"But the Wedding is Coming Up...!"...LDS Video of a Bishop's Interview

[mfbukowski]

nevermind

Edited December 24, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, ksfisher said:

The most soul searching, penetrating question I’ve ever been asked, on Sunday when the bishop was on vacation, was “what would you do if you were bishop.”  When put that way, however, the descision was clear.

Well at that moment,  you WERE!

[Thinking]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, really.  Read Alma 39:5:  It does not say that sexual sin is the same as murder, but emphasizes that it is very serious.  Alma uses hyperbole to accentuate his point, but anyone familiar with the Scriptures knows very well that the punishment for fornication is just never the same as that for murder.  Not even close.  Then too, it makes a great deal of difference whether the violation was by someone who holds the priesthood and has made temple covenants (Law of Chastity).  One has only to compare the short entries at https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/murder?lang=eng&letter=M  (murder), and https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/fornication?lang=eng  (fornication) to see the stark difference.

Moreover, equating fornication with murder can make true repentance seem impossible and completely demoralize someone who is young and stupid, thus guaranteeing that they will give up on the Gospel.  The same thing happens when smoking or drinking are made out to be so horrendous as sins that there is no hope for repentance.  We need to get a grip on reality, and understand that some sins are more grievous than others.

Your claim was that equating sexual sin with murder had been abandoned. I agree with you that it should be abandoned, however there are still places where it shows up (like the referenced lesson). Here's another one.

Quote

Unchastity is next to murder in seriousness.

“Chapter 39: The Law of Chastity,” Gospel Principles (2011)

As long as these statements remain in the lessons, equating sexual sin with murder will never fully be abandoned.

Edited December 24, 2017 by Thinking

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Thinking said:

Your claim was that equating sexual sin with murder had been abandoned. I agree with you that it should be abandoned, however there are still places where it shows up (like the referenced lesson). Here's another one.

As long as these statements remain in the lessons, equating sexual sin with murder will never fully be abandoned.

I have no problem with the gradations you keep quoting, but nowhere do we find them equated.  In fact that false notion has been abandoned because it was absurd and ineffective.  You are probably to young to recall the way in which fornication used to be equated with murder.

[Exiled]

On 12/24/2017 at 2:25 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

I have no problem with the gradations you keep quoting, but nowhere do we find them equated.  In fact that false notion has been abandoned because it was absurd and ineffective.  You are probably to young to recall the way in which fornication used to be equated with murder.

I don't ever remember sexual sin being equated to murder.  It was always portrayed, as far as I can recall, as the sin next to murder.  The separation wasn't much but was there.  President Kimball's views seemed to dominate when I was growing up and he probably wanted the close comparison as chapter 5 in his "miracle of forgiveness" equated it to the sin next to (but not equal to) murder.  I found this article that recounts how the church is moving away from this stance and the article says that President Kimball regretted the harsh tone his book had:   http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=2762815&itype=CMSID&fullpage=1

[Robert F. Smith]

21 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I don't ever remember sexual sin being equated to murder.  It was always portrayed, as far as I can recall, as the sin next to murder.  The separation wasn't much but was there.  President Kimball's views seemed to dominate when I was growing up and he probably wanted the close comparison as chapter 5 in his "miracle of forgiveness" equated it to the sin next to (but not equal to) murder.  I found this article that recounts how the church is moving away from this stance and the article says that President Kimball regretted the harsh tone his book had:   http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=2762815&itype=CMSID&fullpage=1

Which was my point, and very well articulated by you here.

[strappinglad]

" Do what is right, let the consequence follow "

We have our agency to choose our actions ( most of the time ) , We rarely get to choose the consequences.

Christ did not condemn the woman taken in adultery, but He did leave her with the words " go and sin no more ", which implies that she should not throw this gift back in His face or there would be other consequences.

[Doctrine 612]

She needed to tell Matt,

[Danzo]

 

For the record, I have a close relative who was sent home from his mission for fornication, then waited a year returned to his mission, married the girl.

He now serves as a counselor in a bishopric.   Him coming clean doesn't seem to have affected his status in the church much. (Although he has a beard, which might indicate continued apostasy)

I have another close relative who had to wait a year after being married to get sealed due to fornication.  He has also served as a counselor in a bishopric.  

I would doubt anyone in the church knows or cares about theses people's past issues. They seem to have suffered no permanent damage as a result of church discipline.

[strappinglad]

I wonder if a person can get a job with CES after a DC for fornication?   hmmm .

