No More 'Disciplinary' Councils; Excommunication

[pogi]

 

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

I noticed and chuckled at that too when it said, "the term discipline is an "important" one"...  Technically, I agree, it is the perfect word to describe the process when you consider the root derivative etc., but that is not how the word is perceived in general, as you point out, and perceptions do matter in language. 

Edited February 20, 2020 by pogi

[Calm]

16 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.

Is it the word "fornicating" with its religious associations that is offensive or the comparison with the act?  Would "premarital sex" be seen as offensive given how many do not view premarital sex as immoral while pretty much everyone still views adultery as "cheating" and therefore immoral even if common?

For me equating premarital sex and same sex sexual relations seems reasonable given that both acts are seen by the much of general population now as moral while the Church continues to hold both are immoral.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour 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 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.

I believe Smac understands better than you think.

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I believe Smac understands better than you think.

Could be.  I believe that is possible.

[cherryTreez]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

Because telling him about why I shouldn't have more kids would detail my health problems and he would tell others.  It happens in this ward and other wards. They want to let others know so that they can 'help' you.  I don't want anyone in my ward knowing anything about my medical problems.   Stuff like this gets talked about all the time. OH so and so had this health problem and this and this. I don't want to be talked about like that ever.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, cherryTreez said:

They want to let others know so that they can 'help' you.

Yep.

Thankfully I don't mind in the least as people generally ask if something is helpful before doing it.

I get why someone wouldn't want to.  You get put into a box for one thing.  Right now that works for me, but if I ever get my medical miracle I might change my mind.

Edited February 20, 2020 by Calm

[Ahab]

42 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is it the word "fornicating" with its religious associations that is offensive or the comparison with the act?  Would "premarital sex" be seen as offensive given how many do not view premarital sex as immoral while pretty much everyone still views adultery as "cheating" and therefore immoral even if common?

For me equating premarital sex and same sex sexual relations seems reasonable given that both acts are seen by the much of general population now as moral while the Church continues to hold both are immoral.

I believe basic definitions should suffice.  These are real live definitions that I just pulled up real quick with Google, not definitions I am making up from out of nowhere:

for·ni·ca·tion  sexual intercourse between people not married to each other.

a·dul·ter·y  voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not his or her spouse.

mar·riage the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship

 

They are each separate things and there is no comparison between one thing and another, even though they all involve people and 2 of the 3 involves a sexual act of some kind. 

Marriage does not necessarily involve an act of sexual relations although most people who are married to each other do act in some form of sexual relations together.

 

 

Edited February 20, 2020 by Ahab

[Scott Lloyd]

32 minutes ago, cherryTreez said:

Because telling him about why I shouldn't have more kids would detail my health problems and he would tell others.  It happens in this ward and other wards. They want to let others know so that they can 'help' you.  I don't want anyone in my ward knowing anything about my medical problems.   Stuff like this gets talked about all the time. OH so and so had this health problem and this and this. I don't want to be talked about like that ever.

 

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yep.

Thankfully I don't mind in the least as people generally ask if something is helpful before doing it.

I get why someone wouldn't want to.  You get put into a box for one thing.  Right now that works for me, but if I ever get my medical miracle I might change my mind.

Couldn’t you just make it clear to the bishop in the interview that you want it held in the strictest confidence? 
 

Call me naive, but I was under the impression that for a bishop, keeping confidences is part of the job description. 

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Couldn’t you just make it clear to the bishop in the interview that you want it held in the strictest confidence? 
 

My guess is it might be difficult for him to suggest help is needed without explaining some details.

 I haven't been involved in the behind the scenes myself when people have asked for confidence so I don't know what happened...I don't know if they made it clear or thought it was clear, details might have been shared by someone else (spouse, close friend).

[cherryTreez]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Yep.

Thankfully I don't mind in the least as people generally ask if something is helpful before doing it.

I get why someone wouldn't want to.  You get put into a box for one thing.  Right now that works for me, but if I ever get my medical miracle I might change my mind.

