smac97 Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 5 minutes ago, Calm said: Isn't this more for when membership withdrawal is at stake, otherwise held at ward level? Yes, I think you are right. I tweaked my post. Thanks, -Smac 2
Duncan Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 58 minutes ago, bluebell said: I don't think the church ever would say that adultery isn't always bad. I'm not sure how you are coming to that conclusion. Did the new handbook say that sometimes no church discipline would be necessary, or did it just say that sometimes excommunication wouldn't be necessary? it says that a membership council isn't mandatory for adultery and I am like um, how? it is mandatory for murder, rape, incest etc. Same thing thing for attempted murder, theoretically someone could try to kill someone and a council wouldn't be held, they would be in jail because obviously it's a crime but a membership council isn't always necessary for those two situations
HappyJackWagon Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 11 minutes ago, Calm said: Isn't this more for when membership withdrawal is at stake, otherwise held at ward level? That could add quite a few DC's to the Stake docket. And they are generally not short meetings. Doesn't "membership withdrawal" make it sound like it is the member's decision to withdraw?
Duncan Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 50 minutes ago, rockpond said: Here's how I see it, Duncan... The lists the differentiate between "required" and "may be necessary" aren't going to be perfectly black and white. I don't think that's realistic. But, it seems to me that, for the most part, the sins requiring a membership council are those that jeopardize the well being of others (victims) or the good name of the church. That said, I agree with you that if a person were convicted of attempted murder (as opposed to just being accused) and I were their bishop or SP, I would probably feel that a membership council was required. Regarding adultery (which I agree is always bad), here's a scenario in which church leaders probably would not want to force a membership council as a matter of written policy: let's say you have a couple that is permanently separated but not divorced and the husband who is not active in the church moves in with his new girlfriend (with the separated wife aware of what is happening). In this case, the husband is not pretending to be a member in good standing (or even an active member) and the wife is not in danger because they are separated. There doesn't seem to be value in a membership council in this situation. I can see that , it seems like that scenario that happens more times that we think though if they make a provision for it-I take it though previously they would have held a council for the guy and why would he care if he's not active?
Calm Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 (edited) 5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: That could add quite a few DC's to the Stake docket. And they are generally not short meetings. Doesn't "membership withdrawal" make it sound like it is the member's decision to withdraw? But it makes them much easier to schedule since they don't have to include the HC. As far as "membership withdrawal" it doesn't have that nuance for me. "Opportunity withdrawal" is not done usually by the individual hoping for the opportunity, for example. "Scholarship withdrawal"...same thing. Edited February 19, 2020 by Calm 1
Duncan Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Unequivocally, yes. This is simply not so. The Church is not taking "a different route." The Church is not saying that adultery is "not always" wrong. You are attributing to the Church things that are not so. The Church is not saying adultery is justifiable. Thanks, -Smac a membership council isn't always mandatory though, why is that? rockpond provided a scenario in which theoretically someone is committing adultery but a council wouldn't be held, as they are inactive and would be pointless. As i said to him I guess those scenario's happens more often than we think for the church to provide a provision for it in the handbook What would the incentive be though for this guy in that scenario to come back to Church? they would find out he's not legally divorced and now he's living with someone else and they probably would hold a membership council if he tried to become active again? That sounds crazy, why would anyone want to go through possible excommunication or withdrawal to become active again? they would just stay inactive i'd think Edited February 19, 2020 by Duncan
Robert F. Smith Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 5 hours ago, 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."............................. I always heard that disciplinary councils were supposed to be courts of love. 1
smac97 Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Duncan said: a membership council isn't always mandatory though, why is that? All sorts of reasons. The Church is moving heaven and earth to encourage people to join the Church, and then to stay in it and keep their covenants. The Church is in the preaching-faith-and-repentance-and-baptism-and-saving-ordinances-and-service-to-your-fellow-man business. Naturally, there are circumstances in which an individual violates the laws and commandments of the Gospel. Many such matters are left to the individual to work out with God, but some are serious enough to require the attention of those who are in authority. I think most of these more serious matters are handled informally between the individual and the bishop. However, some may - for a variety of reasons - require a formal council. Very few of these are "mandatory." I think that is because most instances of misconduct can, should be, and are handled through less stressful, less invasive measures. I found stake-level disciplinary councils to be difficult. Too many people involved. I'm glad the high council is no longer involved. Quote rockpond provided a scenario in which theoretically someone is committing adultery but a council wouldn't be held, as they are inactive and would be pointless. Right. Quote As i said to him I guess those scenario's happens more often than we think for the church to provide a provision for it in the handbook I think the point is to devolve more discretionary authority to the "boots on the ground" leaders in the Church, the stake presidents and the bishops. Thanks, -Smac Edited February 19, 2020 by smac97 2
