Inconsistent Application of Church Discipline - Why? - Page 2 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

JohnnyLingo · 07-02-2007, 05:48 PM

I love this board.

Anytime anyone disagrees with any aspect of the church, they just say, "I believe this will change within the next few decades."

Very entertaining.

jay santos · 07-02-2007, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YOhio

g. Voluntary
h. Free
i. Ordinary men handling very difficult issues the best they can, often making mistakes but rarely due to personal malice.

I would agree.

Requiem · 07-02-2007, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jay santos

I have a lot of data points on this, and this is one of the things I have energy about. I think the church discipline system is:

a. totally inconsistent
b. totally punishing to anyone who tries to fight it or feels like they were slighted
c. very Pharisee like and very un New Testament/BOM like
d. causes a lot of unnecessary pain and causes many people to leave the church or stay inactive
e. something I believe will get completely overhauled over the next 50 years
f. Matthew 23:13 applies

I totally agree with each of your points. Bishops and Stake Presidents need to understand they are dealing with fragile egos. Consider the experiences of Sisters X and Y: one comes away with renewed faith and commitment; the other with little hope for her future, and the experience of public humiliation within her family and friends (because we all know Disciplinary Councils soon become public knowledge). Bishops need to understand these are life altering experiences that affect many people.

I can only hope that your item "e" comes to pass sooner rather than later.

YOhio · 07-02-2007, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

Anytime anyone disagrees with any aspect of the church, they just say, "I believe this will change within the next few decades."

That's why I purchase a sixer of Heineken before every General Conference. I'm expecting a WOW change any day now.

Indy Coug · 07-02-2007, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Requiem

Bishops need to understand these are life altering experiences that affect many people.

You honestly think they don't understand this?

JohnnyLingo · 07-02-2007, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

You honestly think they don't understand this?

Of course they do not. Requiem is applying for that bishop's position immediately.

Sleeping in EQ · 07-02-2007, 05:58 PM

We'll never know the fairness of the proceedings, so consistency of outcome won't be a useful avenue of inquiry. Moreover, while the Handbook should be a strong guide for Bishops, no Church leader should feel that all the inspiration he is entitled to is enclosed in it, and no Church member should ever be treated as an object to be dealt with by wrote prescription. We're individuals and when it comes to disciplinary matters the Church has a moral obligation to deal with us as such.

What might be useful is to explore how fairness might better be assured in disciplinary situations. A few things to think about:

Lavina Anderson has suggested that arbiters could help ensure fairness in disciplinary situations.

Should those on the business end of Church discipline have access to all correspondance concerning them? A Bishop could misconstrue and misrepresent facts in his correspondance with an SP in an effort to save face. On Lavina's site their are several accounts of this very thing occurring.

The idea of a required concencus decision on disciplinary actions might be worth considering. It could minimize personal issues, idiosyncratic understandings, yes-man behavior from High Councilors etc.

I think adult Church members should have access to the Handbook of Instructions, but it's especially unfair that someone undergoing discipline doesn't get to read the section on Church discipline.

The attitude that someone in the disciplinary process is automatically guilty (of something!) isn't healthy. The possibility of misunderstandings, bias, incorrect interpretation and so on shouldn't just be shoved aside. I believe that most of the time Bishops and SPs are doing their very best in these situations. That doesn't mean the process couldn't have more safeguards.

MikeWaters · 07-02-2007, 05:59 PM

Yes, would be nice to have required consensus. It provides a convenient way to get released from the High Council!

Tex · 07-02-2007, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Requiem

I totally agree with each of your points. Bishops and Stake Presidents need to understand they are dealing with fragile egos. Consider the experiences of Sisters X and Y: one comes away with renewed faith and commitment; the other with little hope for her future, and the experience of public humiliation within her family and friends (because we all know Disciplinary Councils soon become public knowledge). Bishops need to understand these are life altering experiences that affect many people.

I can only hope that your item "e" comes to pass sooner rather than later.

I guess I'm gonna fulfill my role as Cougarguard Religious Pariah and take exception to the idea that Bishops and Stake Presidents do NOT know they are dealing with "fragile egos."

