Poll: What form of church discipline do I deserve?

[CardiacCoug]

Interesting post and discussion. My thoughts:

The fact that an unmarried person having occasional consensual sex qualifies as a "serious sin" making him a candidate for excommunication from a church is pretty bizarre by 21st century standards. It illustrates the inordinate emphasis LDS place on sexual "transgressions."

It seems to me that the purpose of excommunication is to prevent people from tearing down the Church from within or from hurting the Church's reputation by their continued association with the Church. I agree that it doesn't make sense to expel the penitent from the fellowship of the Saints at the very time that they need Church support the most. How is a member's history of sex with non-members harmful to the institution of the Church? Excommunication in that instance seems purely punitive and unChristlike, in my opinion.

The only way that I could see sexual sin as being worthy of excommunication would basically be for a sexual predator. I knew a guy at BYU who had told about 5 girls he would marry them and pressured them into sex before dumping each of them. He was finally kicked out of BYU and ex-ed basically to try to protect future LDS sisters from him. That makes sense.

I agree with those that say that Church discipline is applied very inconsistently. One of my high school friends shared some stories with his MTC companion about prior unconfessed sexual sins and found out his companion had similar unconfessed sins. The companion called his home Stake President to confess. His SP said not to worry about it, to go ahead and serve an honorable mission. This friend of mine took heart and decided to confess as well. His Stake President told him he needed to come home from the MTC immediately and humiliated him in front of the entire community by making him spend several weeks at home tracting with local missionaries.

My parents' ward has an extensive history of white-collar crime among members. Apparently you can swindle elderly people out of their retirement savings, go to prison, and have it considered less of a sin than a couple of teenagers fooling around. Again, that reflects the inordinate LDS emphasis on sexual sin, probably deriving somehow from our history of polygamy.

[cougarobgon]

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

How is a member's history of sex with non-members harmful to the institution of the Church?

You got to be kidding, right?

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

I agree with those that say that Church discipline is applied very inconsistently.

Too many unknown details about your buddy and his mtc companion's experience to condemn the SP who requested the companion be sent home.

I got a phone call several years ago from the MTC because one of our YM wanted to confess something to me that he failed to do so prior to entering the MTC. My decision was also to allow him to continue serving. I am not going to share the details of our conversation, but, I can tell you that if the YM had confessed he had had sex with his girlfriend after being set apart as a missionary and during the night before entering the MTC, that YM would have come home immediately.

I agree that sometimes Church leaders are not consistent in applying discipline for the same transgression. But, that is good a thing. You don't want the Church to give the bishops or SPs a list of transgressions and corresponding discipline, do you?

[CardiacCoug]

Originally Posted by cougarobgon

You got to be kidding, right?

No, I'm not kidding. Adultery is bad for the Church because it destroys a family and is an act of deceit toward a spouse. How does a single member having a sexual relationship with a single non-member hurt the Church as an institution? Please explain.

Originally Posted by cougarobgon

Too many unknown details about your buddy and his mtc companion's experience to condemn the SP who requested the companion be sent home.

Well, he had never had intercourse, if you want a known detail.

I actually think a few more guidelines or "maximum penalties" for various sins would be appropriate to come from the top down in the Church to rein in some overzealous Bishops and SPs. You realize that there are Bishops asking 40-year old divorced women if they masturbate and then disciplining them if they admit to it? According to some Bishops, that's part of their calling.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

It seems to me that the purpose of excommunication is to prevent people from tearing down the Church from within or from hurting the Church's reputation by their continued association with the Church.

According to the handbook, the purpose of church discipline in general is:

1. To save the souls of transgressors
2. To protect the innocent
3. To safeguard the purity, integrity, and good name of the Church.

I don't know if those reasons are listed in order of priority or not, but I think it's instructive as to which is first and which is last.

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

The only way that I could see sexual sin as being worthy of excommunication would basically be for a sexual predator. I knew a guy at BYU who had told about 5 girls he would marry them and pressured them into sex before dumping each of them. He was finally kicked out of BYU and ex-ed basically to try to protect future LDS sisters from him. That makes sense.

I.e., purpose #2.

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

I agree with those that say that Church discipline is applied very inconsistently. One of my high school friends shared some stories with his MTC companion about prior unconfessed sexual sins and found out his companion had similar unconfessed sins. The companion called his home Stake President to confess. His SP said not to worry about it, to go ahead and serve an honorable mission. This friend of mine took heart and decided to confess as well. His Stake President told him he needed to come home from the MTC immediately and humiliated him in front of the entire community by making him spend several weeks at home tracting with local missionaries.

