Church discipline proceedings on a member who no longer lives in the stake boundaries?

[smac97]

49 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I disagree with prior comparison of church court to court of law.  

It's not a perfect comparison, but there are some similarities.

49 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

The court of law is in place primarily to protect our rights as citizens.  

Well, yes.  But more than that.  Courts are also intended to sort out disputes.  And determine guilt or innocence.  And mete out sentences and judgments.  

49 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

As members of the church, however, someone's salvation is quite literally none of our business.  

That is simply not so.  The Lord has involved all of us in each other's salvation.  What else is missionary work?  Temple work?  Marriage?  Administration of saving ordinances?  Serving each other in church callings?  Serving our fellow man in humanitarian and other ways?  

As for disciplinary councils, they are very much part and parcel of the Restored Gospel.  Judges in Israel.  Binding/loosing on earth = binding/loosing in heaven.  And so on.

49 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I can see the necessity for limiting membership based on anti-church behavior, but for sin itself? I'm not crazy about that.  That's my opinion.  

How do you square this with the scriptural mandates?

D&C 104:6-10 - "For I, the Lord, am not to be mocked in these things. And all this that the innocent among you may not be condemned with the unjust; and that the guilty among you may not escape; because I, the Lord, have promised unto you a crown of glory at my right hand. Therefore, inasmuch as you are found transgressors, you cannot escape my wrath in your lives. Inasmuch as ye are cut off for transgression, ye cannot escape the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption. And I now give unto you power from this very hour, that if any man among you, of the order, is found a transgressor and repenteth not of the evil, that ye shall deliver him over unto the buffetings of Satan; and he shall not have power to bring evil upon you."

D&C 133:63 - "And upon them that hearken not to the voice of the Lord shall be fulfilled that which was written by the prophet Moses, that they should be cut off from among the people."

D&C 1:14 - "And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people."

3 Ne. 18:31 - "If he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people."

D&C 42:24 - "Adulterers who do not repent shall be cast out."

D&C 42:28 - "He that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out."

D&C 41:5 - "He that receiveth my law and doeth it, the same is my disciple; and he that saith he receiveth it and doeth it not, the same is not my disciple, and shall be cast out from among you."

How do you account for these?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

As members of the church, however, someone's salvation is quite literally none of our business.

Are you saying this in a broad sense or narrow one...because if broad it seems to negate missionary work, proxy temple ordinances, etc?  Not being critical, just asking for clarification.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Hmm.  I don't recall the last time a Bishop or a Stake President held a news conference to announce that someone had been excommunicated or disfellowshipped.  And I'm pretty sure the reason why I can't recall such an instance is because ... it hasn't happened!  Ba-dum Pshhhhh!  (Yes, I know that discipline in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints used to be announced publicly, at least within the Church itself.)  As foreign and perhaps misguided as that might sound to modern ears, though, it does make sense from a certain perspective: Get the one, embarrassing announcement out of the way and prevent ongoing embarrassment: "Brother Jones, will you give the opening prayer next week in Sacrament Meeting?"  "Hey, Jim, Buddy!  I noticed you didn't take the Sacrament!"  Et cetera.

Hahaha, you're right, the church didn't bring it to light, Natasha did that. But they should have learned since the Dehlin and Kate fiasco. But I understand that in certain situations it needs to happen, besides it takes very few days for it all to be forgotten nowadays. 

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I disagree with prior comparison of church court to court of law.  The court of law is in place primarily to protect our rights as citizens.  As members of the church, however, someone's salvation is quite literally none of our business.  I can see the necessity for limiting membership based on anti-church behavior, but for sin itself? I'm not crazy about that.  That's my opinion. 

A church "court" is to protect the integrity of Israel or the church, so it's very much like a court of law.  In Matthew 18:7-9, Jesus said the following:

Quote

"Woe unto the world because of offences!  for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!  Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.  And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire."  (Matthew 18:7-9)

Why would Jesus be telling us it is better to pluck out an eye and cast it away from us, rather than having two eyes and be cast into hell?  For each of us individually, this could mean that we should cut off the sins that hold us back so that we can progress in the gospel.  But the Joseph Smith translation adds the following as verse 9:  

"And a man's hand is his friend, and his foot, also; and a man's eye, are they of his own household."   

This is likening the body to our whole household, or perhaps the church itself, and many understand these verses to be referring to excommunication from the church.  

3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

There is plenty of room for compassionate healing procedures without the shame that 'does' happen often enough that its problematic to me.  And yes I'm talking anecdotally, not policy or statistically.  

