No More 'Disciplinary' Councils; Excommunication

[Calm]

1 minute ago, JAHS said:

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. 

Which stills leaves her with less chances to remarry within the Church than the widower.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, Stargazer said:

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?

I’m the wrong one to ask, because I wasn’t dissatisfied with how it was before. 

[rockpond]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

That's fine.  But it is also funny considering that this statement wasn't even published to church members until today.  I know many faithful church members who had vasectomies never having known that this paragraph existed.

[Nofear]

As far as I can tell, the only change in policy on vasectomy from the (now old) handbook I to the new handbook is that the old one had two paragraphs and the new one combined both paragraphs into one.

When I first posted in this thread, handbooks I and II were still on the lcr side of things. That is no longer the case.

[Stargazer]

2 hours 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.

It's not a matter of sufficiency.  It doesn't deal with the minimum number required to conduct official official business (aka "a quorum"), except that you have to have the full number in this case. The number of participants is one of those "magic numbers" that occur in the scriptures. 7 days, 12 tribes, 12 apostles, 24 elders, 70 elders, and so on.  And besides, they don't pick guys at random to make it complete -- they'd be picking only those with much knowledge and experience in the church.

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Maybe the new handbook changes will curtail this.

It does. This has been mentioned in this thread.

[Damien the Leper]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

And no one is saying it's unwise to ignore it.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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?  

Yes, that’s what I’m saying. Homosexual behavior is a sin and contrary to the laws of God. It doesn’t matter how it’s dressed up. 
 

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

And how would a bishop know? People are expected not to lie when they are interviewed for a calling. 

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But it is also funny considering that this statement wasn't even published to church members until today

What statement are you talking about?  See NoFear's post if about sterilization.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That's fine.  But it is also funny considering that this statement wasn't even published to church members until today.  I know many faithful church members who had vasectomies never having known that this paragraph existed.

I agree it should have been made more widely known. I’ve known about it for quite a while but only because I happened to see it in the handbook before. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

And no one is saying it's unwise to ignore it.

Do you mean no one is saying it’s wise to ignore it?

[Calm]

It is in the EoM:

https://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Sterilization

Quote

Sterilization, including voluntary vasectomies, tied fallopian tubes, or premature hysterectomies, are serious matters with moral, spiritual, and physiological ramifications. God's primordial instruction to mankind is to "be fruitful, and multiply and replenish the earth" (Gen. 1:28). The privilege and power to procreate may be God's greatest gift to mankind and, within the sacred marriage covenant, is an obligation for which God will hold men and women fully accountable. Latter-day Saints affirm that life's most lofty and ennobling values are found in marriage, procreation, parenthood, and family life. Any impediment or interference with this sacred opportunity may warrant God's judgment: Surgical sterilization should only be considered (1) where medical conditions seriously jeopardize life or health, or (2) where birth defects or serious trauma have rendered a person mentally incompetent and not responsible for his or her actions. Such conditions must be determined by competent medical judgment and in accordance with law. Even then, the person or persons responsible for this decision should consult with each other and with their bishop…and receive divine confirmation through prayer [General Handbook of Instructions, 11-15].

Consistent with Church policies concerning birth control and abortion, leaders have advised its married members not to resort to any practices that destroy the power of having children. The First Presidency has declared, "We seriously deplore the fact that members of the Church would voluntarily take measures to render themselves incapable of further procreation" (p. 11-5).

Added:  not however Gospel Topics currently

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/birth-control?lang=eng

Edited February 19, 2020 by Calm

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

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?   

I agree.

I had my tubes tied after my fourth baby and 3rd c-section (she was already in there so it made sense to do it that way).  I had my fourth when i was 38.  The decision did not seem all that fraught with spiritual confusion.  I was advanced maternal age, had four kids and we were sure of our decision on no more babies. 

She was my only pregnancy that I developed gestational diabetes for, and after she was born I developed postpartum pre-eclampsia (I didn't even know that was a thing) and my gall bladder quite working right and had to be removed (having a second surgery 3 weeks after a c-section is no picnic).  When I was at the doctor and they were trying to figure out why I was feeling so incredibly horrible, the doctor said "you should not have any more babies.  Your body is telling you it's done."  Thankfully I could say "no problem, my tubes are tied!"  

My third baby was a complete surprise pregnancy and was born when I was 37 after 8 years of unexplained infertility.  We didn't plan on having anymore after him but when we discussed a tubal with that c-section, I was not at all interested.  If another baby came then I guess we would deal.  After my fourth (who was born just a year after my third and was another surprise) I was not at capable of dealing with another baby mentally or emotionally, and I knew that.  

My husband and I already knew what was right for us and our family without a doctor (or the bishop) being involved.

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, Duncan said:

it says that a membership council isn't mandatory for adultery and I am like um, how?

What if you didn't know you were committing adultery? Consider the following hypothetical: Two sets of twins are married to each other and go on vacation together. The women arrive at the hotel and check in, leaving spare keys at the desk for their respective spouses - only, after arriving much later that night, the front desk gives the wrong keys to the husbands. 

