No More 'Disciplinary' Councils; Excommunication

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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).

If a practice is “strongly discouraged” by the Church, a couple needs to know that and seriously consider it.  These policies are formulated by prophets and apostles under divine inspiration as part of what IS their stewardship as watchmen on the tower. 

[Scott Lloyd]

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, not Deseret books. Short for Deseret Book Company. 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Announcement was made last April.  Handbook didn't reflect that First Presidency announcement until today... despite having been revised multiple times.

Yeah, last April. As I said, old news. 

[Nacho2dope]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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.

Thanks. 

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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.

I don't understand.  Are you saying that the doctrines of the Church provide for polyandry?  If so, would you substantiate that?

Polygyny is plainly doctrinal.  From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

Quote

Plural marriage was the nineteenth-century LDS practice of a man marrying more than one wife. Popularly known as polygamy, it was actually polygyny.
...
In 1843, one year before his death, the Prophet Joseph Smith dictated a lengthy revelation on the doctrine of marriage for eternity (D&C 132; see Marriage: Eternal Marriage). This revelation also taught that under certain conditions a man might be authorized to have more than one wife.
...
Passages indicating that revered Patriarchs and prophets of old were polygamists raised questions that prompted the Prophet to inquire of the Lord about marriage in general and about plurality of wives in particular. He then learned that when the Lord commanded it, as he had with the Patriarchs anciently, a man could have more than one living wife at a time and not be condemned for adultery. He also understood that the Church would one day be required to live the law ( D&C 132:1-4, 28-40).

From the Church's essay, Plural Marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:

Quote

Latter-day Saints believe that the marriage of one man and one woman is the Lord’s standing law of marriage. In biblical times, the Lord commanded some to practice plural marriage —the marriage of one man and more than one woman. By revelation, the Lord commanded Joseph Smith to institute the practice of plural marriage among Church members in the early 1840s. For more than half a century, plural marriage was practiced by some Latter-day Saints under the direction of the Church President.

So unless you can provide evidence that polyandry is a doctrinal precept, the policies of the Church - which contemplate polygyny in the eternities, but not polyandry - do "match the doctrine."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 19, 2020 by smac97

[JAHS]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.

Can be an issue I suppose. But If both the man and the woman were widowed and both sealed to a deceased previous spouse they could be sealed to each other for time only. 
I guess the issue would be if the If the widow woman was never sealed to her previous spouse and does not want to be, but wants to find someone she can be sealed to? 
You might have to explain the issue better to me. 

[stemelbow]

57 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.”

But the question is should same sex couples be given full membership benefits?  Can they have callings, teach lessons etc?  Its likely most bishops wouldn't sign temple recommends, if not all, so I won't get that far.  But, what are bishops supposed to do with attending same-sex couples?  Not allow them to participate?  

57 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.”

 

 

[Nofear]

23 minutes 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 were married to. Anyone who is exalted is going to be happy with whatever the situation is. 

A) Some member believe that polygamy is a practiced part of Celestial Society (certainly that is what many in the Church though and preached).
B) Some members believe that polygamy will not be practiced as part of Celestial Society (while still allowing the idea that polygamy was divinely sanctioned for a time).

The previous policy allows members room to believe A) or B). The lack of change in the policy still allows for belief in either A) or B). Many of those who believe B) would have liked to see the scales tipped that direction and that did not happen.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Can be an issue I suppose. But If both the man and the woman were widowed and both sealed to a deceased previous spouse they could be sealed to each other for time only. 
I guess the issue would be if the If the widow woman was never sealed to her previous spouse and does not want to be, but wants to find someone she can be sealed to? 
You might have to explain the issue better to me. 

I am not talking about both being sealed previously, but about never sealed men not being willing to consider marrying sealed women.  It is a well known issue among most women I know.

This means a higher percentage of young widows will be alone for the rest of their lives where widowers don't have the same difficulty as unsealed women can be sealed to their previously sealed husbands with no cancellation required and therefore know their children are sealed to them rather than the first wife.

Edited February 19, 2020 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, stemelbow said:

But the question is should same sex couples be given full membership benefits?  Can they have callings, teach lessons etc?  Its likely most bishops wouldn't sign temple recommends, if not all, so I won't get that far.  But, what are bishops supposed to do with attending same-sex couples?  Not allow them to participate?  

 

One who is not eligible for temple attendance is far from having “full membership benefits.” 
 

And the policy spells out that breaking the law of chastity is a sin. Would an unabashed heterosexual adulterer or fornicator be holding callings, teaching lessons, etc. That would strike me as improper. 

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If a practice is “strongly discouraged” by the Church, a couple needs to know that and seriously consider it.  These policies are formulated by prophets and apostles under divine inspiration as part of what IS their stewardship as watchmen on the tower. 