The shame factor is indeed problematic, but more so to those who dish out the shame (the shame is on them).  We all have our trials.  I think we need to treat individuals going through this process the same way we might do so for someone who has undergone a physical injury:  We should be compassionate and caring.  And of course the attitude of the person makes a difference, since it is way easier to be compassionate and caring to an individual with a repentant heart than one who is full of pride and contempt (or who runs to the media for attention).  One person I know was excommunicated and he recognized his sins and worked through the repentance process, and later he regained his full membership in the church and temple blessings.  I have a lot of love and respect for that individual because of his integrity, and he is a strong member of the church today.   I think he was sorrowful for what he had done personally, but I don't know of anyone who showed shame to him.  We respected him for owning up to what he did.

I think I remember learning about 1 Corinthians chapter 5 in Seminary while in High School, and it gives a good New Testament example of the apostle Paul instructing the excommunication of one of the members of the church at Corinth for sexual sins.  But what I didn't recognize until later on, was the compassion that the apostle Paul taught toward that individual who was cut off (2 Corinthians 2:6-8).   I think the principle is also taught in Galatians 6:1, "Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted."

 

[MustardSeed]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Are you saying this in a broad sense or narrow one...because if broad it seems to negate missionary work, proxy temple ordinances, etc?  Not being critical, just asking for clarification.

I’m keeping in the narrow discussion of this topic. I assumed incorrectly that was understood. 

[MustardSeed]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

As for disciplinary councils, they are very much part and parcel of the Restored Gospel.

If church court including high priests were so critical then there would be a standard for all.  There isn’t. 
 

Rather than debate line by line for the enjoyment of debate, I’ll simply rephrase- it’s not my job to judge because I’m not a priesthood holder.  I’m grateful for that. 
I’ve shared my story here of my son who was judged and then forgotten, I’ll not go into that again.  So no, my own sins don’t make me wary of courts and how they are run, but rather my unique experience of knowing.  My opinion is my own. 
 

And I don’t believe I ever stated anything about disapproving repentance or excommunication or confession or correcting sin. 

 

[MustardSeed]

54 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Jesus said the following:

Nothing here conflicts with my posted concerns.  

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, ttribe said:

I'm no Dehlin fan, but "fortune?!" Cut the hyperbole, Robert. That's just silly.

It may seem silly to you, but fan-based funding gives Dr Dehlin the ability to run his anti-Mormon business without having to work for a living.  This is true for a number of anti-Mormon groups.

8 hours ago, ttribe said:

As to the witness issue, all of the things she's being accused of involve public statements made, largely on the Internet. I've seen absolutely nothing to suggest there was some offense committed in KS which demands a KS venue.  

You're stating this as a fact since you know the bishop and stake president in Kansas personally and they have made available to you the actual evidence they are relying upon?  I think not. 

[ttribe]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It may seem silly to you, but fan-based funding gives Dr Dehlin the ability to run his anti-Mormon business without having to work for a living.  This is true for a number of anti-Mormon groups.

You're stating this as a fact since you know the bishop and stake president in Kansas personally and they have made available to you the actual evidence they are relying upon?  I think not. 

No, Robert, I don't know them, that's why I'm not engaging in public speculation. 

[Fair Dinkum]

21 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You misstated the previous situation, and now you find it has improved?   Oh well, that's life, good buddy!! 

You seem to enjoy that devil emoji when replying to my post. Hmmm

[mgy401]

On 4/16/2021 at 7:14 PM, ttribe said:

[Sigh] I do economic damages calculations for litigation cases.  I know where his income resides on the scale, thank you. 

Still not a fortune. 

post removed

Refer to religious leaders by their customary names. Be respectful.

[OK, happy to fix!  —mgy401]
 

However relatively small Dehlin’s income, it is still significantly higher than President Nelson’s apparent income.  

Edited April 18, 2021 by mgy401

[smac97]

On 4/17/2021 at 2:10 AM, MustardSeed said:

Quote

As for disciplinary councils, they are very much part and parcel of the Restored Gospel.

If church court including high priests were so critical then there would be a standard for all.  There isn’t. 

I don't understand what you are saying here.  Could you clarify?

On 4/17/2021 at 2:10 AM, MustardSeed said:

Rather than debate line by line for the enjoyment of debate, I’ll simply rephrase- it’s not my job to judge because I’m not a priesthood holder.  I’m grateful for that. 

But it is the job for others to judge because that is part of their responsibilities and stewardship.  That was my point

On 4/17/2021 at 2:10 AM, MustardSeed said:

I’ve shared my story here of my son who was judged and then forgotten, I’ll not go into that again.  

I was not aware.  I am sorry to hear that.

On 4/17/2021 at 2:10 AM, MustardSeed said:

So no, my own sins don’t make me wary of courts and how they are run, but rather my unique experience of knowing.  My opinion is my own. 

I can see your point.

On 4/17/2021 at 2:10 AM, MustardSeed said:

And I don’t believe I ever stated anything about disapproving repentance or excommunication or confession or correcting sin. 

When you said, in a discussion about disciplinary councils, "someone's salvation is quite literally none of our business" and "I can see the necessity for limiting membership based on anti-church behavior, but for sin itself?" I understood these comments as objectin to disciplinary councils.

