A different church excommunicating member

[Dario_M]

41 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

My advice, and it may be bad advice, is to not go to your bishop about your homosexuality. Stay clear, keep it to yourself. You've shown the love you have for the church and the Saviour does too. If it were me I'd just enjoy all the benefits that keep you going at the rate that makes you happy. It sounds like you may have been doing that. 

That's the best advice i have heard in a long time. Thank you for understanding me dear Tacenda. 💗

I just can't tell this to my bishop. I feel offcourse also ashamed.

But at least i don't harm anyone. I'm just gay. Lonely. I just split up with my ex not so long ago. And i'm young..so.. offcourse i wanna have some affection from other man. And unfortunatly in the gay world most gay man don't wanna marry. Or they are allready married (with a woman offcourse) and do this secretly next of their marriage.🤪 

So finding a man that wanna marry me is difficuld even if i wanted it. And i'm not really a good looking man. I'm 30. It is really hard. So offcourse i choose for the easy way and do one night stands with other man sometimes. I don't find that i desirve to get excommunicated for doing that. 

Edited March 17, 2023 by Dario_M

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

What does that mean exactly?  Is it as if they never made a covenant in the first place and are not held accountable for violating the covenants they made?  I'm not sure I understand. 

Right.  The person is still accountable for the sin, but it is as if they had never made the covenant.  The person then has time to repent and hopefully recommit themselves to living the gospel and return to the covenant path.

[smac97]

6 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

There’s a letter going around that is getting criticism for being cultish.  

Could you clarify what you mean by "cultish"?

6 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Here is that letter.  

Is it just the call for "public repentance" that you find problematic?  Anything else?

6 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I have long felt uncomfortable with excommunication-

That's understandable.  It's not really supposed to be a comfortable thing.

It is, nonetheless, a necessary thing.

6 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I’m glad we do it less now, and i’m certainly glad that we don’t announce it over the pulpit anymore.  

And yet there are critics who apparently find fault with the Church for not addressing ecclesiastical discipline in the public sphere.  See, e.g., here (comments from California Boy and my responses to them) :

Quote

Quote

Can anyone explain why the Church is so adamant of not having transparency of these courts?  

 

Because they are inherently private and sacred religious meetings.

Because very often the topics under discussion entail the disclosure of sensitive private information, often involving or implicating persons other than the person facing discipline.

Because they are not intended to be a dog-and-pony show, or a venue for someone in a state of rebellion to publicly "show up" the Church.

Because the doctrines of the Church call for privacy:

Quote

“And if he or she confess not thou shalt deliver him or her up unto the church, not to the members, but to the elders. And it shall be done in a meeting, and that not before the world.” (D&C 42:89.)

There are probably other reasons as well.

Quote

Do they not want anyone to have a transcript released?  It seems to me if the person being excommunicated wishes to release that information, there shouldn't be a problem unless the Church is somehow ashamed of the position it takes.  Am I missing something?

Yes.

That was pretty weird.

6 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

But for some reason, I’m much more judgmental of this letter than I even am of my own church.

Why is that, do you think?

What is keeping you from ignoring this letter?  From not making any "judgment" against any of the parties?

6 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I understand that there are people who become excommunicated who work very hard to be welcomed back in, who believe that the process is cleansing. I ask, is this really the only way?

The "only way" to do . . . what?

That the Church works very hard to avoid membership removal (the new phrasing that, for me, still squeaks when it turns around too fast) in favor of less severe forms of discipline is a pretty good indicator that membership removal is not "the only way" to discipline wayward members.

That said, God has instituted His Church on the earth, and gave it certain mandates pertaining to addressing the conduct of those who voluntarily associate with it:

