Here's Your Chance To Request Your Own Disciplinary Council

[Avatar4321]

As I read the recommended letter and the 10 first bullet points, I am grateful that I am not a Bishop. Were I to interview a person who agreed with any 2 of those points, I would ask if they wanted to have their names removed from membership. If they said ,no , I would have to inquire , why not ? Personal integrity should trump a desire to stay in " the Club" for social or some other reason.

 

What I find interesting are those who think they can be a faithful member and have those doubts.

[strappinglad]

What I find interesting are those who think they can be a faithful member and have those doubts.

From my perspective they sound less like doubts and more like convictions.

Edited June 27, 2014 by strappinglad

[CV75]

Maybe the Lord doesn't want us to change the system. Maybe He wants us to follow Him regardless.

That is an interesting point -- the system may not need to change so much as the hearts of the participants, so that how well the system is used improves and becomes more and more  refined over time as attitudes become more Christlike. I think this is the direction the Church leaders are taking.

[JAHS]

That is an interesting point -- the system may not need to change so much as the hearts of the participants, so that how well the system is used improves and becomes more and more  refined over time as attitudes become more Christlike. I think this is the direction the Church leaders are taking.

 

A few scriptures come to mind:

Wherefore, labor ye in my vineyard. Call upon the inhabitants of the earth, and bear record, and prepare the way for the commandments and revelations which are to come.

Now, behold this is wisdom; whoso readeth, let him understand and receive also;

For unto him that receiveth it shall be given more abundantly, even power.  D&C 71: 4-6

 

And he said unto them, Take heed what ye hear: with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you: and unto you that hear shall more be given. Mark 4: 24

 

For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more 2 Nep 28: 30

 

As we hearken to the Lord the system will not only improve but He will give us more.

[watermelongirl]

Maybe the Lord doesn't want us to change the system. Maybe He wants us to follow Him regardless.

 

The system has always changed. It's not static, but highly dynamic. I think a better test here is whether we are willing to follow Him when change does inevitably happen.

 

The restoration isn't over.

[CV75]

The system has always changed. It's not static, but highly dynamic. I think a better test here is whether we are willing to follow Him when change does inevitably happen.

 

The restoration isn't over.

Maybe it's time to define "system" for the purposes of this thread -- there is another thread on the eternal nature of the patriarchal system, which I think gets us to a common definition or that purpose at least.

 

D&C 84:110 is the only place in scripture where I can find the use of the term "system" and it refers to the "body of Christ" with Christ at the Head. The context of D&C 84 is how the priesthood supports that perfect system, and how it works in terms of the patriarchal order which has continued in the Church since Adam, and aside from that "is without beginning of days or end of years," and in terms of personal righteousness.

 

This system does not appear to promise to change, but as many have pointed out, how we use it will be perfected as we become perfected in Christ. I think the direction we have taken in the councils of the Church (local and general) point to this.

 

I'm not sure we mean to change an eternal system, just how it is used to "keep it perfect." "Keep it perfect" to me means the system is already as it it should be and we are the ones that need to follow and catch up with the Head. If it is perfect, it doesn't need further restoration.

 

Granted some do things need further restoration as Elder Uchtdorf point out in his recent talk, but if they need restoration, we may well have lost them to the point of not knowing what they are, and so cannot stand in judgement. He teaches the ways to being able to recognize these "exciting developments" -- albeit in negative terms such as overcoming selfishness, addictions, and competing priorities. But every good thing we do is a restoration of the power of God to earth so that the system can again operate with Christ in its midst ( https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-8?lang=eng )as it did in the earliest times (D&C 107:53-56). It seems the restoration includes a restoration of ourselves to that which was prophesied by Adam, and what more exciting development can there be when we are brought back (restored) into the fold (the system) more perfectly?

[watermelongirl]

Maybe it's time to define "system" for the purposes of this thread -- there is another thread on the eternal nature of the patriarchal system, which I think gets us to a common definition or that purpose at least.

 

D&C 84:110 is the only place in scripture where I can find the use of the term "system" and it refers to the "body of Christ" with Christ at the Head. The context of D&C 84 is how the priesthood supports that perfect system, and how it works in terms of the patriarchal order which has continued in the Church since Adam, and aside from that "is without beginning of days or end of years," and in terms of personal righteousness.

