Here's Your Chance To Request Your Own Disciplinary Council

[Avatar4321]

They don't want to leave. They want to corrupt the Church and make it change to their point of view.

[smac97]

I don't believe the process is as good as it could be for women. I am hoping for inspired changes to the system very soon. Based on my own experiences and the anecdotes of others, I believe that YW leaders (for teenagers) or RS leaders should be in the room for women in many if not all cases, perhaps at the discretion of the accused.

 

Despite this belief, I would never want anyone to sacrifice their membership to prove this point.

Does your proposal take into account the legal ramifications of having a third party participate in a confessional situation?

Here's a hypothetical:

A) Jane Smith, a sixteen year old girl, goes to her bishop to confess a serious crime. Per your proposal, her YW leader accompanies her and participates in the meeting.

B) A few weeks later, the local prosecutor contacts the YW leader and the bishop and notifies them that they will be required to testify against Jane regarding what she told them about her participation in the crime.

C) Since the YW leader does not qualify under the law as "clergy," she is not immune from being compelled to testify against Jane. And since the bishop allowed a third party in the confessional process, the priest-penitent privilege does not apply and he is also not immune from being compelled to testify against Jane. Jane's bishop and her YW leader are ultimately compelled to testify against Jane in court, and she is convicted of the crime based on that testimony.

D) Three months later, Jane's cousin, Sarah, commits a serious crime and is feeling guilty about it and, being a Latter-day Saint, initially feels like she should confess to her bishop. But she knows what happened when Jane confessed, so she determines that confessing to her bishop is too risky. So she doesn't.

E) Word gets around to all LDS girls in the community about what happened with Jane. Word gets out that if you confess to your bishop, your YW leader will be there to hear it all. And if you confess to something that may involve the police, anything you say to your bishop may be used against you. The YW leader can also be compelled to testify against you.

What are your thoughts about this?

Also, what is it about the YW leader that makes her participation in a bishop's interview appropriate? Why not a parent? Why not the RS president? Why not a favorite aunt? Why not a BFF?

Also, what if a young woman does not want the YW leader to participate in a bishop's interview? Does she decide? What if the YW leader insists on attending anyway?

I think there are many, many reasons why the Church's current arrangement is the way it is. Some of these reasons are discernible, and some are not.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Here is their recommended letter though they encourage you to remove any bullet points that don't fit you:

 

 

I encourage anyone who agrees with all or most of said bullet points to go ahead and send in this letter. This would be like finding dedicated communists in the Tea party. Why did it take you so long to leave?

I think the more appropriate question to such a person would be something like: What can we, working together, do to reconcile you with the Church so that your participation in and fellowship with your fellow Saints is faithful, authentic and without acrimony?

Thanks,

-Smac

[sethpayne]

 

A) Jane Smith, a sixteen year old girl, goes to her bishop to confess a serious crime. Per your proposal, her YW leader accompanies her and participates in the meeting.

B) A few weeks later, the local prosecutor contacts the YW leader and the bishop and notifies them that they will be required to testify against Jane regarding what she told them about her participation in the crime.

C) Since the YW leader does not qualify under the law as "clergy," she is not immune from being compelled to testify against Jane. And since the bishop allowed a third party in the confessional process, the priest-penitent privilege does not apply and he is also not immune from being compelled to testify against Jane. Jane's bishop and her YW leader are ultimately compelled to testify against Jane in court, and she is convicted of the crime based on that testimony.

D) Three months later, Jane's cousin, Sarah, commits a serious crime and is feeling guilty about it and, being a Latter-day Saint, initially feels like she should confess to her bishop. But she knows what happened when Jane confessed, so she determines that confessing to her bishop is too risky. So she doesn't.

E) Word gets around to all LDS girls in the community about what happened with Jane. Word gets out that if you confess to your bishop, your YW leader will be there to hear it all. And if you confess to something that may involve the police, anything you say to your bishop may be used against you. The YW leader can also be compelled to testify against you.

What are your thoughts about this?

 

 

Sounds like the law is flawed. The YW leader is clergy in any reasonable sense of the word and should be under legal protection if she takes part in religious "confessional."

[sethpayne]

I think the more appropriate question to such a person would be something like: What can we, working together, do to reconcile you with the Church so that your participation in and fellowship with your fellow Saints is faithful, authentic and without acrimony?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Is the Church ever wrong Smac?  Ever?