Both go to their rooms, leaving the lights off as to not disturb their spouses too much, climb into bed, and then initiate what they believe to be marital relations - only discovering later that the woman was not their wife. 

I know that's a little out there, but I can conceive of something like that happening where, even though someone may have technically committed adultery, they might be fairly judged to be not accountable for that sin and no membership council would be necessary. 

 

[Nofear]

As of present, this link will take you to the old handbook I (if one had access to it prior to today).
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/handbook-1-stake-presidents-and-bishops/title-page?lang=eng

[Damien the Leper]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Do you mean no one is saying it’s wise to ignore it?

Neither here nor there. It's a personal decision and should be left at that.

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Duncan said:

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 

I'm guessing that the church makes a distinction between crimes and sins.  It sounds like membership councils are mandatory for serious crimes regardless of the knowledge or activity level of the member.  For serious sins, it sounds like there are other things, probably like activity level, that can be taken into account.

A bishop having an affair and committing adultery, and a 21 year old that was baptized at 8, never went to church again, grew up in a dysfunctional home, who is separated from his wife after a few months of marriage but not yet divorced and gets physical with his girlfriend, is another.

While there is room for different levels of understanding of sin, everyone should know that crimes like murder, rape, and incest are incredibly wrong.  Activity level doesn't impact that.

[smac97]

35 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Quote

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."

Practiced.  Past tense.  The practice has ended. 

But the doctrine remains.  And the doctrine is that polygynous marital relationships can be preserved beyond death.  I am not aware of any comparable doctrine pertaining to polyandrous relationships.

35 minutes ago, rockpond said:

This section of the handbook continues polygamy.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am not aware of any comparable doctrine pertaining to polyandrous relationships.

I agree, but the language in the handbook explaining that a choice would have to be made eventually even if a dead woman was sealed to all her dead husbands and the woman would only be sealed to one man eternally was removed from the handbook and no explanation was given...probably around 2003, maybe 2005.  This left the handbook and other instructions in family history published at that time or later consistent for dead men and women, but inconsistent for living.

Edited February 19, 2020 by Calm

[stemelbow]

44 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes, that’s what I’m saying. Homosexual behavior is a sin and contrary to the laws of God. It doesn’t matter how it’s dressed up. 
 

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

And how would a bishop know? People are expected not to lie when they are interviewed for a calling. 

Odd then that the manual describes adultery as possible cause for discipline but not same sex marriage.  Is it possible you are assuming what a bishop should do that is contrary to church leader opinion?  

[rockpond]

54 minutes ago, Calm said:

What statement are you talking about?  See NoFear's post if about sterilization.

I can't find NoFear's post about sterilization.

I was referring to the handbook statement about vasectomies and wondering how your average (non ward/stake leader) member would have been known about the handbook statement.

I wasn't in a calling with access to Handbook 1 until 2012.  My wife and I decided that our family was complete three years earlier in 2009.

[rockpond]

1 hour 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. 

I suppose a bishop can determine if he feels that a legally married gay couple can hold callings, teach lessons, speak in sacrament meeting, etc.  By removing the requirement for excommunication due to same gender marriage, the Brethen have opened this back up for Bishop's to seek spiritual guidance for specific situations in their congregation.  Not that they can change the church teaching that only man-woman marriage is recognized by God, but that could, conceivably, allow for "fuller" participation.

[Ginger Snaps]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I can't find NoFear's post about sterilization.

I was referring to the handbook statement about vasectomies and wondering how your average (non ward/stake leader) member would have been known about the handbook statement.

I wasn't in a calling with access to Handbook 1 until 2012.  My wife and I decided that our family was complete three years earlier in 2009.

It was in Handbook 2. See 21.4.15. 
 

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I suppose a bishop can determine if he feels that a legally married gay couple can hold callings, teach lessons, speak in sacrament meeting, etc.  By removing the requirement for excommunication due to same gender marriage, the Brethen have opened this back up for Bishop's to seek spiritual guidance for specific situations in their congregation.  Not that they can change the church teaching that only man-woman marriage is recognized by God, but that could, conceivably, allow for "fuller" participation.

I think a bishop would be off the rails if he issued a teaching or leadership calling to one who was in open violation of the law of chastity, regardless of orientation. 

[Scott Lloyd]

41 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Odd then that the manual describes adultery as possible cause for discipline but not same sex marriage.  Is it possible you are assuming what a bishop should do that is contrary to church leader opinion?  

I believe adultery would apply to same-sex as well as illicit opposite-sex relations. 
 

And no, it’s not possible that I’m out of harmony with the Church leadership on this. If you think I am, feel free to report me to one who is in authority. And let me know what you find out. 

Edited February 19, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

16 minutes ago, Ginger Snaps said:

It was in Handbook 2. See 21.4.15. 
 

In 2009, handbook 2 wasn’t online.  I would have had to know to request a copy and then search for what it said on vasectomies.  If this particular counsel was so important for members to know and follow (as @Scott Lloyd seems to be implying) then it seems that church leaders would have taught it broadly rather than having it buried in the EoM (which I think few members read) or a handbook that wasn’t available to all until recently.