Changes to church handbook re: homosexuality

[woot]

And I would post the links, but I'm not sure the admins here would be okay with that. I have URLs for both books 1 and 2.

I'd be interested in those. I haven't found any links yet.

[Mormon Red Death]

please send them to me. I want to read them!

Ps how silly that members must be secretive or have special conncetions to read the Official Handbook of Instructions for their own Church.

The reasoning I got from the CUF community is that if it were available then any old person would know policies and procedures of the church and could call Bishops out for minor infractions.

[Portland Ute]

How about baby blessings?

How about baptisms?

I have a son that turns 8 in 2 months. I had better go get the recommend!

[DapperDan]

The reasoning I got from the CUF community is that if it were available then any old person would know policies and procedures of the church and could call Bishops out for minor infractions.

Knowledge is power

[SoonerCoug]

How about baptisms?

I have a son that turns 8 in 2 months. I had better go get the recommend!

This is why I plan to clean up my act before I have kids. I don't want some other dude blessing or baptizing my kids.

[TheBYUGuy]

This is why I plan to clean up my act before I have kids. I don't want some other dude blessing or baptizing my kids.

Plus, you would be able to see again and kittens would stop dying.

[OrangeUte]

Why would the church want to get in the business of performing civil unions?

they already do. bishops do it all of the time. civil marriages, that is.

[OrangeUte]

The reasoning I got from the CUF community is that if it were available then any old person would know policies and procedures of the church and could call Bishops out for minor infractions.

kind of like the catholic church not permitting bibles to be published so that priests were the only ones with access to the "word".

[Indy Coug]

they already do. bishops do it all of the time. civil marriages, that is.

And obviously, that is a big distinction.

[OrangeUte]

And obviously, that is a big distinction.

that's why i'm posing the question if the church could ever move to that place.

[OrangeUte]

interesting...

For missionary worthiness...

Section 4.5.2...

a straight member who has been promiscuous with several partners or with one partner over and extended period of time is not able to serve. but, where there has been repentance and unusual circumstances warrant and exception, it can be granted on submission to the first presidency. the letter of recommendation for the exception is submitted and should set forth specific details of the situation.

for a gay member who has participated in homosexual activity during or after the last three teenage years is not normally considered, especially if it involves multiple partners or with one partner over an extended period of time. again, exceptions can be made similar to the straight member, but the CHOI states repentance process must be 1 to 3 years depending on frequency of the acts and require a professional evalution (usually through LDS Family Services) and an HIV test.

[Indy Coug]

that's why i'm posing the question if the church could ever move to that place.

I don't think so. The church performs civil marriages to facilitate the baptism and/or eventual sealing of that couple. I guess it's possible there may be weddings at LDS chapels where both are not members and don't intend to become members, but I've never heard of that before.

[OrangeUte]

I don't think so. The church performs civil marriages to facilitate the baptism and/or eventual sealing of that couple. I guess it's possible there may be weddings at LDS chapels where both are not members and don't intend to become members, but I've never heard of that before.

you are correct - it doesn't happen now at all. you asked tripletdaddy where the "there" was re: homosexual members and gay marriage... i was only positing that allowing church clergy to perform civil marriages/unions for gay members might be a "there" that the church gets to. not on church property, but permitting local leaders to officiate in a ceremony doesn't seem to me to be completely out of the realm of possibility. However, you're probably right and it's more likely to not happen and some variance of the current status quo re: gay membership and gay marriage will be maintained. still, lots of avenues the church could take on this.

[TheBYUGuy]

and an HIV test.

Because promiscuous gays are subject to HIV but promiscuous heteros are not?

[statman]

another thought per Indy's question...

i wonder if the church will ever (1) not officially excommunicate members that are gay but just put them in a status wherein they cannot hold callings/participate in meetings i.e. disfellowshipment; and then (2) permit its clergy to performe same sex civil unions involving members, but just not sealings which would only be available for opposite gender couples of one man and one woman.

They already discourage clergy performing any marriages/unions/etc outside of the temple. The default position is "no, we don't want bishops to do that" but there are exceptions. My guess is the exceptions are going to disappear - and I bet that within a decade we'll not see "marriages" being performed in temples either. Marriages will be civil - done by a justice of the peace - and sealings will be religious-only temple ordinances...