Episode 121: Church Handbook of Instructions 2010

66 comments on “Episode 121: Church Handbook of Instructions 2010”

  1. Anonymous Reply

    Wow, you forgot to mention Tom in the list of panelists! Major oversight!! 😉

    Glad to see Mike’s back for this one.

    EDIT: Oh, I see it’s a *new* Mike! Welcome to you dude! (But I miss Brother Tannehill!)

    • Mike Wagstaff Reply

      As the new Mike, who has never thrown a javelin, thank you for the welcome.

  2. Anonymous Reply

    What craziness. Governed by rules not generally known. Thank you for parsing this document as a panel and digesting what we may not take time to review.

    To Glen’s comment that the church changes … Yeah right!? God is the same yesterday today and forever. LDS Inc. represents Him on earth. “Why would a loving Heavenly Father do that?” If the corporation changed its policy, was that because God changed his mind? Did He learn more? I know there is a principal of eternal progression, but Is He right now or was He while his representatives expressed different views? (not that it matters to me, but I am curious)

    • Glenn Reply

      Are you asking me my opinion on this Nathan? I explained it to my daughter this morning this way: “It is all man-made. All of it.”

      We had a very fun discussion, quite irreverent actually, where we imagined that God actually was the literal architect of church policies rather than men — it went something like this:

      “Thus sayeth the Lord, thou shalt organize thyself by twos and go unto thy bretheren as hometeachers once a month, and visit them at the most inconvenient times, and thus shalt thou overstay thine welcome, and each month shalt thou turn to mine monthly churchly magazine and read the same message over and over and over again, and endeth each time with the question, “ist there anything that we mightest doeth for thee and thine household” to which the answer shall alway be ‘no thanks’ and then endeth with a prayer.

      The point was that it is rather absurd to imagine that God is really the architect of such mundane details of all these things that we seem to keep track of and make such a big deal about in the church.

      So to brig it back to your original question — the things that don’t change about god/the gospel: be kind, charitable, judge not unrighteous judgment, etc. The things that do change in the church: the corrupt, racist, sexist, homophobic, ignorant, arrogant, prideful, self-righteous and out-dated attitudes and policies (i.e. circumcision?) that are held in the minds of people like you and and like me and everyone else on this planet as what is “normal” simply because that is how we grew up within the cultures we inherit — the cultures that we have to explore and unravel through our own education and life-experiences. And like you expressed in your essay on circumcision last year — you figured that one out — but others are still working on it. Some do that better than others. But we’ve all still got a long way to go with all of that though, right?

      cheers

      • Rich Rasmussen Reply

        Wow, what a memorable conversation between you and your daughter! I’m glad conversations that sound like that can be that light-hearted between you two, kudos.

      • Anonymous Reply

        I have a hard time these days attributing God with a male identity. My children know when I refer to that entity, I usually do so as She He It They.

        My comments were just intended as verbal irony, but in writing that may not have been obvious.

        I agree that we are all still learning.

    • Rich Rasmussen Reply

      Regardless of motivation (revelation or societal pressure/needs) the church has changed considerably since it’s beginnings. Why can’t it change further? No one quotes the scripture that god is the same always, unless it is convenient for their argument. Everyone sees that the idea and concepts of god have evolved (old testament, new, restoration, early church, correlation, and the ERA for example).
      I can’t see many reasons to stay interested in Mormonism, after discovering what it is, except to monitor it and hope for positive change. Really, pure fascination and family relationships are the only other reasons that strike me at the moment.

      • Anonymous Reply

        I have never heard anybody quote “same always”. It seems to me it would be an easily falsifiable point of view. I have learned that most absolute statements are like that.

        • Rich Rasmussen Reply

          I’ll go on record for saying “god is the same always” if you go on record for saying “God is the same yesterday today and forever.” You are right, easily falsifiable. I think we’re saying the same thing here. I’m only trying to say that because this is an obvious conflict of doctrines, it is only brought up to support a view that hasn’t much root elsewhere. Whats more, because the church has changed, we might expect it to change further, and I hope for socially positive and responsible change.

          • Anonymous

            Yes. I think we are saying the same thing. Yes LDS Inc. changes. I agree, “same yesterday, today and forever” is ridiculous. I too hope changes will be positive.

