Poll: What form of church discipline do I deserve?

[cougarobgon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Hypothetical to you.

What if those two had not been ex'ed but rather simply had privileges removed followed by weeekly meetings with a leader?

How would that have changed things?

It may surprise you, but most of the disciplinary council decisions are of the no action or restricted/suspened privileges type. I was involved in several DCs and can only recall one when an individual was excommunicated.

With respect to the two individuals I referenced in my previous post, I believe the second individual would have responded similarly and would have returned to full fellowship had her privileges only been suspended. But, I believe forgiving herself, would have taken longer. In her mind the excommunication was what she needed to make things right. Whether her previous bishop or SP took that into consideration I do not know. On the other hand, the first individual, I do not believe would have changed behavior without a disciplinary council being held and having been excommunicated. Without sharing any of the details, that is the impression I got when counseling with him.

[cougarobgon]

Originally Posted by BYUHoopster

It is not with the process of excommunication but rather with what I am taught to do regarding people that offend me and sometimes get exed. Let me give you a real life example. There is a member of my wife's family that for the last 30 years has committed some very grevious sexual sins and during that same time served as Branch President, Bishop, Counselor in Stake Presidency, and Bishop again. My family is also currently in the same ward as this individual. This information came out in the last six months and he was excommunicated as expected. No problems there.

Since we learned this information we have been trying to deal with it and cope with the fact that we never really knew this individual. To put it simply, this had been devastating to my wife and basically destroyed her family. In counseling with the same church leaders that excommunicated this person we have been told that we haveto forgive him and love him and that he needs our support at this time.

To me that seems so inconsistent, you must forgive him now but he is going to need time to be forgiven by the church and the Lord. In my minds eye, I picture a Lord that freely forgives the truly repentant. Since I am not perfect, it takes me a lot longer to work through my emotions, anger, selfishness, etc., regarding the offense than it should the Lord. Yet I am suppose to forgive long before the Lord or His church does? That is my issue with the process and what I am currently struggling with now.

Sorry for hijacking the thread. . .

Tough situation for your family. My condolences. Your leaders' admonition to forgive and to love is mainly for your benefit. Sure you can determine to not forgive right away, but, those feelings of anger and betrayal can be devastating to your own spirituality. From personal experience, one cannot fully experience the presence or blessings of the spirit unless the heart and mind are clear of such feelings.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by cougarobgon

Tough situation for your family. My condolences. Your leaders' admonition to forgive and to love is mainly for your benefit. Sure you can determine to not forgive right away, but, those feelings of anger and betrayal can be devastating to your own spirituality. From personal experience, one cannot fully experience the presence or blessings of the spirit unless the heart and mind are clear of such feelings.

The church will keep a permanent record of his excommunication even after rebaptism, so as to flag him in case of any "substantial" calling being proffered.

The church does not forget, in order to protect itself.

It's hard as humans to do what the church, administratively, chooses not to do.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

It's hard as humans to do what the church, administratively, chooses not to do.

Not "chooses not to do." Rather, "is incapable of doing."

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Tex

Not "chooses not to do." Rather, "is incapable of doing."

They could keep the records in the mountain, but not have the membership record asterisked so that bishops have to double-check things.

The point is the "asterisk".

It is there to protect the church, I think.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

They could keep the records in the mountain, but not have the membership record asterisked so that bishops have to double-check things.

The point is the "asterisk".

It is there to protect the church, I think.

I agree with this. There's no other possible reason in light of the Church's failure to follow the principle of forgiveness and absolute dissolution: "remember no more."

[minn_stat]

Originally Posted by BigSinner

Catchy title, eh?
...
The second time I met with my new bishop -- I introduced myself, and he cut to the chase, asking if there was any "reason" I needed to see him, i.e. anything to confess. I said yes and he asked me if I'd had sex outside of marriage ever. Yes. Asked whether it happened more than once. Yes. Then, he told me I was the Stake President's responsibility b/c I'm a Melchizedek Priesthood holder. Doesn't that mean he thinks I'm likely to be excommunicated??? Am I?

I would seriously appreciate candid takes on why I would be referred to the SP. (As well as what I should do?)

I really want to repent, to be good. That's why I have been trying to hammer my way back for months. I know I had a rough patch. I know I screwed up, and I wish I had some sort of ironclad faith or obedience. But, now I'm freaked out: does a referral to the Stake President automatically put me on the chopping block? Or what is the process? I don't think I've met with a SP since my mission interview.

As a Melchizedek priesthood holder, the stake president is your priesthood authority, and therefore is the one who is authorized to make the call as to whether or not a disciplinary council needs to be held. Being referred to the stake president is somewhat of an administrative requirement, and although I would say it overall means it is more likely you will be excommunicated, it is by no means certain, and I would even be fairly certain that it is not the most likely outcome (speaking generally to the process of being referred to the SP).

If the bishop believes that a disciplinary council is a possibility, he is supposed to turn it over to the SP. The stake president will talk with you individually, consider all the relevant information, and will likely make one of three decisions.

1) To hold a stake disciplinary council. The stake disciplinary council may choose excommunication, to disfellowship, to put you on formal probation, or to exonerate you. In practice, the first two are more common.

2) To send you back to the bishop, with instructions that the bishop hold a ward-level disciplinary council. The bishop's disciplinary council cannot excommunicate you; being disfellowshipped or put on formal probation is the most likely outcome here. It can happen that the bishop's council returns with a recommendation to the SP that a stake disciplinary council be convened (IOW, they think you should be excommunicated), but in truth, this is likely very rare unless you withhold information from the SP that comes out in the bishop's DC.

3) To send you back to the bishop without instructions re: a disciplinary council. In this case, the bishop will likely give you an informal probation, and will "work with you" individually without a disciplinary council. If, as he works with you, he feels a disciplinary council might be needed/helpful, he will discuss this with the SP and proceed under his direction - i.e., back up to square 1. Otherwise, you will work with him until he feels you have made appropriate progress and

Given what you've divulged, I would guess that the SP is likely to refer it back to the bishop, but a disciplinary council is fairly likely. But like others have said, there is considerable variability in these things.

Best wishes to you.

If you'd like more information or even just some support, feel free to boardmail me. I'm pretty familiar with how these things work. I've been involved in quite a few over the years, and I've been very impressed with how the church leaders handle them. They generally take it very seriously, earnestly seek the spirit's guidance, and seem to err on the side of mercy.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

do you really think his current participation in church, which he wishes to continue, is much different than one of somebody who attends after excommunication?

He probably has no calling and participates very little, other than voluminous visits with his Bishop.

Whether he is "officially" cut off seems besides the point.

I know two people who are currently excommunicated and who attend Church regularly. For all intents and purposes, they are active members of the Church. In one case, the children don't even know their parent is excommunicated. If a person values the Church then they will continue regardless of their membership status. I will say this, though, both people I know continue in the transgression that precipitated their excommunications. Once you're on the outs anyway, there is little incentive to stop sinning.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

They could keep the records in the mountain, but not have the membership record asterisked so that bishops have to double-check things.

The point is the "asterisk".

It is there to protect the church, I think.

My point is, it has nothing to do with forgiveness.

[BarbaraGordon]

I don't know if this post is real or hypothetical, but it makes me very sad. The reaction that Guest received was pretty far down among the ranking of helpful, edifying ones. Why would anyone turn to a clergy for help if he were running the risk of being "turned over" to the authorities. Good gracious.

This is why I made a rule of never telling anyone when I screwed up (literally or figuratively).