 

Isn't it remotely possible that some of these folks who raise issues may have some legitimate points.

 

The assumption it seems you are operating under -- is that the Church ALWAYS right in ALL situations and so in cases of conflict it is always the member with the problem.

 

How far do we take this?

 

As a missionary one of the Bishops I served with was in a serious legal battle with the Church over water rights.  I don't know the facts of the case but it was interesting that a Bishop was serving while actually suing the Church for violating his water rights.  He was "counseled" by someone above him (I don't think it was the SP but it may have been) to drop the lawsuit.  He didn't, of course.  Because he was a farmer and without water rights he would have no livelihood.  

 

Should this Bishop have simply let the Church lawyers have their way over water rights (I seriously doubt the Brethren were involved)?  If the Church is always right and members always wrong if they disagree with Church action, then it only seems reasonable that this Bishop should have sacrificed his livelihood so the Church could do whatever they were planning to do (If memory serves, it was something different than a welfare farm .. but it may have been).  

 

Can't we even consider the possibility that the Church could improve?  That this process could be handled in a much better way?

Edited June 26, 2014 by sethpayne

[Scott Lloyd]

Is the Church ever wrong Smac?  Ever?

 

Isn't it remotely possible that some of these folks who raise issues may have some legitimate points.

 

The assumption it seems you are operating under -- is that the Church ALWAYS right in ALL situations and so in cases of conflict it is always the member with the problem.

 

How far do we take this?

 

As a missionary one of the Bishops I served with was in a serious legal battle with the Church over water rights.  I don't know the facts of the case but it was interesting that a Bishop was serving while actually suing the Church for violating his water rights.  He was "counseled" by someone above him (I don't think it was the SP but it may have been) to drop the lawsuit.  He didn't, of course.  Because he was a farmer and without water rights he would have no livelihood.  

 

Should this Bishop have simply let the Church lawyers have their way over water rights (I seriously doubt the Brethren were involved)?  If the Church is always right and members always wrong if they disagree with Church action, then it only seems reasonable that this Bishop should have sacrificed his livelihood so the Church could do whatever they were planning to do (If memory serves, it was something different than a welfare farm .. but it may have been).  

 

Can't we even consider the possibility that the Church could improve?  That this process could be handled in a much better way?

You say  you don't know the facts of the case." Of course, neither do we, so we have no basis to determine whether the man was right or wrong in this case.

 

I wonder what those facts were.

 

I wonder how thoroughly the farmer/bishop explored other options before resorting to litigation, which ought to be a last resort in most cases. Would the Church officials, if approached calmly and reasonably, have been willing to adjust their plans?

 

This happened recently when residents complained about plans to construct high buildings at the Provo Missionary Training Center. In that instance, the residents didn't want their vistas obstructed. That seems to me a less justifiable reason than preservation of water rights which, as you note, affects one's livelihood.

 

I know that in agrarian communities, feelings can get pretty heated and behavior hostile when it comes to water rights, especially here in the arid Mountain West. I've seen it happen. It's the sort of thing that can make one irrational, affecting even one's commitment to the Church of Jesus Christ, which presumably, would be very strong in a bishop.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Sounds like the law is flawed. The YW leader is clergy in any reasonable sense of the word and should be under legal protection if she takes part in religious "confessional."

I'm not so certain about that. The Young Women leader currently would not qualify under the priest-penitent privilege, as she does not hear confessions on behalf of the Church. As a parent, I don't think I would want a daughter having to confess to a Young Women leader, any more than I would want my son confessing to his Young Men president or quorum adviser. That role of hearing confessions is and ought to be extremely limited.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[watermelongirl]

Does your proposal take into account the legal ramifications of having a third party participate in a confessional situation?

 

 

I thought about this a lot over the last 24 hours and posted a different proposal here: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/63758-practical-implications-of-ordaining-women-to-the-priesthood/?p=1209394821

[Calm]

?I think there are many, many reasons why the Church's current arrangement is the way it is. Some of these reasons are discernible, and some are not.

Life can be so complicated. Much easier if we just abolish the ability to hurt others and then no more abuse to seek help for or crimes to commit....if only that were possible.

