Kenngo1969 Posted March 7, 2017 Posted March 7, 2017 1 hour ago, Duncan said: why can't you be a Bishop? Our Stake President told us something about things that could disqualify you to be recommended as a Bishop and we asked him for that list, for me I'll get the disease I don't care It's that whole "husband-of-one-wife" thingy! (See 1 Timothy 3:2). 1
Duncan Posted March 7, 2017 Author Posted March 7, 2017 Just now, Kenngo1969 said: It's that whole "husband-of-one-wife" thingy! (See 1 Timothy 3:2). you have two wives? share the wealth! 1
Kenngo1969 Posted March 7, 2017 Posted March 7, 2017 1 minute ago, Duncan said: you have two wives? share the wealth! Still workin' on my first, thankyouverymuch! (As I've said so many times before, ya hafta monog before ya kin polyg! ) 2
Ahab Posted March 7, 2017 Posted March 7, 2017 5 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: It's that whole "husband-of-one-wife" thingy! (See 1 Timothy 3:2). Now you're just being silly. Again.
Kenngo1969 Posted March 8, 2017 Posted March 8, 2017 (edited) 54 minutes ago, Ahab said: Now you're just being silly. Again. So, 1 Timothy 3:2 doesn't say that a bishop must be the husband of one wife? I'm actually married, and someone forgot to tell me? (Reminds me of the episode of M*A*S*H in which Major Charles Emerson Winchester III gets sloshed and gets married to Donna Marie Parker in Tokyo, who then shows up in Uijongbu. As the nuptials occurred when Charles was highly inebriated, he, of course, remembers nothing. After learning, much to his relief, that the "wedding" actually was performed by the bartender rather than by anyone with authority to do so (He asks, "We're not actually ..." whereupon she, laughing, replies "No!"), Charles then asks, "In that event, you wouldn't mind answering an extremely ... personal question?" When she consents to do so, he asks, "What is your name?!" ) I love how some people (fortunately, they're a distinct minority) approach the whole challenge of being single in the Church, as though I could simply choose someone I think would be a suitable candidate, bop her over the head, be sealed to her while she's unconscious, and then ... well, she'll get used to the idea eventually when she wakes up! (That whole agency thing is sooo overrated, after all! ) Edited March 8, 2017 by Kenngo1969
Ahab Posted March 8, 2017 Posted March 8, 2017 2 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: I love how some people (fortunately, they're a distinct minority) approach the whole challenge of being single in the Church, as though I could simply choose someone I think would be a suitable candidate, bop her over the head, be sealed to her while she's unconscious, and then ... well, she'll get used to the idea eventually when she wakes up! (That whole agency thing is sooo overrated, after all! ) Kinda like the guy in the Passengers movie who picked his woman while she was sleeping in suspended animation. But it all worked out in the end. 1
rpn Posted March 8, 2017 Posted March 8, 2017 Word of Wisdom things aren't sins and do not require repentance. The handbook also explicitly says no discipline for porn and "self-abuse". No reason at all to see the bishop before ever about issues that the Addiction Recovery Program can help
Duncan Posted March 8, 2017 Author Posted March 8, 2017 Just now, rpn said: Word of Wisdom things aren't sins and do not require repentance. The handbook also explicitly says no discipline for porn and "self-abuse". No reason at all to see the bishop before ever about issues that the Addiction Recovery Program can help what handbook is this 1 or 2?
rongo Posted March 8, 2017 Posted March 8, 2017 12 hours ago, Duncan said: what handbook is this 1 or 2? That's actually not in either handbook. Discipline (including informal) can most certainly be administered for porn and self-abuse.
