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

Requiem · 07-02-2007, 05:27 PM

I am perplexed today as a result of discussing with two close friends their vastly different experiences with Church Discipline. I come to CG for some hopefully thoughtful responses.

Allow me to elaborate: Sisters X and Y, both RM's, recently met with their respective Bishops to sincerely confess their sins.

Sister X related a single incident of intercourse with an Elder in her singles ward - also an RM. Her Bishop said that, given the circumstances and her repentant attitude, there was no need to convene a Disciplinary Council and that both parties would simply be placed on an "informal probation", meet regularly with the Bishop, and would have no changes in their status as recommend holders. Sister X came away from the experience feeling great hope and with a resolve not to repeat the behavior.

Sister Y confessed to her Bishop several incidents of "petting". She was subjected to a Bishops Disciplinary Council, placed on formal probation for six months and came away with a broken heart. She was required to surrender her recommend, told she could not pray, speak or even play the organ in a church meeting. She is disconsolate and embarassed to the point where she questions ever returning to full activity. She has not lost her testimony, only her faith in her Bishop.

So, given these vastly different outcomes, why are some Bishops so much more forgiving and tolerant than others? Aren't they being more Christ like in their behaviors? How do I respond to these friends?

MikeWaters · 07-02-2007, 05:30 PM

maybe because the Lord directed each Bishop to act in this way.

If she is despondent and pridefully thinking of leaving the church, who is to say that a milder course would have been appropriate? Maybe this is just the thing that she needs.

jay santos · 07-02-2007, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

maybe because the Lord directed each Bishop to act in this way.

If she is despondent and pridefully thinking of leaving the church, who is to say that a milder course would have been appropriate? Maybe this is just the thing that she needs.

Nothing against you Mike, but I absolutely hate this line of reasoning.

Here's the hammer. If you don't like it, it means you deserved it in the first place.

Indy Coug · 07-02-2007, 05:31 PM

Undoubtedly different people will arrive at different judgements, but I think it's also fair to say that we don't know the totality of the information these men had when they rendered their judgement.

Requiem · 07-02-2007, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Undoubtedly different people will arrive at different judgements, but I think it's also fair to say that we don't know the totality of the information these men had when they rendered their judgement.

Don't you think Bishops are susceptible to their own biases and attitudes? Sister Y resides in a "home" (i.e. non-single) ward and her Bishop is known as a strictly "by the book" and very fundamental person. Is it possible that Bishops in singles wards are more forgiving because they hear more confessions regarding sexual sins?

MikeWaters · 07-02-2007, 05:39 PM

I believe that personal bias can enter. Doesn't mean every discrepancy is because of personal bias.

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, 05:39 PM

It's very hard to judge these specific situations, since obviously none of us knows exactly what their conversations went like (or what the Spirit may have indicated), and we're already dealing with 3rd-hand information.

But speaking generally, Bishops are just men (and there's what, 20,000 of them now?) and some take a more serious line than others.

My best advice to your friend would be to reassure her that the Lord knows who she is, and what her circumstances are. If he placed her at this time with this Bishop during this trial, he must have had some purpose in it. I would advise her to humble herself and follow his instructions, even if she feels she's being unjustly dealt with.

As a side note: one of the problems we've had in singles wards in the past is "Bishop shopping" ... where a person needing confession will bounce around from Bishop to Bishop until they find someone whose approach mirrors what they want. My experience is that this does not usually help the person overcome the sin.

jay santos · 07-02-2007, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Requiem

I am perplexed today as a result of discussing with two close friends their vastly different experiences with Church Discipline. I come to CG for some hopefully thoughtful responses.

Allow me to elaborate: Sisters X and Y, both RM's, recently met with their respective Bishops to sincerely confess their sins.

Sister X related a single incident of intercourse with an Elder in her singles ward - also an RM. Her Bishop said that, given the circumstances and her repentant attitude, there was no need to convene a Disciplinary Council and that both parties would simply be placed on an "informal probation", meet regularly with the Bishop, and would have no changes in their status as recommend holders. Sister X came away from the experience feeling great hope and with a resolve not to repeat the behavior.

Sister Y confessed to her Bishop several incidents of "petting". She was subjected to a Bishops Disciplinary Council, placed on formal probation for six months and came away with a broken heart. She was required to surrender her recommend, told she could not pray, speak or even play the organ in a church meeting. She is disconsolate and embarassed to the point where she questions ever returning to full activity. She has not lost her testimony, only her faith in her Bishop.

So, given these vastly different outcomes, why are some Bishops so much more forgiving and tolerant than others? Aren't they being more Christ like in their behaviors? How do I respond to these friends?

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

07-02-2007, 05:27 PM	#1
Requiem Member Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 474	Inconsistent Application of Church Discipline - Why? I am perplexed today as a result of discussing with two close friends their vastly different experiences with Church Discipline. I come to CG for some hopefully thoughtful responses. Allow me to elaborate: Sisters X and Y, both RM's, recently met with their respective Bishops to sincerely confess their sins. Sister X related a single incident of intercourse with an Elder in her singles ward - also an RM. Her Bishop said that, given the circumstances and her repentant attitude, there was no need to convene a Disciplinary Council and that both parties would simply be placed on an "informal probation", meet regularly with the Bishop, and would have no changes in their status as recommend holders. Sister X came away from the experience feeling great hope and with a resolve not to repeat the behavior. Sister Y confessed to her Bishop several incidents of "petting". She was subjected to a Bishops Disciplinary Council, placed on formal probation for six months and came away with a broken heart. She was required to surrender her recommend, told she could not pray, speak or even play the organ in a church meeting. She is disconsolate and embarassed to the point where she questions ever returning to full activity. She has not lost her testimony, only her faith in her Bishop. So, given these vastly different outcomes, why are some Bishops so much more forgiving and tolerant than others? Aren't they being more Christ like in their behaviors? How do I respond to these friends?

07-02-2007, 05:58 PM	#7
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, 05:39 PM	#9
Tex Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,596	It's very hard to judge these specific situations, since obviously none of us knows exactly what their conversations went like (or what the Spirit may have indicated), and we're already dealing with 3rd-hand information. But speaking generally, Bishops are just men (and there's what, 20,000 of them now?) and some take a more serious line than others. My best advice to your friend would be to reassure her that the Lord knows who she is, and what her circumstances are. If he placed her at this time with this Bishop during this trial, he must have had some purpose in it. I would advise her to humble herself and follow his instructions, even if she feels she's being unjustly dealt with. As a side note: one of the problems we've had in singles wards in the past is "Bishop shopping" ... where a person needing confession will bounce around from Bishop to Bishop until they find someone whose approach mirrors what they want. My experience is that this does not usually help the person overcome the sin. __________________ "Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young Last edited by Tex; 07-02-2007 at 05:41 PM.

07-02-2007, 05:30 PM	#2
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	maybe because the Lord directed each Bishop to act in this way. If she is despondent and pridefully thinking of leaving the church, who is to say that a milder course would have been appropriate? Maybe this is just the thing that she needs.

07-02-2007, 05:31 PM	#4
Indy Coug Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Between Iraq and a hard place Posts: 7,569	Undoubtedly different people will arrive at different judgements, but I think it's also fair to say that we don't know the totality of the information these men had when they rendered their judgement.

07-02-2007, 05:59 PM	#8
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!