• D&C 50:8-9 - "But the hypocrites shall be detected and shall be cut off, either in life or in death, even as I will; and wo unto them who are cut off from my church, for the same are overcome of the world. Wherefore, let every man beware lest he do that which is not in truth and righteousness before me."
• D&C 64:34-37 - "Behold, the Lord requireth the heart and a willing mind; and the willing and obedient shall eat the good of the land of Zion in these last days. And the rebellious shall be cut off out of the land of Zion, and shall be sent away, and shall not inherit the land. For, verily I say that the rebellious are not of the blood of Ephraim, wherefore they shall be plucked out. Behold, I, the Lord, have made my church in these last days like unto a judge sitting on a hill, or in a high place, to judge the nations."
• 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 51:1-2 - "Hearken unto me, saith the Lord your God, and I will speak unto my servant Edward Partridge, and give unto him directions; for it must needs be that he receive directions how to organize this people. For it must needs be that they be organized according to my laws; if otherwise, they will be cut off."
• D&C 63:60-64 - "Behold, I am Alpha and Omega, even Jesus Christ. Wherefore, let all men beware how they take my name in their lips. For behold, verily I say, that many there be who are under this condemnation, who use the name of the Lord, and use it in vain, having not authority. Wherefore, let the church repent of their sins, and I, the Lord, will own them; otherwise they shall be cut off. Remember that that which cometh from above is sacred, and must be spoken with care, and by constraint of the Spirit; and in this there is no condemnation, and ye receive the Spirit through prayer; wherefore, without this there remaineth condemnation."
• 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 85:11 - "And they who are of the High Priesthood, whose names are not found written in the book of the law, or that are found to have apostatized, or to have been cut off from the church, as well as the lesser priesthood, or the members, in that day shall not find an inheritance among the saints of the Most High."
• 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."
• D&C 134:10 - "We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship."
• Alma 1:24 - "The hearts of many were hardened, and their names were blotted out."
• 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."
• Helaman 12:25 - "And I would that all men might be saved. But we read that in the great and last day there are some who shall be cast out, yea, who shall be cast off from the presence of the Lord."

So the Church has a role to play in such matters.  That role has some real and meaningful constraints (see D&C 134:10 above).  And that role must be played with soberness, discretion, reason, compassion, inspiration, and so on.

Overall, I think the Church does a very good job at handling this unpleasant duty quietly and with discretion and respect for privacy.  Exceptions typically arise due to obnoxious behaviors by the person being disciplined (Tricia Helfer, Sam Young, Jeremy Runnells, Sam Young, Denver Snuffer, etc.).

6 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

In therapy, when one partner betrays the other partner, sometimes the person who has offended is asked to leave. There’s a separation while couple works on the relationship. However, in my practice, I encourage couples to stay together if their intention is to repair the relationship. I do not encourage physical separation. I do not encourage sexual separation. Likewise, I believe that repair can occur in the church without excommunication. And I respect that other people see it differently. I recognize that in the church my point of view is not popular.  

Unless your "point of view" is that membership removal should never happen, I think it seems pretty good.

But if that is your point of view, I would ask how you reconcile it with the above scriptural mandates.

6 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

i wonder if like me, being an outsider to the religion that sent this letter challenges anyone else?  I guess I want to know how weird I in fact am. 😅

I think this may be a bit of presentism at work (for all of us, including me).  Some modern notions of "privacy" are, well, modern.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Nowadays, many consider privacy a right that is often infringed by various pressures, while others consider it a privilege they are prepared to defend legally and even physically. Privacy has there fore lost the sense of impoverishment and exclusion that it certainly had in antiquity. Hannah Arendt pointed this out long ago:

Quote

{T}he privative trait of privacy, indicated in the word itself, was all-important: it means literally a state of being deprived of something, and even of the highest and most human of man's capacities. A man who lived only a private life who  like the slave - was not permitted to enter the public realm - was not fully human. We no longer think of deprivation when we use the word "privacy," and this is partly due to the enormous enrichment of the private sphere through modern individualism (1959: 35/42).

 This privative sense of privacy was rooted in the social conditions of a subsistence society. Hannah Arendt, again:

Quote

Individual maintenance {was} the task of the man, and species' survival the task of the woman .... {T}he labor of the man to provide nourishment . . . {and} of the woman in giving birth were subject to the same urgency. . . . Natural community in the household . . . was born of necessity, and necessity ruled over all activities performed in it. The realm of the polis, on the contrary, was the sphere of freedom. . . . What all Greek philosophers, no matter how opposed to polis life, took for granted is that freedom is exclusively located in the political realm, that necessity is primarily a prepolitical phenomenon (1958: 31).

Of course, Arendt overstated her case. Yet it remains true that the householder who enjoyed the freedom of the polis was always male - women did not usually appear in public s

And here:

Quote

Etymology of the word privacy: the word privacy is derived from the Latin word "privatus" which means set apart from what is public, personal and belonging to oneself, and not to the state.^[3]

The Church is not "the state," and is instead a private organization/entity.