rpn Posted March 8, 2017 Posted March 8, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, rongo said: That's actually not in either handbook. Discipline (including informal) can most certainly be administered for porn and self-abuse. Handbook 1 6.7.1 (2010) Fai lure to Comply w~h Some Church Standard, A dhlcipUnary council should not be held to diKipline or threaten members who dono! comply with \ho> Word of WISdom. who are struggling with pornography or self-abuse, or whose transgn: uion$ <:OfISisI of omissions, such as failure to pay tithing.. inactivity in the Church. Of" inattention toChurch duties. If a disciplinary council cannot be held, then how would a bishop have authority to do discipline informally for the same things? Edited March 8, 2017 by rpn
rongo Posted March 8, 2017 Posted March 8, 2017 6 minutes ago, rpn said: Handbook 1 6.7.1 (2010) Fai lure to Comply w~h Some Church Standard, A dhlcipUnary council should not be held to diKipline or threaten members who dono! comply with \ho> Word of WISdom. who are struggling with pornography or self-abuse, or whose transgn: uion$ <:OfISisI of omissions, such as failure to pay tithing.. inactivity in the Church. Of" inattention toChurch duties. See my quote. The majority of church discipline is informal, with no disciplinary council (e.g., restrictions a bishop places on a person, but with no record of the proceedings and with no effect on one's membership record). I agree with you that a disciplinary council would not be held over those issues, but I disagree that it is against policy (in the handbooks) to discipline because of them. That happens all the time (with church sanction). 2
rpn Posted March 8, 2017 Posted March 8, 2017 How can it be with sanction by the church when by saying there should be no council, for what it calls "Failure to Comply with Some Church Standard" not sin. I can see a bishop trying to help someone get control over their appetites and passions that are impeding their progress, but I fail to see how they have authority to do informal discipline either given these words: clearly the church does not see these as "sins" for which discipline is appropriate.
Duncan Posted March 8, 2017 Author Posted March 8, 2017 Just now, rpn said: How can it be with sanction by the church when by saying there should be no council, for what it calls "Failure to Comply with Some Church Standard" not sin. I can see a bishop trying to help someone get control over their appetites and passions that are impeding their progress, but I fail to see how they have authority to do informal discipline either given these words: clearly the church does not see these as "sins" for which discipline is appropriate. what if people get in control on their own without a Bishop's advice? some Bishops IMO are hardliners and give out dumb advice hahhahaha!
Kenngo1969 Posted March 8, 2017 Posted March 8, 2017 (edited) 34 minutes ago, rpn said: How can it be with sanction by the church when by saying there should be no council, for what it calls "Failure to Comply with Some Church Standard" not sin. I can see a bishop trying to help someone get control over their appetites and passions that are impeding their progress, but I fail to see how they have authority to do informal discipline either given these words: clearly the church does not see these as "sins" for which discipline is appropriate. Bishops can and do discipline informally on a relatively frequent basis (the reason this may occur is, of course, strictly between the bishop and the member). Perhaps you're conflating convening a disciplinary council (which is what the Handbook section you quoted deals with), with discipline period, i.e., so-called "informal" discipline. Whether the actions of a particular bishop who sees himself as acting as a Judge in Israel are appropriate is, perhaps, up for debate, and I've heard one Priesthood leader tell me that when it comes to such matters, if he is going to err, he would prefer to err on the side of mercy rather than on the side of justice, but even those two caveats are a far cry from concluding, as you apparently have done, that any informal discipline at all is inappropriate. The Church does not see the sins you mention as cases for which formal discipline (i.e., convening a disciplinary council) is appropriate. Edited March 8, 2017 by Kenngo1969 2
Kenngo1969 Posted March 8, 2017 Posted March 8, 2017 19 hours ago, rpn said: Word of Wisdom things aren't sins and do not require repentance. ... Whether a violation of the Word of Wisdom requires the intervention of a bishop may be open for debate, but it is certainly not open for debate that such a violation is a sin and does require repentance.
