No More 'Disciplinary' Councils; Excommunication

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

I know.  We still have a long way to go. 

[bluebell]

36 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.

Someone told me that the counsel was available in handbook 2 as well. 

But not all members are going to read a handbook for fun. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

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. 

Until relatively recently (last few decades or so) I believe it would not have been common for healthy married couples in the Church to do something so drastic as to have themselves surgically sterilized. Perhaps the Church leaders thought those who considered it at all would likely seek ecclesiastical counsel first, and the instruction was put in there to guide priesthood leaders who were confronted by it. 
 

I think it became something of a fad among the baby boom and later generations. 
 

The above is only a guess, so don’t bind me to it. As I said, I think it should have been made more widely known before now. I say this because I know of couples who had it done and probably never gave a thought to whether the Church discourages it. 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I know.  We still have a long way to go. 

I’m tempted to say “Dream on,” but you really shouldn’t. You’re only setting yourself up for frustration. As your brother, I want you to come into harmony with the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ. 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Someone told me that the counsel was available in handbook 2 as well. 

But not all members are going to read a handbook for fun. 

I know. I’m weird in that respect. 

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m tempted to say “Dream on,” but you really shouldn’t. You’re only setting yourself up for frustration. As your brother, I want you to come into harmony with the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ. 

I am.  No worries. 

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Someone told me that the counsel was available in handbook 2 as well. 

But not all members are going to read a handbook for fun. 

And until recent years, members would have had to go ask for a paper copy.  

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Until relatively recently (last few decades or so) I believe it would not have been common for healthy married couples in the Church to do something so drastic as to have themselves surgically sterilized. Perhaps the Church leaders thought those who considered it at all would likely seek ecclesiastical counsel first, and the instruction was put in there to guide priesthood leaders who were confronted by it. 
 

I think it became something of a fad among the baby boom and later generations. 
 

The above is only a guess, so don’t bind me to it. As I said, I think it should have been made more widely known before now. I say this because I know of couples who had it done and probably never gave a thought to whether the Church discourages it. 

I think your last sentence likely describes a majority of members who have had it done. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I am.  No worries. 

Not fully. Not with respect to the meaning of the law of chastity. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think your last sentence likely describes a majority of members who have had it done. 

I don’t doubt that. 
 

Though I’m guessing the majority who haven’t know intuitively there’s something not right about it. When I saw the handbook guideline, it confirmed what I had already felt privately but had never verbalized. 

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And until recent years, members would have had to go ask for a paper copy.  

I think it was always available in the library and on LDS.org. But maybe I’m remembering wrong. 

 

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

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.

I would imagine yeah, an active member cheating on their spouse would warrant a membership council vs. some inactive person and the church isn't going on witch hunts

I looked up attempted murder charges in Canada yeah you are at least looking at 4 plus years in the hooscow if you use a restricted or prohibited firearm, if someone was wounded due a gunshot it's 7-11 years.Plus it's bad if it's done in public, like here and in the US it's obviously a very serious action.  What scenario is the Church thinking that a membership council isn't mandatory? is it activity level?

 

[rockpond]

37 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m tempted to say “Dream on,” but you really shouldn’t. You’re only setting yourself up for frustration. As your brother, I want you to come into harmony with the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ. 

 

31 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I am.  No worries. 

 

28 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not fully. Not with respect to the meaning of the law of chastity. 

Scott, you need to retract this.  You are wrong and are not in position to tell me that I am not in harmony to the law of chastity.  I take offense to that accusation. 
 

[Nofear]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

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? 

Ooh, the polygamy version of Pascal's wager!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

 

 

Scott, you need to retract this.  You are wrong and are not in position to tell me that I am not in harmony to the law of chastity.  I take offense to that accusation. 
 

I’m going by your expressed views — with which I’m well acquainted — as compared with what is stated, among other places, in the latest Church handbook, which I have quoted this very day in this very thread. 

[rockpond]

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t doubt that. 
 

Though I’m guessing the majority who haven’t know intuitively there’s something not right about it. When I saw the handbook guideline, it confirmed what I had already felt privately but had never verbalized. 

I don’t believe there is anything wrong with it.  And I contend that if the Brethren felt as strongly as you seem to, they had ample opportunities to teach the members and yet they did not. 
 

It wasn’t important enough for them to teach widely.   Nor was it even important enough to publish to the members until recently and even then it was buried in the back of a lengthy policy manual.  

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m going by your expressed views — with which I’m well acquainted — as compared with what is stated, among other places, in the latest Church handbook, which I have quoted this very day in this very thread. 

If you want to claim that my beliefs regarding how same gender marriage may fit into the law of chastity are out of line with current church teachings, I would accept that.

You accused me of not being in harmony with the law of chastity for which you ought to retract and apologize as it is a false statement about me. 

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I would imagine yeah, an active member cheating on their spouse would warrant a membership council vs. some inactive person and the church isn't going on witch hunts

I looked up attempted murder charges in Canada yeah you are at least looking at 4 plus years in the hooscow if you use a restricted or prohibited firearm, if someone was wounded due a gunshot it's 7-11 years.Plus it's bad if it's done in public, like here and in the US it's obviously a very serious action.  What scenario is the Church thinking that a membership council isn't mandatory? is it activity level?

 

Good question. Some car wrecks can result in attempted murder charges here in the states, even if the person wasn’t actually trying to kill anyone. 

Maybe the church is thinking about those kind of situations. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Ginger Snaps said:

It was in Handbook 2. See 21.4.15. 
 

As I posted it was also in the EoM.  I don't see it as relatively well known, but might be better known among older members who grew up in a time when birth control was transitioning to more acceptable than younger ones who never got those kinds of discussions in classes or around the dinner table.  It probably won't occur to younger couples as much that it is something out of the ordinary and therefore counseling might be sought on it as it was when I was getting married in 1980.

[rockpond]

35 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think it was always available in the library and on LDS.org. But maybe I’m remembering wrong. 

 

Digital forms of it only came within the last decade, I believe.  

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

believe it would not have been common for healthy married couples in the Church to do something so drastic as to have themselves surgically sterilized.

Men definitely not, older women who had several children not that uncommon imo (tubes tied).  The reasoning in conversations I was aware of was it was always possible the wife might die, the man remarry, and his new wife want children of her own.

Edited February 20, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think it was always available in the library and on LDS.org. But maybe I’m remembering wrong. 

 

Parts of it were available in my ward library prior to it going digital, not sure if all parts were as the notebook I read was divided up into relevant sections and I can't guarantee it was a complete set.  Not sure if this was standard though.  It would make sense to be in case a leader needed to consult something, but hadn't brought their section.

Edited February 20, 2020 by Calm

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Men definitely not, older women who had several children not that uncommon imo (tubes tied).  The reasoning in conversations I was aware of was it was always possible the wife might die, the man remarry, and his new wife want children of her own.

This is my experience... I know many women who have had their tubes tied, both in my generation and my parents generation.  

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Parts of it were available in my ward library prior to it going digital, not sure if all parts were as the notebook I read was divided up into relevant sections and I can't guarantee it was a complete set.  Not sure if this was standard though.  It would make sense to be in case a leader needed to consult something, but hadn't brought their section.

I don’t doubt that a copy was always kept in the library prior to publication of the digital versions.

But, as I mentioned earlier, when my wife and I made the prayerful decision that our family was complete, there was no reason at all to think to go check a handbook on the matter.  Zero. None. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think it became something of a fad among the baby boom and later generations. 

Not wanting to worry about getting pregnant is a fad that has been going since probably Eve after a hard day with the little ones.