My parents' ward has an extensive history of white-collar crime among members. Apparently you can swindle elderly people out of their retirement savings, go to prison, and have it considered less of a sin than a couple of teenagers fooling around. Again, that reflects the inordinate LDS emphasis on sexual sin, probably deriving somehow from our history of polygamy.

I'm not sure what point you think you're making here, but it's pretty foolish to expect any of us to read a two-sentence, one-sided summary of some disciplinary instances and make any kind of reasonable comparison. Even comparing two instances with which one is intimately familiar is exceptionally difficult because there are so many variables.

I've not met these punitive-seeking, unChristlike, do-you-masterbate church leaders that folks here constantly cite. I'm sure they exist somewhere out there in the weird Bizarro World people like you and SoonerCoug live in, but I don't believe the represent any appreciable number. The vast majority of men who must make these kinds of decisions approach them with great seriousness, gravity, with the best interests of all affected at heart, and with a desire to do what the Savior would do.

That they are not perfect in executing their duty is a reflection of weakness common to man, and not a problem with the system.

Frankly, I'm grateful latitude has been granted to them in this regard. It allows priesthood leaders who know their flock best to tailor the repentance process.

[CardiacCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

According to the handbook, the purpose of church discipline in general is:

1. To save the souls of transgressors
2. To protect the innocent
3. To safeguard the purity, integrity, and good name of the Church.

I don't know if those reasons are listed in order of priority or not, but I think it's instructive as to which is first and which is last.

I guess I'm just not spiritual enough to understand how kicking a penitent sinner out of the Church helps to save his soul. To my simple mind, it seems like somebody who wants to repent is better off in the Church than out of it. Maybe I'm forgetting the Bible stories about Jesus kicking people when they are down and trying to get back up. Refresh my memory.

And I stand by my position that sexual sins are given inordinate weight in the Church. The "sin next to murder" stuff that people in the Church spout is ridiculous.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

I guess I'm just not spiritual enough to understand how kicking a penitent sinner out of the Church helps to save his soul. To my simple mind, it seems like somebody who wants to repent is better off in the Church than out of it. Maybe I'm forgetting the Bible stories about Jesus kicking people when they are down and trying to get back up. Refresh my memory.

I don't know that it's so much about spirituality as it is plain ol' lack of understanding. As with Levin, your position only makes sense when one views excommunication as nothing but a punitive measure. I've already explained amply above why it is not.

In any case, we're arguing what is (IMO) a tiny minority of cases. In my experience it is unusual to excommunicate a highly contrite person.

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

And I stand by my position that sexual sins are given inordinate weight in the Church. The "sin next to murder" stuff that people in the Church spout is ridiculous.

I've said several times I'm not in the business of comparatively ranking sin. I recognize what the scriptures say and I respect that, but I find it to be a fruitless exercise in practice because circumstances vary so much from person to person. Much like trying to compare disciplinary councils, as you did your previous post.

Suffice it to say, sexual transgressions are serious, and are weighted accordingly.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by Tex

Suffice it to say, sexual transgressions are serious, and are weighted accordingly.

It doesn't "suffice it to say" that sexual sins are serious, b/c we know how sex is treated in the Church -- disproportionately. It's not that the law of chastity isn't important, or that we don't understand Elder Holland's talk on this "sacrament," but that transgressions of that law are given inordinate amount of weight in circumstances when it would be better to say, "good brother, welcome back."

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Levin

It doesn't "suffice it to say" that sexual sins are serious, b/c we know how sex is treated in the Church -- disproportionately. It's not that the law of chastity isn't important, or that we don't understand Elder Holland's talk on this "sacrament," but that transgressions of that law are given inordinate amount of weight in circumstances when it would be better to say, "good brother, welcome back."

You're again speaking in broad terms which become more complicated in practice.

[MikeWaters]

Given that the dude never has to stop attending church whether he is excommunicated or not, means that the church really doesn't kick people out.

Nor do they publicly announce excommunications (usually). There is the example in Arizona where they announced it over every pulpit in the stake. Nor do they provide explanations about why they acted as they did (except in the case of the guy who wrote in to the trib editorial page).

Just keep attending, let the machine do it's work, cooperate or not, do what they ask or not, change or not, all that person's choice.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Given that the dude never has to stop attending church whether he is excommunicated or not, means that the church really doesn't kick people out.

Interesting; I'm sure this is exactly how excommunicated members feel.

And the rest of your post is spot on too; just a secretive clerical decision, and the person can just do what he wants. It's that attitude that really makes him feel as if he hasn't been kicked out.

Good show!