Quote

Conceptions of privacy[edit]

...

Right to be let alone[edit]

In 1890, the United States jurists Samuel D. Warren and Louis Brandeis wrote "The Right to Privacy", an article in which they argued for the "right to be let alone", using that phrase as a definition of privacy.^[83] This concept relies on the theory of natural rights and focuses on protecting individuals. The citation was a response to recent technological developments, such as photography, and sensationalist journalism, also known as yellow journalism.^[84]

There is extensive commentary over the meaning of being "let alone", and among other ways, it has been interpreted to mean the right of a person to choose seclusion from the attention of others if they wish to do so, and the right to be immune from scrutiny or being observed in private settings, such as one's own home.^[83] Although this early vague legal concept did not describe privacy in a way that made it easy to design broad legal protections of privacy, it strengthened the notion of privacy rights for individuals and began a legacy of discussion on those rights in the US.^[83]

Members of the Church have the "right to be let alone," and I think the Church generally honors that.  There can be circumstances in which the individual sends "mixed messages" about this, though.

Quote

Limited access[edit]

Limited access refers to a person's ability to participate in society without having other individuals and organizations collect information about them.^[85]

Various theorists have imagined privacy as a system for limiting access to one's personal information.^[85] Edwin Lawrence Godkin wrote in the late 19th century that "nothing is better worthy of legal protection than private life, or, in other words, the right of every man to keep his affairs to himself, and to decide for himself to what extent they shall be the subject of public observation and discussion."^[85][86] Adopting an approach similar to the one presented by Ruth Gavison^[87] Nine years earlier,^[88] Sissela Bok said that privacy is "the condition of being protected from unwanted access by others—either physical access, personal information, or attention."^[85][89]

I think the advent of various technologies has required innovation in how religious groups treat and approach "privacy."  Whatever the rationale was for "public repentance" in the past, the practical scope of such a "public" act was, I think, generally limited, both geospatially (only the people in the local vicinity were typically made aware) and duration.  Technology has changed these considerations quite a bit.

Quote

Control over information[edit]

Control over one's personal information is the concept that "privacy is the claim of individuals, groups, or institutions to determine for themselves when, how, and to what extent information about them is communicated to others." Generally, a person who has consensually formed an interpersonal relationship with another person is not considered "protected" by privacy rights with respect to the person they are in the relationship with.^[90][91] Charles Fried said that "Privacy is not simply an absence of information about us in the minds of others; rather it is the control we have over information about ourselves. Nevertheless, in the era of big data, control over information is under pressure.^{[92][93][This quote needs a citation][check quotation syntax]}

I think the Church has taken this factor into account as well, as evidenced by its efforts to keep "membership council" proceedings confidential (this is why I found CB's pronouncements about publicizing these proceedings to be so odd).

Quote

Secrecy[edit]

Privacy is sometimes defined as an option to have secrecy. Richard Posner said that privacy is the right of people to "conceal information about themselves that others might use to their disadvantage".^[96][97]

In various legal contexts, when privacy is described as secrecy, a conclusion is reached: if privacy is secrecy, then rights to privacy do not apply for any information which is already publicly disclosed.^[98] When privacy-as-secrecy is discussed, it is usually imagined to be a selective kind of secrecy in which individuals keep some information secret and private while they choose to make other information public and not private.^[98]

I think the Church is attuned to this.  In my experience, the majority of "membership councils" pertain to sexual misconduct.  It is understandable that private citizens do not want such matters gratuitously published to the world.  The Church even takes this consideration further than that by applying it to almost all membership councils, regardless of the type of misconduct involved.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 17, 2023 by smac97

[Dario_M]

27 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

All discipline is supposed to lead the member to Christ, and should be handled with that in mind.

The reputation of the church is another consideration but should be secondary imo.

I'm not talking about the reputation of my church. 

I only said that you guys, you bishops are also just imperfect humans. Like i can see really cleary with you for example. 

God bless. 

[Saint Bonaventure]

Whomever wrote the letter was clearly an amateur.

Everyone knows the thing to do is to have a bunch of crusaders surround the heretic's house and lay siege.

Edited March 17, 2023 by Saint Bonaventure

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the Church is attuned to this.  In my experience, the majority of "membership councils" pertain to sexual misconduct.  It is understandable that private citizens do not want such matters gratuitously published to the world.  The Church even takes this consideration further than that by applying it to almost all membership councils, regardless of the type of misconduct involved.

