sunstoned Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 5 hours 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. My wife worked in a doctors office in Provo for over 5 years. The two doctors in that office performed many, many tubal ligation operations. It is a very common procedure, done for the reasons you have stated. 2
Calm Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 42 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: 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. The two men I know personally who were excommunicated, one was a bishop and the other was an exbishop. The woman I know was very active. Adultery doesn't seem limited to inactives from what I have seen. 3
Gillebre Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, sunstoned said: 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. I guess the question would be this: Are married same-sex couples guilty of fornication when they have relations? The answer is yes, according to the teachings of the Church, because the only authorized marriage which is recognized by the Lord is one between a man and a woman. This isn't meant to demean them for trying to find peace and happiness the best way they know how, but this answer seems extremely cut and dry. We are never justified in spewing vile treatment or disrespect of this couple, ever, and yet the Lord can't endorse a relationship that is incompatible with the eternal life that He bled and died that we might have. What an incredible balance the Lord must carefully keep to love, nurture, and strengthen His children while at the same time helping them take steps towards their eternal destiny through chastening and correction. In the end that eternal destiny is His highest hope and dream for us, and confusing issues today, particularly relating to relationships and gender, threaten to rob us of our inheritance if we allow it. The Lord sacrificed so much in order to open the gates of Heaven so that we could become joint-heirs with Him. There are no words that can capture how amazing His work and glory truly is! We're so invested in this life and what it offers that we constantly lose perspective. We forget that we're only here for what amounts to a celestial pit-stop before picking up where we left off in eternity. It blows my mind to think that our experiences in His presence before we came to this world are many orders of magnitude greater than this mortal fraction of eternal existence. Ultimately I hope we can center ourselves on the Lord's compassion and gentle correction to the woman taken in adultery. Only in this way, I feel, can we overcome our culture and finally build Zion. I have a lot of work to do on myself... Edited February 20, 2020 by Gillebre 3
rockpond Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 1 hour ago, sunstoned said: 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. I agree, it is offensive, but I don't think Scott is alone in that view. And, the handbook supports such a conclusion.
Calm Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 (edited) There is not really a word for legally married, but still immoral in terms of the Law of Chastity. Fornication is sex outside of marriage and the Church recognizes the marriages are legal. Neither adultery nor fornication are accurate terms, imo. Same sex marriages violate the Law of Chastity, not because they qualify somehow as adultery or fornication, but because homosexual sexual behaviour has been defined as immoral. Is there a term for an unchaste marriage? Edited February 20, 2020 by Calm
Stargazer Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I’m the wrong one to ask, because I wasn’t dissatisfied with how it was before. No, that answers it perfectly! I kind of agree with you, FWIW. Euphemisms have their place, but eventually even euphemisms grow harsh to the ear and new ones must be created.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 3 hours ago, Calm said: There is not really a word for legally married, but still immoral in terms of the Law of Chastity. Fornication is sex outside of marriage and the Church recognizes the marriages are legal. Neither adultery nor fornication are accurate terms, imo. Same sex marriages violate the Law of Chastity, not because they qualify somehow as adultery or fornication, but because homosexual sexual behaviour has been defined as immoral. Is there a term for an unchaste marriage? Definitions are key in answering this question. From the new handbook: ”A Church membership council may be necessary if a member: ” Has sexual relations outside of a marital relationship authorized by God’s law, such as adultery, fornication, and same-sex relations (see 32.6.2). ” Is in a form of marriage or partnership that is not authorized by God’s law, such as cohabitation, civil unions and partnerships, and same-sex marriage.” (Bold emphasis mine) Clearly, in the Church of Jesus Christ, adultery and fornication are defined according to how the behavior relates “to God’s law.” If the form of marriage or union in question is “not authorized by God’s law,” then any sexual behavior within that union is tantamount to adultery or fornication. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, Stargazer said: No, that answers it perfectly! I kind of agree with you, FWIW. Euphemisms have their place, but eventually even euphemisms grow harsh to the ear and new ones must be created. They grow harsh to the ear because of what they denote. Withdrawal of membership (formerly called excommunication) is by nature a harsh penalty — the harshest that the Church can mete out. Over time, any term applied to it is going to seem harsh by association. Smac97 did make a valid point, though: Excommunication is a borrowed term. As such, it might not have precisely the same or a comparable meaning in the Church of Jesus Christ to what it does in, say, Catholicism. From this fact, the Church leaders might have deemed it advisable to come up with a new term so as to avoid confusion in the minds of some who lack familiarity with the Church of Jesus Christ. Edited February 20, 2020 by Scott Lloyd 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 9 hours 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. 