Church Discipline

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Adam

Really? Plural marriage is the easiest example to show this just isn't a true blanket statement. Nowhere in scripture is plural marriage declared an excommunicatable offense, yet that is the policy of the church today. In fact, the church is commanded expressly to practice plural marriage in DC 132. The Manifesto, which does not proport to be a revelation, even if it were, never repeals plural marriage. The strongest statement therein says that Pres. Woodruff would use his influence to get the saints to not violate the law of the United States--which he mainly did by sending men and their additional wives to Canada and Mexico to be married. The old-timers still call the trail through Utah and Arizona to the Mexician settlements the "Honeymoon Trail" for the honeymoon on the way home.

We're getting side-tracked. The real issue is your insistence that you have the right to independently decide for yourself which policies are correct and incorrect, though (fortunately) powerless to actually act on your decisions. I contend you are in error, as in the posts I link to below in my response to Levin.

Originally Posted by Levin

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?

We've actually had several long threads discussing this dichotomy. I've expressed my opinion on it here and here. You can also view some amusingly rancorous responses. Enjoy.

[ERCougar]

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.

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. It must be the lost verse:

32(b). But if a member of the church has committed a sin and confesses his sin with full sincerity of heart you shall disfellowship him by keeping his name on the rolls, properly annotated of course, and not allow him to utter a word in church meetings, not by way of testimony, not by way of teaching, not by way of prayer, for his prayer you shall hear not, and his wisdom is dross before me. But his tithes and offerings you shall continue to take, and if he bows down in submissiveness for a period of time to be randomly determined by the whims of local church leaders, and pays his tithes and offerings throughout that time, then you shall allow him to be fellowshipped again. But keep his record annotated and make sure he is never trusted to be a bishop or such.

I realize you're being facetious here, but do they really annotate the records of those excommunicated/disfellowshipped so that they will never be called as a bishop?

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

I realize you're being facetious here, but do they really annotate the records of those excommunicated/disfellowshipped so that they will never be called as a bishop?

Isn't it a little odd that this question even has to be asked?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

I realize you're being facetious here, but do they really annotate the records of those excommunicated/disfellowshipped so that they will never be called as a bishop?

I've heard conflicting info, yes and no. I believe they do not do so, but the information is again conflicting.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Isn't it a little odd that this question even has to be asked?

I agree. Y'all are damn paranoid.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

I agree. Y'all are damn paranoid.

Being paranoid doesn't mean people aren't out to get us.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by Tex

Read this during the sacrament today, and thought it was a beautiful and succinct summation of the purpose and intent of disciplinary councils. Who better to describe it than the Savior himself?



http://scriptures.lds.org/en/3_ne/18

I guess it depends on your definition of "repent". To me, repenting is an act of turning one's heart to God. It does not signify perfection in acts, but a true desire to follow God's commandments. So basically, the scripture says that if someone doesn't have a desire to follow God, they shouldn't be numbered among God's people. No argument there. But the very act of going to a bishop signifies that these people aren't in this group. So why the disciplinary response? What good does it do to prevent a sincere seeker of God from taking the Sacrament, from participating in church meetings, etc? Motivation to change? Really? That seems weak.

I appreciate the feedback on this issue. I've read some nice stories of excommunicated people changing their lives. But I still haven't seen a good reason for the church to be involved, by mandate, in the process. If someone feels they need the help of a bishop, outstanding. If the hurdle of going to the bishop's office stands in the way of them coming back to church, I think the mandate is silly and counterproductive. Just my opinion.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by Tex

I agree. Y'all are damn paranoid.

Right...the thought of someone who's been disfellowshipped not being eligible to be called as a bishop keeps me up at night.

I would say that if this is true, it's the church leadership that's paranoid.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

Right...the thought of someone who's been disfellowshipped not being eligible to be called as a bishop keeps me up at night.

I would say that if this is true, it's the church leadership that's paranoid.

Now that's just nonsensical. You can dispute the philosophy behind disfellowshipment if you wish, but the idea that the church wouldn't want a person guilty of serious sin (by whatever interpretation) leading a congregation is hardly paranoia.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by Tex

Now that's just nonsensical. You can dispute the philosophy behind disfellowshipment if you wish, but the idea that the church wouldn't want a person guilty of serious sin (by whatever interpretation) leading a congregation is hardly paranoia.

There are plenty of leaders out there in Mormondom so that the Church doesn't have to call leaders from a pool of serious sinners.....even though they supposedly have repented.