Calm Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Duncan said: I can see that , it seems like that scenario that happens more times that we think though if they make a provision for it-I take it though previously they would have held a council for the guy and why would he care if he's not active? This might have been more likely to occur in the past in areas where who is inactive is well known as wards are over smaller areas. This removes what might have led to unnecessarily harsh feelings in a neighbourhood. For adultery, it can be very hard for a couple where the one spouse has repented and asked for forgiveness and the other granted it and both want their family to remain intact to try to make it work if the adultery becomes common knowledge in a ward as would happen with an excommunication. The kids generally find out as well, not always a good thing. I think making it an option now is much more conducive to letting the family move on without them wondering if they are being gossiped about in the case where the confession and repentance were completely handled by the bishop. Their children don't need to be burdened with their parents' problems if possible, imo. Edited February 19, 2020 by Calm 1
Stargazer Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 4 hours ago, Duncan said: One thing that doesn't make sense and it was in the previous handbook is attempted murder is something that a "membership council" "may be necessary" but not always necessary. If you actively tried to kill someone but couldn't for whatever reason why would you possibly be in good standing in the church? Attempted murder is a crime, why isn't to the church? 3 hours ago, Duncan said: Adultery is something that a "membership council" "may be necessary" again, like attempted murder why isn't it always necessary? I think it's moved down a level! Isn't that one of the big ones? adultery is bad!!! Time since the incident occurred would naturally be considered a mitigating factor in these two cases. Murder requires a membership counsel regardless of when it was committed, whereas an attempted murder that happened 10 years before might not -- simply because the person may have repented already. Same with adultery, which is not really as bad as murder (as some have suggested). 2
Calm Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 Just now, Stargazer said: Time since the incident occurred would naturally be considered a mitigating factor in these two cases. Murder requires a membership counsel regardless of when it was committed, whereas an attempted murder that happened 10 years before might not -- simply because the person may have repented already. Same with adultery, which is not really as bad as murder (as some have suggested). I wonder if some of the consideration about attempted murder has to do with how it is handled worldwide. Maybe some places are less careful in differentiating between murder and accidental homicide, for example?
Stargazer Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 14 minutes ago, smac97 said: I'm glad the high council is no longer involved. Not routinely. But they can still be involved (it is in the D&C, after all): "Members of the high council do not normally participate in stake membership councils. However, the high council may participate in difficult situations (see Doctrine and Covenants 102:2). For example, the stake presidency may invite the high council to participate when: There are contested facts. They would add value and balance. The member requests their participation. A member of the stake presidency or his family is involved"
smac97 Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 2 minutes ago, Stargazer said: Not routinely. But they can still be involved (it is in the D&C, after all): "Members of the high council do not normally participate in stake membership councils. However, the high council may participate in difficult situations (see Doctrine and Covenants 102:2). For example, the stake presidency may invite the high council to participate when: There are contested facts. They would add value and balance. The member requests their participation. A member of the stake presidency or his family is involved" Yep. I was on the high council for about 3.5 years. I participated in quite a few disciplinary councils. The number of participants was sort of disconcerting: the stake presidency (3), the stake clerk (1), the high council (12). The high council only sustained the stake presidency's decision anyway. I think it's better to limit the number of participants. Thanks, -Smac 4
Stargazer Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 1 minute ago, Calm said: I wonder if some of the consideration about attempted murder has to do with how it is handled worldwide. Maybe some places are less careful in differentiating between murder and accidental homicide, for example? That might be part of it, of course. But even within the USA not all attempted murders are "solved" and adjudicated (much like not all murders are), and it is not out of the question for a person to have attempted to commit murder, never got caught, and later remorse induced him or her to confess to a bishop about it. A bishop might decide in consultation with the stake president that there had been sufficient repentance to just let the matter go. It's also possible for a member to have even been convicted and punished by the law without the church ever finding out about it -- there are probably some members in prison right this minute and the church doesn't know about it. If after completion of sentence such a member comes back into activity and tells his or her bishop about it, would a membership council truly be necessary? Maybe yes, but maybe no.