After one council that I participated in as a high councilor the stake president asked us to not even speak about that particular council hypothetically.  I've taken that seriously.

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Whomever wrote the letter was clearly an amateur.

Everyone knows the thing to do is to have a bunch of crusaders surround the heretic's house and lay siege.

That takes more work to arrange.  You need to get at least a couple people with trucks to show up to haul off all of the plunder. 

[MiserereNobis]

3 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Whomever wrote the letter was clearly an amateur.

Everyone knows the thing to do is to have a bunch of crusaders surround the heretics house and lay siege.

Exactly. And they need to be looked into by people from the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition.

[mfbukowski]

8 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Exactly. And they need to be looked into by people from the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition.

Nah, just burn the house and let God sort the good from the bad

 

Today, and here  I suppose I need to say I am joking

[smac97]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Quote

No, it is not the only way.  There are many different ways that a priesthood leader and a member can work together to return that member to the covenant path.  However, in extreme cases the best solution is to release that member from the covenants they have made with God.  This process, which has been called excommunication, is merciful.  It is a mercy to release a person who is not currently willing to keep covenants their obligation to keep them.  From what I have seen excommunication is only used as a last resort and then only with people who showed no desire to repent or whose sins were extremely grievous.

Assuming this is the view of excommunication by the top church leaders, shouldn't we expect to see MANY more excommunications?

This is a fair question.  I think the governing principle here, superseding even considerations of "mercy," is repentance.  I think the Church wants to make it as accessible a resource as possible.  Removal of membership is, then, aptly described as "a last resort and then only with people who showed no desire to repent or whose sins were extremely grievous."

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If someone is unwilling to abide the WoW, or LoC, or attendance, or tithing etc. and shows no willingness to repent ...shouldn't the church mercifully release all of these individuals from their covenants? If Not, why not?

I have as friends a married couple who have spent the last several years dealing with substantial difficulties in their marriage.  Some of these difficulties are circumstantial, but a fair number of them are self-inflicted by one or the other or both.  They are, nevertheless, working hard to keep their relationship intact.  Divorce has been discussed, but so far they have not seen their difficulties as being "dealkillers," and so have soldiered on.  I also have another set of friends, also a married couple, who are also having difficulties in their marriage.  While most of these difficulties are also self-inflicted, they differ in kind from those described above.  In both of the foregoing instances, the individuals in these relationships are more interested in repairing and preserving and improving them than in severing and ending them.

I think a similar sentiment is expressed in Isaiah (and repeated in the Book of Mormon) :

Isaiah 5:25 - "Therefore is the anger of the Lord kindled against his people, and he hath stretched forth his hand against them, and hath smitten them: and the hills did tremble, and their carcases were torn in the midst of the streets. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still."  (See also 2 Nephi 15:25.)

Isaiah 9:

Quote

12 The Syrians before, and the Philistines behind; and they shall devour Israel with open mouth. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.
13 ¶ For the people turneth not unto him that smiteth them, neither do they seek the Lord of hosts.
14 Therefore the Lord will cut off from Israel head and tail, branch and rush, in one day.
15 The ancient and honourable, he is the head; and the prophet that teacheth lies, he is the tail.
16 For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed.
17 Therefore the Lord shall have no joy in their young men, neither shall have mercy on their fatherless and widows: for every one is an hypocrite and an evildoer, and every mouth speaketh folly. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.

(See also 2 Nephi 19.)

Isaiah 10:

Quote

1 Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed;
2 To turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right from the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless!
3 And what will ye do in the day of visitation, and in the desolation which shall come from far? to whom will ye flee for help? and where will ye leave your glory?
4 Without me they shall bow down under the prisoners, and they shall fall under the slain. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.

(See also 2 Nephi 20.)

See also this 2006 talk by Elder Holland:

Quote

Lastly, a general conference of the Church is a declaration to all the world that Jesus is the Christ, that He and His Father, the God and Father of us all, appeared to the boy prophet Joseph Smith in fulfillment of that ancient promise that the resurrected Jesus of Nazareth would again restore His Church on earth and again “come in like manner as [those Judean Saints had] seen him [ascend] into heaven.” This conference and every other conference like it is a declaration that He condescended to come to earth in poverty and humility, to face sorrow and rejection, disappointment and death in order that we might be saved from those very fates as our eternity unfolds, that “with his stripes we are healed.” This conference proclaims to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people the loving Messianic promise that “his mercy endureth for ever.”