[Rain]

On 12/22/2017 at 11:46 AM, Exiled said:

Of course the member is always to blame in these scenarios (there you go blaming again )  As an aside, what do you think is the most important part of the gospel, obedience or charity?  It seems some young man asked an important person this question at some point ..... Also, some important person wouldn't condemn a certain women found in sexual transgression in some book (although scholars think this story is a later insertion)

Charity and Obedience are not two ends of a line. Charity and lack of charity/hatred are on the same line. Obedience and disobedience are on the same line. Charity and Obedience are parallel lines.

This is all kind of like asking if it is worse to be hungry or thirsty. Now some will give you some good ideas for which one is worse, but no one is going to say the more hungry you are the less thirsty you get. 

If you think of Christ, the more Godly obedient one is, then the more charitable you are capable of becoming and vice versa. Christ said if you don't have charity you are nothing, yet whole atonement is based on the idea that because Christ had charity he was obedient to the Father in carrying out the atonement.

On 12/22/2017 at 5:37 PM, california boy said:

My only question is: How quick was Jesus willing to forgive?  To not look to His example seems not in keeping with the gospel that He is the author of.  

There are several incidents in the life of Christ that might shed light on this issue.  The woman being stoned for adultery.  The woman at the well.  And those that hung Christ on the cross.   Perhaps others could suggest more.  Once we see how Christ behaved, maybe it will give us some guidance.

Yes, it will, but much is missing in those stories. Were any of them asking to go in to the temple at that time? 

Stoning the adulterous woman was about judging others or being in a place where one could judge righteously. It was also about a much more severe consequence. 

The woman at the well was not a church member. She did not covenant to follow Christ before then by going through baptism. 

I'd have to look at the thieves some more to see if it really applies or not.

On 12/22/2017 at 7:08 PM, Calm said:

If she had gone for the identical interview, but for her personal endowment without announcing it to anyone, how would the bishop's response be any different...yet no one would be the least aware of the denial of the recommend unless she told them she had planned to get her endowment and then told them it was delayed.  Publicity is a side effect of the wedding being delayed, not the temple recommend being denied.  That can take place and probably does most of the time with no publicity whatsoever.

It would have been the same for her if she had the interview prior to the time of choosing the wedding date.

I keep thinking, "Why not just tell people, 'we're not quite ready to get married?'" It answers the question honestly without giving away details. 

[Calm]

"It was too rushed, there were things we felt we should be doing on our own before becoming a couple..."

There are a number of ways one could honestly explain without going into repentance, which is no one else's business anyway.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

Charity and Obedience are not two ends of a line. Charity and lack of charity/hatred are on the same line. Obedience and disobedience are on the same line. Charity and Obedience are parallel lines.

This is all kind of like asking if it is worse to be hungry or thirsty. Now some will give you some good ideas for which one is worse, but no one is going to say the more hungry you are the less thirsty you get. 

If you think of Christ, the more Godly obedient one is, then the more charitable you are capable of becoming and vice versa. Christ said if you don't have charity you are nothing, yet whole atonement is based on the idea that because Christ had charity he was obedient to the Father in carrying out the atonement.

Yes, it will, but much is missing in those stories. Were any of them asking to go in to the temple at that time? 

Stoning the adulterous woman was about judging others or being in a place where one could judge righteously. It was also about a much more severe consequence. 

The woman at the well was not a church member. She did not covenant to follow Christ before then by going through baptism. 

I'd have to look at the thieves some more to see if it really applies or not.

I keep thinking, "Why not just tell people, 'we're not quite ready to get married?'" It answers the question honestly without giving away details. 

Since you didn't seem to like the examples from the life of Christ that I find valuable in gauging how to forgive, what about the life of Christ do you use when situations like this arise.  

Edited December 26, 2017 by california boy

[mfbukowski]

On 12/24/2017 at 2:25 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

I have no problem with the gradations you keep quoting, but nowhere do we find them equated.  In fact that false notion has been abandoned because it was absurd and ineffective.  You are probably to young to recall the way in which fornication used to be equated with murder.

"The Miracle of Forgiveness" was notorious for causing more despair and abandonment of even attempting abstinence than promoting the comfort of forgiveness.

I believe it is out of print now.

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Danzo said:

 

For the record, I have a close relative who was sent home from his mission for fornication, then waited a year returned to his mission, married the girl.

He now serves as a counselor in a bishopric.   Him coming clean doesn't seem to have affected his status in the church much. (Although he has a beard, which might indicate continued apostasy)

I have another close relative who had to wait a year after being married to get sealed due to fornication.  He has also served as a counselor in a bishopric.  