Usually we think of the Body of Christ as the church, with Christ at the head. Are you using a different concept for Body of Christ? If you're asserting that the Body of Christ = the church = the system, then we need to examine really whether the church has changed or not. D&C 84, as well as the larger context of the administration and management of the church through the millennia and through the last two centuries make it apparent that the structure and nuances of "the system" do change quite readily. We've seen changes in who holds the priesthood (bloodlines, Levites, white men, etc) as well as how the specific duties of the priesthood are administered (the church handbooks, revealed changes in church policy, etc). It is not accurate to assert that the church is static in its present form, that it cannot change or hasn't changed.

My statement was directly referring to changes in church administration. That is what I meant when I said "system."

This system does not appear to promise to change, but as many have pointed out, how we use it will be perfected as we become perfected in Christ. I think the direction we have taken in the councils of the Church (local and general) point to this.

 

I'm not sure we mean to change an eternal system, just how it is used to "keep it perfect." "Keep it perfect" to me means the system is already as it it should be and we are the ones that need to follow and catch up with the Head. If it is perfect, it doesn't need further restoration.

Again here I think we're referring to different things when we say system, and I don't think we've agreed on a definition. I would assert that between this thread and the other patriarchy thread, it is not well understood what constitutes the eternal static part of your definition of "system." This is particularly true as the word "patriarchy" is loaded with cultural baggage and is multi-definitional. That thread is kind of a disaster, IMHO.

Granted some do things need further restoration as Elder Uchtdorf point out in his recent talk, but if they need restoration, we may well have lost them to the point of not knowing what they are, and so cannot stand in judgement. He teaches the ways to being able to recognize these "exciting developments" -- albeit in negative terms such as overcoming selfishness, addictions, and competing priorities. But every good thing we do is a restoration of the power of God to earth so that the system can again operate with Christ in its midst ( https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-8?lang=eng )as it did in the earliest times (D&C 107:53-56). It seems the restoration includes a restoration of ourselves to that which was prophesied by Adam, and what more exciting development can there be when we are brought back (restored) into the fold (the system) more perfectly?

I would concur that restoration applies to many things: church organization, science, personal growth, women's rights, etc. The women's rights view was common amongst early church members, especially sisters, but brethren too. Article of Faith 9 does not limit the scope of the restoration. President Emmeline G. Wells, 5th president of the Relief Society said: "Woman must be instrumental in bringing about the restoration of that equality which existed when the world was created… Perfectly equality then and so it must be when all things are restored as they were in the beginning."

We're on the way toward this, as you mentioned with the councils, etc. I just don't think we're there yet. I really don't. I'm not arguing this requires ordination. I would argue though that there are institutional inequalities (I listed some in another thread) that can change without altering anything that we consider eternally static - when we agree on what those static things actually are.

[CV75]

My statement was directly referring to changes in church administration. That is what I meant when I said "system."

OK, let’s use “system” in terms of Church "administration."

 

In the scriptures, “administration” means a dispensing, giving or applying of God’s blessing or power. “Administration” would likewise be a dispensation, gift, provision or application of His blessings and power. In some cases it has to do with using the keys (D&C 90:7), in others any activity authorized by those holding the keys (90:9), and in others the action of God Himself (90:11; 129:9). I think Elder Oaks’ recent talk touches on those aspects in terms of priesthood. 1 Corinthians 12 and D&C 46 additionally show how “administration” can be the expression of a gift of the Spirit that a saint may possess. 2 Corinthians 9 gets into another aspect, and D&C 102:9 can refer to any of these meanings as well the prophet’s term of office.

 

With regards to how disciplinary councils are administered in the scriptural sense (and form or structure follows function), priesthood office is not the only aspect of administration that is necessary. But they all fall under the same overall priesthood order which does not change, at least according to the scriptures I provided. The concept of spiritual administration does not change either. And though policies and procedures might change, there is always a role for women in disciplinary councils, as I described in another post.

 

I mention form and structure because we have seen many changes in form and structure over the years; the various reorganizations of the quorums of Seventy is the most immediate example I can think of; there are many others. But the form and structure of disciplinary councils already accommodate the participation of women in the administrative capacity.