          • Joy was his neighbor's wife

            How can changes to something that is fundamentally one big lie be positive? To my mind it is like saying “It would be better if he had stabbed her to death, instead of strangling her.” At the end of the day, the person is still dead. At the end of the day, regardless of how they change the window dressing, Mormonism is built on a completely false foundation. It is a house built on sand. The only changes that would move it in the right direction would be to abandon Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, etc. as “prophets,” and all Mormon scripture.

          • Nathan R Kennard

            I suppose I forgot about having read something like this in the Book of Mormon. I see no such references in the KJV bible, but searching “same today yesterday forever” at LDS.org returns several results from Mormon scripture. Sometimes God, a third person, is referred to thus (4), sometimes God says that about himself (2). Once God is spoken to in this manner – thou art … (1) God’s course “is one eternal round, the same today as yesterday, and forever” (1), and also the Spirit is described thus (1). From this it is evident that this notion was reinforced in my upbringing.

  3. JJA Reply

    For being a worldwide church they are really not thinking about the world, in Brasil that is the primary way of drying clothes outside on the line. They even do it inside but there is usually not much room.

    Are you guys saying that homosexuality is sanctioned by the Bible?

    • Heather Reply

      Do you mean based upon what we were discussing in relation to the church fully accepting homosexuality at some point in the future? If so, no, I don’t think any of us were claiming that the Bible sanctions it. But, is the LDS church not a church of modern revelation? I can’t speak for the others, but I was referring to the possibility of the church leadership receiving “revelation” that homosexuality is no accepted and no longer considered sinful.

      • Anonymous Reply

        “the church leadership receiving “revelation” that homosexuality is no accepted and no longer considered sinful. ”

        Keep dreaming….aint gonna happen!

        • Heather Reply

          You don’t know what the future holds. I’m sure there were plenty of people saying the same thing about blacks and the priesthood and the end of polygamy.

          • Anonymous

            “You don’t know what the future holds” Well my Urim and Thumin thing says the future is……just kidding.

            Different with blacks and polygamy. It was never a declared ‘sin’ to be black (could be baptized but not have priesthood) and polygamy as per section 132 hasn’t ended technically and all the sealing policies run of 132, we just don’t practice polygamy here on earth in our current society.

            Homosexuality has been a sin since the time of the children of Adam, when in the PoGP they mentioned that ‘great secret’ and that each man ‘knew’ his brother ie in the biblical sense. Moses called it an abomination etc etc.

            Homosexuality has never been OK nor ever not been a sin. Thinking it will change is like thinking that fornication or adultery will one day not be a sin anymore.

          • Rich Rasmussen

            I largely agree with Heather here, the church can change, and I think it will change. Time is the only variable. It may be dreaming to hope for significant change anytime soon, and “you may say that I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one…” Ooooooohhhh, was that lame?

          • Heather

            That’s true. It has been a sin since the “beginning of time.” But look at gay marriage. The war is over. By the time people my age and younger are grandparents, gay marriage will be legal. I think we see a similar pattern with blacks and the priesthood. The reason blacks were given the priesthood at all is because the people in control of the church had a different outlook on the world than that great ol’ bigot, Brigham. Times change. Opinions changed. I truly believe that being opposed to homosexuality will be as antiquated as believing in stoning adulterers or selling your raped daughter to her attacker.

          • Anonymous

            Heather & Rich Rasmussen,

            Looks like both of you DO know what the future holds. Maybe you guys have that urim/thumin thing -or whatever its called nowadays!

            Gay Marriage -War over? doubt it. “I truly believe that being opposed to homosexuality will be as antiquated as believing in stoning adulterers or selling your raped daughter to her attacker” …however both adultery and rape were and still are sins.

            I ‘truly’ believe that the world is and will continue to make homosexuality no-sinful, just like they have made pre-marital sex, living with a ‘partner’ , or even most adultery no-sinful. Strange that guys like Charlie Sheen or Hefner can live with several women out of wedlock and not be seen as sinful -crazy for Sheen, sure- but not sinful. Just like many see homo’s as not sinful…

          • Heather

            No urim or thumim. But I do have a nifty rock and hat which excludes all light.

            I’ll meet you in the middle. Homosexuality will not be a sin. But having homosexual sex outside the bonds of marriage or cheating on your same sex spouse WILL still be a sin.

