Interesting thoughts

[Archaea]

by Mr. Peters:

I think the role for the intellectual in the Church would be to lead in terms of Christian service. I don't like the model of the loyal opposition. Church is not parliament. I don't like the model of the intellectual as beacon unto the world. I think we, like most people, selfish and self-serving and defensive of our craft. I think that Lowell Bennion had the right answer. You know, that if you really want to philosophize, go out and paint houses for the elderly. Instead of excommunicating dissidents, why not call them on a mission to Africa and have them dig wells or teach parents there how to keep their kdis from getting diarrhea or something. I don't know; I think intellectuals can help clear away the traps that the inquiring young will fall into. A simple-minded conception of true and false, such as that retailed by the hard-boiled culture of modern science, is not religiously productive.

Peters Interview, page 45, Dialogue.

One thing that came to me, and has been discussed, is that our approach to those we disfellowship or excommunicate is counter-productive. Instead of under-involving those members, we need to increase involvement, perhaps not in leadership but in service positions. But the method used is to decrease involvement, not taking sacrament and not participating in service or other ordinances.

To me, the disfellowshipped is already isolated and needs more focus, but not in a project minded way but in service oriented way.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by Archaea

by Mr. Peters:



Peters Interview, page 45, Dialogue.

One thing that came to me, and has been discussed, is that our approach to those we disfellowship or excommunicate is counter-productive. Instead of under-involving those members, we need to increase involvement, perhaps not in leadership but in service positions. But the method used is to decrease involvement, not taking sacrament and not participating in service or other ordinances.

To me, the disfellowshipped is already isolated and needs more focus, but not in a project minded way but in service oriented way.

What do you suggest are some better ways to handle disciplinary matters?

By no means am I trying to stir the pot here or to welcome a confrontation.

I've heard these criticisms many times of how the church disciplines what they deem to be sinful behavior and choices.

I, myself, without going into detail have been on the receiving end of church discipline before and to be honest, even I'm not sure how to change things or to help the person who's struggling. How do we show forth more love? How do we help them feel not so isolated?

I'm glad that they the church doesn't excommunicate with impugnity as often as they used to, as they've seen that more often than not it leads to permanent exile from the Church and the gospel...which I don't believe is nor should be the intention of the repentance process.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

What do you suggest are some better ways to handle disciplinary matters?

By no means am I trying to stir the pot here or to welcome a confrontation.

I've heard these criticisms many times of how the church disciplines what they deem to be sinful behavior and choices.

I, myself, without going into detail have been on the receiving end of church discipline before and to be honest, even I'm not sure how to change things or to help the person who's struggling. How do we show forth more love? How do we help them feel not so isolated?

I'm glad that they the church doesn't excommunicate with impugnity as often as they used to, as they've seen that more often than not it leads to permanent exile from the Church and the gospel...which I don't believe is nor should be the intention of the repentance process.

I have not fully thought it through, but somehow, the person "disciplined" needs involvement in service not isolation.

Restrictions on certain privileges makes sense, but to what limit. You have somebody troubled and you cut them off from sacrament, and temple privileges when those might be what the person needs most. And perhaps the person just needs to serve others, and surely can in a nonreligious manner but cannot in an official religious capacity. The member is not even allowed to speak up in Sunday School. It doesn't seem effective in my mind. Just unconnected thoughts.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I have not fully thought it through, but somehow, the person "disciplined" needs involvement in service not isolation.

Restrictions on certain privileges makes sense, but to what limit. You have somebody troubled and you cut them off from sacrament, and temple privileges when those might be what the person needs most. And perhaps the person just needs to serve others, and surely can in a nonreligious manner but cannot in an official religious capacity. The member is not even allowed to speak up in Sunday School. It doesn't seem effective in my mind. Just unconnected thoughts.

During the process they strongly encourage the person be heavily involved in service related activities in the ward, stake and community. A person involved in disciplinary action is not excluded from helping in Ward Service Projects.

Sometimes t's a rt of a list of requirements they put down for the person receiving disciplinary action.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

During the process they strongly encourage the person be heavily involved in service related activities in the ward, stake and community. A person involved in disciplinary action is not excluded from helping in Ward Service Projects.

Sometimes t's a rt of a list of requirements they put down for the person receiving disciplinary action.