As we've seen, even the strongest divine inspiration in the handbooks is subject to change.  I'm just making a prediction on this one.

 

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yeah, last April. As I said, old news. 

You aren't this dense, you're just being argumentative.  Not sure why.

The news is that the handbook was finally updated to match the April 2019 announcement.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not talking about both being sealed previously, but about never sealed men not being willing to consider marrying sealed women.  It is a well known issue among most women I know.

This means a higher percentage of young widows will be alone for the rest of their lives where widowers don't have the same difficulty.

In all candor, it would have been an issue for me when I was single. It would not have been consistent with my goals to marry without being sealed. 

[Damien the Leper]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

“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.”

This is ridiculous. I know of a LDS couple who do not wish to have kids. The husband got a vasectomy after attending counseling sessions with a professional. The church does not govern a person's reproductive organs. To be clear, if a couple doesn't want to have kids (not because they can't) that is their business and not the bishop's. 

[JAHS]

3 minutes ago, Nofear said:

33 minutes 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 were married to. Anyone who is exalted is going to be happy with whatever the situation is. 

A) Some member believe that polygamy is a practiced part of Celestial Society (certainly that is what many in the Church though and preached).
B) Some members believe that polygamy will not be practiced as part of Celestial Society (while still allowing the idea that polygamy was divinely sanctioned for a time).

The previous policy allows members room to believe A) or B). The lack of change in the policy still allows for belief in either A) or B). Many of those who believe B) would have liked to see the scales tipped that direction and that did not happen.

I think the issue is that we still don't really know for sure which condition it will be. If condition A is correct the people in the B group won't be there anyway if they don't accept it as a correct principle. 
If condition B is correct what happens to all the people involved in plural marriages that were made in this life? 

[Calm]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

In all candor, it would have been an issue for me when I was single. It would not have been consistent with my goals to marry without being sealed. 

Thank you, Scott.  First person is always better than second or thirdhand.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

As we've seen, even the strongest divine inspiration in the handbooks is subject to change.  I'm just making a prediction on this one.

 

I think it would be unwise in the extreme to ignore such strongly worded direction on the thin hope that it might change in the future. 

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand.  Are you saying that the doctrines of the Church provide for polyandry?  If so, would you substantiate that?

Polygyny is plainly doctrinal.  From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

From the Church's essay, Plural Marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:

So unless you can provide evidence that polyandry is a doctrinal precept, the policies of the Church - which contemplate polygyny in the eternities, but not polyandry - do "match the doctrine."

Thanks,

-Smac

Practiced.  Past tense.  The practice has ended.  This section of the handbook continues polygamy.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

This is ridiculous. I know of a LDS couple who do not wish to have kids. The husband got a vasectomy after attending counseling sessions with a professional. The church does not govern a person's reproductive organs. To be clear, if a couple doesn't want to have kids (not because they can't) that is their business and not the bishop's. 

No one is coercing a couple to follow the counsel. Doesn’t mean it’s wise to ignore it. 
 

And it is contrary to the doctrines of the gospel and the law of exaltation to refuse to have progeny. One can ignore or reject it but the doctrine is what it is. 

Edited February 19, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

One who is not eligible for temple attendance is far from having “full membership benefits.” 
 

And the policy spells out that breaking the law of chastity is a sin. Would an unabashed heterosexual adulterer or fornicator be holding callings, teaching lessons, etc. That would strike me as improper. 

So you are saying attending same-sex couples should not have any callings or teach lessons?  How would a bishop know that?  That is a married couples attends his ward.  They attend weekly, and would like to hold callings.  Is there any thing to tell the Bishop they cannot hold a calling?  Or are you saying a married same sex couple should be treated as unabashed heterosexual adulterers?  

[smac97]

2 hours 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?

There is a big difference between attempted murder and murder/homicide.  The latter necessarily entails the death of a human being, the former necessarily entails the lack of the death of a human being.

"Attempted murder" is an inchoate crime.  That is, the crime is not actually committed, but instead is either attempted-but-failed (such as shooting a gun at a person's head but missing), or else "{taking} a substantial step towards committing a murder (e.g. purchasing a gun or other deadly weapon and writing about his or her intent to kill)."