I would doubt anyone in the church knows or cares about theses people's past issues. They seem to have suffered no permanent damage as a result of church discipline.

I know of a couple who had a child while the father was an elder on his mission who met a local girl in his mission area.

There was discipline- both were disfellowshipped.  They are now happily married with 3 children, sealed and active in what used to be his mission area.

[Exiled]

4 hours ago, Rain said:

Charity and Obedience are not two ends of a line. Charity and lack of charity/hatred are on the same line. Obedience and disobedience are on the same line. Charity and Obedience are parallel lines.

This is all kind of like asking if it is worse to be hungry or thirsty. Now some will give you some good ideas for which one is worse, but no one is going to say the more hungry you are the less thirsty you get. 

If you think of Christ, the more Godly obedient one is, then the more charitable you are capable of becoming and vice versa. Christ said if you don't have charity you are nothing, yet whole atonement is based on the idea that because Christ had charity he was obedient to the Father in carrying out the atonement.

I'm talking about punishment here and how the level of punishment could be a little lighter in the scenario shown in the video, if the church wanted it to be. But the church didn't want the mercy side to be portrayed. It obviously wanted to give warning to young people in order to drive them into the bishop to confess early otherwise face the possible embarrassment of having their wedding plans ruined.

[Analytics]

On ‎12‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 2:07 PM, cinepro said:

Of course, if the Church was trying to be really accurate, they would produce a video showing the "other boy" talking to his Bishop before he gets married, and the other Bishop telling him "Oh, it sounds like you've confessed and forsaken the sin, so it's no problem."

Exactly. Beyond the hubris of a man thinking that he has the duty to pry into the personal lives of others and the authority to declare the extent to which the Lord has forgiven them for acting like humans, the inconsistency of these judgments is blinding.

Somebody I am close to ended up having a sexual relationship with her zone leader. There are only so many times two missionaries can sneak out of their respective apartments to rendezvous at the chapel before getting caught, so it isn't surprising that it eventually happened. The mission president decided that the relationship was almost entirely the fault of the Sister--that she was a "snake" and used her wily womanly ways to seduce the powerless Elder. The reality is that while it does take two to tango, the Elder was sexually active before his mission, the Sister was a virgin, and the Elder was the aggressor in the relationship. Nevertheless, the Sister was required to send a letter to the Elder's parents explaining that it was all her fault and asking for forgiveness. The Elder did not have to send a reciprocal letter. They were both disfellowshipped and sent home. Within about two weeks of being sent home, the Elder was reassigned to a new mission and was back in the field. Meanwhile for the next several months, the Sister faithfully attended church as a disfellowshiped member. On an almost weekly basis, she would be pulled out of Sunday School by the bishop and required to re-confess what had happened, with repeated and prying questions about the salacious details.

Edited December 26, 2017 by Analytics

[rongo]

47 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Exactly. Beyond the hubris of a man thinking that he has the duty to pry into the personal lives of others and the authority to declare the extent to which the Lord has forgiven them for acting like humans, the inconsistency of these judgments is blinding.

Somebody I am close to ended up having a sexual relationship with her zone leader. There are only so many times two missionaries can sneak out of their respective apartments to rendezvous at the chapel before getting caught, so it isn't surprising that it eventually happened. The mission president decided that the relationship was almost entirely the fault of the Sister--that she was a "snake" and used her wily womanly ways to seduce the powerless Elder. The reality is that while it does take two to tango, the Elder was sexually active before his mission, the Sister was a virgin, and the Elder was the aggressor in the relationship. Nevertheless, the Sister was required to send a letter to the Elder's parents explaining that it was all her fault and asking for forgiveness. The Elder did not have to send a reciprocal letter. They were both disfellowshipped and sent home. Within about two weeks of being sent home, the Elder was reassigned to a new mission and was back in the field. Meanwhile for the next several months, the Sister faithfully attended church as a disfellowshiped member. On an almost weekly basis, she would be pulled out of Sunday School by the bishop and required to re-confess what had happened, with repeated and prying questions about the salacious details.

This would be an outlier, though, on its face. In most cases I am aware of, the Melchizedek priesthood holder receives much more stringent church discipline than women, or prospective elders. Which is as it should be. 

Your story illustrates the silliness of too-lenient discipline. Sending back out a disfellowshipped elder after only two weeks? 