 

So if a woman wishes to have a sister accompany her to the council, help explain her situation or express her position, counsel with her or the bishop, follow up with her, etc., the system is already set up for that within the scope of the order and the keys the leaders are authorized to exercise in wards and stakes. I’ve seen it work that way (anecdotal perhaps, I admit! But the principles are true). In this way women are equally instrumental in bringing about the restoration as souls are rescued, for the sake of this discussion, through disciplinary councils.

 

I think each woman can be prepared to administer in such a role, and be available to those sisters who may need her at any given moment, which may not be all that often but at the same time too often when it comes to disciplinary councils.

[watermelongirl]

So if a woman wishes to have a sister accompany her to the council, help explain her situation or express her position, counsel with her or the bishop, follow up with her, etc., the system is already set up for that within the scope of the order and the keys the leaders are authorized to exercise in wards and stakes. I’ve seen it work that way (anecdotal perhaps, I admit! But the principles are true). In this way women are equally instrumental in bringing about the restoration as souls are rescued, for the sake of this discussion, through disciplinary councils.

 

I think each woman can be prepared to administer in such a role, and be available to those sisters who may need her at any given moment, which may not be all that often but at the same time too often when it comes to disciplinary councils.

I can respect what you're saying with this. I hope that as we move forward that women will avail themselves of the "right" (for lack of a better term) to have someone with them. At present, I don't think that it is widely done. Anecdotally, of course.

I am troubled that women talking to other women is not the default. As church policy, it falls under the "judge in Israel" category. I recognize that keys are required to do that particular job, but it is not clearly defined in the D&C and I believe there is plenty of room to adjust it so that the bishop still performs that duty, but with greater default protection and peer support for women.

I have extremely deep feelings and difficult experiences that have led me to be very passionate in terms of who women and girls have to talk to about their sins, transgressions and abuses. Someone earlier countered this with something like "my women friends say that they would never want to confess to another woman." I would never want to confess to a man, and yet that is the default.

Can we acknowledge, even just a little bit, the inappropriateness of requiring women to talk to men other than their husbands about sex? Just because it might be possible to skirt around the gory details, doesn't mean it still isn't talking about sex.

[Calm]

"Someone earlier countered this with something like "my women friends say that they would never want to confess to another woman." I would never want to confess to a man, and yet that is the default."

I wonder how much of this is cultural as in the view that used to be quite common (dont hear it as much anymore in my experience) that women are more prone to gossip and the sharing of other people's secrets and how much is not wanting friends to think less of one and this being extrapolated to all women and if not these reasons,then why?

For me it is more about the individual involved...there are men, including some bishops I would never open my heart to and some women as well, otoh I have opened my heart to at least one bishop and there are women I have shared my shames with and they have helped me put these in the past, forgive myself and others. Trying to think of who I would prefer confessing a few things I have yet to move on from...can't think of a preference but I bet a woman would squirm less, lol. Not sure a man would get why it upsets me...not sure a woman would, but I think it more likely.

But then the things I have needed to talk about are not frowned down upon as major sins. I have been blessed in being able to avoid such. When I hear others' stories of how they just slipped into it, I think "but for the grace of God" because there were some things I was clueless about in my youth and could have been deceived like others I know were. So I guess what I am grateful for most is never having to confront that situation which leads me to want to be very accommodating and supportive of those who do.

[JAHS]

"Someone earlier countered this with something like "my women friends say that they would never want to confess to another woman." I would never want to confess to a man, and yet that is the default."

I wonder how much of this is cultural as in the view that used to be quite common (dont hear it as much anymore in my experience) that women are more prone to gossip and the sharing of other people's secrets and how much is not wanting friends to think less of one and this being extrapolated to all women and if not these reasons,then why?

For me it is more about the individual involved...there are men, including some bishops I would never open my heart to and some women as well, otoh I have opened my heart to at least one bishop and there are women I have shared my shames with and they have helped me put these in the past, forgive myself and others. Trying to think of who I would prefer confessing a few things I have yet to move on from...can't think of a preference but I bet a woman would squirm less, lol. Not sure a man would get why it upsets me...not sure a woman would, but I think it more likely.

