rockpond Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 8 minutes ago, Calm said: No changes with sealings (sigh): Yeah, I was disappointed to see that as well.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Section 38.6 ("Policies on Moral Issues") contains a lot of interesting stuff: Thanks, -Smac Persons holding out hope for a change on some of their pet issues stand to be disappointed. As for example: “Same-Sex Marriage “As a doctrinal principle, based on the scriptures, the Church affirms that marriage between a man and a woman is essential to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. The Church also affirms that God’s law defines marriage as the legal and lawful union between a man and a woman. Only a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife should have sexual relations. Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same sex, are sinful and undermine the divinely created institution of the family.” Also “Surgical Sterilization (Including Vasectomy) “The Church strongly discourages surgical sterilization as an elective form of birth control. Surgical sterilization should be considered only if (1) medical conditions seriously jeopardize life or health or (2) a person does not have the mental competence to be responsible for his or her actions. “Such conditions must be determined by competent medical judgment and in accordance with law. 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.”
Scott Lloyd Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 One of the very recent additions to the old Handbook 1 that has been carried over into the new handbook is this: “All are welcome to attend sacrament meeting, other Sunday meetings, and social events of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The presiding officer is responsible to ensure that all who attend are respectful of the sacred setting. “Those who attend should avoid disruptions or distractions contrary to worship or other purposes of the meeting. All age and behavior requirements of different Church meetings and events should be respected. That requires refraining from overt romantic behavior and from dress or grooming that causes distraction. It also precludes making political statements or speaking of sexual orientation or other personal characteristics in a way that detracts from meetings focused on the Savior. If there is inappropriate behavior, the bishop or stake president gives private counsel in a spirit of love. He encourages those whose behavior is improper for the occasion to focus on helping maintain a sacred space for everyone present with a special emphasis on worshipping Heavenly Father and the Savior. “Church meetinghouses remain private property subject to Church policies. Persons unwilling to follow these guidelines will be asked in a respectful way not to attend Church meetings and events.” (Bold emphasis mine) I think this obliquely addresses the Savanna incident among others. And it could have application to the incident a couple of years ago in a Salt Lake Valley ward in which two hours of the three-hour meeting block were given over to a presentation about LGBT issues and some who had “stepped away” from the Church were invited to preach about their lifestyle.
Boanerges Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Section 38.6 ("Policies on Moral Issues") contains a lot of interesting stuff: Thanks, -Smac A lot of interesting stuff that mostly didn't change, with the notable exception of the transgender section. There is a note that further changes could be forthcoming however.
smac97 Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Persons holding out hope for a change on some of their pet issues stand to be disappointed. As for example: “Same-Sex Marriage “As a doctrinal principle, based on the scriptures, the Church affirms that marriage between a man and a woman is essential to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. The Church also affirms that God’s law defines marriage as the legal and lawful union between a man and a woman. Only a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife should have sexual relations. Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same sex, are sinful and undermine the divinely created institution of the family.” Yep. From a discussion between me and Stemelbow in August 2019 (speaking of this topic): Quote Quote I imagine seeing as the Church is completely wrong on this topic, that someday it'll come around. I don't think so. You might as well say "The Church is complely wrong on adultery and fornication, but it'll come around some day." Quote I mean it's been done it before. They've had to disavow past teachings and practices before. It'll probably happen some day. Wishful thinking. And a discussion with "lostindc" from August 2018 (about "speculation for general conference") : Quote Quote same-sex marriage will be complete accepted I really doubt this one. A lot. Quote and these couples will have full rights in the Church, What do you mean by "full rights?" This seems like wishful thinking. Purely and nothing but. And this discussion with Stemelbow in December 2017: Quote Quote I think this'll all change in time. It's taking way too long and probably won't change any time soon, though. Sadly. I don't. I am theoretically open to the possibility, but it just does not seem to be part of The Plan. Suggestions to the contrary seem to be more a matter of wishful thinking and/or a profound misunderstanding of how the LDS Church functions. It is revelation, not popular opinion, that establishes the doctrines of the Church. And this discussion with Tacenda in November 2019: Quote Quote What would you and others do if one day this doctrine changed as well? What doctrine? The Law of Chastity? I think this hypothetical is extraordinarily unlikely. However, AoF 1:9 states: "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." I think God fundamentally altering the Law of Chastity to allow for same-sex behavior and same-sex marriage will never happen. It's about as pristine an example of "wishful thinking" that we are ever likely to see. However, in a de minimis sense, I am open to the possibility. I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. Thanks, -Smac
Boanerges Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 28 minutes ago, Calm said: No changes with sealings (sigh): Also disappointed with that and the continued gender stereotypes in general. 1
poptart Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 Aww man no! Excommunications are always fun to watch! We need more of em, put the fear of God back in them sinners, no one else does anymore. ;_; Way to let me down guys... 1
rockpond Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Persons holding out hope for a change on some of their pet issues stand to be disappointed. As for example: “Same-Sex Marriage “As a doctrinal principle, based on the scriptures, the Church affirms that marriage between a man and a woman is essential to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. The Church also affirms that God’s law defines marriage as the legal and lawful union between a man and a woman. Only a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife should have sexual relations. Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same sex, are sinful and undermine the divinely created institution of the family. Although they did finally remove "same-gender marriage" from the list of things that constitute apostasy (consistent with the announcement from April 2019). 2
Popular Post bluebell Posted February 19, 2020 Popular Post Posted February 19, 2020 24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Persons holding out hope for a change on some of their pet issues stand to be disappointed. As for example: “Same-Sex Marriage “As a doctrinal principle, based on the scriptures, the Church affirms that marriage between a man and a woman is essential to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. The Church also affirms that God’s law defines marriage as the legal and lawful union between a man and a woman. Only a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife should have sexual relations. Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same sex, are sinful and undermine the divinely created institution of the family.” Also “Surgical Sterilization (Including Vasectomy) “The Church strongly discourages surgical sterilization as an elective form of birth control. Surgical sterilization should be considered only if (1) medical conditions seriously jeopardize life or health or (2) a person does not have the mental competence to be responsible for his or her actions. “Such conditions must be determined by competent medical judgment and in accordance with law. 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.” It’s weird that it says couples should ask the bishop before surgical sterilization when the church has put so much effort lately into getting people to stop going to their bishop unless they need to repent of a serious sin. I wonder what counsel the bishop is expected to give that goes beyond “the church strongly discourages...” 5
Scott Lloyd Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 1 minute ago, rockpond said: Although they did finally remove "same-gender marriage" from the list of things that constitute apostasy (consistent with the announcement from April 2019). Old news, bro.