Thank you,

-Smac

[rodheadlee]

On 4/16/2021 at 8:14 AM, Tacenda said:

You've posted many things that have happened in your world that don't happen in Utah, or maybe even the US. Mormonism sure sounds different in your world Hamba! Maybe the church should send some leaders your way to see how it's done. 

Perhaps it's the followers not the leaders .

[ttribe]

20 hours ago, mgy401 said:

post removed

Refer to religious leaders by their customary names. Be respectful.

[OK, happy to fix!  —mgy401]
 

However relatively small Dehlin’s income, it is still significantly higher than President Nelson’s apparent income.  

So?

[mgy401]

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

So?

*Shrug* I dunno.  Just thought it interesting how some folks spring to Dehlin’s defense over $200K but pillory President Eyring and his associates over $114K.

I suppose that in some people’s minds, the obscenity of a person’s individual earnings is in direct proportion to the degree to which that person’s public statements make us feel bad about our predatory sex lives, dysfunctional relationships, minuscule attention spans, and general narcissistic approach to life.  “Millions for validation, but not one penny for repentance”, and all that.  

Edited April 19, 2021 by mgy401

[InCognitus]

22 hours ago, mgy401 said:

However relatively small Dehlin’s income, it is still significantly higher than President Nelson’s apparent income.  

But more significantly, Dehlin's income is directly tied to the number of followers he gains (unlike President Nelson).  The more followers Dehlin gets, the greater his income.  So how do you attract more followers? 

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, mgy401 said:

*Shrug* I dunno.  Just thought it interesting how some folks spring to Dehlin’s defense over $200K but pillory President Eyring and his associates over $114K.

I suppose that in some people’s minds, the obscenity of a person’s individual earnings is in direct proportion to the degree to which that person’s public statements make us feel bad about our predatory sex lives, dysfunctional relationships, minuscule attention spans, and general narcissistic approach to life.  “Millions for validation, but not one penny for repentance”, and all that.  

Have you mistaken me for someone who is a Dehlin follower? I've stated over and over again that I'm no fan of the guy. I simply stated that I belive Robert's hyperbole that Dehlin had amassed a "fortune" was silly.  

[mgy401]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

Have you mistaken me for someone who is a Dehlin follower? I've stated over and over again that I'm no fan of the guy. I simply stated that I belive Robert's hyperbole that Dehlin had amassed a "fortune" was silly.  

All I saw was a post that, rather than engaging with the substantive point that Dehlin should be more than able to assist Helfer with her travel costs, got into a debate over the definition of the word “fortune”.  I don’t really see a need to split hairs over whether that’s “following” Dehlin, or “supporting” him, or “running interference for” him, or whatever.  But in any event, I thought a bit of perspective might be of interest—if not to you than perhaps to some other participant/lurker here.

[Tacenda]

It doesn't look like this took place after all. They wanted her phone before they'd let her in the church, she refused because she had all her notes on it, but she did sign a paper saying she wouldn't record the conversation. But they still wouldn't let the meeting go on, and called the police to escort those that were in the parking lot area to support her, I guess people flew in from all over. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

50 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

Dehlin should be more than able to assist Helfer with her travel costs

As long as we are talking about "fortunes" and being able to help, its my understanding that a certain organization has a real fortune to the tune of 125 billion in cash and assets. Seems like they could help out too, no?

[Hamba Tuhan]

19 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I guess people flew in from all over. 

Imagine how many hungry people could have been fed with that money, or how many vaccines could have been bought for developing nations ...

[JustAnAustralian]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

those that were in the parking lot area to support her,

If by "in the parking lot to support her" you mean being involved in John Dehlin's live stream of a vigil in the carpark. That's more than just being there to support her. It's yet another example of John Dehlin trying to spin it his way.

Edited April 19, 2021 by JustAnAustralian

[Tacenda]

12 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

If by "in the parking lot to support her" you mean being involved in John Dehlin's live stream of a vigil in the carpark. That's more than just being there to support her. It's yet another example of John Dehlin trying to spin it his way.

I'm not sure what you're saying here exactly. 

[JustAnAustralian]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

I'm not sure what you're saying here exactly. 

This was not just a case of a few people there to support here when she came out. John Dehlin streamed himself driving to the building, streamed a vigil, and then streamed a debrief.

If it was genuinely about her and not the church, there would be no live stream of Dehlin driving to the building, no hour long live stream of the vigil, and no post vigil live stream (which is still going three hours later).

[Tacenda]

8 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

This was not just a case of a few people there to support here when she came out. John Dehlin streamed himself driving to the building, streamed a vigil, and then streamed a debrief.

If it was genuinely about her and not the church, there would be no live stream of Dehlin driving to the building, no hour long live stream of the vigil, and no post vigil live stream (which is still going three hours later).

Okay, gotcha. I don't think I said a "few people" did I? Oh, well. It was quite the production, I agree.