But then the things I have needed to talk about are not frowned down upon as major sins. I have been blessed in being able to avoid such. When I hear others' stories of how they just slipped into it, I think "but for the grace of God" because there were some things I was clueless about in my youth and could have been deceived like others I know were. So I guess what I am grateful for most is never having to confront that situation which leads me to want to be very accommodating and supportive of those who do.

 

Maybe if women were to be ordained they could call couples to be co-bishops of a ward. That way men could confess to a man and women could confess to a woman.

[Calm]

Maybe if women were to be ordained they could call couples to be co-bishops of a ward. That way men could confess to a man and women could confess to a woman.

That would be one way to do it, also couples could divide tasks so being at home would be available to both at times that work best for them…it would also prevent the wife from being called to another calling that takes up much of her time so it is harder to balance other obligations…and they could spend more time together as a couple if they wanted to work on bishopy things at the same time. 

[Avatar4321]

I don't particularly care to confess my sins at all, no matter to who i am obligated to do so, but if I want to use the Atonement, I am going to.

 

We all confess to both men and women. Just depends on whom we offend. Those with the keys only need to hear confessions that can affect our standing in the Church.

 

So why not worry less who we are confessing to and just make sure that we are humble and confessing our sins.?

[watermelongirl]

So why not worry less who we are confessing to and just make sure that we are humble and confessing our sins.?

 

I think that would be awesome. We could be like the Eastern Orthodox and choose our own spiritual guide to confess to. Or better yet, confess just to the person that we wronged and ask them and God for forgiveness.

 

We link the idea of confession and repentance counseling with the job of the common judge. I think that's a Catholic holdover, not an actual doctrinal requirement. A lot can be learned by looking at confession in other religious cultures. In Judaism, it is considered a sin to confess private sins in front of another person. If you've wronged someone, you confess to that person. If they refuse to forgive, then you take it to a public meeting.

 

Do we have any actual scriptural basis for linking confession and repentance counseling to common judge?

 

D&C 74:  And also to be a judge in Israel, to do the business of the church, to sit in judgment upon transgressors upon testimony as it shall be laid before him according to the laws, by the assistance of his counselors, whom he has chosen or will choose among the elders of the church.

 

When do we really need someone to sit in judgment on a sinner? I argue that the process of confession and repentance can be separated from the act of judging for the very real purpose of preserving faith, dignity, and providing the best possible counseling experience to those who feel the need to confess.

[watermelongirl]

For me it is more about the individual involved...there are men, including some bishops I would never open my heart to and some women as well, otoh I have opened my heart to at least one bishop and there are women I have shared my shames with and they have helped me put these in the past, forgive myself and others. Trying to think of who I would prefer confessing a few things I have yet to move on from...can't think of a preference but I bet a woman would squirm less, lol. Not sure a man would get why it upsets me...not sure a woman would, but I think it more likely.

 

This gets to the heart of it I think. We can trust some people, we don't feel as trusting of others. It's not always going to be just about gender, but for me it is. I would like to see the church reexamine who does the confession and repentance counseling. It doesn't have to be the judge. In the law system, we have advocates for the accused. I could see an advocacy or intermediary type of function develop where we would get spiritual guidance and work through the repentance process together, then if things aren't working well or if there is unwillingess to return to righteous  practices, go before the judge together with the advocate.

 

In my own situation, I was judged a sinner when I was not, partly because the judge didn't/couldn't ask enough questions without getting inappropriate. An advocate would have changed my teenage life. Not trying to get too personal or anything. 

Edited June 29, 2014 by watermelongirl

[CV75]

I can respect what you're saying with this. I hope that as we move forward that women will avail themselves of the "right" (for lack of a better term) to have someone with them. At present, I don't think that it is widely done. Anecdotally, of course.

I am troubled that women talking to other women is not the default. As church policy, it falls under the "judge in Israel" category. I recognize that keys are required to do that particular job, but it is not clearly defined in the D&C and I believe there is plenty of room to adjust it so that the bishop still performs that duty, but with greater default protection and peer support for women.

I have extremely deep feelings and difficult experiences that have led me to be very passionate in terms of who women and girls have to talk to about their sins, transgressions and abuses. Someone earlier countered this with something like "my women friends say that they would never want to confess to another woman." I would never want to confess to a man, and yet that is the default.