I think the issue is assuming a one size fits all and setting things up in that way. For me the best general solution given the personal, cultural and legal complexities involved would be to make better known there are options available for those who desire them, taught by YM/YW/RS/PH leaders when teaching about the counselling part of the Bishop's job. And training given to bishops to help them recognise signs that they need to suggest alternatives to the interviewee or if a minor, what to do in cases there are red flags but no solid evidence...if a woman shows signs of discomfort being alone with him, if a child shows hyperawareness of a parent who insists on being there. It is asking a tremendous effort from bishops to expect this from them, but I don't believe God has intended us to solely rely on spiritual gifts for discernment and wants us in whatever he calls us to do to maximise all our gifts, mental, emotional, spiritual and physical...that is what giving our all to his Kingdom means to me.

[sethpayne]

You say  you don't know the facts of the case." Of course, neither do we, so we have no basis to determine whether the man was right or wrong in this case.

 

I wonder what those facts were.

 

I wonder how thoroughly the farmer/bishop explored other options before resorting to litigation, which ought to be a last resort in most cases. Would the Church officials, if approached calmly and reasonably, have been willing to adjust their plans?

 

This happened recently when residents complained about plans to construct high buildings at the Provo Missionary Training Center. In that instance, the residents didn't want their vistas obstructed. That seems to me a less justifiable reason than preservation of water rights which, as you note, affects one's livelihood.

 

I know that in agrarian communities, feelings can get pretty heated and behavior hostile when it comes to water rights, especially here in the arid Mountain West. I've seen it happen. It's the sort of thing that can make one irrational, affecting even one's commitment to the Church of Jesus Christ, which presumably, would be very strong in a bishop.

 

Well, considering he was serving a Bishop and remained so during the legal action, I'm assuming he tried to work things out before suing.  But of course, this is just an assumption given the fact he was serving as Bishop and was not released due to this.  As he explained it, this action had nothing to do with the "spiritual" aspects of the Church and Gospel.  IMO, that's how it should be.

 

In your example, let me ask you a question.

 

Is it right for the Church to ask members to reduce the property values of their homes?  That too, is a form of livelihood and is a massive asset.  Why couldn't the Church find another location given how much land they own in Provo?  Why ask good members of the Church to devalue their homes?  The Church had lots of options.  Why should we focus only on what options the members had?

Edited June 26, 2014 by sethpayne

[smac97]

Sounds like the law is flawed. The YW leader is clergy in any reasonable sense of the word and should be under legal protection if she takes part in religious "confessional."

With respect, that is not a feasible response. The reasons for this legal doctrine are complex, and a let's-change-it-because-my-personal-opinion-is-the-only-reasonable-one has no chance of succeeding in the U.S. legal system. None.

Thanks,

-Smac

[sethpayne]

I'm not so certain about that. The Young Women leader currently would not qualify under the priest-penitent privilege, as she does not hear confessions on behalf of the Church. As a parent, I don't think I would want a daughter having to confess to a Young Women leader, any more than I would want my son confessing to his Young Men president or quorum adviser. That role of hearing confessions is and ought to be extremely limited.

 

Ok.... but the whole point is that if the Church made a policy change to allow women to be present when adult makes talk about sex with underage females, then they would qualify.

 

Problem solved, right?

 

And I'll tell you what, I'd rather have my daughter confess to a YW leader rather than talk about sex, with an adult male, in a closed room.  And FWIW, I've had Bishop friends tell me as much.  That they are extremely uncomfortable discussing sexual sin with young women -- alone.

 

This has nothing to do with me thinking Bishops are likely to be inappropriate etc... I don't think they are.  But we have seen enough cases over the past decade to show that -- whether in the Church or not -- adult men should never be in a room alone with an underage girl.  Even if nothing happens the Bishop can be accused of all sorts of stuff.

 

As a side note, I have to say it is really interesting to see people's perspective on things like this.  There seem to be 3 camps.  The first, is that the Church does no wrong and that God directs every action -- business, real estate, everything -- and as such, none of this should ever be questioned.  Camp 2, and I consider myself in this camp, doesn't deny that God works in the Church but sees that it is administered by very human and flawed men (nobody is exempt from being flawed ... comes with being born).  As such, it is perfectly acceptable to raise questions and offer suggestions on how to improve Church governance, policy, and programs (notice I said nothing about doctrine).  The third camp demozies everything the Church does.  It is all nefarious and leaders are not to be trusted.