Ahab Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 (edited) YaY! Great idea! Oh wait. I thought that meant there would be no more excommunications or disciplinary councils. Well, I suppose we still need some of those whatever-they-decide-to-call-ems. For the really bad people, or rather, people behaving very badly. Edited February 19, 2020 by Ahab
pogi Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 3 hours ago, longview said: In 2016, the First Presidency approved the development of a “simplified handbook” for small units. I am just re-posting this for Scott (this was brought up in another thread)
Scott Lloyd Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 39 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: That could add quite a few DC's to the Stake docket. And they are generally not short meetings. Doesn't "membership withdrawal" make it sound like it is the member's decision to withdraw? Yeah. The wording is not ideal from what I can tell. I can see what they’re going for. They’re trying to make the process seem not so sensational and shaming. But the new terminology is too bureaucratic and ambiguous. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 (edited) 7 minutes ago, pogi said: I am just re-posting this for Scott (this was brought up in another thread) Huh? Why are you re-posting it for me? Edited February 19, 2020 by Scott Lloyd
smac97 Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 Section 38.6 ("Policies on Moral Issues") contains a lot of interesting stuff: Quote 38.6 Policies on Moral Issues 38.6.1 Abortion 38.6.2 Abuse 38.6.3 Artificial Insemination 38.6.4 Birth Control 38.6.5 Chastity and Fidelity 38.6.6 Child Pornography 38.6.7 Female Genital Mutilation 38.6.8 Incest 38.6.9 In Vitro Fertilization 38.6.10 Occult Affiliation 38.6.11 Pornography 38.6.12 Same-Sex Attraction and Same-Sex Behavior 38.6.13 Same-Sex Marriage 38.6.14 Sex Education 38.6.15 Sexual Abuse 38.6.16 Single Expectant Parents 38.6.17 Sperm Donation 38.6.18 Suicide 38.6.19 Surgical Sterilization (Including Vasectomy) 38.6.20 Surrogate Motherhood 38.6.21 Transgender Individuals Thanks, -Smac 1
rockpond Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 31 minutes ago, smac97 said: Yep. I was on the high council for about 3.5 years. I participated in quite a few disciplinary councils. The number of participants was sort of disconcerting: the stake presidency (3), the stake clerk (1), the high council (12). The high council only sustained the stake presidency's decision anyway. I think it's better to limit the number of participants. Thanks, -Smac I think it's odd when they can't get all 12 high council members so they start reaching out to other high priests in the stake (like me) so that they'll have 12. I'm thinking, however many HC you have is probably sufficient. Maybe the new handbook changes will curtail this.
smac97 Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 3 minutes ago, rockpond said: I think it's odd when they can't get all 12 high council members so they start reaching out to other high priests in the stake (like me) so that they'll have 12. I'm thinking, however many HC you have is probably sufficient. I think the prior guidelines called for 12 high priests. 3 minutes ago, rockpond said: Maybe the new handbook changes will curtail this. I think it will. A lot. I think instances of stake-level membership councils with the high council will be very rare. Thanks, -Smac
pogi Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 (edited) 37 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Huh? Why are you re-posting it for me? We had this conversation over the word "simplified" about a month ago. You said, "time will tell". I am just re-posting this quote to show you that time has told, and that my source was not in error. This was our conversation - Me: Quote In that women's session, Elder Anderson mentioned that he, Elder Christofferson, and one other apostle (can't remember which one) are currently working on a "simplified" handbook that will be available to all members. It sounds like they are doing away with the two volume handbook and will be simplifying both volumes into one version available to all. You: Quote I do think, however, that "simplified" overstates what is happening. It would seem that the bulk of the content in both volumes is being carried over. Time will tell, I suppose Me: Quote "Simplified" is a direct quote from a very reliable source. I have already established that my source is reliable. You: Quote I read somewhere (don’t recall where just now) that about 80 percent of content is being carried over. To me, the descriptor “simplified” doesn’t do that justice. Time will tell, I suppose. Etc. etc. etc. Edited February 19, 2020 by pogi 2
rockpond Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 26 minutes ago, smac97 said: I think the prior guidelines called for 12 high priests. Yes, they did. But that was typically fulfilled by the HC (at least in my stake).
Scott Lloyd Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 24 minutes ago, pogi said: We had this conversation over the word "simplified" about a month ago. You said, "time will tell". I am just re-posting this quote to show you that time has told, and that my source was not in error. This was our conversation - Me: You: Me: You: Etc. etc. etc. 👏 👏 👏
Calm Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 No changes with sealings (sigh): Quote Women. After a living woman has been sealed to a husband in the temple, she may not be sealed again unless she receives a cancellation of the first sealing. Men. If a husband and wife have been sealed and the wife dies, the man may have another woman sealed to him if she is not already sealed to another man. In this circumstance, the man does not need a sealing clearance from the First Presidency unless he was divorced from his previous wife before she died (see 38.5.1.2 for the policy in cases of divorce). Before a living spouse can be sealed to a deceased spouse, he or she must receive signed consent from the deceased spouse’s widow or widower (if there is one).
Recommended Posts