Church Discipline

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

how do we know when someone has repented? Or sinned?

We don't, which is why the scripture Tex posted is spot on. The Lord knows who sins and repents or doesn't repent. Our job is to minister to them.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

We don't, which is why the scripture Tex posted is spot on. The Lord knows who sins and repents or doesn't repent. Our job is to minister to them.

Which is why excommunication, I think, is a temporal mortal thing not necessarily related to ones eternal spiritual journey.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Which is why excommunication, I think, is a temporal mortal thing not necessarily related to ones eternal spiritual journey.

I agree.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Which is why excommunication, I think, is a temporal mortal thing not necessarily related to ones eternal spiritual journey.

It's hard for me to say exactly what ultimate impact formal church discipline will have on any one person's eternal salvation. God will judge all that, and we know he will be both just and merciful.

I'm also not sure what you mean by "eternal spiritual journey" ... there are some whose spiritual journey has been forever positively impacted by church discipline, which in truth is synonymous with repentance. In fact, the church handbook lists the very first purpose of discipline as "to save the souls of transgressors by helping them to repent."

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Adam

There is no way an honest reading of this scripture could square with the current practice of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We cast people out of our Church, who do not want to be cast out of our Church, for disagreeing on doctrine (Avraham Gileadi, the Toscanos) for writing honest history (Lavina Fielding Anderson, Quinn). We also cast people out of our Church who have sinned and confess and are repentant like Hyrum Smith for having sex with his secretary.

You're conflating physically casting someone out with "not numbering them among my people." While those you mentioned lost their membership, I doubt any of them were unwelcome to attend church meetings (provided they were not disruptive). Margaret Toscano noted how, following her excommunication, each of the brethren greeted her warmly and expressed their love for her. Hyrum Smith rejoined the church.

Originally Posted by Adam

More recently the church has determined that keeping repentant sinners' names on the rolls, but not allowing them to speak in church or hold callings, is more effective in keeping the tithing rolling in. We appropriately call this "disfellowshipping the repentant sinner". Very rarely in the last few years is a person excommunicated--names taken off the rolls--truly cast out. I wonder where in Christ's instructions you quote above disfellowship fits in.

You are under the mistaken impression that every single policy point must be underscored by a specific scripture, another way of insisting on being "commanded in all things." Broadly speaking, scripture delineates general principles of truth, and God then commands his servants who hold the keys to determine specific application under the inspiration of the Spirit.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by Tex

You are under the mistaken impression that every single policy point must be underscored by a specific scripture, another way of insisting on being "commanded in all things." Broadly speaking, scripture delineates general principles of truth, and God then commands his servants who hold the keys to determine specific application under the inspiration of the Spirit.

I see it the other way, Tex. Instead of just applying to the Lord commanding of the Church, I think the principle also applies to Church leaders in commanding the membership. So when Adam points out that some Church policies are not supported by a scriptural principle, it is another way of saying the Church may be overcommanding. The wonder of the Lord saying, "Folks, think for yourselves here; I'm not going to issue detailed regulations," is in stark contrast to the inclination by some within the church to micromanage and regulate. It's a healthy exercise to evaulate church policies/practices to see where they fall along that spectrum.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Adam

On point one: You are narrowly reading the scripture to only mean physically casting someone out. You think after physically barring them from entrance to the building they would remain on the rolls? You are just being silly here.

I think that is the most fair, not to mention most plain, way to interpret that scripture. You're simply playing word games.

Originally Posted by Adam

Also, if an excommunicated or disfellowshipped member attends meetings, they are specificly told not to participate. They are not extended callings. They may not speak. To you this does not seem to matter, to you being able to sit mute and watch seems to be all that matters. Or you are again just being silly.

I know many people who would consider such limitations a blessing. But joking aside, one need not speak or hold a calling to be ministered to, which is the point of attending church. A person under discipline is in the midst of a repentance process, and the righteous longing for the chance to participate more fully may help drive that repentance.

Originally Posted by Adam

On point two: It is one thing to demand to be commanded by policy in all things. It is quite another to hope church policy reflects doctrine taught by our Lord. Certianly you can see the difference.

Church policy does reflect scripture. It isn't my problem that you think you know better how scripture should be applied than the men holding the keys.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Levin

I see it the other way, Tex. Instead of just applying to the Lord commanding of the Church, I think the principle also applies to Church leaders in commanding the membership. So when Adam points out that some Church policies are not supported by a scriptural principle, it is another way of saying the Church may be overcommanding. The wonder of the Lord saying, "Folks, think for yourselves here; I'm not going to issue detailed regulations," is in stark contrast to the inclination by some within the church to micromanage and regulate. It's a healthy exercise to evaulate church policies/practices to see where they fall along that spectrum.

So long as it's done by those who hold the keys.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Adam

Tex, you keep retreating to the metaphor "they hold the keys". If by that you mean they have the right to set the policy, I agree. If by that you mean that I don't have the right to notice when that policy as run far afield from scripture, I disagree.

The issue of keys goes not just at the question of who has power to change a given policy, but also at who has authority to receive inspiration to interpret it.

Originally Posted by Adam

Do you go to bed happy at night having not examined the practice of your community with the fundamental bedrock principles your community was founded on, happy knowing that you have abdicated your reason and intelligence and agency to others? It is a serious question.

I think it honest and most faithful to just admit that the practice/policy doesn't reflect doctrine/scripture. I can't change it--I "don't have the keys" in your nomenclature. But I don't understand your constant animus towards those who see the hills standing before them.

Instead of pretending that the practice is in accord with the scritpure, you would be making a stronger argument to say the scripture was superseeded by modern revelation, that the policy decision of the handbook is of greater authority to you then the words of our Lord in the Holy Scripture.

I believe the practices of the church are consistent with scripture, and I would hardly have gone to all this effort to defend them if I believed otherwise.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by Tex

So long as it's done by those who hold the keys.

In Elders Quorum today, the lesson was on obedience from the Joseph Smith manual. For every thing we are commanded to do, we were taught that we are supposed to seek an answer for ourselves whether the commandment/principle is true and correct. I think that means it is appropriate for us to evaluate church policies for ourselves to determine whether they are overly-regulatory and detached from scriptural principles. And sometimes that commanded have a better perspective on whether they are being overly regulated.

The kicker, and kind of "wink-wink," that the Church does when it teaches that we are to gain a testimony for ourselves of each principle/policy, is that it knows that it holds the trump card: once you know the church is lead by prophets, seers, and revelators, do you really need to question their decisions in how they guide the church?