 

To me, camps 1 and 2 are simply untenable given what we know about human beings and how the Church operates.  Leaders are neither perfect, nor are they perfectly guided.  They must struggle with inspiration like the rest of us (if we are to believe GBH).  Putting them up on some pedestal where Church leaders are ALWAYS right and therefore members should ALWAYS bow to their wishes is, to me at least, not scripturally supported, nor is it a moral position.  

Edited June 26, 2014 by sethpayne

[smac97]

Is the Church ever wrong Smac?  Ever?

It can happen, yes.

 

Isn't it remotely possible that some of these folks who raise issues may have some legitimate points.

Yes, it's possible.

 

The assumption it seems you are operating under -- is that the Church ALWAYS right in ALL situations and so in cases of conflict it is always the member with the problem.

No, that's not the assumption under which I am operating.

 

How far do we take this?

As your proposed assumption is a straw man, I'd say we should not take it far at all. 

 

Can't we even consider the possibility that the Church could improve?

Another straw man. I have never said that we cannot consider this possibility.

 

That this process could be handled in a much better way?

I don't think there is a "much better way." There may be revisions and tweaks available, but radical changes are not, I think, feasible for reasons both practical and doctrinal/revelatory.

And regardless of whether proposed changes are minor or substantial, I utterly reject the hostile and rebellious manner by which folks like Kate Kelly seek to reform the Church. I reject such tactics. I do not believe they are compatible with the Restored Gospel and the structured organization which God has placed on the earth. In fact, I think we are warned against such contentions in 1 Corinthians 12:

1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.

2 Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.

3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.

5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.

6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;

9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;

10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

14 For the body is not one member, but many.

15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?

18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.

19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?

20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.

21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the ahead to the feet, I have no need of you.

22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be amore feeble, are necessary:

23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.

24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:

25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

 

I think it is profoundly unhealthy to see church members resenting their callings, or the callings of others, in effect becoming the foot which says "Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body."  Re-read verse 25 above and consider its application to Kate Kelly's recent call for Latter-day Saints who agree with her to "raise hell" in the Church.

 

I also think it is profoundly unhealthy to turn service in the Church into a gender-based grudge match.  I love and respect the women of the Church.  I also love and respect the men of the Church.  We are all members of the body of Christ, and I believe that God has set us "every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him."

 

I agree that there are ways the Church can improve.  But we don't make improvements by resenting each other, or by demeaning each other, by claiming one gender is better than the other, or that one works harder than the other, or that the we are all feet or all eyeballs (see above).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 26, 2014 by smac97

[CV75]

I thought about this a lot over the last 24 hours and posted a different proposal here: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/63758-practical-implications-of-ordaining-women-to-the-priesthood/?p=1209394821

To me, an objection to ordaining women out of fear of diminishing the priesthood would be as misdirected as supporting it to diminish the priesthood (and neither has occurred to me).

 

But I think the level of knowledge that brings about a personal confessional/counselling session or a disciplinary council and that which is actually shared in such sessions are essentially the same, and should be minimal. In-depth discussion is typically unnecessary and unwarranted, and the depth of discussion is actually controlled by the counselled person anyway, who can always turn to a trusted confidant or advocate of his or her choosing anywhere along the line if it is felt that more discussion is needed in a different setting.

 

Considering the gravity and severity of the issues that require confession, counselling or discipline, I think all involved quickly become acclimated to the topics, occurrences and the process, and except in extraordinary circumstances, guests would be permitted for moral support.

[smac97]

I'm not so certain about that. The Young Women leader currently would not qualify under the priest-penitent privilege, as she does not hear confessions on behalf of the Church.

Frankly, I don't think there is a state in the Union which would accept Seth's say-so about what the law is (that a YW leader counts as clergy) or should be (that a YW leader should count as clergy). The priest-penitent privilege is just that: a privilege, an exception to the general rule allowing prosecutors otherwise broad authority to compel someone to divulge what they know. There are a few others (doctor/patient, attorney/client, spousal, etc.). However, all of them are narrowly tailored and interpreted. The proposal to turn YW leaders would open floodgates to other expansions of the privileged, and I just don't see that as ever happening.

I think the only reason why it's even being considered here is because the Church is in the crosshairs, so critics of the Church are casting about for any justification to fault the Church's practice on this matter.