Come to think of it, I'm skeptical of this story, Analytics (at least, this part, for sure). Have you ever participated in a disciplinary council? Setting it up and carrying it out usually takes longer than two weeks, and there are all sorts of red flags for me with Salt Lake not getting involved with a reinstatement after two weeks after a missionary was sent home (the proceedings and application are sent to the Office of the First Presidency, and they do get back swiftly and sternly if they are unhappy with elements of it). I have never heard of a term of disfellowshipment lasting less than a month. And then being sent to another mission (which goes through the missionary department) right after reinstatement after two weeks?

My sister-in-law's boyfriend was sent home from his mission, and when he tried to go back out, he met with a Seventy who essentially told him to forget about it. This was in the late 1990s; when did this supposedly happen like this to someone you are close to? 

I think your source for this might not be very reliable where details are concerned. That might be her version, but it has all sorts of earmarks of not being aware of the process or absurdities in her story. I think it probably that she was disfellowshipped and sent home, but, c'mon . ..  .

Edited December 26, 2017 by rongo

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Exactly. Beyond the hubris of a man thinking that he has the duty to pry into the personal lives of others and the authority to declare the extent to which the Lord has forgiven them for acting like humans, the inconsistency of these judgments is blinding.

Somebody I am close to ended up having a sexual relationship with her zone leader. There are only so many times two missionaries can sneak out of their respective apartments to rendezvous at the chapel before getting caught, so it isn't surprising that it eventually happened. The mission president decided that the relationship was almost entirely the fault of the Sister--that she was a "snake" and used her wily womanly ways to seduce the powerless Elder. The reality is that while it does take two to tango, the Elder was sexually active before his mission, the Sister was a virgin, and the Elder was the aggressor in the relationship. Nevertheless, the Sister was required to send a letter to the Elder's parents explaining that it was all her fault and asking for forgiveness. The Elder did not have to send a reciprocal letter. They were both disfellowshipped and sent home. Within about two weeks of being sent home, the Elder was reassigned to a new mission and was back in the field. Meanwhile for the next several months, the Sister faithfully attended church as a disfellowshiped member. On an almost weekly basis, she would be pulled out of Sunday School by the bishop and required to re-confess what had happened, with repeated and prying questions about the salacious details.

Very strange story, goes against every thing I have ever experienced in the church or ever  heard about.

on a mission two weeks after being disfellowshiped?

where and how long ago was this?

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Very strange story, goes against every thing I have ever experienced in the church or ever  heard about.

on a mission two weeks after being disfellowshiped?

where and how long ago was this?

At a minimum, it would require the stake president to meet him at the airport, say, "Great to have you back, son! Say, we've got to get going on this pronto, so we can get you reinstated and get you called into another mission. I'll see how quickly we can get the high council together. Don't worry --- we'll get you right back out!" And it would require the Missionary department to immediately issue a second mission assignment in record time. And all of these suspend disbelief or skepticism that both the stake level and missionary department played right along with this in record time.

The damage in morale and vehement disagreement on the high council alone make the head swim. And I'm not buying that Salt Lake reassigned this elder anywhere at all, even if it were possible to be reinstated in a matter of weeks. 

[Danzo]

17 minutes ago, rongo said:

At a minimum, it would require the stake president to meet him at the airport, say, "Great to have you back, son! Say, we've got to get going on this pronto, so we can get you reinstated and get you called into another mission. I'll see how quickly we can get the high council together. Don't worry --- we'll get you right back out!" And it would require the Missionary department to immediately issue a second mission assignment in record time. And all of these suspend disbelief or skepticism that both the stake level and missionary department played right along with this in record time.

The damage in morale and vehement disagreement on the high council alone make the head swim. And I'm not buying that Salt Lake reassigned this elder anywhere at all, even if it were possible to be reinstated in a matter of weeks. 

What bothers me the most is that somehow Analytics believes the story without question.  This indicates that perhaps analytics doesn't know very much on how the church actually works.   

This story is so incredible that even if it were true, Analytics should know that it would be such a strange, weird,  occurrence and note it as such,  rather than use it as an example of how the church normally works.

 

 

[Analytics]

12 minutes ago, rongo said:

This would be an outlier, though, on its face. In most cases I am aware of, the Melchizedek priesthood holder receives much more stringent church discipline than women, or prospective elders. Which is as it should be. 

Your story illustrates the silliness of too-lenient discipline. Sending back out a disfellowshipped elder after only two weeks? 

Come to think of it, I'm skeptical of this story, Analytics (at least, this part, for sure). Have you ever participated in a disciplinary council? Setting it up and carrying it out usually takes longer than two weeks, and there are all sorts of red flags for me with Salt Lake not getting involved with a reinstatement after two weeks after a missionary was sent home. And then being sent to another mission (which goes through the missionary department)? 

