Semantics, I think. If the Bishop proscribes when you are in God's good graces, as defined by the ability to be a member, participate in church, and go to the temple, as well as the ability to assign members to tasks with consequences as the result of following or not following, I call that an intercessory.

You can't come in to a Bishop and say "I have been forgiven by God, fully and completely, and I believe God wants to be go to the temple extremely soon."

Well you could say it, but it would be considered stepping on the Bishop's toes, who is expected to use his own spiritual revelation to determine when that person is "ready" and "worthy."

The factors that would be considered in a DC in order to determine if excommunication is necessary are:

- If the sin was of a public nature or not (in order to protect the reputation of the church)
- Whether the confession was voluntary or not
- Whether the sin was a criminal offense or not
- The time since confession and the sin occurred
- If temple covenants were broken
- The affect on other parties involved/injured (e.g. child or spouse abuse, fraud, etc.)

I don't have the CHI in front of me so these are from memory. Based on my experience, I would generalize/speculate the following:

- Excommunication is less likely in cases where females commit adultery than where Melchizedek Priesthood holders commit adultery.
- Excommunication is less likely than disfellowshipment in adultery cases regardless of gender.

Thus, without knowing any of the particulars, I would generalize/speculate that she is far more likely to be disfellowshipped than excommunicated. Of course, YMMV.

I would think that a "welcome back, we are so glad you are here, what can we do to make you feel like you are accepted and feel the full communion of the Saints" would be the most likely response.

This is more than semantics. THe bishop is not in the middle of the relationship of the penitent and God. The bishop is steward over administrative issues and acts according to instructions he receives and from his inspiration. You, of all people, should be inclined to use these terms very clearly, as allowing the bishop to be a gatekeeper in an intercessory role gives him authority that he does not actually have. You are either confusing the role the bishop serves or you are stubbronly clinging to your own sloppy word choice but either way it is incorrect. The bishop does not have an intercessory role.

Tex is right. Only the Lord can forgive. The Bishop, however, determines the conditions upon which the church will extend its forgiveness and fellowship. It is in that capacity he represents the church.

I have often thought that the Lord forgives pretty freely, and the New Testament seems to confirm this, whereas the church does not. Or at least not without some punishment first. The parts about disciplinary counsels, disfellowshiping, and excommunication are probably some of those plain and precious truths that were lost through Hellenization.

this is honestly what I believe. For example, I don't think excommunication necessarily means a darn thing. It's not the Lord who is excommunicating. It's the church.

That's why someone like Juanita Brooks was almost excommunicated. Had she been, I think it would hold zero merit in the eyes of God.

I personally don't believe in the bishop-confession routine. It's not exactly scriptural. I know we have scriptures about confession - but those specifically state that it's okay to confess privately to the person you've offended (D&C 42). Not behind closed doors with a third party - a male bishop (probably very uncomfortable for females if the sin is sexual in nature).

I'd just tell her to come back to church and work out her repentance in her own way. If she feels that she needs to talk with an ecclesiastic leader to get it off her chest and ease her conscience, then she should do it. Otherwise, I don't consider it a necessary step.

I know, I know. Everyone is going to disagree. Fine. But I stick to my guns. As laid out in scripture (specifically, D&C 42), confessions are supposed to be either carried out between offender and offended, or in public if the offender offended a lot of people. For instance, Sylvester Smith - the oft-maligned malcontent of Zion's Camp - published his apology to Joseph Smith in a public forum - in the Messenger and Advocate (HC 2.160).

Now, if you want to argue that confessing to the bishop is the same as confessing "to God" (D&C 42.92), then you have a case. I personally don't see it as such.

To me, the introduction of the bishop into the confession process is a later development. While it's probably not a bad idea, I don't see it as necessary, since repentance is between a sinner, god, and the offended.

The reason for the Bishop is to allow for the possibility of excommunication. At least that is one of the important reasons. And it is also the reason why this lady is dissuaded from returning to church, due to her fear of excommunication. One possible response from her is to not fear excommunication. Man will do what man does. God will do as He wishes.

As it concerned showing people the translation, the Lord told Joseph:

"But as you cannot always judge the righteous, or as you cannot always tell the wicked from the righteous, therefore I say unto you, hold your peace until I shall see fit to make all things known unto the world concerning the matter."

This is the position the church finds itself in judging worthiness. Anyone can come in and say, "The Lord forgave me, so you have to too." Even the most spiritual man with the most divine calling (say, Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon) cannot perfectly judge the righteous from the wicked.

Thus the Lord directs his prophets to lay out a series of steps whereby a sinner represents to the church, in the person of the bishop, the repentance and forgiveness process. This shouldn't surprise anyone.

And, as it concerns excommunication, there is indeed scriptural foundation for it, indeed explicit instruction from the Lord. Blotting out the names of unrighteous people is mentioned in Mosiah 26:36, Alma 6:3, and Moroni 6:7. Most references to repentance in the scriptures are for personal application (as it should be) but a few are institutional, such as in D&C 42 where unrepentant adulterers are to be "cast out." One scripture even says that an unrepentant "idler shall not have place in the church"! (D&C 75:29). Fortunately we don't draw up disciplinary councils for idleness.

That's just my off-the-cuff list. In short, there is plenty of scriptural precedence for church discipline. But it is always clear, in scripture and in policy, that repentance and forgiveness are the sole province of the Lord, and he "employeth no servant there."

D&C 42:81-82, 88-89