As a parent, I don't think I would want a daughter having to confess to a Young Women leader, any more than I would want my son confessing to his Young Men president or quorum adviser. That role of hearing confessions is and ought to be extremely limited.

I agree. Bishops are given clear guidelines and stringent precautions about handling confessions. The vast majority of the time they do a fine job. And although mistakes can be and are made in this process, such mistakes would likewise happen if additional parties were invited into the confessional process.

Thanks,

-Smac

[watermelongirl]

To me, an objection to ordaining women out of fear of diminishing the priesthood would be as misdirected as supporting it to diminish the priesthood (and neither has occurred to me).

Not totally sure I understand what you're saying. I don't think ordaining women would diminish the priesthood. I didn't want anyone to think that by moving some of the responsibilities away from bishop that I was saying the priesthood is less valuable. Don't think that.

 

But I think the level of knowledge that brings about a personal confessional/counselling session or a disciplinary council and that which is actually shared in such sessions are essentially the same, and should be minimal. In-depth discussion is typically unnecessary and unwarranted, and the depth of discussion is actually controlled by the counselled person anyway, who can always turn to a trusted confidant or advocate of his or her choosing anywhere along the line if it is felt that more discussion is needed in a different setting.

I really disagree with this. There are many anecdotal accounts of how different amounts of detail are requested by different bishops (one for the girl, one for the guy). The simple fact that it involves sex is enough to make me think it's better to talk to a person of one's own gender about it. I also think that some level of detail may be needed to discern the real nature of the problem, ie abuse versus sin. It's too much of an unfounded generalization to think that detail would never be needed.

As a woman, I would never, ever, ever want to talk about my sex life with a man. I'm sure other women may feel differently, but I believe in creating safe spaces for women. They currently are missing.

[sethpayne]

Frankly, I don't think there is a state in the Union which would accept Seth's say-so about what the law is (that a YW leader counts as clergy) or should be (that a YW leader should count as clergy). The priest-penitent privilege is just that: a privilege, an exception to the general rule allowing prosecutors otherwise broad authority to compel someone to divulge what they know. There are a few others (doctor/patient, attorney/client, spousal, etc.). However, all of them are narrowly tailored and interpreted. The proposal to turn YW leaders would open floodgates to other expansions of the privileged, and I just don't see that as ever happening.

 

 

I hope not.  Especially since I'm not a lawyer and have no legal training.  I based my suggestion on your description of the legal requirement but If I am wrong or have misunderstood, please correct me.

 

But given the inherent problems (false accusation, actual inappropriateness etc...) of male Church leaders being alone with underage girls, perhaps the law could/should be changed to allow for situations that are far more appropriate.

Edited June 26, 2014 by sethpayne

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, considering he was serving a Bishop and remained so during the legal action, I'm assuming he tried to work things out before suing.  But of course, this is just an assumption given the fact he was serving as Bishop and was not released due to this.

Based on the facts as presented here, I don't think such an assumption can be made. His priesthood leaders may have been exercising patience and longsuffering (in accordance with Doctrine and Covenants 121), expecting and hoping for him to do the right thing. That he was counseled to drop the lawsuit lends credence to this possibility.

 

 As he explained it, this action had nothing to do with the "spiritual" aspects of the Church and Gospel.  IMO, that's how it should be.

I don't buy that. I don't agree that one is exempt from living the principles of the gospel just because it isn't Sunday or one happens to be in a business, as opposed to an ecclesiastical, venue.

 

The Lord said that to Him, all things are spiritual.

 

I referred to D&C 121 above. That's the section that gives the priesthood pattern of leadership: patience, brotherly kindness, longsuffering, gentleness, meekness, love unfeigned, kindness, pure knowledge, timely reproof followed by the showing forth of an increase of love, etc. I have in the past observed individuals who would perhaps give lip service to this concept but would say that it applies to Church leadership and has no application in the secular world or in the workplace. I have never had much respect for such an attitude.

 

 

In your example, let me ask you a question.

 

Is it right for the Church to ask members to reduce the property values of their homes?  That too, is a form of livelihood and is a massive asset.  Why couldn't the Church find another location given how much land they own in Provo?  Why ask good members of the Church to devalue their homes?  The Church had lots of options.  Why should we focus only on what options the members had?