If I need help, I would ask my family.  I have a large extended family. I would never feel comfortable with someone else knowing my medical information and being around them while in pain. I would try to hide the pain and then it makes things worse for me.  

I had help from people in our last ward when my daughter was stillborn. The pity and poor you was horrible. It was all so fake. I will do all that I can to avoid any of that again.

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, cherryTreez said:

If I need help, I would ask my family.  I have a large extended family. I would never feel comfortable with someone else knowing my medical information and being around them while in pain. I would try to hide the pain and then it makes things worse for me.  

I had help from people in our last ward when my daughter was stillborn. The pity and poor you was horrible. It was all so fake. I will do all that I can to avoid any of that again.

My family all have their own issues and I am often seen as the caregiver because, let's face it, I am so dang good at it (when functioning).

I am very grateful that my experience with asking for help from church members have all been very positive.

Edited February 21, 2020 by Calm

[sunstoned]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Is it the word "fornicating" with its religious associations that is offensive or the comparison with the act?  Would "premarital sex" be seen as offensive given how many do not view premarital sex as immoral while pretty much everyone still views adultery as "cheating" and therefore immoral even if common?

For me equating premarital sex and same sex sexual relations seems reasonable given that both acts are seen by the much of general population now as moral while the Church continues to hold both are immoral.

My comments back to Scott were in the context of a married same sex couple. A legally married couple does not commit fornication when they have marital relations.  Because they are married, it is not premarital sex.   Scott obviously has a different opinion than the SCOTUS, but the reality is gay couples can be legally married. Calling their relationship what he did is offensive.

[sunstoned]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

I guess I don't understand the rules.

Thanks,

-Smac

A married same sex couple does not commit fornication when they have marital relations.

[JAHS]

16 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

A married same sex couple does not commit fornication when they have marital relations.

In the eyes of the law and the rest of the world, No. In the eyes of God, yes.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

My comments back to Scott were in the context of a married same sex couple. A legally married couple does not commit fornication when they have marital relations.  Because they are married, it is not premarital sex.   Scott obviously has a different opinion than the SCOTUS, but the reality is gay couples can be legally married. Calling their relationship what he did is offensive.

I agree.  But it does not change the fact that they engage in the third category of what are defined as immoral violations of the Law of Chastity, which are adultery, fornication or premarital sex, and same sex relations.  They are certainly not identical actions, but they all qualify as law of Chastity violations occurring to the Church.  

This definition of a legal marriage as immoral may be offensive to many (even to some of those who see polygamy as immoral even when legal as they see a different power dynamic that adds a different category of morality to that behaviour) but it makes sense to operate within the Church by Church standards.

Your response was, I believe, in regards to this comment:

Quote

Some heterosexual adulterers and fornicators feel quite justified in their behavior as well. Should they be given callings too?
 

My interpretation is that he is asking if one category of LoC violations are given callings, what is the rationale for not giving it to the other two identified behaviours.  This is separate, imo, from a discussion on whether or not same sex relations in a marriage should be included under Law of Chastity violations.

Would it have been less offensive if it was "some heterosexuals who have premarital sex believe there is nothing immoral in doing so and therefore feel justified/blameless in their behaviour, should they be given callings as well?" (Most adulterers probably don't feel justified in their behaviour because they see it as moral given how most of the greater culture portrays adultery as cheating, even when it appears they are bragging about it, there is some other type of justification going on, so I am ignoring that behaviour as too complicated for a hopefully relatively simple analysis and discussion)

To me, this seems parallel to the same sex marriage situation (though I don't see adultery as parallel).  A large percentage of society views neither as immoral while Church standards identify both as such.

Scott can correct me if I have misinterpreted him.

Edited February 21, 2020 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

My guess is it might be difficult for him to suggest help is needed without explaining some details.

But if what he has learned is confidential, he is not free to disclose those details, anxious though he might be to suggest that help is needed. A bishop who grasps his calling ought to understand this.

Quote

 I haven't been involved in the behind the scenes myself when people have asked for confidence so I don't know what happened...I don't know if they made it clear or thought it was clear, details might have been shared by someone else (spouse, close friend).