Can we acknowledge, even just a little bit, the inappropriateness of requiring women to talk to men other than their husbands about sex? Just because it might be possible to skirt around the gory details, doesn't mean it still isn't talking about sex.

Women’s talking to women about their problems is the norm, and transcends being a matter of default or policy. I think that is of divine design and influence. From my observation, I see that women discuss and support each other in these personal matters all the time, with various degrees of structural formality and spiritual edification (and the former does not define the latter).

 

Confession of sexual sin to an authority would be extremely difficult for many reasons; doing so with the opposite sex as well, but not everyone has trouble with it. I believe the Lord will help those who do have trouble with it. For example, if someone has had her trust or safety undermined by a leader  in the past, there are ways to obtain healing and future protection, but overcoming that internal hesitation is between her and the Lord, sometimes with the help of her sisters.

 

Unfortunately, uninspired mismanagement of the system by individuals will occur from time to time; no way to stop that 100%, ongoing efforts to improve the system with the Lord's guidance notwithstanding.

 

The way the Church is structured, all must confess to the bishop, but only to a woman when that woman has been offended. Sin and repentance are gender-neutral, regardless of the offices held by the sinner and the leader. So voluntary confession of sexual sin to a bishop is not the same as "requiring" anyone to talk to a man about sex.

 

So I do not see it inappropriate that women confess sexual sin to the bishop, and receive counsel and follow-up from him in a way where the system is “kept perfect”. The bishop may call upon the sisters to minister with him as inspired or directed by the Spirit. It would be inappropriate to discuss glory details for the sake of satisfying prurient interests, sharing confidential information indiscriminately, reacting without the Spirit, etc. But that happens when sharing amongst women, too.

[CV75]

I would like to see the church reexamine who does the confession and repentance counseling. It doesn't have to be the judge. In the law system, we have advocates for the accused. I could see an advocacy or intermediary type of function develop where we would get spiritual guidance and work through the repentance process together, then if things aren't working well or if there is unwillingess to return to righteous  practices, go before the judge together with the advocate.

I think the pattern of confessing to the judge in Israel “as it was in ancient days” may be reflected in Mosiah 26:29. Mosiah 27:31 also shows the pattern of confessing to a judge (in this case, the Lord Himself, but I think it reasonable that His representative in Israel legitimately fulfills that role of confessor). I would also say "the testimony of the just" includes the sincere, proactive confession of the remorseful, penitent sinner (D&C 58:17-18), which verse I think informs D&C 107:72.

 

“The Lord has organized an orderly and consistent program. Every member in the Church is answerable to an ecclesiastical authority. In the ward, it is the bishop; in the branch, a president; in the stake or in the mission, a president; and in the higher Church echelon of authority, the General Authorities with the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles at the head.” (Miracle of Forgiveness, p. 327.)

[watermelongirl]

I think the pattern of confessing to the judge in Israel “as it was in ancient days” may be reflected in Mosiah 26:29. Mosiah 27:31 also shows the pattern of confessing to a judge (in this case, the Lord Himself, but I think it reasonable that His representative in Israel legitimately fulfills that role of confessor). I would also say "the testimony of the just" includes the sincere, proactive confession of the remorseful, penitent sinner (D&C 58:17-18), which verse I think informs D&C 107:72.

 

“The Lord has organized an orderly and consistent program. Every member in the Church is answerable to an ecclesiastical authority. In the ward, it is the bishop; in the branch, a president; in the stake or in the mission, a president; and in the higher Church echelon of authority, the General Authorities with the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles at the head.” (Miracle of Forgiveness, p. 327.)

 

I appreciate you approaching it from a scriptural perspective. Your earlier statements seemed to say to me "we should do it this way because this is how we do it," which does not answer the nature of my question and did not take into account the flexible nature of church administration. Your quote from MoF does the same thing.

 

Mosiah 26:29 certainly does support your position, but I suggest that Mosiah 27:31 is talking about confessing that Jesus is the Christ and judgment at the second coming, and so does not apply here. (See the previous verse - it is clear he's talking about the second coming).

 

Verse 26:29 gives me something to ponder. It certainly does suggest that the confession needs to go to the judge, but D&C 107 and 58 clearly state that counselors can help. This leads me to wonder whether the keys of being a judge in Israel (only held by the bishop) are really needed to hear confession and help in the repentance process. We need a better definition of "judging." To me, I feel that it can and should be separated from confession and counselling, even though they are currently comingled.