 

Through the history of the Church, some of its members have made far greater sacrifices for the sake the of the kingdom of God than the mere reduction in their property values. In modern days, for example, some of the General Authorities have left prosperous and lucrative professions to devote full time to the ministry.

 

I just attended the seminar for new mission presidents. It occurs to me that in many cases, these men and their wives give up three years of earning capacity at the most prosperous time in their careers to answer the call to serve.

 

If I were called upon to sustain a reduction in my property value, I would cheerfully do so if I were assured it was necessary to the advancement of the Kingdom of God.

 

In the case in question, though, it was deemed not to be necessary. Church leaders re-examined the matter and found another way to accomplish what they were seeking to do.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[sethpayne]

Based on the facts as presented here, I don't think such an assumption can be made. His priesthood leaders may have been exercising patience and longsuffering (in accordance with Doctrine and Covenants 121), expecting and hoping for him to do the right thing. That he was counseled to drop the lawsuit lends credence to this possibility.

 

I don't buy that. I don't agree that one is exempt from living the principles of the gospel just because it isn't Sunday or one happens to be in a business, as opposed to an ecclesiastical, venue.

 

The Lord said that to Him, all things are spiritual.

 

I referred to D&C 121 above. That's the section that gives the priesthood pattern of leadership: patience, brotherly kindness, longsuffering, love unfeigned, etc. I have in the past observed individuals who would perhaps give lip service to this concept but would say that it applies to Church leadership and has no application in the secular world or in the workplace. I have never had much respect for such an attitude.

 

 

Through the history of the Church, some of its members have made far greater sacrifices for the sake the of the kingdom of God than the mere reduction in their property values. In modern days, for example, some of the General Authorities have left prosperous and lucrative professions to devote full time to the ministry.

 

If I were called upon to sustain a reduction in my property value, I would cheerfully do so if I were assured it was necessary to the advancement of the Kingdom of God.

 

In the case in question, though, it was deemed not to be necessary. Church leaders re-examined the matter and found another way to accomplish what they were seeking to do.

 

 

So doing business with a Church-owned entity should be treated the same as dealing with your SP or Bishop in spiritual matters?  I can't agree with that.  Church businesses are not the Church and have nothing to do with the Gospel.  They are simply a means of allowing the Church to carefully manage assets in order to maximize how those funds are used for Church activity.  So the disposal of the funds may eventually be Gospel-driven.  But how those funds are generated is clearly secular.  Unless you want to call City Creek a place of worship.

 

Also, I think your example of giving sacrifices falls flat.  In Kirtland and Nauvoo the Church absolutely *needed* the sacrifice of its members to complete temples etc...  In this case the Church had literally hundreds of other locations for MTC expansion.  There was absolutely no need make members feel like they had to sacrifice their (valuable) views so the Church could build its own building with views.  Again, why not build it across the street where the empty playing fields are?  I can think of many locations.

 

But again .... it seems that you are arguing that whatever the Church asks you to do is right.  Always.  No matter what.  I simply see things differently.  This Church is run by humans.  I will gladly make sacrifices for God.  But essentially throwing away many thousands of dollars simply so the Church can build a tower with great views?  Nope.  I wouldn't do it but hey, if these Church members felt like they should give up a chunk of equity for no apparent rational reason, that's their choice.  Again, this is not Kirtland or Nauvoo.  This is Provo in 2014.  The Church owns a lot of land and had many options.  There was no need, unlike in Kirtland and Nauvoo, to ask the saints to "sacrifice" anything.  The Church could have put its tower in a million other places.

Edited June 26, 2014 by sethpayne

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Doesn't the rameumptom in the Book of Mormon represent - denial Christ, belief in a false concept of election, and worship with set prayers?

Is it our place to place what amounts to a final judgment on a person by labeling that person a tare. Should we be so giddy about doing it either.

Spare us Frank. Yes we should be so giddy. IF people want to leave the church I support that action just as much as I do some one joining.

[sethpayne]

It can happen, yes.

 

Yes, it's possible.

 

No, that's not the assumption under which I am operating.

 

As your proposed assumption is a straw man, I'd say we should not take it far at all. 

 

Another straw man. I have never said that we cannot consider this possibility.

 

I don't think there is a "much better way." There may be revisions and tweaks available, but radical changes are not, I think, feasible for reasons both practical and doctrinal/revelatory.

