No More 'Disciplinary' Councils; Excommunication

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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. 

I would not be surprised if my age group was the last one where birth control was still a highly debated subject.  I don't remember much discussion once I got married which is when I would have expected it if still seen as unusual.  Asking about what sexual practices faded out around then as well, I am guessing, or it may be where I was living by then.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

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.

I’m referring specifically to having ones body surgically altered to accomplish it. There are less invasive means; I don’t think I have to tell you that. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

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

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/72652-no-more-disciplinary-councils-excommunication/?do=findComment&comment=1209958344

 

[Scott Lloyd]

28 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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. 

The law of chastity.

(Current) Church teachings about the law of chastity. 

Potato. Po-tah-to 

Unless you are claiming the prophets and apostles are off the beam and teaching false doctrine. I don’t think you want to go there. 

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m referring specifically to having ones body surgically altered to accomplish it. There are less invasive means; I don’t think I have to tell you that. 

Of course, but those less invasive means always carry a risk except for abstinence, which had its own problems.

I also know women who couldn't use the barrier methods due to allergies/sensitivities.  They were eagerly waiting for menopause.

I couldn't use the pill and due to my health issues, .I was almost always worried about getting pregnant...which took a lot of the fun out of sex.  It was such a relief not to have that worry hanging over us finally.

Edited February 20, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The law of chastity.

(Current) Church teachings about the law of chastity. 

Potato. Po-tah-to 

Unless you are claiming the prophets and apostles are off the beam and teaching false doctrine. I don’t think you want to go there. 

The way you wrote it, Scott, it could be read that rockpond himself was not living the law of chastity.  I believe that is what he wants you to withdraw.

[Scott Lloyd]

34 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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.  

I’m going by the wording in the statement itself. It seems direct and relatively free of equivocation. “Only if” doesn’t seem very prone to misinterpretation. 
 

I’ve already said I think it should have been more widely disseminated. I don’t claim to know why it wasn’t. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

The way you wrote it, Scott, it could be read that rockpond himself was not living the law of chastity.  I believe that is what he wants you to withdraw.

Goodness gracious! That’s not at all what I meant. If that’s what he thought, let me state here and now that I DO NOT believe that about him. 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Of course, but those less invasive means always carry a risk except for abstinence, which had its own problems.

I couldn't use the pill and due to my health issues, .I was almost always worried about getting pregnant...which took a lot of the fun out of sex.  It was such a relief not to have that worry hanging over us finally.

I don’t want to get too clinical here, but I stand by my belief there are means short of surgical sterilization. 

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Goodness gracious! That’s not at all what I meant. If that’s what he thought, let me state here and now that I DO NOT believe that about him. 

Thank you for stating that it is not what you meant (since it was what you wrote).

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t want to get too clinical here, but I stand by my belief there are means short of surgical sterilization. 

Yes, for the vast majority.  Not for all though.  I think the rules allow for the exception.  It was more culture that didn't in my opinion even in the past**** from the stories I have heard and read.

****Once birth control was allowed in the Church.

Edited February 20, 2020 by Calm

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m going by the wording in the statement itself. It seems direct and relatively free of equivocation. “Only if” doesn’t seem very prone to misinterpretation.

I agree.  It doesn’t seem prone to misinterpretation... especially since so few members would have ever read it.  You can’t misinterpret what you don’t know exists.

 

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’ve already said I think it should have been more widely disseminated. I don’t claim to know why it wasn’t. 

In time, when it is removed from the handbook, then you’ll know.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Thank you for stating that it is not what you meant (since it was what you wrote).

Sorry you got that impression. I’ve been referring the entire time to your views about doctrine, not your personal behavior. 

[LoudmouthMormon]

I was rather surprised to see this:

Quote

If a member decides to change his or her preferred name or pronouns of address, the name preference may be noted in the preferred name field on the membership record. The person may be addressed by the preferred name in the ward.

So, we'll counsel against transitioning to a new gender, but if you do it anyway, we'll not only make it official in our preferred name field, but it's also fine to call you by your new preferred name.  

 

[Calm]

I got married less than a decade after this article was published (not pulling up any other hits, so may have been the last time "against birth control" was published in conference talks or church magazines).  So grateful I had those nine years.

Quote

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints strongly encourages married couples to have children. It is against birth control. In a letter from the First Presidency to bishops and stake presidents, dated April 14, 1969, the Church’s philosophy is expressed: “We seriously regret that there should exist a sentiment or feeling among any members of the Church to curtail the birth of their children. We have been commanded to multiply and replenish the earth that we may have joy and rejoicing in our posterity.

