Inconsistent Application of Church Discipline - Why?

[MikeWaters]

I remember in Junior High, I got in trouble once in class for mouthing off. Actually I had mouthed off quite a bit, and this crossed the line or something. Sent to see the Asst. Principle.

He asked me to explain myself.

I said, "The teacher is inconsistent in his discipline."

He replied, "That's the best you have, that's he's inconsistent?"

He then proceeded to ream me , how this guy had stepped in to teach when they couldn't find someone, that he had never had formal teaching as a teacher, etc. blah blah.

I had to admit. My answer had been pretty lame.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by Tex

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."

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 disagree that bishops are generally good men who desire to serve faithfully. What is troubling for these sisters (and frankly me) are the inconsistent standards of discipline. Does the handbook have specific disciplinary guidelines for certain behaviors - in this case intercourse vs. petting? I would dare say that if every single LDS member guilty of petting was brought before a Disciplinary Council, it would clog the system and be a horrible burden for all involved.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Requiem

I don't disagree that bishops are generally good men who desire to serve faithfully. What is troubling for these sisters (and frankly me) is the inconsistent standards of discipline. Does the handbook have specific disciplinary guidelines for certain behaviors - in this case intercourse vs. petting? I would dare say that if every single LDS member guilty of petting was brought before a Disciplinary Council, it would clog the system and be a horrible burden for all involved.

I'd rather not have "mandatory sentencing", so I'm willing to live with the inconsistency in discipline that exists from person to person.

I would submit that it's very likely the problem isn't strictly due to intercourse vs petting, but a lot of other mitigating factors that takes into account more than the immoral act itself; thus it's too complex for an apples to apples.

[RC Vikings]

A lot depends on the background of the bishop and some of the struggles they have faced in their life. I think the measuring stick most bishops use are themselves.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I'd rather not have "mandatory sentencing", so I'm willing to live with the inconsistency in discipline that exists from person to person.

With all due respect, would it be a step forward to at least have more specific guidelines when it comes to the reasons for the convening of a Bishop's or SP Disciplinary Council? Based on my conversations with these sisters, I would have thought Sister X would be subject to a DC, and Sister Y to "working it out" with her Bishop. I understand there are even more discrepancies in behavior with the exercise of discipline by mission presidents. Some are quick to send even minor offenders home; others take the time to work with individuals and keep them in the field. In this regard, I would hope the handbook would be revised to be more specific and not subject to quite so much interpretation.

[SoonerCoug]

Here's another example:

My dad was a bishop in a BYU ward, and he would often relate this story to us, without revealing identities of the parties involved.

A couple is engaged and ready to be married. However, in their temple recommend interviews, they confess that they have committed sexual sin, and their marriage is delayed for an entire year.

After waiting an entire year to get married...within days before their wedding, they came to my dad (their bishop) and confessed that they had, in a single instance, engaged in some "dry humping" and light petting and were feeling guilty about it. My dad told them to stay away from each other between that moment and the wedding, but that because they had tried so hard for an entire year and already delayed their marriage for so long, and because they felt so penitent about their mistake, that he felt like it was OK for them to go ahead and get married in the temple if they could control themselves for the remaining days.

The Stake President about killed my dad, but the SP let them go ahead and get married in the temple anyway.

Arbitrary enforcement? You bet. Sometimes it's a good thing, and sometimes it's not. I guess it depends on your perspective and your attitude toward sins, guilt, forgiveness, and punishment.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Requiem

With all due respect, would it be a step forward to at least have more specific guidelines when it comes to the reasons for the convening of a Bishop's or SP Disciplinary Council? Based on my conversations with these sisters, I would have thought Sister X would be subject to a DC, and Sister Y to "working it out" with her Bishop. I understand there are even more discrepancies in behavior with the exercise of discipline by mission presidents. Some are quick to send even minor offenders home; others take the time to work with individuals and keep them in the field. In this regard, I would hope the handbook would be revised to be more specific and not subject to quite so much interpretation.

I knew one bishop who made a point of asking females whether a male had "spilled himself" during sexual sin (based on independent stories from various members of the singles ward). If the male had "spilled himself," then the punishment was was 12 months, no matter what the behavior that led to the result. Anyone know if that's in the Church Handbook?

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

Here's another example:

My dad was a bishop in a BYU ward, and he would often relate this story to us, without revealing identities of the parties involved.

A couple is engaged and ready to be married. However, in their temple recommend interviews, they confess that they have committed sexual sin, and their marriage is delayed for an entire year.

After waiting an entire year to get married...within days before their wedding, they came to my dad (their bishop) and confessed that they had, in a single instance, engaged in some "dry humping" and light petting and were feeling guilty about it. My dad told them to stay away from each other between that moment and the wedding, but that because they had tried so hard for an entire year and already delayed their marriage for so long, and because they felt so penitent about their mistake, that he felt like it was OK for them to go ahead and get married in the temple if they could control themselves for the remaining days.

The Stake President about killed my dad, but the SP let them go ahead and get married in the temple anyway.

Arbitrary enforcement? You bet. Sometimes it's a good thing, and sometimes it's not. I guess it depends on your perspective and your attitude toward sins, guilt, forgiveness, and punishment.

SC, I enjoy your stories, but you're losing credibility, dude.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by jay santos

SC, I enjoy your stories, but you're losing credibility, dude.

I'm just stating the facts of a single situation. I don't really have a clear conclusion.

[BigFatMeanie]

Originally Posted by Requiem

I don't disagree that bishops are generally good men who desire to serve faithfully. What is troubling for these sisters (and frankly me) is the inconsistent standards of discipline. Does the handbook have specific disciplinary guidelines for certain behaviors - in this case intercourse vs. petting? I would dare say that if every single LDS member guilty of petting was brought before a Disciplinary Council, it would clog the system and be a horrible burden for all involved.

To answer your specific question - no, the hand book does not have specific disciplinary guidelines for certain behaviors.