Let's take a look at Utah's murder statute, Utah Code 76-5-203(2):

Quote

(2)

Criminal homicide constitutes murder if: (a) the actor intentionally or knowingly causes the death of another; (b) intending to cause serious bodily injury to another, the actor commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of another; (c) acting under circumstances evidencing a depraved indifference to human life, the actor knowingly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another and thereby causes the death of another; (d) (i) the actor is engaged in the commission, attempted commission, or immediate flight from the commission or attempted commission of any predicate offense, or is a party to the predicate offense; (ii) a person other than a party as defined in Section 76-2-202 is killed in the course of the commission, attempted commission, or immediate flight from the commission or attempted commission of any predicate offense; and (iii) the actor acted with the intent required as an element of the predicate offense; (e) the actor recklessly causes the death of a peace officer or military service member in uniform while in the commission or attempted commission of: (i) an assault against a peace officer under Section 76-5-102.4; (ii) interference with a peace officer while making a lawful arrest under Section 76-8-305 if the actor uses force against a peace officer; or (iii) an assault against a military service member in uniform under Section 76-5-102.4; (f) commits a homicide which would be aggravated murder, but the offense is reduced pursuant to Subsection 76-5-202(4); or (g) the actor commits aggravated murder, but special mitigation is established under Section 76-5-205.5.

Now let's take a look at what constitutes an attempted murder, which is based on Utah Code 76-4-101:

Quote

(1)

For purposes of this part, a person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if he: (a) engages in conduct constituting a substantial step toward commission of the crime; and (b) (i) intends to commit the crime; or (ii) when causing a particular result is an element of the crime, he acts with an awareness that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause that result.

(2)	For purposes of this part, conduct constitutes a substantial step if it strongly corroborates the actor's mental state as defined in Subsection (1)(b).

As you can see "engag{ing} in conduct constituting a substantial step toward commission of the crime" can include a lot of things, with varying degrees of mental culpability, and hence perhaps varying degrees of culpability before God.  Plus, there was no actual death of a human being.

Murder is much more specific, and much more final.  A person is dead at the hands of another.  And that other intended to cause that death.  And that death cannot be undone.  Recompense is impossible. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[JAHS]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not talking about both being sealed previously, but about never sealed men not being willing to consider marrying sealed women.  It is a well known issue among most women I know.

This means a higher percentage of young widows will be alone for the rest of their lives where widowers don't have the same difficulty as unsealed women can be sealed to their previously sealed husbands with no cancellation required and therefore know their children are sealed to them rather than the first wife.

OK that clarifies it better. That can be an issue. I guess the only alternative is for the widow to not even consider dating such single never married men. 

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

Yeah, you can please some of the people some of the time, but clearly not everybody.

In my opinion, no matter what they called it, it would have sounded either too bureaucratic or too ambiguous, depending upon the beholder.

So what do you think they should have called everything?

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Per section 32.9, participants are:

So stake-level membership councils no longer include the high council in most circumstances.  The exceptions (from section 32.9.2):

I think these circumstances will be very rare.

Most membership councils will be at the ward level.  Here the the guidelines for stake presidents re: membership council matters (from Section 32.9.1):

So off-hand, the changes appear to be:

Stake-level membership councils will not involve the high council (except in very limited circumstances, see below).

Stake-level membership councils will not be based on jurisdiction over priesthood quorums.  Previously, Melchizedek priesthood holders were usually disciplined at the stake level, but women who have received their endowments were disciplined at the ward level.  Now, the determinative factor for both men and women is whether they have been through the temple and if their membership withdrawal is "likely."  If so, the membership council will be at the stake level.

Ward-level membership councils have changed a bit, too (from Section 32.9.3):

As I see it, an endowed person, whether man or woman, can have a membership council at the stake level or, at the direction of the stake president, at the ward level.  This was possible before these changes, so the change isn't that significant.

The big changes are

A) the high council is no longer involved (in almost all instances);

B) women can be disciplined at the stake level (where withdrawal of membership (f/k/a "excommunication") for an endowed member is anticipated, the stake must convene the council); and

C) bishops can withdraw membership, but only with stake president's approval (or was this always the case?).

Any others?

-Smac

Pulling the HC out seems to go against the outlines for such councils that the D&C provides.

[pogi]

54 minutes ago, 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 agree, if it is not a sin, the bishop doesn't need to be involved.  How is a member supposed to know to speak with the bishop in the  first place?  It is not like we are encouraged to study up on the handbook before every life decision we make.  If it is not a sin and there is no clear revelation or doctrine on the matter, I don't think the church should let their personal opinions influence the very personal life decisions of its members.  I can understand encouraging members to turn to the Lord, but to say it is "strongly discourage" would cause a member to second guess their personal revelation if they got the OK from the Lord.  That is between the person and the Lord - the Bishop need not be involved.  I feel the same way about cremation and other personal life decisionst.  Their personal opinion is as good as mine.  

I think it would be much better, instead of saying "the church strongly discourages...", to list potential physical and spiritual consequences/risks that the church may consider, and allow the member to weigh those risks/consequences for themselves and make their decision based on the information given.  Instead, the church doesn't list reasons as to why they even discourage it.  They simply say it is strongly discouraged, yet they won't discipline (or whatever word I am supposed to use now) you for it either.  What does that even mean?  How is a member supposed to make sense of that?   

Edited February 19, 2020 by pogi