And regardless of whether proposed changes are minor or substantial, I utterly reject the hostile and rebellious manner by which folks like Kate Kelly seek to reform the Church. I reject such tactics. I do not believe they are compatible with the Restored Gospel and the structured organization which God has placed on the earth. In fact, I think we are warned against such contentions in 1 Corinthians 12:

1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.

2 Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.

3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.

5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.

6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;

9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;

10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

14 For the body is not one member, but many.

15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?

18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.

19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?

20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.

21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the ahead to the feet, I have no need of you.

22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be amore feeble, are necessary:

23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.

24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:

25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

 

I think it is profoundly unhealthy to see church members resenting their callings, or the callings of others, in effect becoming the foot which says "Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body."  Re-read verse 25 above and consider its application to Kate Kelly's recent call for Latter-day Saints who agree with her to "raise hell" in the Church.

 

I also think it is profoundly unhealthy to turn service in the Church into a gender-based grudge match.  I love and respect the women of the Church.  I also love and respect the men of the Church.  We are all members of the body of Christ, and I believe that God has set us "every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him."

 

I agree that there are ways the Church can improve.  But we don't make improvements by resenting each other, or by demeaning each other, by claiming one gender is better than the other, or that one works harder than the other, or that the we are all feet or all eyeballs (see above).

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Well, let's make one thing perfectly clear.  I have never been associated with OW nor have I ever expressed support for Kate Kelly.  I may be sympathetic with some of her views, but certainly not all.  Same with JD and others.  Given that, I agree that we need to work out these differences in love and understanding.  I'm with you 100%.

 

But I'm curious about something else.  I would have to go through all of your posts but I don't recall you ever admitting or mentioning that the Church made a mistake or could improve.  By this, I mean that you have made general statements that such things can/do/will happen.  But I've not seen a specific example from you.  Is this because of what you mentioned on another thread about not expressing your opinions on these things in public?  So that even if someone here  makes a good point (not me, of course) and identifies a real problem, you will not comment or express your true feelings on it because this is a public forum?

 

Of course you don't have to answer that.  But I'm genuinely curious because you do admit that the Church makes mistakes but I've never seen you give an example or engage in a conversation about how such things could be improved.  Of course, I probably missed it as I have not read all of your posts.  And certainly if your position is one where defense of the Church should always be the default public position even if our private views may be different -- that is something I can understand even though my personal approach may differ.

Edited June 26, 2014 by sethpayne

[smac97]

I hope not.  Especially since I'm not a lawyer and have no legal training.  I based my suggestion on your description of the legal requirement but If I am wrong or have misunderstood, please correct me.

 

But given the inherent problems (false accusation, actual inappropriateness etc...) of male Church leaders being alone with underage girls, perhaps the law could/should be changed to allow for situations that are far more appropriate.

First, the Church is not alone is working with a situation which involves adult males being in a room alone with underage girls.

Second, the bishops in the Church are strictly and strongly instructed to always be chaperoned when counseling with a woman or a youth of either gender. I think this greatly reduces the risk of impropriety or accusations of impropriety or the appearance of impropriety.

Third, I think the solution of bringing in additional parties to the confessional space creates as many problems as it solves, if not more. A young person who is in a room to confess about something embarrassing could easily find that confessing to two or more people is worse than confessing to just one.

Fourth, here's a proposal for a relatively minor but potentially far-reaching and effective improvement: I wonder if it would be good to have the Church hire carpenters to go around to all of the church buildings and cut narrow windows into the doors to the bishops' offices, then fit those window spaces with glass windows. The window would be small and higher up on the door so as to be above the eyeline of passing children (who might be tempted to look into the office out of simple curiosity). Many (most?) bishops' offices these days have white noise speakers affixed nearby to prevent eavesdropping. I wonder if these small windows might give a youth or woman some peace of mind, as it seems exceedingly unlikely that a depraved person would try to engage in any untoward conduct when there is a window in the doorway.

What do you think?

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

Not totally sure I understand what you're saying. I don't think ordaining women would diminish the priesthood. I didn't want anyone to think that by moving some of the responsibilities away from bishop that I was saying the priesthood is less valuable. Don't think that.

