Inconsistent Application of Church Discipline - Why?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Just a guess, but I'd bet that most of the people who are okay with inconsistent (or perceived inconsistent) outcomes in church disciplinary actions, are also proponents of mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines and the 3-strikes law in criminal judicial proceedings.

If my guess is correct (and I acknowlege it may not be), it would be interesting to see the basis for the disparity.

This is a difficult subject to discuss. These are councils where the best interests of the individuals are supposed to be at the center. However, many members have differing views of how discipline should be handled.

If Indy, Tex and Lingo were in a bishopric, you'd probably see a high number of excommunications.

If SIEQ, SoCal and Santos were, we'd probably see more informal discipline and formal probations.

I suppose consistency might be an argument for fairness, but sometimes deviation from the norm is necessary. Members need support when they are honestly submitting themselves to this very difficult situation.

Leaders are sensitive to this situation, some more than others, but affected members really need sensitivity in their time of need.

[JohnnyLingo]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

Why is it a clergyman's job to discipline? My belief is that their job is to teach and serve their congregation. LDS deify their leaders in a very real and scary way. I was raised to believe I was not allowed to turn down a calling. This leads to incapable people being called to important positions. A person knows what they are qualified for. It also leads to leaders being elevated in the eyes of the members. Confessing to a non-God seems like a quick road to disappointment.

Don't worry, I'm sure the church will change this in the next couple decades.

Originally Posted by Archaea

If Indy, Tex and Lingo were in a bishopric, you'd probably see a high number of excommunications.

Yeah, probably.

Obsess much?

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by Archaea

If Indy, Tex and Lingo were in a bishopric, you'd probably see a high number of excommunications.

If SIEQ, SoCal and Santos were, we'd probably see more informal discipline and formal probations.

I suppose consistency might be an argument for fairness, but sometimes deviation from the norm is necessary. Members need support when they are honestly submitting themselves to this very difficult situation.

Leaders are sensitive to this situation, some more than others, but affected members really need sensitivity in their time of need.

Your comments are wise and thoughtful. Members do need support rather than condemnation when they come forward voluntarily. It is such a striking difference to speak with each of the sisters involved in these actions. One feels loved; the other abandoned by her bishop, ward and family. The latter outcome certainly would cause me to think twice before confessing. I suspect there are many in the Church not willing to subject themselves to the whims of a less than loving authority. The risk is too great.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Requiem

Your comments are wise and thoughtful. Members do need support rather than condemnation when they come forward voluntarily. It is such a striking difference to speak with each of the sisters involved in these actions. One feels loved; the other abandoned by her bishop, ward and family. The latter outcome certainly would cause me to think twice before confessing. I suspect there are many in the Church not willing to subject themselves to the whims of a less than loving authority. The risk is too great.

It is a difficult balance to strike. Some sins are serious and require heart-wrenching efforts to overcome.

The member needs the reassurance of the leader, that the member isn't loathed, as self-loathing has already occurred and is occurring. The member already feels cut-off and hopeless, condemned. Some of these punishments feel like sentences handed down by a merciless executioner. The member is probably overly sensitive, but then is the member's time of need. Not every leader, because almost all have never been in that situation, cannot truly empathize with the member, even if the leader sympathizes. I will relate a recent event witnessed that has created more compassion than before.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Just a guess, but I'd bet that most of the people who are okay with inconsistent (or perceived inconsistent) outcomes in church disciplinary actions, are also proponents of mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines and the 3-strikes law in criminal judicial proceedings.

If my guess is correct (and I acknowlege it may not be), it would be interesting to see the basis for the disparity.

It might be timely to point out that bishops and stake presidents do not dispense forgiveness, and church discipline bears little to no resemblance to the our judicial system. In most cases that I've been associated with, the brethren involved take a soft approach to helping the person in question.

As a common judge in Israel, bishops are supposed to determine the status of church membership. They play a role in helping the member receive forgiveness, but ultimately it falls solely on the relationship of that person with the Lord.

Originally Posted by Archaea

If Indy, Tex and Lingo were in a bishopric, you'd probably see a high number of excommunications.

Actually I have typically taken a very broad and lenient approach to church discipline, but don't let that get in the way of your smear campaign.

Originally Posted by Requiem

Your comments are wise and thoughtful. Members do need support rather than condemnation when they come forward voluntarily. It is such a striking difference to speak with each of the sisters involved in these actions. One feels loved; the other abandoned by her bishop, ward and family. The latter outcome certainly would cause me to think twice before confessing. I suspect there are many in the Church not willing to subject themselves to the whims of a less than loving authority. The risk is too great.

There is no question that it is important for bishops to reflect the attributes of the Savior to those who have transgressed. Charity, love, long-suffering should be the feelings that a penitent member feels from his or her bishop.

That said, repentance falls ultimately on the shoulders of the transgressor. It will be a sad day when an unrepentant person meets the Lord and the reason for remaining estranged was, "I didn't like my bishop."

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Actually I have typically taken a very broad and lenient approach to church discipline, but don't let that get in the way of your smear campaign.

When? You come across as one bad ass M.F. That doesn't appear very lenient, and leniency is not the issue, but compassion for the transgressor. Sometimes the cost penitence is high, but somebody assuaging some fears along the way is all a transgressor needs.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

When? You come across as one bad ass M.F. That doesn't appear very lenient, and leniency is not the issue, but compassion for the transgressor. Sometimes the cost penitence is high, but somebody assuaging some fears along the way is all a transgressor needs.

In the cases where my input has been sought (and this is not a great number), I have advocated a moderate approach to discipline, especially when the person is penitent.

As to the "bad ass" comment: I have strong opinions, but I am not a compassionless person. I'm not sure of any comment I've made in this thread that would lead you to believe otherwise. More likely it's your natural inclination toward Tex-hate.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by Tex

In the cases where my input has been sought (and this is not a great number), I have advocated a moderate approach to discipline, especially when the person is penitent.

As to the "bad ass" comment: I have strong opinions, but I am not a compassionless person. I'm not sure of any comment I've made in this thread that would lead you to believe otherwise.

Arch, I have to agree with Tex here. I think this is the second time in as many days. I think he's begun to show us a little bit more of the "real" Tex over the past couple of weeks and imo, he's a lot less black and white than he has presented himself in the past. He's had comments in this thread and in the thread about "knowing" that I think have revealed his softer side.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

Arch, I have to agree with Tex here. I think this is the second time in as many days. I think he's begun to show us a little bit more of the "real" Tex over the past couple of weeks and imo, he's a lot less black and white than he has presented himself in the past. He's had comments in this thread and in the thread about "knowing" that I think have revealed his softer side.

Actually, I appreciate the insights of both Brothers Archaea and Tex. For the most part, the comments on this thread have been positive and helpful. Thank you.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

Arch, I have to agree with Tex here. I think this is the second time in as many days. I think he's begun to show us a little bit more of the "real" Tex over the past couple of weeks and imo, he's a lot less black and white than he has presented himself in the past. He's had comments in this thread and in the thread about "knowing" that I think have revealed his softer side.

I consider his body of work, not a few miscellaneous comments. My impression may be erroneous, but he comes across like a company man, and some of his comments on torture make me believe confessing to him would be the same as submitting oneself to the executioner, he'd have a gleem in his eye and he recommended execommunication with no possibility of rebaptism. Perhaps he merely wishes to portray himself as a bad ass that he is not.