Question regarding church discipline

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

I only commented on your wife's final comments, which I believe you offered.

I tend to find sweeping generalizations of "mormon culture" concerning how it deals with masturbation a bit over the top. If in fact your wife said what she said on the way out, I find it plausible that the issue of how mormons deal with tossing off, not whether or not you yank it or ever did yank it, is not something you can be exceptionally objective about. I don't need nor want to know the details of your divorce to make such a judgement.

Those were among her final comments. She also said "I don't have to be married to a doctor," after which she went and married another doctor. You want the whole conversation, it'll take hours. That was one of many tidbits.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

It's a matter of being in touch with reality. (No pun intended.)

This topic is significant because it has broader implications for the Church as a whole. This thread isn't JUST about Monument to Balzac. It's about major psychological issues that confront Church members regarding sin/guilt/confession/honesty and so forth.

For example, can one become a church leader if he has committed such a minor "sin?" Obviously so, since every man on earth has. But what if he was never willing to confess it? What about bigger sins? Does the confession process select for the dishonest leaders or just honorable ones?

Can a man be a worthy spouse if he has ever masturbated before in his life? Some of my ex-wife's last words as she walked out the door were: "I'm going to find a husband who has never masturbated before." I said: "Good luck."

She literally thought that no honorable priesthood holder had ever committed this "sin" even during his teenage years. And this is a lady with a PhD in biological sciences. I'm telling you, the Church has a way of detaching people from reality sometimes.

I think we ought to clarify what confession is all about. A bishop wears many hats, one of which is a "common judge in Israel." He is charged with the responsibility of properly evaluating a person who has confessed based on the seriousness of the sin, its repercussions, and his or her attitude toward repentance.

He is not there to offer forgiveness. He simply judges membership. Now, he may assist the person in obtaining forgiveness by helping them understand relevant church doctrine, particularly the atonement, but ultimately forgiveness comes from one source and one source only. A good bishop recognizes the distinction.

Thus, if someone hides a sin for fear of the consequences, he doesn't really understand the atonement or the purpose of church discipline. And if the membership is myopic enough to believe that its leaders are perfect men, or ought to be, they too do not understand the atonement.

Neither of these is the church's fault (at least, not inasmuch as it has sought to teach these principles).

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I think we ought to clarify what confession is all about. A bishop wears many hats, one of which is a "common judge in Israel." He is charged with the responsibility of properly evaluating a person who has confessed based on the seriousness of the sin, its repercussions, and his or her attitude toward repentance.

He is not there to offer forgiveness. He simply judges membership. Now, he may assist the person in obtaining forgiveness by helping them understand relevant church doctrine, particularly the atonement, but ultimately forgiveness comes from one source and one source only. A good bishop recognizes the distinction.

Thus, if someone hides a sin for fear of the consequences, he doesn't really understand the atonement or the purpose of church discipline. And if the membership is myopic enough to believe that its leaders are perfect men, or ought to be, they too do not understand the atonement.

Neither of these is the church's fault (at least, not inasmuch as it has sought to teach these principles).

In other words, as long as you're smart enough to understand the Atonement (like Tex), then it's a perfect system.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

I don't care who is worthy or not. I don't care about leaders in general. I think you guys are missing my point.

My point is that good people (who sin) actually leave or suffer more in the Church just because they are good and honest, whereas many dishonest people who are equally good (who also sin) end up sticking around and thriving just because they're willing to lie.

I think too many honest people end up on the outs because of the way confession is handled in the Church.

What do you mean by thrive? Do you mean callings or do you mean they have less stress and fewer mental breakdowns? I am struggling to understand exactly what you are saying.

I also must make this statement. I recall Creekster chiming in on SIEQ's thread about keeping his kids out of ym/yw classes on doin' da nasty because he fears it could do more damage than good and he only wants his kids taught about doin' da nasty from him or SIRS, an Creekster's comment was he never once saw these types of egregious teachings that were referenced once in all his years in the Church. I think I am like him here. I have never seen these miserable events transpire as a consequence of confession. My personal experience also is that confession brought peace. So I felt I "thrived" moreso when I confessed even if it ensured that I would never ascend up the priesthood hierarchy.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

In other words, as long as you're smart enough to understand the Atonement (like Tex), then it's a perfect system.

