Church Discipline

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Tex

D&C 42:81-82, 88-89

You don't have to bold the words with no commentary. Obviously, I read these verses since I cited them in my post.

And this scripture has to do specifically with adultery - if a man and/or woman is accused, the elders have a public trial (before the church). And the bishop is to be present. Again - this has nothing to do with confessing sins to the bishop in a private meeting.

You could argue that "before the church" refers to the elders - not the general membership (42.89). Fine. This has to do with disciplinary councils. Not with proactive "I need to see the bishop because I felt up my girlfriend" confession sessions.

There remains in my mind no scriptural basis for confessing to the bishop as an integral part of the repentance process.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by Solon

There remains in my mind no scriptural basis for confessing to the bishop as an integral part of the repentance process.

One could make a case that we dont even follow the scriptures anymore. What we follow is the handbook of instructions. the scriptures are supplementary

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

One could make a case that we dont even follow the scriptures anymore. What we follow is the handbook of instructions. the scriptures are supplementary

Are the same arguments used to keep the church handbook away from the rank and file the same things that were used back in the day to prevent people from owning and reading the Bible?

[Sleeping in EQ]

I'm revving up for a post on the HOI. MRD and Mr. Bloom County are touching on some of the big issues.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Are the same arguments used to keep the church handbook away from the rank and file the same things that were used back in the day to prevent people from owning and reading the Bible?

LOL! Yeah, that's really analogous.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

LOL! Yeah, that's really analogous.

WEll, what is the reason?

The only thing that church has said is that it is copyrighted and that they should be able to control the distribution.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

WEll, what is the reason?

The only thing that church has said is that it is copyrighted and that they should be able to control the distribution.

Like I know the reason?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Like I know the reason?

then the arguments that it is a "need to know basis" and that if everyone looked at it and interpreted it would lead to "chaos" and that it is "protected information" etc.

I think these are all arguments the priests of yore made to prevent commoners from having a Bible.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Solon

You don't have to bold the words with no commentary. Obviously, I read these verses since I cited them in my post.

And this scripture has to do specifically with adultery - if a man and/or woman is accused, the elders have a public trial (before the church). And the bishop is to be present. Again - this has nothing to do with confessing sins to the bishop in a private meeting.

You could argue that "before the church" refers to the elders - not the general membership (42.89). Fine. This has to do with disciplinary councils. Not with proactive "I need to see the bishop because I felt up my girlfriend" confession sessions.

There remains in my mind no scriptural basis for confessing to the bishop as an integral part of the repentance process.

The church has interpreted that passage on adultery to refer to serious sexual sin in general, which in my anecdotal experience is the bulk of what disciplinary councils deal with anyway.

What you cannot circumvent is the very scriptural role of the bishop as the common judge in Israel. If you have committed a serious sin (i.e., one which could potentially affect your membership), the bishop is the first person in line to make judgments on worthiness, and that includes (in part) the repentance process.

Your final sentence applies insofar as the sin is not "serious" as I have used the term in this conversation. One does not need to run to the bishop to confess and repent of every little transgression, and the church does not teach this.

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

One could make a case that we dont even follow the scriptures anymore. What we follow is the handbook of instructions. the scriptures are supplementary

This is just foolishness. Of course the handbook is based on the scriptures, and whatever portions are not directly scriptural are supported by the concept of continued revelation and inspiration to a prophet.

Do we need to review the story about Sidney Rigdon and Brigham Young's conflicting speeches on the scriptures, and how Joseph publicly settled the difference?

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by Tex

This is just foolishness. Of course the handbook is based on the scriptures.

Here is one example:

1 A Word OF Wisdom, for the benefit of the council of high priests, assembled in Kirtland, and the church, and also the saints in Zion—
2 To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom, showing forth the order and will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days—

The scripture says NOT by commandment

Handbook of instructions says: No Alcohol is a commandment.

Which one do we follow?