ksfisher Posted March 8, 2017 Posted March 8, 2017 19 hours ago, rpn said: Word of Wisdom things aren't sins and do not require repentance. The handbook also explicitly says no discipline for porn and "self-abuse". No reason at all to see the bishop before ever about issues that the Addiction Recovery Program can help All these things affect worthiness to participate in priesthood ordinances. Sacrament, temple, etc. 1
ksfisher Posted March 8, 2017 Posted March 8, 2017 36 minutes ago, Duncan said: what if people get in control on their own without a Bishop's advice? some Bishops IMO are hardliners and give out dumb advice hahhahaha! What if... 1
ksfisher Posted March 8, 2017 Posted March 8, 2017 10 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: Whether a violation of the Word of Wisdom requires the intervention of a bishop may be open for debate, but it is certainly not open for debate that such a violation is a sin and does require repentance. If the person is a temple recommend holder I would say it would be more that appropriate to have a visit with the bishop. 1
rongo Posted March 8, 2017 Posted March 8, 2017 40 minutes ago, Duncan said: what if people get in control on their own without a Bishop's advice? some Bishops IMO are hardliners and give out dumb advice hahhahaha! My view: if a person can get in control on their own, then they can repent between them and God. The problem is when they can't stop (whether one calls it an addiction or a habit). rpn: How can it be with sanction by the church when by saying there should be no council, for what it calls "Failure to Comply with Some Church Standard" not sin. I can see a bishop trying to help someone get control over their appetites and passions that are impeding their progress, but I fail to see how they have authority to do informal discipline either given these words: clearly the church does not see these as "sins" for which discipline is appropriate. Not *formal* church discipline, requiring sanctions on membership records. But, clearly sins requiring repentance, sometimes (at the bishops' discretion) with informal discipline (e.g., abstaining from the sacrament, abstaining from ordinances, to-do items, etc.). When priests are struggling mightily with this (I have one who masturbates daily, and can't stop himself), I don't let them bless or take the sacrament, and I work with them on getting through the week unscathed so that they can the next week. For example. That's a form of informal discipline, but there is nothing in their records about that (formal discipline). 1
Calm Posted March 8, 2017 Posted March 8, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, rpn said: How can it be with sanction by the church when by saying there should be no council, for what it calls "Failure to Comply with Some Church Standard" not sin. I can see a bishop trying to help someone get control over their appetites and passions that are impeding their progress, but I fail to see how they have authority to do informal discipline either given these words: clearly the church does not see these as "sins" for which discipline is appropriate. I do not think it is clear at all. A council is a major event, you are talking about getting multiple people involved and having one's problems and sins shared among them rather than keeping it private. It goes on records. What you are suggesting is the Church sees no middle ground, if it is a sin that is significant, one must have a council. If it isn't, a confession is all that is necessary, if that (or so it seems from what you have written). There are a lot of options in between to deal with a wide range of sins, including informal (as in not on the record) discipline. "The bishop can help you through the repentance process in ways your parents or other leaders are unable to provide. If the sin is serious enough, he may determine that your privileges in the Church should be restricted. For example, as part of your repentance process, he may ask you to refrain from partaking of the sacrament or exercising the priesthood for a period of time. He will work with you and determine when you are worthy again to resume those sacred activities. Your bishop will counsel you on what to do to strengthen your ability to resist temptation. He may encourage you to study a doctrinal topic, such as repentance, and then to share with him what you have learned. He may ask you to visit with him each week to report how you are doing in removing yourself from tempting situations." https://www.lds.org/new-era/2013/10/why-and-what-do-i-need-to-confess-to-my-bishop?lang=eng "The bishop is the judge and the shepherd who has the power of discernment and the right to revelation and inspiration for the guidance of the flock. He is responsible for holding worthiness interviews in order to authorize attendance at the temple, callings to ward positions, ordinations to priesthood offices, and the callings of missionaries. He administers formal and informal discipline for violation of the laws of the Church, and he counsels and helps members avoid the necessity for discipline." https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1997/04/bishop-help?lang=eng " Informal Church Discipline When a bishop learns of a transgression, usually through the confession of the member involved, he first counsels with the member. When the sin is not grievous, the bishop may decide, through inspiration, that no disciplinary action is needed. He may continue to give counsel and