To all of you who think you are lost or without hope, or who think you have done too much that was too wrong for too long, to every one of you who worry that you are stranded somewhere on the wintry plains of life and have wrecked your handcart in the process, this conference calls out Jehovah’s unrelenting refrain, “[My] hand is stretched out still.” “I shall lengthen out mine arm unto them,” He said, “[and even if they] deny me; nevertheless, I will be merciful unto them, … if they will repent and come unto me; for mine arm is lengthened out all the day long, saith the Lord God of Hosts.” His mercy endureth forever, and His hand is stretched out still. His is the pure love of Christ, the charity that never faileth, that compassion which endures even when all other strength disappears.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Quote

I think the Church is attuned to this.  In my experience, the majority of "membership councils" pertain to sexual misconduct.  It is understandable that private citizens do not want such matters gratuitously published to the world.  The Church even takes this consideration further than that by applying it to almost all membership councils, regardless of the type of misconduct involved.

After one council that I participated in as a high councilor the stake president asked us to not even speak about that particular council hypothetically.  I've taken that seriously.

I could see the need for such instruction.  

I am curious why Dario downvoted your comment.  Dario?  Could you elaborate?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 17, 2023 by smac97

[mfbukowski]

28 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

I'm not talking about the reputation of my church. 

I only said that you guys, you bishops are also just imperfect humans. Like i can see really cleary with you for example. 

God bless. 

I am no longer a bishop, sort of.

 I am ordained. but I have served my time without any crime.

 

Edited March 17, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Dario_M]

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I am no longer a bishop, sort of.

 I am ordained. but I have served my time without any crime.

 

But you are a human being right? Also at the time when you where a bishop isn't that so?? 

Edited March 17, 2023 by Dario_M

[bsjkki]

My spouse finds it interesting how often or how long we deny temple attendance or partaking of the sacrament. I agree with him that spiritual experiences help people have a desire to repent and helps people maintain or return to their covenants. Unless someone is continuing to sin, why would they be unable to take the sacrament as part of the repentance process? If you have a porn problem, are you unworthy to go to the temple or would going to the temple help you overcome a porn problem? Is it helpful to send a youth home from healthy environments at church schools or on missions as they repent into unhealthy environments that drive them further away or cause more issues. 

 Bishops do represent the Savior, and during the repentance process this is so, they need to remember this as they interact with people repenting. Yelling and shaming can definitely make a person feel hopeless and worthless instead of providing hope and healing. If a Bishop makes a youth feel worthless, they tend to lose hope in the Saviors love for them. It’s a big job with huge responsibilities. Very hard to get right all the time.

[The Nehor]

46 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Exactly. And they need to be looked into by people from the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition.

“No one expects the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition!”

“Cut! Okay, this isn’t working. We need something with a shorter and punchier name.”

[Navidad]

What is the implication for continued grace and everlasting life for the one who is excommunicated from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Is there the idea that the church saves and exalts a person through its ordinances, therefore the excommunicated folks are cut off from grace? Does that excommunication have any influence on their standing in the next world? Does it nullify the blessings received through baptism in the church? I can think of several cases here in the colonies many years ago where men were excommunicated, but then within some years restored to all their blessings, including one who became the president of a Mexican branch of the church under the Dublan ward. BTW, the Church of Christ sees itself as quite within the restorational tradition. Their leaders, like those with the LDS church are usually bi-vocational. They do not see themselves as a denomination. They tend to see the Christian word as made up of Christian individuals who collectively form, create, and populate the Christian church. For them the Christian church is not made up of all the individual churches, but of the individual individuals! I hope that makes sense. They consider themselves "undenominational" not "nondenominational" It is an important distinction for them. There is no hierarchy outside of the local gathering (not church). They often say "The Church of Christ meets here." That is an important distinction as well. You won't hear them talk about their "local church," but their "local congregation." That further emphasizes the emphasis on the individual believer as a member of the universal church. Therefore I am sure excommunication has a different meaning for them than it would for a member of the LDS church. Everything for them is local.

[ksfisher]

27 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

But you are a human being right? Also at the time when you where a bishop isn't that so?? 

The Savior has chosen to have His church led by human beings who make mistakes.  He could have chose to have it a different way, but this is what He chose. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Whomever wrote the letter was clearly an amateur.