[russianwolfe]

Truly a miracle. Here I thought God would have to bundle the tares to be burned and here they are bundling themselves and rushing to the bonfire. A real time-saver for us. Not sure Satan has thought this through.

 

Satan doesn't have to think anything through. He is focused on only one thing: The destruction of all people, no matter what they believe. Remember, he knows that plan of Savlation and what it takes to cause peoples destruction. I think of him as a destroyer and nothing else. So he is for anything that will bring about anyone's desctruction. And don't forget, for all of these people whi are brought before the DC, there are many friends and relatives who will be affected by this action for good or ill. There is never just one person that it affects.

 

Marvin

 

PS I remember a speaker at a YA fireside back in 1972 who was talking about the 2nd coming. The one thing I remember the most was his quote to the effect that the Lord will cleanse the earth and it will start with his church. Are we seeing the beginnings of this cleansing?

[Avatar4321]

Satan doesn't have to think anything through. He is focused on only one thing: The destruction of all people, no matter what they believe. Remember, he knows that plan of Savlation and what it takes to cause peoples destruction. I think of him as a destroyer and nothing else. So he is for anything that will bring about anyone's desctruction. And don't forget, for all of these people whi are brought before the DC, there are many friends and relatives who will be affected by this action for good or ill. There is never just one person that it affects.

 

Marvin

 

PS I remember a speaker at a YA fireside back in 1972 who was talking about the 2nd coming. The one thing I remember the most was his quote to the effect that the Lord will cleanse the earth and it will start with his church. Are we seeing the beginnings of this cleansing?

 

It may be that we are seeing the start of it. We are hastening the work, so I would expect the cleansing to be hastened as well.

[CV75]

I appreciate you approaching it from a scriptural perspective. Your earlier statements seemed to say to me "we should do it this way because this is how we do it," which does not answer the nature of my question and did not take into account the flexible nature of church administration. Your quote from MoF does the same thing.

 

Mosiah 26:29 certainly does support your position, but I suggest that Mosiah 27:31 is talking about confessing that Jesus is the Christ and judgment at the second coming, and so does not apply here. (See the previous verse - it is clear he's talking about the second coming).

 

Verse 26:29 gives me something to ponder. It certainly does suggest that the confession needs to go to the judge, but D&C 107 and 58 clearly state that counselors can help. This leads me to wonder whether the keys of being a judge in Israel (only held by the bishop) are really needed to hear confession and help in the repentance process. We need a better definition of "judging." To me, I feel that it can and should be separated from confession and counselling, even though they are currently comingled.

The scriptures show that the role of judge (Judge, in the case of Christ) involves receiving confessions, so it is well and good that judges in Israel serve in this capacity. Christ’s servants typically represent Him in the body of Christ to receive confessions, which is why I think Mosiah 27:31 is consistent with the practice of judge-as-confessor in the earthly kingdom.

 

Many women confess their sins to trusted sisters before going to the judge in Israel to confess along the lines offered by the keys of repentance. This is one way that sisters are “counselors,” though not in an official calling as a counselor in the bishopric.

 

All the references to “counselor” that I can find in D&C have to do with how it relates to priesthood office and priesthood presidencies. While presidencies and counselors do not require priesthood office to serve in the auxiliaries, I don’t see where counselors without priesthood office serve in a presidency where the president must hold a priesthood office. I think the closest thing we have is the auxiliary president working closely with the judge in Israel as a resource (a “counselor” in that sense) as he administers the keys of repentance.

 

In light of this, I don’t see how a bishop could call or assign a sister as a “counselor” for the purpose of exercising the keys of repentance by hearing confessions and reporting them to him due to the instruction in D&C 107: 72 (the counselors are chosen from among the elders of the church). I don’t even think the verse means that counselors hear confessions since I don’t see any scriptures about counselors hearing confessions (2 Nephi 19:6 refers to Christ as “Counselor” but I think that is in relation to His role as Advocate before the Father rather than what a Judge does).

[watermelongirl]

The scriptures show that the role of judge (Judge, in the case of Christ) involves receiving confessions, so it is well and good that judges in Israel serve in this capacity. Christ’s servants typically represent Him in the body of Christ to receive confessions, which is why I think Mosiah 27:31 is consistent with the practice of judge-as-confessor in the earthly kingdom.