9 hours ago, Calm said: 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. For those not in “the vast majority” the exceptions are clearly spelled out in the guideline as written.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 (edited) 12 hours ago, sunstoned said: 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. I repeat: Some heterosexual couples who engage in sexual relations outside of marriage feel quite justified — even ennobled — in their relationship because of their intent, feelings for each other and circumstances. I wouldn’t agree with them either. But it strikes me that it is inconsistent not to give them a pass if one is going to do so for a homosexual couple. In each instance they are engaging in behavior that is contrary to the “law of God” (see my previous post). Edited February 20, 2020 by Scott Lloyd 1
Calm Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Definitions are key in answering this question. From the new handbook: ”A Church membership council may be necessary if a member: ” Has sexual relations outside of a marital relationship authorized by God’s law, such as adultery, fornication, and same-sex relations (see 32.6.2). ” Is in a form of marriage or partnership that is not authorized by God’s law, such as cohabitation, civil unions and partnerships, and same-sex marriage.” (Bold emphasis mine) Clearly, in the Church of Jesus Christ, adultery and fornication are defined according to how the behavior relates “to God’s law.” If the form of marriage or union in question is “not authorized by God’s law,” then any sexual behavior within that union is tantamount to adultery or fornication. I am not saying sexual relations within a same sex marriage aren’t considered a sin like fornication or adultery, I am saying such behaviour is not “fornication” or “adultery” and to call them such is inaccurate. The Handbook would appear to agree because it offers a third option that is not fornication or adultery, but “same sex relations”. If the Church viewed sexual relations in a same sex marriage as fornication or adultery, they wouldn’t use the third category of “same sex relations”. Edited February 20, 2020 by Calm 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 17 minutes ago, Calm said: I am not saying sexual relations within a same sex marriage aren’t considered a sin like fornication or adultery, I am saying such behaviour is not “fornication” or “adultery” and to call them such is inaccurate. The Handbook would appear to agree because it offers a third option that is not fornication or adultery, but “same sex relations”. If the Church viewed sexual relations in a same sex marriage as fornication or adultery, they wouldn’t use the third category of “same sex relations”. I think the handbook does that because definitions have become fuzzy with the relatively recent legalization of same sex marriage. You maintain you are “not saying sexual relations within a same-sex marriage aren’t considered a sin like fornication or adultery.” Yet many today are saying that very thing. They approve of the one but not the other. It’s a new kind of double standard that ignores the fact that only marriage between a man and a woman is the kind that is authorized under the law of God and that any sexual relations outside of that kind of marriage are viewed as equally egregious in His eyes. If we go setting up separate categories, we run the risk of conveying or feeding the false impression that the one is acceptable while the other is not. We’ve seen that on this very thread, where sunstoned didn’t merely disagree with me but tried to shut down discussion by telling me to “stop it.” It apparently is coming rapidly to the point where you can’t advocate traditional, institutional values without being shouted down, even within a gospel-discussion context. 3
stemelbow Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: 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. oh man, I wouldn't report anyone for anything. Not really an interest of mine. The Church simply seems less clear and less explicit in its condemnation then it used to. I think they are getting tired of the backlash. Maybe there is a revelation coming as a result? I guess we shall see. It might be decades away yet. Hopefully someday we won't see members accepting silly things like same-sex marriage is comparable to rampant adultery or fornication.
CV75 Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 11 hours ago, rockpond said: 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. Thank you. Our moral guide for "right and wrong" is the basic doctrine which addresses every situation (hopefully with assistance from the Holy Ghost), which the particulars of the handbook cannot do, as well-founded in doctrine as they are. I think procedures and policy are good to follow (and manage by exception) in the best interests of all concerned, but doctrine is the knowledge that frees us spiritually. Over the past 10 years or so I'm seeing a move away from a heavy compilation of instructions addressing multiple questions and problems that arise from local leaders, and their distillation them into a simpler and more principles-based approach to seeking and offering guidance. 1
Duncan Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 10 hours 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 it happens! When I was 18 I was an EQ councilor to the President, who had just come off his mission, within 6 months he had gotten a recent convert pregnant. He was never exed but the other councilor and I thought so fornicating is okay now? he should have been exed, but whatever I guess. His dad was a Bishop in another ward and this guy claimed he was bipolar. So I wonder if the mix was sufficient not to have a membership council, he was perfectly fine to serve a mission, be an AP but not enough to hold a DC for him.