            Deal? 😉

          • Anonymous

            Very witty…. but nah, I can’t meet you half way because I think homosexuality always was and always will be ‘sin’ . but I know I’m in the minority here. But you didn’t comment at all on the Charlie sheen or Hefner lifestyles which everyone consider OK and not criminal but mormons who had 2 or 3 wives were thrown in prison. Ironic isn’t it how society does change over time, full circle practically.

          • tama

            coming in late to give my $.02…
            i’m glad you brought up hefner and sheen. i personally see it the same way as i see gay marriage… they should be aloud to live their lives the way they want. i’m sure the day will come when it is not so uncommon for children to visit their grandpa & grandpa. not sure how it will go for polygamy in the future though. but, i do believe that they deserve the right to live as they please… with that said, i must explain that the problem that arise with polygamy is not that they are in to “sharing”. the problem is religion. when many of us think of polygamy, we think of flds and all that comes with it. but, the RELIGION is the cause of indoctrination, child rape, forced marriage, incest, etc… NOT polygamy. but, i guess we couldn’t just get rid of the religion… :-/
            any remarks?

  4. Listening in Iraq Reply

    You missed a big change:

    From book 1: “6.7.1 When a Disciplinary Council is Not Necessary.
    Failure to Comply with Some Church Standards. A disciplinary council should not be held to discipline or threaten members who do not comply with the Word of Wisdom, who are struggling with pornography or self-abuse, or whose transgressions consist of omissions, such as failure to pay tithing, inactivity in the Church, or inattention to Church duties.”

    I was in an elder’s quorum meeting one month prior to the manual’s release. In attendance was a high counselor. He stated in disgust that he had recently attended two stake level church courts with two recently returned missionaries, both only over pornography. I wondered how many of those 15 judges were themselves secretly indulging in porn. Statistically, there had to have been multiple. This poor high councilman has been “de-fanged”.

    • Anonymous Reply

      My reply here disappeared.

      I was only saying that I was also in a disciplinary council for a high priest recently released as bishops councilor who had a porn addiction , and he was disfellowshipped, so it seems the church just hasn’t got the message out there that porn issues don’t justify a disciplinary council.

      But I wanted to point out that only the Stake President is a judge not the 12 high councilors or the presidents counselors. This has some deep consequences because at the end of it all , it doesn’t matter what the high councilors say or believe, only the Stake President decides what to do. Sure he has a hearing to assist the discussion and decision but the decision is his and his only as a judge in israel. the 12 high councilors are really the to vote in agreeing with the SP and if someone complains about a results then the SP can just turn around and say “15 high priest believe that the decision is correct so….” in other words they are there to back up the SP whenever controversy arise.

      • Iraq Reply

        What happens if not all of the high councilors vote in agreement with the SP decision? What would have happened in this disciplinary council if one of the high councilors had said, “we are violating church procedure by holding this disciplinary council?”

        • Anonymous Reply

          The Stake president is instructed in the handbook ,and during training, to try to talk through a decision and attempt to convince the high councilor to agree but he doesn’t need that person’s ‘agreement’ to proceed with excommunicating someone -or any other decision. This is in book 1 too. I’ll get you the exact wording tomorrow cause I don’t have the book with me here.

          I’ve been in disciplinary councils where about half of the council disagreed with the stake president in a decision but it didn’t matter, he still did what he decided to do in either excommunication or reinstatement someone. In another one I recall, one of the first I was in as a 24 year old stake clerk, the stake president changed his mind later in a misappropriation of funds court (as they were called back then) and then simply didn’t sing or hand in any of the paperwork so the area offices and church HQ never found out about that’s branch presidents misappropriation, but everyone in the stake believed he was correctly dissfellowshiped and then reinstated a year later. His ‘sin’ was in using tithing cash for fast offerings to help to poor.

          • Matthew

            In the end, it is not a council nor are they councilmen in the sense that a council votes. In reality they are counselors and the SP can do whatever he wants. High counselors. That subtlety is often overlooked.

          • Anonymous

            Correct when it comes to disciplinary councils. SP can and will usually do what he feels is best ie what he wants to.