The list for a dissenter or one for sexual reasons differs.

You're supposed to read the Miracle of Forgiveness, meet with bishop and not participate publicly.

For dissenters, you're supposed to shut up and comply.

However, you're not allowed to exercise priesthood in terms of hometeaching or other similar activities. Making one shut up publicly is a form of isolation. It seems odd.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The list for a dissenter or one for sexual reasons differs.

You're supposed to read the Miracle of Forgiveness, meet with bishop and not participate publicly.

For dissenters, you're supposed to shut up and comply.

However, you're not allowed to exercise priesthood in terms of hometeaching or other similar activities. Making one shut up publicly is a form of isolation. It seems odd.

The list for sexual reasons doesn't differ. It didn't in my case. I think you're painting this with too broad of a brush, without having actually gone through the experience yourself.

I'm speaking from recent personal experience. Are you?

Of course you're not allowed to exercise priesthood and it makes sense why.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

The list for sexual reasons doesn't differ. It didn't in my case. I think you're painting this with too broad of a brush, without having actually gone through the experience yourself.

I'm speaking from recent personal experience. Are you?

Of course you're not allowed to exercise priesthood and it makes sense why.

It does for those who are dissenters as distinguished for sexual reasons. The treatment is different.

And excepting leadership or teaching, should priesthood really be exempt? I'm only opening it up for questioning, not positing a position.

I guess the article just spawned some more thoughts, as I like to see how processes can be improved. Given that so few persons actually make it through the process successfully, and congrats to you, is it entirely a fault of the persons in the process or partially due to the process?

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by Adam

No question that the process is at fault far too often to far too great an extent.

Isolation and punishment works great to force compliance when the tribe is isolated and the options for the sinner are few.

Excommunication is a great punishment threat and corrective motivator if there is no other good community to join. Today there are literally thousands of great communities ready and willing to love and welcome anyone who knocks. Once the church says they can't speak, pray, take the sacrament, pay tithing or comment in class, is it any wonder they are open to love from someone else?

I open up the same questions to you then that I did to Arch.

How do you propose the process be changed? What specifically should be done differently?

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It does for those who are dissenters as distinguished for sexual reasons. The treatment is different.

And excepting leadership or teaching, should priesthood really be exempt? I'm only opening it up for questioning, not positing a position.

I guess the article just spawned some more thoughts, as I like to see how processes can be improved. Given that so few persons actually make it through the process successfully, and congrats to you, is it entirely a fault of the persons in the process or partially due to the process?

I think "the treatment" is different depends heavily upon 2 things.

#1. A lot of it depends on the person. Many times a bishop or stake president is having to deal with a person who is bitter and isn't happy they're in a disciplinary position to begin with. It doesn't make the process any easier for all involvoed. I don't think I'm one of those who'll just blindly follow and be subservient to whatever Church leaders want (though I'm sure some in this forum might laugh at that statement), but I also don't actively seek to be deliberately disruptive and confrontational with them either.

#2. It's typically left up to the discretion of the Bishop, Stake President. For example.....2 consenting adults can be involved in a sexual act and yet one of them may receive a harsher disciplinary action than the other. Or it rare instances one may not receive any disciplinary action at all. Instances of a rouge Bishop, Stake President and the dearth of stories that seem to be out there are, in my opinion, fraught with embellishment for the most part. In no way am I saying they should be exempt from criticism, but I think you would agree that being in a position of how to approach, and discipline a member who's committed a serious sin isn't a position I hope to ever be in. Not fun.

Nowadays saying that things are really done on a case by case basis are very true I think. Whereas in the past that wasn't the case. There was too much black n white that permeated the repentance.

While I'll agree that the process might need some improvement, I also think that it's come a long way.

Oft times we forget that the repentance process isn't supposed to be easy. And in my opinion...nor should it.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

I open up the same questions to you then that I did to Arch.

How do you propose the process be changed? What specifically should be done differently?

I think is Arch is onto something. You don't reject them. You involve them more.

I don't know how to involve them more, but for starters you could not

--take away church callings
--take away home teaching
--take away right to pray or participate in church meetings
--take away right to partake sacrament
--embarass them or divide them from other members of the ward through church discipline outcomes that spread through the ward gossip line