Are there Bishops and/or Stake Presidents who have handled things poorly? Yes. My own father once asked to be released as ward clerk because he so fiercely disagreed with a bishop who constantly made chauvinistic comments in leadership meetings. They are imperfect men, some with obvious failings.

By and large, however, they are good men who are trying to do their best with the near impossible charge they have been given. I've worked with a fair number in my day, and while I have disagreed with some more than others on style and approach, to a "T" they cared deeply about how the Savior viewed the job they were doing, and about their ward membership. Maybe I've just been lucky, but I've never served with one who took disciplinary councils lightly.

This man will be your friend's bishop for only a brief time in the eternal scope of things, yet she's on the brink of allowing his (perhaps) clumsy handling of the situation to jeopardize her faith and testimony. I probably would not have gone to the lengths he has, but if she truly believes in the doctrine of the church, she must work to see past the failings of those who administrate it.

I don't mean to suggest this is easy, neither do I excuse a given bishop's bad behavior, but our testimonies must be above the boorishness of fellow members, even those in high authority. Re-read Elder Bednar's recent talk.

BYU71 · 07-02-2007, 06:06 PM

I think it is quite simple really. They have different personalities. The church isn't perfect and neither are the people chosen to officiate in it. Therefor there is going to be inconsistencies.

I know this is disheartening to both those who wish everyone got the same treatment and to those who think the judgements are based on some divine guidance from up above.

I remember a comment made by a SP about a Bishop in his Stake. He referred to him as the toughest disciplinarian in the Stake. He said he was glad he wasn't in his ward.

07-02-2007, 05:58 PM	#17
Sleeping in EQ Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: The People's Republic of Monsanto Posts: 3,085	We'll never know the fairness of the proceedings, so consistency of outcome won't be a useful avenue of inquiry. Moreover, while the Handbook should be a strong guide for Bishops, no Church leader should feel that all the inspiration he is entitled to is enclosed in it, and no Church member should ever be treated as an object to be dealt with by wrote prescription. We're individuals and when it comes to disciplinary matters the Church has a moral obligation to deal with us as such. What might be useful is to explore how fairness might better be assured in disciplinary situations. A few things to think about: Lavina Anderson has suggested that arbiters could help ensure fairness in disciplinary situations. Should those on the business end of Church discipline have access to all correspondance concerning them? A Bishop could misconstrue and misrepresent facts in his correspondance with an SP in an effort to save face. On Lavina's site their are several accounts of this very thing occurring. The idea of a required concencus decision on disciplinary actions might be worth considering. It could minimize personal issues, idiosyncratic understandings, yes-man behavior from High Councilors etc. I think adult Church members should have access to the Handbook of Instructions, but it's especially unfair that someone undergoing discipline doesn't get to read the section on Church discipline. The attitude that someone in the disciplinary process is automatically guilty (of something!) isn't healthy. The possibility of misunderstandings, bias, incorrect interpretation and so on shouldn't just be shoved aside. I believe that most of the time Bishops and SPs are doing their very best in these situations. That doesn't mean the process couldn't have more safeguards. __________________ "Do not despise the words of prophets, but test everything; hold fast to what is good; " 1 Thess. 5:21 (NRSV) We all trust our own unorthodoxies. Last edited by Sleeping in EQ; 07-02-2007 at 06:07 PM.

07-02-2007, 05:48 PM	#11
JohnnyLingo Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 2,175	I love this board. Anytime anyone disagrees with any aspect of the church, they just say, "I believe this will change within the next few decades." Very entertaining.

07-02-2007, 05:59 PM	#18
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	Yes, would be nice to have required consensus. It provides a convenient way to get released from the High Council!

07-02-2007, 06:06 PM	#20
BYU71 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 5,084	I think it is quite simple really. They have different personalities. The church isn't perfect and neither are the people chosen to officiate in it. Therefor there is going to be inconsistencies. I know this is disheartening to both those who wish everyone got the same treatment and to those who think the judgements are based on some divine guidance from up above. I remember a comment made by a SP about a Bishop in his Stake. He referred to him as the toughest disciplinarian in the Stake. He said he was glad he wasn't in his ward.