            But it can be a council in other matters, when the SP does open up issues for discussion, and he accepts recommendations from the HC’s. However the boss is clearly the SP and he is like a church president within the boundaries of his stake, he can even have church employee fired who don’t live in his stake. It is probably the highest position in church in terms of power that 99.9% of us will ever see because most members will never interact with any GA.

      • Erico Reply

        Yep, the 12 high councilors are really just window-dressing as long as a strong-willed SP is at the wheel.

        Like they say, ya don’t call a posse together if there ain’t gonna be a hangin…

    • Anonymous Reply

      This is a bit off-topic–okay, really off-topic. But is there a more sublime euphemism for masturbation than “self-abuse?” Love it.

      • Anonymous Reply

        Self-luvin’ maybe, but abuse? Well, there is some slapping going on…

  5. Anonymous Reply

    Book 1; its actually available at http://www.provocation.net/chi/chi00.htm a dutch site; wikileaks was pointing to the provocation site and the church’s legal action got the link deleted from wikileaks.

    Re: In my stake no one can just go up to the bishops office and read book 1. its only for bishopric members and stake presidencies members including clerks by the way. But i got hold of one and still have it here with me (as a high councilman)

    • Steve Reply

      Thanks for the link. On what seems to be page 73 it says, “A deceased woman may be sealed to all men to whom she was legally married during her life. However, if she was sealed to a husband during her life, all her husbands must be deceased before she can be sealed to a husband to whom she was not sealed during life.” Is this eternal polyandry, and is this new to the 2010 LDS-PPM?

      • Gale Reply

        The link isn’t actually to a copy of the 2010 version of Book 1… but yes, the church still believes in eternal polygamy. If you do some poking around online you should be able to find a copy (try a google search for “church handbook of instructions book 1 2010”, the first link should lead you to a set of comments that gives a viable link along with the necessary password to download a pdf copy).

      • Anonymous Reply

        Yeah, that link is for 2003 I think, its been up that long!

        No, it isn’t polyandry. It was then president benson who started allowing this in genealogy because sometimes it is the only way for children to be sealed by proxy to both a father and mother.

  6. Anonymous Reply

    Packer: I can’t see him contracting any part of that definition on pg 165 . The 2006 reads “Homosexual behavior violates the commandments of God, is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality, distorts loving relationships, and deprives people of the blessings that can be found in family life and in the saving ordinances of the gospel. Those who persist in such behavior or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline. Homosexual behavior can be forgiven through sincere repentance.

    If members have homosexual thoughts or feelings or engage in homosexual behavior, Church leaders should help them have a clear understanding of faith in Jesus Christ, the process of repentance, and the purpose of life on earth. Leaders also should help them accept responsibility for their thoughts and actions and apply gospel principles in their lives.

    In addition to the inspired assistance of Church leaders, members may need professional counseling. When appropriate, bishops should contact LDS Social Services to identify resources to provide such counseling in harmony with gospel principles. ”

    What was generally ‘members have homosexual thoughts or feelings or engage in homosexual behavior’ is now “encourage ‘them’ in their resolve to live the law of chastity and to control UNRIGHTEOUS THOUGHTS”(2010).

    So you are finding the n-excuse to say that homosexuality has been decriminalized. Its a bit too far a stretch when all they did was rephrase a problem into today’s typical language use.

  7. Anonymous Reply

    Packer: I can’t see him contracting any part of that definition on pg 165 . The 2006 reads “Homosexual behavior violates the commandments of God, is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality, distorts loving relationships, and deprives people of the blessings that can be found in family life and in the saving ordinances of the gospel. Those who persist in such behavior or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline. Homosexual behavior can be forgiven through sincere repentance.

    If members have homosexual thoughts or feelings or engage in homosexual behavior, Church leaders should help them have a clear understanding of faith in Jesus Christ, the process of repentance, and the purpose of life on earth. Leaders also should help them accept responsibility for their thoughts and actions and apply gospel principles in their lives.

    In addition to the inspired assistance of Church leaders, members may need professional counseling. When appropriate, bishops should contact LDS Social Services to identify resources to provide such counseling in harmony with gospel principles. ”

    What was generally ‘members have homosexual thoughts or feelings or engage in homosexual behavior’ is now “encourage ‘them’ in their resolve to live the law of chastity and to control UNRIGHTEOUS THOUGHTS”(2010).