I've served in ancillary roles (executive secretary twice and assistant clerk twice) enough to know that bishops typically take their obligation of confidentially seriously. (By this, I don't mean to imply that I was privy to confidential information.)

Edited February 21, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But if what he has learned is confidential, he is not free to disclose those details, anxious though he might be to suggest that help is needed. A bishop who grasps his calling ought to understand this.

I've served in ancillary roles (executive secretary twice and assistant clerk twice) enough to know that bishops typically take their obligation of confidentially seriously. (By this, I don't mean to imply that I was privy to confidential information.)

The rules for confidentiality are excellent, imo, but we don't share our confidences with rules, we share them with men...who have weaknesses sometimes.

I believe most of my bishops were good at keeping confidences based on the rest of their personality.  There was one I wouldn't trust in the least as he was dismissive of others' concerns from what I could tell, certainly of mine, and wasn't that deeply committed to the calling.  His level of trustworthiness was later demonstrated to me (after he was released) by my learning through my friend of his flirting and then seducing women he worked with (was a school principle, so great example to the kids).  He was excommunicated only after she finally refused to stay quiet, but never ceased trying to 'rekindle' the relationship.  And was apparently good at lying about it to leaders because he got rebaptized exactly a year after excommunication.

Another of my bishops had an affair while a bishop.  Whether or not he kept others' info confidential when asked, I don't know, but I think it unlikely he cared by the end of it.

Bishops are human.  Some give into temptation.  Some may break confidentiality because of what they believe are good reasons, such as thinking they know better than the individual what they need (had a bishop  like that, but don't know if there was a confidentiality issue) or because they see suffering and feel driven to do something to help.  Some are probably just careless, talking with the one in need in the presence of others or sharing info with another leader during a council rather than one on one private conversation.  Or they may break it for petty reasons or laziness or personal advantage.  Hopefully there are few of those, but I know they exist.

Unless you have known your bishop well for a long time, there is no guarantee he will be one to respect privacy unfortunately.  While I will be giving any new bishop the benefit of the doubt as far as who I believe him to be, I would still not share anything I didn't want know in case I ended up wrong to trust him unless there was some sort of urgent need to do so.

Edited February 21, 2020 by Calm

[smac97]

6 hours ago, sunstoned said:

A married same sex couple does not commit fornication when they have marital relations.

Agreed.  They violate the Law of Chastity nonetheless. 

[CV75]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Agreed.  They violate the Law of Chastity nonetheless. 

Evidently there are times when the handbook serves as a lightening rod for disagreement with the doctrine.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

The rules for confidentiality are excellent, imo, but we don't share our confidences with rules, we share them with men...who have weaknesses sometimes.

I believe most of my bishops were good at keeping confidences based on the rest of their personality.  There was one I wouldn't trust in the least as he was dismissive of others' concerns from what I could tell, certainly of mine, and wasn't that deeply committed to the calling.  His level of trustworthiness was later demonstrated to me (after he was released) by my learning through my friend of his flirting and then seducing women he worked with (was a school principle, so great example to the kids).  He was excommunicated only after she finally refused to stay quiet, but never ceased trying to 'rekindle' the relationship.  And was apparently good at lying about it to leaders because he got rebaptized exactly a year after excommunication.

Another of my bishops had an affair while a bishop.  Whether or not he kept others' info confidential when asked, I don't know, but I think it unlikely he cared by the end of it.

Bishops are human.  Some give into temptation.  Some may break confidentiality because of what they believe are good reasons, such as thinking they know better than the individual what they need (had a bishop  like that, but don't know if there was a confidentiality issue) or because they see suffering and feel driven to do something to help.  Some are probably just careless, talking with the one in need in the presence of others or sharing info with another leader during a council rather than one on one private conversation.  Or they may break it for petty reasons or laziness or personal advantage.  Hopefully there are few of those, but I know they exist.

Unless you have known your bishop well for a long time, there is no guarantee he will be one to respect privacy unfortunately.  While I will be giving any new bishop the benefit of the doubt as far as who I believe him to be, I would still not share anything I didn't want know in case I ended up wrong to trust him unless there was some sort of urgent need to do so.