caution, helping the member resist temptation and avoid further transgression. Another option the bishop has is to place the member on informal probation, temporarily restricting his privileges as a Church member—such as the right to partake of the sacrament, hold a Church position, or enter the temple. The bishop may ask the member to surrender his temple recommend temporarily. In addition, he may require the member to make specific positive changes in attitude or behavior. No official record is made or kept of informal probation. The bishop maintains close contact with the member and may terminate the probation period when he is prompted to do so. In these cases, informal Church discipline may negate the need for formal disciplinary action. Since repentance and reformation are the primary objectives of any Church disciplinary action, the bishop may feel that the person has done or is doing everything necessary to repent and that a disciplinary council would serve no useful purpose. Formal Church Discipline On the other hand, the spirit of inspiration may move the Church leader to convene a disciplinary council, particularly if the member holds a prominent position in the Church. In the scriptures, the Lord has given direction concerning Church disciplinary councils. (See D&C 102.) The word council brings to mind a helpful proceeding—one of love and concern, with the salvation and blessing of the transgressor being the foremost consideration.... Disciplinary councils are not called to try civil or criminal cases. The decision of a civil court may help determine whether a Church disciplinary council should be convened. However, a civil court’s decision does not dictate the decision of a disciplinary council. Disciplinary councils are not held for such things as failure to pay tithing, to obey the Word of Wisdom, to attend church, or to receive home teachers. They are not held because of business failure or nonpayment of debts. They are not designed to settle disputes among members. Nor are they held for members who demand that their names be removed from Church records or who have joined another church; that is now an administrative action." https://www.lds.org/ensign/1990/09/a-chance-to-start-over-church-disciplinary-councils-and-the-restoration-of-blessings?lang=eng Notice there is no restriction under "informal church discipline" for WoW nonobedience. Edited March 8, 2017 by Calm 2
Calm Posted March 8, 2017 Posted March 8, 2017 "Recognize that overcoming an addiction may take time. Though Church discipline may be needed for serious infractions, love and encourage these individuals. Focus on progress being made rather than upon problems that recur during the process. (See the "Repentance and Addiction Recovery" section of Preach My Gospel, pages 187–88.)" https://www.lds.org/topics/pornography/audiences/leaders/how-bishops-can-help-pornography-users?lang=eng Since Church Courts are not done for pornography use, then it must refer to informal discipline. 1
Calm Posted March 8, 2017 Posted March 8, 2017 (edited) 20 hours ago, rpn said: Word of Wisdom things aren't sins and do not require repentance. The handbook also explicitly says no discipline for porn and "self-abuse". No reason at all to see the bishop before ever about issues that the Addiction Recovery Program can help https://www.lds.org/youth/article/print?lang=eng&url=/youth/article/whats-not-on-the-warning-label "Warning: Beer and cigarettes distance you from the Spirit. The immediate consequence of any sin is loss of the Spirit. The scriptures make it clear that the Spirit will not always strive with men (see Genesis 6:3; Ether 15:19; D&C 1:33) and that no unclean thing can dwell with God (see 1 Nephi 10:21; Mosiah 2:36–38). Isn’t the Holy Ghost a member of the Godhead? Perhaps that’s why we must be baptized—completely cleaned—before we receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (see D&C 68:25; 84:64). One cigarette may not be enough to give you emphysema, but it is enough to alienate you from the Spirit. One sip of beer may not make you an alcoholic and leave you penniless and homeless, but it is enough to leave you without the Spirit." https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-seminary-teacher-resource-manual/ohio-and-missouri-period/doctrine-and-covenants-82?lang=eng "Bring several rocks to class that are all labeled with the same sin (for example, breaking the Word of Wisdom)." Edited March 8, 2017 by Calm
Calm Posted March 8, 2017 Posted March 8, 2017 (edited) Rpn, do you need more references for "breaking the Word of Wisdom" being a sin and needing repentance? Edited March 8, 2017 by Calm
Duncan Posted March 9, 2017 Author Posted March 9, 2017 5 years ago at Stake Priesthood mtg. our SP told the brethren that M* leads to murder, which is terrible news because I live across the street from a High School so I dooooooooooooooooomed!!
The Nehor Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 On 3/7/2017 at 6:40 PM, Kenngo1969 said: I love how some people (fortunately, they're a distinct minority) approach the whole challenge of being single in the Church, as though I could simply choose someone I think would be a suitable candidate, bop her over the head, be sealed to her while she's unconscious, and then ... well, she'll get used to the idea eventually when she wakes up! (That whole agency thing is sooo overrated, after all! ) You can, but the problem is apparently it ends in assault charges. Stupid legal system...... 1
Recommended Posts