    So you are finding the n-excuse to say that homosexuality has been decriminalized. Its a bit too far a stretch when all they did was rephrase a problem into today’s typical language use.

  8. Anonymous Reply

    Packer: I can’t see him contracting any part of that definition on pg 165 . The 2006 reads “Homosexual behavior violates the commandments of God, is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality, distorts loving relationships, and deprives people of the blessings that can be found in family life and in the saving ordinances of the gospel. Those who persist in such behavior or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline. Homosexual behavior can be forgiven through sincere repentance.

    If members have homosexual thoughts or feelings or engage in homosexual behavior, Church leaders should help them have a clear understanding of faith in Jesus Christ, the process of repentance, and the purpose of life on earth. Leaders also should help them accept responsibility for their thoughts and actions and apply gospel principles in their lives.

    In addition to the inspired assistance of Church leaders, members may need professional counseling. When appropriate, bishops should contact LDS Social Services to identify resources to provide such counseling in harmony with gospel principles. ”

    What was generally ‘members have homosexual thoughts or feelings or engage in homosexual behavior’ is now “encourage ‘them’ in their resolve to live the law of chastity and to control UNRIGHTEOUS THOUGHTS”(2010).

    So you are finding the n-excuse to say that homosexuality has been decriminalized. Its a bit too far a stretch when all they did was rephrase a problem into today’s typical language use.

  9. Nocoolnametom Reply

    Actually Book 2 has been available for years in the distribution center (I use to work there) but has been broken up into various pieces for the individual auxiliaries. The full collection in one volume was restricted, but nothing prevented anyone from buying all of the pieces (and those pieces were free, so buying them all was easy, too.) Making Book 2 “available” is no large step forward.

  10. Nonny Reply

    I’m sorry Glenn’s discussion of TR, excuse me temple worthiness, required to perform Ph ordinances was cut short time-wise. I think the unchallenged implication of this is the tithing question in the TR interview. It effectually requires people to pay money in order to exercise their priesthood. Would this not be the same as priestcraft? Whether one creatively defines full tithe payer or not, whether it is an annual payment or continuous, the implication is the same.

    • Glenn Reply

      Nonny —

      I think we are all missing the bigger picture here (aka the eternal perspective). It is only priestcraft when money is required by *unrighteous groups* that are not actually backed by the Lord for realz. When the Lord writes it down in His own Church’s operations manuals (or causes it to be written by the hands of His ordained servants — yea, and verily, it is one and the same) then it is certainly not priestcraft. Only bad people are guilty of priestcraft. Not the good ones. Get it? So really no further discussion is required, right?

      (I feel prompted to clarify that that the above statement is meant in the playful spirit of facetiousness)

  11. Gail F. Bartholomew Reply

    Great pod cast but way too short.

    I have some comments on the changes on homosexuality. One the statement that gender is eternal has nothing to do with homosexuality. Homosexuals have the same type of gender identification as heterosexuals. Yes the leadership believes it says something about homosexuality and the average member also believes this says something about homosexuality. The truth is that nothing in the Proclamation really says anything against homosexuality. Yes that is the documents intent, but it does not. It does say that marriage between one man and one woman is ordained by God. I says nothing about God condemning any other type of union. The way this is in interpreted could change rather quickly.

    When we look at the history of the church the church turns on a dime. Look at poligamy. Not that that change happened instantiated but a hundred years ago this was central to the Mormon faith. Today it is a repugnant idea to most of its members.

    The brethren often said that if there was interracial marriage it would destroy society today members have no memory of this.

    The church has already made huge changes, but they never point it out they just stop saying things. President Kimble said homosexuality is caused by masturbation. In the 80’s Ballard said that it was caused by selfishness and if you repent of selfishness you can change. since 1990 you can find not statement by the 12 or the 3 that say that it can change or that they know what causes it. If you read what each of the brethren say on the issue I think you can see that they do not agree. They typically will not publicly disagree with each other. I think President Packer gave us a glimpse into the political world of the brothern on this issue. I think it is obvious that he was on the side of the debate that lost the battle on the nuanced language of the new hand book. He is also well aware of his power. Yes they changed what he said but will most members remember, what he said. In affect he was able to turn the clock back twenty years when it comes to influence on the bigotry of the members of the church.

    • brandt Reply

      Definitely agree that it was too short. This would have been great in a 2-parter, because there’s so much more depth that you can go in on each of the subjects.