bluebell Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 (edited) 9 hours ago, Calm said: The two men I know personally who were excommunicated, one was a bishop and the other was an exbishop. The woman I know was very active. Adultery doesn't seem limited to inactives from what I have seen. That has been my experience as well. Adultery is definitely not limited by someone's activity rate in the church. Edited February 20, 2020 by bluebell
bluebell Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 5 minutes ago, Duncan said: it happens! When I was 18 I was an EQ councilor to the President, who had just come off his mission, within 6 months he had gotten a recent convert pregnant. He was never exed but the other councilor and I thought so fornicating is okay now? he should have been exed, but whatever I guess. His dad was a Bishop in another ward and this guy claimed he was bipolar. So I wonder if the mix was sufficient not to have a membership council, he was perfectly fine to serve a mission, be an AP but not enough to hold a DC for him. In my hometown a missionary got a recent convert pregnant while he was a missionary and teaching her. It was a huge scandal, especially because her mother was very hostile to the church when she got baptized. I know they got married but I'm not sure what happened after that.
bluebell Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 14 hours 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. If you're already having a c-section, a tubal isn't really invasive at all. 3
rockpond Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 12 minutes ago, CV75 said: Thank you. Our moral guide for "right and wrong" is the basic doctrine which addresses every situation (hopefully with assistance from the Holy Ghost), which the particulars of the handbook cannot do, as well-founded in doctrine as they are. Yes. I don't want my comments to be interpreted as me being opposed to the handbook. I refer to it all the time as I serve in my calling and feel it is indispensable. But, as you noted, it is not my moral guide. 12 minutes ago, CV75 said: Over the past 10 years or so I'm seeing a move away from a heavy compilation of instructions addressing multiple questions and problems that arise from local leaders, and their distillation them into a simpler and more principles-based approach to seeking and offering guidance. I think we'll see this pendulum continually swing back and forth. Just our nature as mortals. But certainly at this time it is swinging in the direction you describe. 1
Duncan Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 7 minutes ago, bluebell said: In my hometown a missionary got a recent convert pregnant while he was a missionary and teaching her. It was a huge scandal, especially because her mother was very hostile to the church when she got baptized. I know they got married but I'm not sure what happened after that. 😱😱😱 we have a guy in our stake who did the same thing, he did get exed though. You do wonder about how these things happen 1
CV75 Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 (edited) 26 minutes ago, rockpond said: Yes. I don't want my comments to be interpreted as me being opposed to the handbook. I refer to it all the time as I serve in my calling and feel it is indispensable. But, as you noted, it is not my moral guide. I think we'll see this pendulum continually swing back and forth. Just our nature as mortals. But certainly at this time it is swinging in the direction you describe. Which of the four handbook sections do you see becoming more detailed and prescriptive? Do you see the "guidelines for adaptation" and "optional resources" as examples where this would happen? Edited February 20, 2020 by CV75
cherryTreez Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 15 hours 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. That he could have kids with someone else was why I wanted him to get a vasectomy. I want my kids to be his only kids. My brother told his wife that maybe his next wife could give him a son and that's why he refused to get one when they were done having kids. I was horrified that he said that.
cherryTreez Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 14 hours 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. Not if pregnancy means death or permanent damage to you and a baby. Then you both get it done and double and triple checked to make sure.
rockpond Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 14 minutes ago, CV75 said: Which of the four handbook sections do you see becoming more detailed and prescriptive? Do you see the "guidelines for adaptation" and "optional resources" as examples where this would happen? I don't see that happening at this time. I was agreeing with you. But, over the very long term, I see the move to/from principle-based and detailed/prescriptive as a back and forth process. Long term I think it will swing back toward being more detailed/prescriptive but I don't have specific thoughts on sections or how that might come about. I believe that the free-thinking side of us pushes for more principle-based direction. Our current leaders are giving that to us. As we get further and further over to that side, we'll start asking questions, demanding specifics... and so, at that time, our leaders will accommodate us. And, we'll move back towards a detailed and prescriptive model. And so it goes. As I said, I think this is just our human nature. It's not bad or wrong. Just is what it is.
smac97 Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 10 hours ago, rockpond said: 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. Holding a temple recommend while engaging in excommunicable behavior would seem to be an aggravating factor to take into account. Thanks, -Smac
Recommended Posts