Church Discipline

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by creekster

The bishop does not have an intercessory role. That is a sepcific term and the bishop does not fill that role. He is a counselor and a common judge as Tex has said, but is not in an intercessory capacity.

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."

[BigFatMeanie]

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.

[MikeWaters]

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.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

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."

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.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Tex

I don't have a lot of time to pontificate on this at the moment, but maybe I will later.

I do want to say, though, that the bishop is not a go-between the sinner and the Lord (as in Mike's Catholic analogy). When dealing with people who have committed serious transgression, he fills two roles: the common judge and as a counselor.

The bishop is called a "common judge in Israel" because he judges worthiness. He represents the church and its policies and standards, and only represents the Lord as it concerns those things. This is where potential church discipline comes into play.

The bishop is also a counselor. He helps the sinner to understand the gospel, understand what forgiveness means and how to receive it, understand how to recognize the influence of the spirit, and so forth.

He is NOT a replacement for the Lord as it concerns forgiveness, nor does he represent Him in that way. He does not bestow forgiveness. He does not grant absolution.

Repentance is still between the sinner and the Lord.

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.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

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.

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.

[Solon]

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.

[MikeWaters]

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.

[Tex]

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."

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Solon

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).

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

81 But he or she shall be condemned by the mouth of two witnesses; and the elders shall lay the case before the church, and the church shall lift up their hands against him or her, that they may be dealt with according to the law of God.
82 And if it can be, it is necessary that the bishop be present also.
...
88 And if thy brother or sister offend thee, thou shalt take him or her between him or her and thee alone; and if he or she confess thou shalt be reconciled.
89 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.