 

I really disagree with this. There are many anecdotal accounts of how different amounts of detail are requested by different bishops (one for the girl, one for the guy). The simple fact that it involves sex is enough to make me think it's better to talk to a person of one's own gender about it. I also think that some level of detail may be needed to discern the real nature of the problem, ie abuse versus sin. It's too much of an unfounded generalization to think that detail would never be needed.

As a woman, I would never, ever, ever want to talk about my sex life with a man. I'm sure other women may feel differently, but I believe in creating safe spaces for women. They currently are missing.

Since you brought up the idea that ordaining women could be misperceived as diminishing the priesthood, it indicates that there may be some who are just as misguided that possess that precise intention. I am not suggesting that you are taking either of those positions.

 

Anecdotal accounts by nature are used to build unfounded generalizations and are hardly reliable.

 

Both victim and sinner can always discuss sex at any level of detail they desire with anyone they trust. In confession, counselling and councils, the primary topic is returning to the Lord, and in the case of sin, one aspect of that is repentance, which does involve a stage of discomfort (sin is only comfortable for those who enjoy, rationalize or justify it). Some kinds of repentance does require priesthood involvement, but not the level of information that one may share with a personal confidant to meet an individual's additional needs.

 

As I mentioned before, the level of detail divulged is controlled by the victim and the sinner, anecdotal instances (or unfounded fears) of prurient probing by Church leaders aside. As a general rule, “some level of detail” is a far cry from in-depth discussion, and personal preference and style are interpersonal equilibria that doctrinally (if not anecdotally!) can be moderated by the Holy Spirit.

 

I believe that safe space is a welcome concept for all involved in priesthood counseling, but your link that I responded to indicates that ordaining women is a prime means of accomplishing that.

[sethpayne]

First, the Church is not alone is working with a situation which involves adult males being in a room alone with underage girls.

Second, the bishops in the Church are strictly and strongly instructed to always be chaperoned when counseling with a woman or a youth of either gender. I think this greatly reduces the risk of impropriety or accusations of impropriety or the appearance of impropriety.

Third, I think the solution of bringing in additional parties to the confessional space creates as many problems as it solves, if not more. A young person who is in a room to confess about something embarrassing could easily find that confessing to two or more people is worse than confessing to just one.

Fourth, here's a proposal for a relatively minor but potentially far-reaching and effective improvement: I wonder if it would be good to have the Church hire carpenters to go around to all of the church buildings and cut narrow windows into the doors to the bishops' offices, then fit those window spaces with glass windows. The window would be small and higher up on the door so as to be above the eyeline of passing children (who might be tempted to look into the office out of simple curiosity). Many (most?) bishops' offices these days have white noise speakers affixed nearby to prevent eavesdropping. I wonder if these small windows might give a youth or woman some peace of mind, as it seems exceedingly unlikely that a depraved person would try to engage in any untoward conduct when there is a window in the doorway.

What do you think?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Interesting.  Thanks, Smac.

 

But I want to make sure I've understood your correctly.  Can a Bishop, under current Church guidelines, have a female chaperone when interviewing a young woman?  Or is it required to be a member of the Bishopric?  

 

Does the law consider Bishopric counselors to be clergy?  If not, do the same legal concerns apply in the hypothetical situation you described?  Could a YW pres or RS pres be considered clergy under the law since their role is more than simply administrative.  It is often ecclesiastical -- especially in the case of an RS pres.  Not to mention the EQ pres!

Edited June 26, 2014 by sethpayne

[frank_jessop]

Does your proposal take into account the legal ramifications of having a third party participate in a confessional situation?

Here's a hypothetical:

What are your thoughts about this?

Also, what is it about the YW leader that makes her participation in a bishop's interview appropriate? Why not a parent? Why not the RS president? Why not a favorite aunt? Why not a BFF?

Also, what if a young woman does not want the YW leader to participate in a bishop's interview? Does she decide? What if the YW leader insists on attending anyway?

I think there are many, many reasons why the Church's current arrangement is the way it is. Some of these reasons are discernible, and some are not.

Thanks,

-Smac

Seems, at least based on Utah Law, all the Church would need to do is institute a policy of allowing an individual have another person in the room, in the case of females wanting to speak to a male Bishop - it could be that it is always the RS President. This would satisfy the "discharge the function ... according to the usual course of practice" of the RS President. Edited June 26, 2014 by frank_jessop