What a hell my life and my family's life would have been without birth control....assuming my husband and I were intimate much (I got pregnant the first time we decided to try for it, we worried for 9 months if the kid was a few days early, we would lose the extra insurance payout we really needed, thankfully he was a little late, so I have always taken extra precautions).  Or if my husband had given me any pressure to try and have more kids rather than leaving it fully up to me as I was feeling more than guilty enough as it was (we didn't know what the issue was and why pregnancy made it so much worse till 20 years later).

Edited February 20, 2020 by Calm

[CV75]

4 hours 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...”

While I’m sure the Church leaders considered the risk of members and leaders misusing the handbook(s) as a strict rule book, that was never their intention, whether the handbooks were closely guarded as before or readily available online. There have been several talks about the proper purpose and use of the handbooks in leaders receiving revelation in behalf of and with others.

With each change and update, some will have heartburn because they build a foundation on that which is bound to change (policy, practice, application) rather than on that which doesn’t (core doctrine, principles). Put another way, they focus and depend on that which does not save instead of that which actually does.

If a bishop for example understands the kinds of decisions for which members should seek his counsel, assuming they need it, he will hopefully act and influence the ward in a way that will draw those who need it to seek his counsel. The Spirit will inspire them to do so. The handbook then serves as a springboard for discussion, revelation and confirmation when members and their bishop counsel together. It is not a rigid set of dictates.

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I was rather surprised to see this:

So, we'll counsel against transitioning to a new gender, but if you do it anyway, we'll not only make it official in our preferred name field, but it's also fine to call you by your new preferred name.  

 

I don’t think there is anything official about the preferred name option.  It’s just a place to put people’s nicknames. 

[LoudmouthMormon]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I don’t think there is anything official about the preferred name option.  It’s just a place to put people’s nicknames. 

Well, it's a place for a transgender person born John Smith, to be known on the rolls of the church as Maryanne Rainbow.  It'll show up that way on the ward directory, mailing labels, and fellow ward members have been given the green light to call him Sister Maryanne.  And think of him as her.

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I was rather surprised to see this:

So, we'll counsel against transitioning to a new gender, but if you do it anyway, we'll not only make it official in our preferred name field, but it's also fine to call you by your new preferred name.  

 

We will counsel against having premarital sex, but if a child results we don't pretend it doesn't exist.

I think it common courtesy myself.

My great aunts kept calling me Christy until the day they died (when I was in my 40's).  I had stopped being called that when I was ten.  There was a sense they didn't really care to make an effort to get to know me.

Edited February 20, 2020 by Calm

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

With each change and update, some will have heartburn because they build a foundation on that which is bound to change (policy, practice, application) rather than on that which doesn’t (core doctrine, principles). Put another way, they focus and depend on that which does not save instead of that which actually does.

Well said.  It makes no sense to me to try to guide my life with a handbook that is revised two to three times per year and is facing further updates already.

 

[Rain]

 

5 hours 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. 

 

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

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. 

I had mine done in 2001 with my last child.  My husband and I were prayerful over the matter because pregnancy was a nightmare for me, but we were aware Heavenly Father had children coming to earth.  

In no uncertain terms our answer was to do it.  I felt strongly that if I were to get pregnant again I would not live long. In fact I had such a strong impression to do it that once I landed on bedrest in the hospital I told my dr to do it during the c-section every time I saw him. 

A couple of years later a friend told me about the handbook. There is no doubt that we made the right choice, but it still bothers me that I was supposed to talk to the bishop about it and had no clue. It would bother me today, knowing about it, that I would feel a need to talk with the bishop if I were pregnant, because of...rules. 

 

Edited February 20, 2020 by Rain

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, Duncan said:

that's true but would the church ex someone who isn't active? i can see them kicking out the Stake President!!

If one is likely to be excommunicated, it is not likely that they are active in church.

Sure it can happen. But typically someone who goes to church every Sunday and has a calling is not going to do something which would cause him to be excommunicated.

They just seem like contradictory behaviors

[sunstoned]

8 hours 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 feel that is something between the man and women and has nothing to do with the church and is not anyone eases business.

[rockpond]

22 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

If one is likely to be excommunicated, it is not likely that they are active in church.

Sure it can happen. But typically someone who goes to church every Sunday and has a calling is not going to do something which would cause him to be excommunicated.

They just seem like contradictory behaviors

This has not been my observation.  Among the people I know who have been excommunicated, the majority of them were active members with callings at the time that they did the thing that got them excommunicated.

[sunstoned]

7 hours 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. 

Equating a same sex couple who are committed to each other and are legally married  to adulterers and fornicators is offensive to the extreme.  Please stop it.