    • Anonymous Reply

      President Kimble said homosexuality is caused by masturbation.””

      That’s a distortion of the truth. What Kimball wrote was his opinion that masturbation and then mutual masterbation can or may lead to homosexuality. Different statement altogether.

      Today if two men are mutually masterbating each other we call them ‘gay’, ie exactly what Kimball said.

      • Gail F. Bartholomew Reply

        I can see how you can read his quote the way you do. I did not remember the quote correctly:

        “While we should not regard this weakness [masturbation] as the heinous sin which some other sexual practices are, it is of itself bad enough to require sincere repentance. What is more, it too often leads to grievous sin, even that sin of homosexuality. For, done in private, it evolves often into mutual masturbation-practiced with another person of the same sex-and thence int total homosexuality.”

        So I remembered only part of the quote, but no I do not think that I made the stretch. I believe it is President Kimble that made the stretch. He said that masturbating privately evolves often into mutual masturbation with another person of the same sex then into homosexuality. He spoke of it as a three step process not a one step like I was assuming based on only part of his quote, but he clearly links privet masturbation to often lead to homosexuality.

        • Anonymous Reply

          He also said it leads to bestiality. What a guy you were, Spencer.

          “Sin in sex practices tends to have a ‘snowballing’ effect….Thus it is through the ages, perhaps as an extension of homosexual practices, men and women have sunk even to seeking sexual satisfaction with animals.” – Spencer W. Kimball, “The Miracle of Forgiveness,” Bookcraft, 1978, p. 78.

          • Erico

            Then again, some nameless church drone in the COB was probably writing the Miracle of Forgiveness and not SWK. Maybe that one slipped by him. lol.

  12. Matty D Reply

    I just wanted to say that I really enjoyed the podcast. In particular, I thought that Heather is an excellent addition to the regular panelists. I hope she sticks around and contributes more often. I found her to be engaging and articulate. Plus, it’s always good to hear more from the female perspective. Keep up the good work.

  13. PollyAnna Reply

    1.ou are guys are so funny. I keep thinking to myself “Glenn is my favorite character”, but then I have to stop my self and say this isn’t a sitcom. They are not characters! The point being I love your back and forth and the dynamics between you guys. Very amusing! I love you all though. You all crack me up.
    2.As an adopted person I have to say discouraging children from the meeting their biological parents is a big mistake. It’s nobody’s business what you choose to do in your wandering to make sense of your life. It’s your biological history and no church sealing can take that away. Important things like medical history and cultural back ground are very important to most adopted children. My mother (adopted) is very LDS and very much in favor of open adoption. (The adoption community in the larger world is trending towards open adoptions because it appears to be better for both parties.) She didn’t feel like she had a right to keep us from keeping in touch with each other if we wanted to maintain a relationship. I met my biological mom when I was 20, and it have been invaluable to me to maintain a positive relationship with my biological family. I wasn’t adopted though LDS service, so maybe that makes a difference. I really disagree with this change in church policy. Who cares if it makes Mormons uncomfortable; its not about them. Life is messy get over it. Anyway, that’s my two cents.
    3.This is still related to the adoption issue. I also think it’s a mistake to discourage grandparents from adopting their grandchildren. Although I am a big supporter of adoption and think it’s a great option for people in a tough spot. It’s a deeply personal decision, and I think whatever anyone chooses should be supported as good option. There is no cut and dry pat answer to a situation like that.

  14. EyesWideOpen Reply

    This was an awesome podcast! One complaint: NOT LONG ENOUGH! :0)
    More..More…More! After reading comments posted, I would love to hear Rich Rasmusen be a guest…. his comments were spot on!

    I have a question: regarding record keeping in the church. If a person had church disciplinary courts in the past, and all was forgiven by Bishop….. are those ‘records’ expunged from that member’s record since, “the Lord doth remember them no more”? But, “doth the church remember forever?” I’m just wondering… It seems, I heard a few years ago, that all past forgiven transgressions should not be in church records, any thoughts or comments?
    It saddens me to feel that the Lord is not runnin’ the show much, if at all….. Or ever? Whoa….