Everyone knows the thing to do is to have a bunch of crusaders surround the heretic's house and lay siege.

Bet they didn’t even have the foresight to fortify their walls or dig a ditch around their house. So everyone is probably an amateur.

Say what you will about Church members but we are at least storing up provisions to outlast a siege.

[Dario_M]

23 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The Savior has chosen to have His church led by human beings who make mistakes.  He could have chose to have it a different way, but this is what He chose. 

We are all human beings so God has not much other choices anyway right? I mean.. God can also choose a donkey to be a bishop offcourse but that will not do the job does it? 

Btw my originaly question whas not the answer you are giving me right now? So you are twisting my questions and i don't like that at all. 

My question whas who schoose a new bishop?? Well..the answer is??? Somebody with higher power within the church. But that person is still (also) a human being. Not god himself. Forgive me that i don't know exactly who is picking the bishops. Apostles or so???  BUT...i know that those people with their higher power claims that they have spoken with god and god have givin them the right answer. Wel...where is the proof that they really have spoken with god anyway?? And where is the proof that that answer came from god?? That person could easely have heard the wind blowing in a weird way and that sounded like a yes or a no. Or maybe it whas the devil that he heard. You just don't know for sure. Or maybe he is just acting and made it all up and pretent that he have talked with god but infect he didn't had that experience at all but just wanted to get thinks going his/their way and missused their power to get things rolling. In the wrong direction in the case it is fake

God bless.✝️

Edited March 17, 2023 by Dario_M

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

After one council that I participated in as a high councilor the stake president asked us to not even speak about that particular council hypothetically.  I've taken that seriously.

Uhhhhhhhh……ummmmmm…….yeah…..uhhhhhh…….what? But didn’t you just speak about that particular council?

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The Savior has chosen to have His church led by human beings who make mistakes.  

He has also given those fallible human beings the authority and responsibility to fulfill various mandates as to members of His Church:

• D&C 50:8-9 - "But the hypocrites shall be detected and shall be cut off, either in life or in death, even as I will; and wo unto them who are cut off from my church, for the same are overcome of the world. Wherefore, let every man beware lest he do that which is not in truth and righteousness before me."
• D&C 64:34-37 - "Behold, the Lord requireth the heart and a willing mind; and the willing and obedient shall eat the good of the land of Zion in these last days. And the rebellious shall be cut off out of the land of Zion, and shall be sent away, and shall not inherit the land. For, verily I say that the rebellious are not of the blood of Ephraim, wherefore they shall be plucked out. Behold, I, the Lord, have made my church in these last days like unto a judge sitting on a hill, or in a high place, to judge the nations."
• 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 85:11 - "And they who are of the High Priesthood, whose names are not found written in the book of the law, or that are found to have apostatized, or to have been cut off from the church, as well as the lesser priesthood, or the members, in that day shall not find an inheritance among the saints of the Most High."
• 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."
• Alma 1:24 - "The hearts of many were hardened, and their names were blotted out."
• 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."
• D&C 134:10 - "We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship."

I have previously commented as follows:

Quote

I agree in many respects.  Kate Kelly, John Dehlin, Denver Snuffer, and others who have left have demonstrated formidable talents and skills which they could have contributed to the Church through continued fellowship with the Saints and discipleship in the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The real question, I think, is whether the Church is engaging in misconduct or material error(s), or is it out of harmony with God's will, such that the Church is culpable for the departures of these people.

Generally and broadly and predominantly, I think the answer is "No."  I think these people, talented though they may be, engaged in conduct that made continued membership in the Church impossible.

I am saddened by their departures.  I am also saddened at the departures of people who leave the Church for other reasons.  We each of us have value and merit in the eyes of God.

I don't want them these people to leave the Church. I want them in it. I want everyone in it. But we are a community of faith. We cohere around faith. When we disregard apostasy we weaken our community.

People who apostatize and fail to repent cannot remain in the community of faith.  On this we have a clear mandate...

DonBradley (who left the Church and later returned to it) later commented on this sentiment here:

Quote

Those who know my personal history and the tenor of my posting in the last few years will not be surprised to hear that I would like to see us make our LDS sub-culture more tolerant of doubt and disagreement. So, when I say how much I like what Smac says here and how important I think his insight is, I hope it's clear that it's decidedly not because I'm trigger happy to see people be labeled apostates and kicked out of the church. 