JAHS Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 (edited) 37 minutes ago, Calm said: 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). What would you want to change? Sounds too much like continuation of polygamy for the men? In the eternal scheme of things it doesn't matter much how it's done. For all dead people all women are sealed to all men they were married to and all men are sealed to all women they were married to. Anyone who is exalted is going to be happy with whatever the situation is. Edited February 19, 2020 by JAHS
Calm Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 Just now, bluebell said: I wonder what counsel the bishop is expected to give that goes beyond “the church strongly discourages...” It may be so that the couple thinks about it seriously rather than decides quickly....like when the doctor offers to tie tubes as long as he is in there. 1
Calm Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 1 minute ago, JAHS said: What would you want to change? Sounds too much like continuation of polygamy for the men? In the eternal scheme of things it doesn't matter much how it's done. For all dead people all women are sealed to all men they were married to and all men are sealed to all women they married to. Anyone who is exalted is going to be happy with whatever the situation is. Consistency with dead policy as at this point there are men refusing to even consider widows for dating because they want to ensure being sealed to their wives and children, understandably so. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 Just now, bluebell said: It’s weird that it says couples should ask the bishop before surgical sterilization when the church has put so much effort lately into getting people to stop going to their bishop unless they need to repent of a serious sin. I wonder what counsel the bishop is expected to give that goes beyond “the church strongly discourages...” I think the answer is inherent in the policy statement, which states that it should be considered “only if” one of two specified circumstances is present. and those are spelled out quite explicitly, tycker jag. I honestly can’t see a need for a couple, after reading this, to trouble their bishop over this matter. 1
Nacho2dope Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 34 minutes ago, rockpond said: Yeah, I was disappointed to see that as well. What were the sealing changes you were wanting? Thanks
rockpond Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Old news, bro. Old news? It came out this morning!
Teancum Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 8 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." Interesting stuff. Sounds like different words that mean the same thing and that they are just trying to dress it up.
bluebell Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I honestly can’t see a need for a couple, after reading this, to trouble their bishop over this matter. Me neither. That’s why it seems weird to instruct members that they should.
bluebell Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 13 minutes ago, Calm said: It may be so that the couple thinks about it seriously rather than decides quickly....like when the doctor offers to tie tubes as long as he is in there. Could be. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 1 minute ago, bluebell said: Me neither. That’s why it seems weird to instruct members that they should. Got it.
rockpond Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I honestly can’t see a need for a couple, after reading this, to trouble their bishop over this matter. I can't imagine a couple seeing the need to discuss any of their family planning decisions with their bishop. Not his stewardship. Isn't this section outside of the parts that were specifically updated for this publication? I still predict this section will be dramatically rewritten or removed entirely within the next two years (the timeline that was stated for completing a full edit of the new handbook). 4
Scott Lloyd Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 6 minutes ago, rockpond said: Old news? It came out this morning! You just said it came out last April!
rockpond Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 9 minutes ago, Nacho2dope said: What were the sealing changes you were wanting? Thanks If our teachings are that God will work out the sealings such that everyone is happy then we ought to let women enter multiple sealings just as men do. Make the policy match the doctrine. Under this policy we remain a "plural marriage" church in which men can have more than one eternal wife but women can only ever be sealed to one husband.
rockpond Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: You just said it came out last April! Announcement was made last April. Handbook didn't reflect that First Presidency announcement until today... despite having been revised multiple times. 1
Damien the Leper Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 6 hours ago, Duncan said: They also added what constitutes apostasy, something about weakening the faith of others-well there goes half Deseret books!!!! Isaiah for dummies Deseret Book is awful.
Recommended Posts