A better understanding of the atonement by all parties would resolve much the problems you're talking about. Do you disagree?

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

Those were among her final comments. She also said "I don't have to be married to a doctor," after which she went and married another doctor. You want the whole conversation, it'll take hours. That was one of many tidbits.

I honestly don't want you to endure the misery of hashing it out. My point was never to pour salt in your wounds, just highlighting that if the issue was seared upon such a bad experience it probably clouds your opinion of the subject.

[Detroitdad]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

I don't care who is worthy or not. I don't care about leaders in general. I think you guys are missing my point.

My point is that good people (who sin) actually leave or suffer more in the Church just because they are good and honest, whereas many dishonest people who are equally good (who also sin) end up sticking around and thriving just because they're willing to lie.

I think too many honest people end up on the outs because of the way confession is handled in the Church.

There is probably something to what you say. I remember feeling a little perturbed on many occasions when I was at missionary farewells of buddies who I knew for a fact were not acting in accordance with the behavior expected of prospective missionaries. As a non-mission field entrant (based upon doctrinal issues) I felt automatically judged while my friends were seen as good guys without (I thought) having earned it.

Eventually I realized that a part of the problem was my own attitude toward suffering, and an overly sympathetic view of my own difficulties. I was putting a premium on what was outwardly visible (the esteem of others) at the expense of understanding that the true fruits of positive behavior were internal.

That realization was a big one for me.

I think this issue is probably a problem, and probably one that cannot be sorted out without using faith that God can somehow help sort it out. In the meantime I will continue to think of my leaders as "quiet baters."

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Detroitdad

Eventually I realized that a part of the problem was my own attitude toward suffering, and an overly sympathetic view of my own difficulties. I was putting a premium on what was outwardly visible (the esteem of others) at the expense of understanding that the true fruits of positive behavior were internal.

That realization was a big one for me.

I think this issue is probably a problem, and probably one that cannot be sorted out without using faith that God can somehow help sort it out.

This is kind of what I was trying to get at.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

What do you mean by thrive? Do you mean callings or do you mean they have less stress and fewer mental breakdowns? I am struggling to understand exactly what you are saying.

I also must make this statement. I recall Creekster chiming in on SIEQ's thread about keeping his kids out of ym/yw classes on doin' da nasty because he fears it could do more damage than good and he only wants his kids taught about doin' da nasty from him or SIRS, an Creekster's comment was he never once saw these types of egregious teachings that were referenced once in all his years in the Church. I think I am like him here. I have never seen these miserable events transpire as a consequence of confession. My personal experience also is that confession brought peace. So I felt I "thrived" moreso when I confessed even if it ensured that I would never ascend up the priesthood hierarchy.

Personal experiences with confession depend on lots of variables.

When I went through my divorce, I had a very positive experience with my bishop. I called him and told him I needed to talk to him, and he said: "We'll set you apart as primary pianist after we talk." I said: "You might change your mind after we talk." After we talked (I was bawling uncontrollably), he said: "I don't see any reason not to set you apart." That was very comforting to me, even though it wasn't really a confession situation. And I felt like it was very Christ-like.

I completely agree that confession can be a wonderful thing. It can also be a terrible experience. Sure, there are imperfect leaders. Discipline is often completely arbitrary, as to how things are handled, etc. I'm sort of OK with that. I don't dislike the Church because of it.

At the same time, I think it's a system fraught with imperfection, and I refuse to simplify the discussion by claiming that all imperfections are unavoidable consequences of human error. There is always room for improvement.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

At the same time, I think it's a system fraught with imperfection, and I refuse to simplify the discussion by claiming that all imperfections are unavoidable consequences of human error. There is always room for improvement.

I don't know if this directed at me, but I hope that's not what you think I meant.

The church is constantly revising policy and restructuring programs. They don't do it willy-nilly, but they DO do it. I didn't mean to convey the idea that the system is without flaw, only that it is a divine organization based on true principles and that a better understanding of those principles helps one smooth out the flaws.