Adult members of the Church probably ought not be burdening bishops with personal problems anyway unless there is an urgent need to do so. Especially now that the handbook is more.accessible than ever before. 
 

The guideline on surgical sterilization is a case in point. Under normal circumstances, there is enough in writing to guide any reasonable person. Unless the circumstances are extraordinary, I can’t see what a bishop might say beyond what is clearly spelled out in the handbook. 

Edited February 21, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

51 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Evidently there are times when the handbook serves as a lightening rod for disagreement with the doctrine.

It shouldn't be.  I think it's absurd for someone to come along and play dumb about the Law of Chastity.  To suggest that its prohibition against homosexual behavior is new, or that if you stand just so, close one eye, squint with the other, and look at a single source in isolation, then all of the sudden the prohibition has disappeared.

The Handbook is not a source of doctrine.  As Elder Andersen so aptly put it:

Quote

A few question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine. There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find.

I think some folks are letting their wishful thinking get ahead of reason and reality.  Our doctrine pertaining to the Law of Chastity and its prohibition against same-sex behavior is not difficult to find.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 21, 2020 by smac97

[Rain]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

Yep.

Thankfully I don't mind in the least as people generally ask if something is helpful before doing it.

I get why someone wouldn't want to.  You get put into a box for one thing.  Right now that works for me, but if I ever get my medical miracle I might change my mind.

I get it. While I am not strict on my feelings about it as you are I understand. Some bishops are great about this kind of thing. Some not so much.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Evidently there are times when the handbook serves as a lightening rod for disagreement with the doctrine.

True. 
 

I would broaden that to say individual Church leaders sometimes become lightning rods for disagreement with doctrine. 
 

Edited to add: Incredibly, I’ve observed this happening to President Oaks, for one, a man of impeccable wisdom and precise thinking, whose sermons and public statements are nothing if not grounded in doctrine. 

Edited February 21, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It shouldn't be.  I think it's absurd for someone to come along and play dumb about the Law of Chastity.  To suggest that its prohibition against homosexual behavior is new, or that if you stand just so, close one eye, squint with the other, and look at a single source in isolation, then all of the sudden the prohibition has disappeared.

The Handbook is not a source of doctrine.  As Elder Andersen so aptly put it:

I think some folks are letting their wishful thinking get ahead of reason and reality.  Our doctrine pertaining to the Law of Chastity and its prohibition against same-sex behavior is not difficult to find.

Thanks,

-Smac

This is well illustrated by what one former poster here called “lexical duplicity,” a tendency to parse words to try to convince oneself and others that a statement means something other than what was intended. 
 

For example some will take older definitions of the law of chastity — written or said before same-sex marriage was a thing — and try to make a case that they don’t apply to same-sex marriage. Never mind that more recent definitions and statements clearly state that they indeed do apply to it. 

Edited February 21, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

It shouldn't be.  I think it's absurd for someone to come along and play dumb about the Law of Chastity.  To suggest that its prohibition against homosexual behavior is new, or that if you stand just so, close one eye, squint with the other, and look at a single source in isolation, then all of the sudden the prohibition has disappeared.

The Handbook is not a source of doctrine.  As Elder Andersen so aptly put it:

I think some folks are letting their wishful thinking get ahead of reason and reality.  Our doctrine pertaining to the Law of Chastity and its prohibition against same-sex behavior is not difficult to find.

Thanks,

-Smac

Of course it shouldn't be, but that wasn't my point: people use the handbook to hammer at the doctrine when their actual beef is with the doctrine. The latter, to me, is more important though discussing the handbook is interesting.

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

True.

I would broaden that to say individual Church leaders sometimes become lightning rods for disagreement with doctrine.

Edited to add: Incredibly, I’ve observed this happening to President Oaks, for one, a man of impeccable wisdom and precise thinking, whose sermons and public statements are nothing if not grounded in doctrine. 

Absolutely, and most unfortunate.

 

Edited February 21, 2020 by CV75