    • Been there, done that Reply

      NO, the church’s view on repentance is that you can, but you still are “tagged” in the records. An example: A friend of mine was excommunicated, then reinstated some time later. About 9 years later, he was called into the SP office and told that the SP was inspired to call him as bishop. One of the questions asked was if he had ever been excommunicated. He replied in the affirmative, which gave the SP pause. The SP asked if it had been 10 years, but my friend wasn’t sure the exact timing. He was excused, and later the SP said that he had been in touch with SLC and that it had been only 9 yrs and change, so he would not be able to serve. He was called to be a counselor in that bishopric, which he did accept.

      SO, you still have a “record” even though “all is forgiven”. Sad, but true.

  15. brandt Reply

    I found this to be an intriguing podcast, and very reminiscent of the old school Mormon Expression round table days.

    Random Thoughts:

    – I think the church made volume 2 available for everyone for a couple of reasons: First, it includes everyone in the mix (and not just the upper echelons of church leadership, book 1 excluded) and second, if you can find it on the internet, what’s the harm in the Church giving to everyone? I mean, I have a ultra-orthodox in-law family, and one of them received the HBI from a friend, who got it off a torrent site. Its out there, let’s not be in secret. And who knows how much longer book 1 will be an “elite” book that can only be read by bishops/stake presidents? Call me gullible, but the church is making progress, and I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt that in 50 years, we might see book 1 available to all.

    – Re: Bishops being judges and counseling on “doctrinal” issues: This could work….if bishops understood what they were getting in to. It goes back to my theory on how the church needs to do a better job educating somehow, someway. If someone goes to a bishop with concerns about the Book of Abraham, or church history, and the bishop has a blank look, or tells them to read/pray, it will be wholly ineffective. For the bishops to counsel on doctrinal issues, they need to know first.

    – Welcome Mike and Heather! I think you guys did great. And Glenn makes ANOTHER reference to the mythical Abrahamic Covenant podcast. Is this going to be an ongoing theme?

    Great discussion. Like I said in another comment, I really think this could have been a 2-parter, because there’s so much info to digest that at the end, it seemed like quick hits. Glenn needs to quit being docile and get in there, respectability be damned! 😉

  16. Rhiannon Reply

    I missed the Vietnamese connections in the front of this podcast and I’ve heard it twice now. Love to talk with you more. I need the practice! Rhiannon/Thao

  17. Anonymous Reply

    Regarding the question of who could edit, proofread, or change apostles’ conference talks before they read them to the membership off the teleprompter…who edits and changes them afterward before going in the Ensign?

    Someone somewhere has the authoritah. The church would save a little face by doing it prior to conference so you don’t have confusion about why a prophet, seer, and revelator would need to be corrected.

  18. jethro Reply

    Heather is a fantastic addition to the podcast. Her responses and questions were insightful and well thought out. Her voice seems to offer a new take on these issues. Way to go!

  19. Gail F. Bartholomew Reply

    Darkmatter20,

    I do need to look up the exact quote, but he has several not just the one about group masturbation. If I remember correctly he said something about the degrading sin of masturbation that can lead to the most degrading sin of homosexuality. I will look it up and get back to you.

  20. Dave Sonntag Reply

    My favorite part of the new CHI, is that I did not know Heavenly Father and the Holy Ghost are not to be portrayed in musicals or plays. If the Savior is portrayed, it must only be by men of wholesome character. Jesus must not sing or dance.

    Which begs the question–if I’m in a ward where we have a celibate gay actor, is it appropriate for him to portray Jesus? Even though I know it would kill him to not be able to sing and dance…

    Geez, first they take away Roadshows, and now my dancing and singing Jesus? I suppose I should be grateful that Jesus could, in theory, be played by a gay Mormon.

  21. Anonymous Reply

    For a very good book closely related to this subject, check out this book:

    Influence–how and why people agree to things by Robert B. Cialdini.

  22. Matt Reply

    A comment about not wearing pants in the temple under “bridalware”. I think what that refers to is the situation myself and my wife faced. She didn’t want to wear her dress on the way TO the temple, and wanted to change inside so as not to allow everyone to see her dress. She was wearing pants, and just wanted to step inside and change, but they wouldn’t let her in the temple. She had to change clothes with a bridesmaid outside (in a car) so she had a dress on, go into the temple and then change into her dress, and then have the dress delivered back outside to the bridesmaid.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *