06-27-2008, 05:37 PM | #11 | |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
Quote:
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." |
|
06-27-2008, 05:38 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Jordan
Posts: 1,725
|
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. |
06-27-2008, 05:40 PM | #13 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
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.
|
06-27-2008, 05:44 PM | #14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
|
Quote:
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos. |
|
06-27-2008, 05:55 PM | #15 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Bluth Home
Posts: 3,877
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. -Galileo |
|
06-27-2008, 06:06 PM | #16 | |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
Quote:
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. |
|
06-27-2008, 07:12 PM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Happy Valley, PA
Posts: 1,866
|
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.
__________________
I hope for nothing. I fear nothing. I am free. - Epitaph of Nikos Kazantzakis (1883-1957) |
06-27-2008, 07:15 PM | #18 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
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.
|
06-27-2008, 07:19 PM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
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."
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young Last edited by Tex; 06-27-2008 at 07:24 PM. |
06-27-2008, 07:22 PM | #20 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young |
||
Bookmarks |
|
|