I think your source for this might not be very reliable where details are concerned. That's her version, but it has all sorts of earmarks of not being aware of the process or absurdities in her story. I think it probably that she was disfellowshipped and sent home, but, c'mon . ..  .

The story wasn't meant to illustrate the silliness of too-lenient discipline. Rather, it was meant to illustrate the inconsistency with how discipline is handled, and the pure hubris of believing certain men are official representatives of God that are supposed to judge others this way.

About whether the story happened, it did. You can believe whatever you want, but this story is true. I know the Sister very well, and have talked about the incident with several people who were in that mission, including the Elder himself. If you went back and looked at the records of the specific dates, I might be slightly off--maybe it was 2 weeks until he was cleared to return to the field and another week-and-a-half until he clipped his nametag back on. But yes, it was anomalously fast. The story is to illustrate the inconsistencies and anomalies that happen--not what is supposed to happen or what would seem fair or reasonable from somebody who sees both sides.

I've never participated in a disciplinary council, but I know it doesn't take over two weeks to set up and hold a disciplinary counsel for a missionary. When a missionary is disciplined, the mission president himself does it. In this case, the timeline was something like this:

• 12:05 A.M. a sister missionary wakes up and notices her companion isn't there. Calls her zone leader
• 12:15 A.M. The zone leader calls the mission president. Informs him that a sister missionary and his own companion are missing, and that he suspects they are together. The couple shows up around 3:00 A.M. and find out they've been busted
• 9:00 A.M. The APs show up to escort the couple to the mission office
• Noon to 8:00 P.M. A series of meetings, calls, and counsels. The missionaries are disfellowshipped
• 9:00 P.M. The Elder is taken to the airport, and the Sister to the bus station. They are not permitted to say goodbye to each other

They were both charismatic, successful missionaries. Because of their success as missionaries, they were given some leniency and not excommunicated. The mission president called up the Elder's home stake president, explained that the Elder was an excellent missionary who fell victim to the seductive powers of a woman, but that it mostly wasn't his fault, and that he suggests he be sent back to the field ASAP. Whether his return to the field was two weeks of four, what I do know for sure is that the Elder honorably finished his mission and got married in the temple before the Sister's membership was fully restored, despite the fact that she was doing absolutely everything a contrite person should.

Were they too lenient on the Elder? He is now a happy, temple-recommend holding member. In contrast, the experience left the Sister permanently jaded about the Church from which she has since resigned. They both agree that the mission president was a jerk that treated the sister unfairly.

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

Very strange story, goes against every thing I have ever experienced in the church or ever  heard about.

on a mission two weeks after being disfellowshiped?

where and how long ago was this?

[edit] It was Argentina in the early 90's. Out of respect for the privacy of the individuals involved, I deleted the specific year and mission.

Edited December 26, 2017 by Analytics

[Analytics]

39 minutes ago, rongo said:

At a minimum, it would require the stake president to meet him at the airport, say, "Great to have you back, son! Say, we've got to get going on this pronto, so we can get you reinstated and get you called into another mission. I'll see how quickly we can get the high council together. Don't worry --- we'll get you right back out!" And it would require the Missionary department to immediately issue a second mission assignment in record time. And all of these suspend disbelief or skepticism that both the stake level and missionary department played right along with this in record time.

The damage in morale and vehement disagreement on the high council alone make the head swim. And I'm not buying that Salt Lake reassigned this elder anywhere at all, even if it were possible to be reinstated in a matter of weeks. 

Why would the high council need to get involved? After somebody is disfellowshipped, the stake president can reinstate the member, right?

I'm not going to claim the story sounds believable. I'm only claiming that it happened. The mission president really did think the Elder was an innocent victim. If that is what he explained to Salt Lake and the stake president, he could have been sent home under the understanding that he would quickly return to the field. When somebody is temporarily sent home from foreign missions due to illness, once they are medically cleared to return to the field, the church can have them on a plane to a new mission within 48 hours.

 

[ksfisher]

13 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Why would the high council need to get involved? After somebody is disfellowshipped, the stake president can reinstate the member, right?

 

 

"To consider ending formal probation, disfellowshipment, or excommunication, a presiding officer where the person currently lives must convene a disciplinary council. The council should have the same (or higher) level of ecclesiastical authority as the council that took the initial disciplinary action. "

Handbook 1 6.12.1

On the stake level this would entail participation by the high council.

"All three members of the stake presidency, all twelve members of the high council, and a clerk participate in a stake disciplinary council. "

Handbook 1 6.10.1

Edited December 26, 2017 by ksfisher