 

What Smac says above is simple realism. Abundant sociological research shows, unsurprisingly, that strong community boundary maintenance helps maintain strong communities: i.e., if communities want to thrive, they should set high standards and hold people to them.

 

My point isn't to comment on the Calderwoods' case: I don't know enough about it; and I'd prefer to leave discussion of it to the other thread. 

 

But I think it's worth pointing out how this principle might apply to the recent cases I know more about, particularly that of Kate Kelly. While there are definitely some gray areas regarding appropriate ways to express disagreement with church policy, and while I think we need more cultural "space" for such disagreement, there are also clear boundaries. For instance, no one (in their right mind) with an LDS background could seriously think that it's okay with the church to do protest-style actions and form national pressure groups to change church policy. 

 

When people knowingly flout the boundaries, and then refuse to take into account or even compromise with instructions on this from their church leaders, the church is not obligated to allow them to perpetually continue these actions as members in good standing. Nor would the church be wise to do so. To not take disciplinary action in such cases fails to reinforce the boundaries, sends the message that the actions taken are okay, and weakens the community. 

 

While I personally, for several reasons, wish Kate Kelly's stake president had taken a lesser disciplinary action, such as disfellowshipping, I think it's simply unrealistic when people expect the church to allow with impunity dissent in any and every form, no matter how at odds with the church's norms and doctrine the forms of dissent may take. Confronted with clear, and particularly with extreme, violations of its norms and boundaries the church is both right and wise to take steps to reassert and reinforce those norms and boundaries. This is part of how communities remain vital.

(Emphasis added.)

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

My question whas who schoose a new bishop??

The calling comes from the First Presidency, who seeks input and counsel from local leaders (typically the stake presidency).

6 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

Well..the answer is??? Somebody with higher power within the church. But that person is still (also) a human being. Not god himself.

Nobody is suggesting otherwise.  But "God Himself" has delegated authority to His servants on the earth, including authority to administer discipline.  That is, I think, the point being made here.

6 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

Forgive me that i don't know exactly who is picking the bishops. Apostles or so???  BUT...i know that those people with their higher power claims that they have spoken with god and god have givin them the right answer. Wel...where is the proof that they really have spoken with god anyway??  And where is the proof that that answer came from god?? That person could easely have heard the wind blowing in a weird way and that sounded like a yes or a no. Or maybe it whas the devil that he heard. You just don't know for sure.

We are all walking by faith, not by sight.  2 Cor. 5:7.  

Perhaps you are conflating "proof" with "evidence"?  There is plenty of the latter.

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

Right.  The person is still accountable for the sin, but it is as if they had never made the covenant.  The person then has time to repent and hopefully recommit themselves to living the gospel and return to the covenant path.

So the person is not accountable for violating the covenant in the first place?  I have never heard that taught before, do you have a source?  I have always been taught really scary things about covenant breakers with lots of fear based teachings about those apostates who are excommunicated or leave the church.  Is the moral of the story to make sure you get ex'd if you are on your way out of the church?    Does actively having ones records removed have the same effect in terms of removing covenants and accountability for violating those covenants, as passively being excommunicated does? 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Quote

What does that mean exactly?  Is it as if they never made a covenant in the first place and are not held accountable for violating the covenants they made?  I'm not sure I understand. 

Right.  The person is still accountable for the sin, but it is as if they had never made the covenant.  The person then has time to repent and hopefully recommit themselves to living the gospel and return to the covenant path.

I'm not sure this is correct.  If a man commits adultery, he has violated his covenants.  If he is thereafter excommunicated, that does not retroactively negate that violation (which is how I am interpreting "as if they had never made the covenant").  Repentance is still required.  

I think the removal of membership may be "merciful" insofar as it removes the covenant aspect associated with the sin.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

5 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Most people who are unwilling to live the covenants they have made are also inactive.  I never seen bishops hunt down those people and drag them into a membership council.  The only occasion (and this is in my very limited view) that a council was held for someone who was completely inactive was when a bishop found out that that member had been sent to prison for child abuse.  I'm not aware of the outcome of the council.

I've also never seen anyone excommunicated for not living the Word of Wisdom, or attendance, or not paying tithing.  I would doubt that you have either.

But why not. If it's merciful to remove covenants that a person isn't keeping, why not extend that mercy to every covenant breaker?