conception issues? When it was very unusual and a single woman would know she would eventually have to explain or risk discipline, I can see single sisters going to counsel whether they should do it or not with someone they viewed as a father figure....especially back in the 60s and 70s. I remember asking about my dad's view of single sisters adopting, so it had to have been discussed at Church for me to know about it when I was in high school. I can't remember if artificial insemination was also part of the discussion I heard, but I know it was part of the conversation when I was in college. Women brought up to see motherhood as the ultimate role tend to hunger after that role.
pogi Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: 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). I think the wording is definitely softened. "Single sisters who deliberately refuse to follow the counsel of Church leaders in this matter...." vs "Single sisters who pursue this..." The first is actually more "precise" if that is what you are going for, but the second is a much softer wording. I'd also agree with JAHS that "restricting privileges" is a softer way of saying "discipline". I guess that is subjective though. "Discipline" definitely sounds more harsh to me, even though the consequences are the same. I think the softening is intentional and good. I don't think the church wants to be perceived as a "do as I say, or else!" type of dictator; but instead they want to be perceived as a gentle healer who's actions are intended to lift and benefit rather than punish. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 2 minutes ago, cherryTreez said: 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. I wonder why you think it is apt to be shared with other ward leaders. Isn’t this the sort of thing a bishop would typically hold in confidence? Obviously, many couples would not consult the bishop about it. But for those that do, the guideline is in the handbook to guide the bishop in how to respond. Or, as things stand now, to look it up themselves and not have to bother the bishop about it.
pogi Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 19 minutes 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 That's a different story I guess.
CV75 Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 49 minutes ago, Duncan said: 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 Yes -- I think Nephi's wooden bow got the job done after his fine, steel one failed. I think this might be the talk by Elder Perry: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2008/10/let-him-do-it-with-simplicity?lang=eng where he concludes with: "In our search to obtain relief from the stresses of life, may we earnestly seek ways to simplify our lives. May we comply with the inspired counsel and direction the Lord has given us in the great plan of happiness. May we be worthy to have the companionship of the Holy Ghost and follow the guidance of the Spirit as we navigate this mortal journey. May we prepare ourselves to accomplish the ultimate purpose of this mortal test—to return and live with our Heavenly Father—is my prayer in the name of Jesus Christ, amen." I think when someone is spiritually settled in the Lord, they can see the spiritual root of the complex issue and address it first, opening the way for resolution. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 (edited) 11 minutes ago, pogi said: I think the wording is definitely softened. "Single sisters who deliberately refuse to follow the counsel of Church leaders in this matter...." vs "Single sisters who pursue this..." The first is actually more "precise" if that is what you are going for, but the second is a much softer wording. I'd also agree with JAHS that "restricting privileges" is a softer way of saying "discipline". I guess that is subjective though. "Discipline" definitely sounds more harsh to me, even though the consequences are the same. I think the softening is intentional and good. I don't think the church wants to be perceived as a "do as I say, or else!" type of dictator; but instead they want to be perceived as a gentle healer who's actions are intended to lift and benefit rather than punish. I view the second as more precise because the term discipline is broader than the term restriction of privileges. The former could imply the full spectrum of penalties, including excommunication . The latter definitely does not. Furthermore, the first would seem to imply that the person would have to have deliberately ignored counsel to incur the penalty. The second indicates the penalty could be a consequence of “pursuing” the procedure whether or not counsel was received beforehand. So the second is actually harsher in its implication than the first, even if the wording appears softer. Edited February 20, 2020 by Scott Lloyd
Calm Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Or, as things stand now, to look it up themselves and not have to bother the bishop about it. Except the counsel in the handbook is to bother the bishop about it, is it not? Quote Even then, the persons responsible for this decision should consult with each other and with their bishop and should receive divine confirmation of their decision through prayer.”