Unfortunately, I don't find this well and good at all. It does not sit right with me in the light of my personal experiences which lead me to fears for my own daughters. I don't see "the scriptures show" as definitively as you seem to.

 

Many women confess their sins to trusted sisters before going to the judge in Israel to confess along the lines offered by the keys of repentance. This is one way that sisters are “counselors,” though not in an official calling as a counselor in the bishopric.

All the references to “counselor” that I can find in D&C have to do with how it relates to priesthood office and priesthood presidencies. While presidencies and counselors do not require priesthood office to serve in the auxiliaries, I don’t see where counselors without priesthood office serve in a presidency where the president must hold a priesthood office. I think the closest thing we have is the auxiliary president working closely with the judge in Israel as a resource (a “counselor” in that sense) as he administers the keys of repentance.

The priesthood keys of repentance in D&C 13 refer to the Aaronic priesthood administration of the sacrament. Judgment is the key of the bishop, but I still see a possible separation there without stepping on anyone's keys. Do you have a source for the existence of "keys of confession and repentance" that you mention below? Is that really a thing aside from the specific keys of repentance exercised by the Aaronic Priesthood?

 

In light of this, I don’t see how a bishop could call or assign a sister as a “counselor” for the purpose of exercising the keys of repentance by hearing confessions and reporting them to him due to the instruction in D&C 107: 72 (the counselors are chosen from among the elders of the church). I don’t even think the verse means that counselors hear confessions since I don’t see any scriptures about counselors hearing confessions (2 Nephi 19:6 refers to Christ as “Counselor” but I think that is in relation to His role as Advocate before the Father rather than what a Judge does).

I did acknowledge earlier that it would require a revelation reworking how we think of bishop's counselors in accordance with the D&C elders thing. Still doesn't usurp keys of judgment though.

 

[CV75]

Unfortunately, I don't find this well and good at all. It does not sit right with me in the light of my personal experiences which lead me to fears for my own daughters. I don't see "the scriptures show" as definitively as you seem to.

 

The priesthood keys of repentance in D&C 13 refer to the Aaronic priesthood administration of the sacrament. Judgment is the key of the bishop, but I still see a possible separation there without stepping on anyone's keys. Do you have a source for the existence of "keys of confession and repentance" that you mention below? Is that really a thing aside from the specific keys of repentance exercised by the Aaronic Priesthood?

 

I did acknowledge earlier that it would require a revelation reworking how we think of bishop's counselors in accordance with the D&C elders thing. Still doesn't usurp keys of judgment though.

D&C 107:69-77 speaks of the keys of the Aaronic Priesthood, which include the gospel of repentance (confession is a step in repentance). In a ward, the bishop (a judge in Israel) presides over the Aaronic priesthood and this ministry, and where he is a High Priest, over the Melchizedek priesthood also.

 

D&C 13 says nothing about administering the sacrament, and lists the gospel of repentances as one of three keys of the Aaronic Priesthood – though I can see how administering the sacrament is consistent with the three keys mentioned since the three keys are reflected in its administration in various ways.

 

I’m not sure how to further address the propriety of a bishop receiving confessions as part of exercising the keys of repentance as held by a judge in Israel, and of not delegating it to counselors (whether chosen from among the elders or not), or to priests, teachers or deacons who hold the very priesthood he presides over.

 

Regarding the divisibility of keys, judgment and confession seem to be one and the same, contained within one key, and held by the same judge in Israel without delegation. I don’t think they can be separated.

 

It is interesting to me that the process of confession of serious sin through priesthood channels is indicated in D&C 42:88-92. D&C 64:7, 12 also.

[Tacenda]

It may be that we are seeing the start of it. We are hastening the work, so I would expect the cleansing to be hastened as well.

That will be one long bath/cleanse given the church is less then 5% of the world population.   

[The Nehor]

PS I remember a speaker at a YA fireside back in 1972 who was talking about the 2nd coming. The one thing I remember the most was his quote to the effect that the Lord will cleanse the earth and it will start with his church. Are we seeing the beginnings of this cleansing?

 

I hope not. I am not sure I would survive such a cleansing.