Poll: What form of church discipline do I deserve?

Catchy title, eh?

So, I've been active in the church most of my life -- although I haven't been to a temple in 8 years. Six years ago (after a mission), I made some serious mistakes and confessed them to my bishop. I'd had sex a few times, with more than one person -- within just a few weeks. When I say "a few", I honestly mean less than 5 -- if you're keeping score at home. Also, that was the first-time I'd even rounded first base.

My bishop, after initially scheduling a disciplinary council, ultimately decided upon informal probation and then no disciplinary action at all. We met regularly for more than two years. During the time we met, I was severely depressed and struggling with testimony and family issues -- and I had a couple of obedience mis-steps. However, I was going to church and generally obeying the rules.

Fast forward to 2 years ago: After the end of a short marriage (non-temple, non-member, less than a year -- but no pre-marital sex), I have been struggling to come back to full activity in church.

I've always been around church (attending meetings off and on, even doing home teaching), even though I haven't held a real calling since 2003. In the last year, I have continued a battle with serious depression and family issues; drunk alcohol countless times; dated a non-member (we had sex several times over a few months); and had sex with 2 other people. Basically, after the divorce, I went into depressed, self-destruct mode for a few months.

Now, after several months of no alcohol, no sex, but steady depression and anxiety, I've moved into a new ward. I was meeting regularly with my previous bishop, as I struggled to pull myself together.

My whole life I've struggled with having a testimony at all, but have cobbled one together and clung to it, despite the fact my testimony doesn't quite look like what the average Mormon believes. At the end of day, church is home; it's who I am; my real home sucks, but I feel something in church, and although I may have a raftload of issues, I want to be a contributing, dedicated part, even if I've now had two major screw-up phases in life (4 or 5 years apart).

The second time I met with my new bishop -- I introduced myself, and he cut to the chase, asking if there was any "reason" I needed to see him, i.e. anything to confess. I said yes and he asked me if I'd had sex outside of marriage ever. Yes. Asked whether it happened more than once. Yes. Then, he told me I was the Stake President's responsibility b/c I'm a Melchizedek Priesthood holder. Doesn't that mean he thinks I'm likely to be excommunicated??? Am I?

I would seriously appreciate candid takes on why I would be referred to the SP. (As well as what I should do?)

I really want to repent, to be good. That's why I have been trying to hammer my way back for months. I know I had a rough patch. I know I screwed up, and I wish I had some sort of ironclad faith or obedience. But, now I'm freaked out: does a referral to the Stake President automatically put me on the chopping block? Or what is the process? I don't think I've met with a SP since my mission interview.

[Tex]

No, referral to a stake president doesn't not automatically mean anything. So far as I know, the range of possible disciplinary actions that are available to a bishop are also available to a stake president.

However, it appears your bishop thinks a disciplinary council is appropriate--which means he finds what you've confessed to be quite serious--and for Melchizedek priesthood holders, it is not within his power to call. Ultimately that will be up to the stake president to decide.

Remember, though, these people are here to help you, not condemn you. That doesn't mean that you won't have some disciplinary action taken--there's simply no way for anyone here to tell you how that might go. But whatever happens, try to keep in mind that they are trying to help you repent and to feel fully clean of whatever is in your past.

My advice is to meet with the man, be open and honest, be contrite, and spend a great deal of time reading the scriptures, particularly those dealing with the power of the atonement.

[Snowcat]

I believe that being willing to attend a disciplinary council and work through these issues is a significant step in the repentance process.

I have seen the repentance process be the source of great healing in people's lives. This is something we all need. I wish you the best.

[RedHeadGal]

From my observation, there is a fair amount of inconsistency in the way leaders deal with the types of problems you put forth. What any of us may know or do or have seen won't necessarily be what happens with you. I would try not to waste time worrying about impending doom. Just keep moving forward and see what happens.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

From my observation, there is a fair amount of inconsistency in the way leaders deal with the types of problems you put forth. What any of us may know or do or have seen won't necessarily be what happens with you. I would try not to waste time worrying about impending doom. Just keep moving forward and see what happens.

I agree. Whatever will be will be. And there IS significant inconsistency.

The SP can and often does refer it back to the bishop, but if I understand the Handbook correctly, the bishop should ordinarily consult with the SP to determine what the SP thinks, who may send it back to the bishop.

It is a depressing process, but you can't change it, just bow you head and recognize some of the persons won't be diplomatic or gentle. And others will be. Plead for mercy but be prepared for the worst. I wish you well.

[Levin]

It increasingly strikes me as bizarre that we excommunicate the penitent. The person has messed up, but wants to repent and stay active in the Church. Why excommunicate and officially kick him out? Help him complete the repentance process within the loving arms of the Church. Why is kicking him out a necessary step in his repentance process?

Kick out the scornful and unrepentent. But not the penitent.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Levin

It increasingly strikes me as bizarre that we excommunicate the penitent. The person has messed up, but wants to repent and stay active in the Church. Why excommunicate and officially kick him out? Help him complete the repentance process within the loving arms of the Church. Why is kicking him out a necessary step in his repentance process?

Kick out the scornful and unrepentent. But not the penitent.

Odd indeed. It's almost as if we wish to brand the penitent as unworthy of our love.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Odd indeed. It's almost as if we wish to brand the penitent as unworthy of our love.

Or that to show love it must be "tough love." But kicking a person out of the church is not "tough love." Stripping him of a temple recommend, having him refrain from taking the sacrament, etc. -- that's tough love. Kicking out is just kicking out.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Levin

It increasingly strikes me as bizarre that we excommunicate the penitent. The person has messed up, but wants to repent and stay active in the Church. Why excommunicate and officially kick him out? Help him complete the repentance process within the loving arms of the Church. Why is kicking him out a necessary step in his repentance process?

Kick out the scornful and unrepentent. But not the penitent.

I'm not sure excommunicating "the penitent," as you call it, is all that common these days. This is only anecdotal evidence, but my impression is that excommunications in general have become less common than they used to be.

However, part of why you find it bizarre is because you view excommunication as largely or wholly punitive.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by Tex

However, part of why you find it bizarre is because you view excommunication as largely or wholly punitive.

What else is it? And when you answer, describe what it adds that withholding of the Sacrament or stripping of callings, prayers, etc. and temple recommends doesn't.