pogi Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I view the second as more precise because the term discipline is broader than the term restriction of privileges. The former could imply the full spectrum of penalties, including excommunication . The latter definitely does not. I guess they nailed it then. It is both more precise and softer. I do think the softening is intentional though, that seems pretty evident by the first part, and also by the deliberate change in wording for "disciplinary council" to "membership council" , and "disfollowshipment/probation" to "formal membership restrictions". This seems like an obvious softening of language, and I think for good reason - the church doesn't want to be perceived as punitive or shunning. That has been a common accusation against them, and I think they are trying to dispel that myth. All their actions are based in love and lifting. That is why I think we see the change in wording. Edited February 20, 2020 by pogi 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Calm said: Except the counsel in the handbook is to bother the bishop about it, is it not? I suppose so. I had in mind a hypothetical instance in which a couple, not knowing how the Church views the matter, looks it up in the handbook, sees that the Church “strongly discourages” it, and from that alone, goes ahead and decides against it, never having to consult the bishop about it. Personally, seeing what is in the handbook would be enough for me. Edited February 20, 2020 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 8 minutes ago, pogi said: I guess they nailed it then. It is both more precise and softer. I do think the softening is intentional though, that seems pretty evident by the first part, and also by the deliberate change in wording for "disciplinary council" to "membership council" , and "disfollowshipment/probation" to "formal membership restrictions". This seems like an obvious softening of language, and I think for good reason - the church doesn't want to be perceived as punitive or shunning. That has been a common accusation against them, and I think they are trying to dispel that myth. All their actions are based in love and lifting. That is why I think we see the change in wording. I don’t dispute this. I had already observed, even before you pointed it out, that the word discipline seems to have been banished from the guidelines in this area. That said, there is an undeniably punitive character to having one’s membership restricted or withdrawn altogether, even though the ultimate intent is to lift and bless. That is the elephant in the room, even with the softening of phrasing.
stemelbow Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 3 hours ago, smac97 said: So you think fornication is immoral? Thanks, -Smac It appears you misunderstood me. I said "Hopefully someday we won't see members accepting silly things like same-sex marriage is comparable to rampant adultery or fornication." Tp be clear I don't think there is a valid comparison.
smac97 Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 4 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Quote So you think fornication is immoral? It appears you misunderstood me. I said "Hopefully someday we won't see members accepting silly things like same-sex marriage is comparable to rampant adultery or fornication." Tp be clear I don't think there is a valid comparison. Why is the comparison not valid? Why it is "silly?" It seems like you are characterizing the one (same-sex marriage/relations) as being moral/acceptable, and the others (adultery and fornication) as immoral/unacceptable. Thanks, -Smac 1
stemelbow Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 (edited) 6 minutes ago, smac97 said: Why is the comparison not valid? Why it is "silly?" It seems like you are characterizing the one (same-sex marriage/relations) as being moral/acceptable, and the others (adultery and fornication) as immoral/unacceptable. Thanks, -Smac I used the word "rampant" for a reason. It seems you misunderstood me, based on your overlooking that. This has little if anything to do with immoral vs moral. Edited February 20, 2020 by stemelbow
smac97 Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 18 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Quote Why is the comparison not valid? Why it is "silly?" It seems like you are characterizing the one (same-sex marriage/relations) as being moral/acceptable, and the others (adultery and fornication) as immoral/unacceptable. I used the word "rampant" for a reason. I don't understand. Serial adultery/fornication are prohibited, but once in a while is okay? 18 minutes ago, stemelbow said: It seems you misunderstood me, based on your overlooking that. I didn't overlook it. I just don't understand the distinction. 18 minutes ago, stemelbow said: This has little if anything to do with immoral vs moral. Morality is not part of the equation for you? Thanks, -Smac 1
stemelbow Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 21 minutes ago, smac97 said: I don't understand. Serial adultery/fornication are prohibited, but once in a while is okay? This has nothing to do with what's okay or what is not. 21 minutes ago, smac97 said: I didn't overlook it. I just don't understand the distinction. Morality is not part of the equation for you? Thanks, -Smac That's right. the comparison is silly for many reasons. I did not suggest in any way that morality is why it's a silly comparison.
smac97 Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 3 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Quote I don't understand. Serial adultery/fornication are prohibited, but once in a while is okay? This has nothing to do with what's okay or what is not. You just emphasized his use of "rampant" to modify "adultery" and "fornication." Now you are saying that the frequency of adultery/fornication is not relevant? I don't understand your position. 3 minutes ago, stemelbow said: That's right. the comparison is silly for many reasons. I did not suggest in any way that morality is why it's a silly comparison. I don't understand what you are saying here. If morality is not part of the equation, then how are adultery/fornication whether "rampant" or otherwise, a problem? Thanks, -Smac
stemelbow Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 5 minutes ago, smac97 said: You just emphasized his use of "rampant" to modify "adultery" and "fornication." Now you are saying that the frequency of adultery/fornication is not relevant? I don't understand your position. I don't understand what you are saying here. If morality is not part of the equation, then how are adultery/fornication whether "rampant" or otherwise, a problem? Thanks, -Smac What problem are you talking about? The comparison is silly, as I said. You're trying to read too much into it, for some odd reason.
smac97 Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 6 minutes ago, stemelbow said: What problem are you talking about? The comparison is silly, as I said. You're trying to read too much into it, for some odd reason. I'll just chalk it up to you playing the provocateur. Again. I had thought you were making a serious point. Never mind. Thanks, -Smac 1
Ahab Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 7 minutes ago, stemelbow said: What problem are you talking about? The comparison is silly, as I said. You're trying to read too much into it, for some odd reason. I think smac is having problems understanding how same sex marriage is not a valid comparison to adultery or fornication. I think it would help if you told him adultery and fornication can occur within a same sex marriage, whether permitted by the partners or not. I think it would also help if we explained to him that adultery and fornication can occur within an opposite sex marriage as well. Marriage and adultery and fornication are all different things and can not be compared to each other, whether moral or immoral. I know smac knows how to get definitions of words and I'm sure he will eventually figure out what you were talking about but were not explaining very well. Sometimes you just don't come across as very clear, stemelbow. And sometimes I don't either, so who am I to talk. But I think I know what you meant and I agree with what I think you meant.
stemelbow Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 8 minutes ago, smac97 said: I'll just chalk it up to you playing the provocateur. Again. I had thought you were making a serious point. Never mind. Thanks, -Smac I clearly made a serious point. For some reason you continued to attempt to read something else into my comments. I don't know why.
stemelbow Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 6 minutes ago, Ahab said: I think smac is having problems understanding how same sex marriage is not a valid comparison to adultery or fornication. I think you are correct. I find it a silly comparison and not valid for obvious reasons. I realize I can't help him if he's unwilling to listen. I tried and failed.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 On 2/19/2020 at 8:21 AM, DispensatorMysteriorum said: I'm reading over the new Handbook. The term "disciplinary council" is replaced with "membership council." "Excommunication" is now "membership withdrawal." It looks like "disfellowshipment" and "probation" are replaced with "formal membership restrictions." Interesting stuff. Having had to deal with “Disciplinary Counsels”, while serving in our Bishopric, and as a member High Council, every avenue was taken to avoid excommunication, but sadly some gave us no other choice, especially any who ever did certain things to others. I was on the phone with a member of my Bishopric Sunday night, and I was talking to him about Home Teaching, he would continued to call it, “Ministering Angels”, or whatever. I told him, we are not speaking in Sacrament, and you know what I mean, so why keep correcting me? He is young and trying to do his best, but it was clear he did not care for me pointing out that they are the same thing, with just different names. It is odd that we have the idea that by just changing a name, changes every positive or negative thing to do with it.I remember when in the Army, they want the “mess hall” to be called the “dinning facility”, few cared, but some go truly upset for calling it the “mess hall”. No matter what is is called, if you are having to go before the Bishop about some serious moral issue, it is and will be something all parties would prefer not to be involved in, ever!
pogi Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: That said, there is an undeniably punitive character to having one’s membership restricted or withdrawn altogether, even though the ultimate intent is to lift and bless. That is the elephant in the room, even with the softening of phrasing. There are undeniable consequences, but I would not call them "punitive" in nature. I think the better word is rehabilitative. Quote Punitive: intended to punish someone or somethinghttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/punitive Quote The purpose of Church discipline is not to punish...https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-discipline Edited February 20, 2020 by pogi
Scott Lloyd Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 8 minutes ago, pogi said: There are undeniable consequences, but I would not call them "punitive" in nature. I think the better word is rehabilitative. I can accept that. Incidentally, the Newsroom piece you cited gives insights into the now outmoded term discipline, pointing out that it is derived from the root word disciple. Yet it is apparently viewed as too harsh today.
Recommended Posts