gree0232

I have a testimony from the holy spirit, and I also have the reality that stories similar to this are used routinely by those who condemn us. Should I ignore my spiritual prompting because they appear to piss you off to the point where you threaten violence? Tell me, how exactly is emotional declaration of violent intent supposed to persuade or otherwise impress me? I am sorry, but as soon as I see that ... as I do in any professional setting ... well, any point you just tried to make was fully undermined. It's a bit like swearing at President Obama rather than stating why you disagree with him. Or should I impressed with the excuses that the testimony given MUST be untruthful because its hearsay ... like spiritual matters are court? And If I do not fall in line you will of course threaten me with violence? Are you the Prophet? A General Authority? Then by what right do you think you have the authority to address a member of the church in good standing (i.e. I hold a temple recommend), and senior military officer and combat veteran with a Christlike temple cleansing? Seriously??? Well, now you understand some of the barriers in place to abuse victims struggling to cope with the aftermath of their ordeal. I daresay I will not be recommending you to become a counselor for our Soldiers struggling with PTSD. And if you feel the need to threaten someone with violence because they have an interpretation with the gospel that is different that you 'authoritative' position, then ... kind of ironic ... I suggest a visit to the Bishop just might be in order. We are big enough and tolerant enough tent that we can have honest questions asked and explored. In the mean time, there is undoubtedly choice in any promiscuity, but there is the still the reality that there are some things that can compel us along a path to poor decision making - like rape. We help one return to Christ when we ignore that. And if you doubt my concerns in the slightest, please examine your own words, and you will fully understand why a young man or woman struggling in the aftermath of abuse my by less than likely to seek the atonement from someone so quick to ... threaten them with a violent - but somehow righteous given that they are not Jesus - temple cleansing? That'll scare 'em chaste ... BTW - if someone gets to the point where they are seeking the Bishop out ... they are repentant. Again, you must have missed the part where I see quite plainly that there are those who did not and indeed do not. Yet we excommunicated the one while we seem to happily ignore the other? I did not come here to be threatened or insulted. No one does brother. Nor indeed did I come to be exposed to a self righteous strawman. My position is clear, your comments are in error. First, My position is quite clear - discipline (as its needed), particularly in cases of abuse, must go hand in hand with counseling. If someone is acting out because they have been grievously injured ... discipline alone will not cure the problem. The love of the rod is not enough, and often not what is best. (Sometimes it is - its all contextual - and it understanding that context that is key, critical, and indeed scriptural.) In my opinion, these conditions are best created through training and policy, and to some extent, transparency. A case in point? Jesus barely metions hell - even as he gives us atonement - why do we? Second, I will again make this point, we can create situations where seeking atonement (and reporting abuse) are welcomed, and we can create barriers to that as well. In some cases, we clearly have. Third, I see no compelling reason not to offer an apology to the young lady in question here. (As opposed to questioning her integrity or justifying a decision that has left her feeling as violated by the church as she was by her attacker). Your judgement as to her level of repentance? She was a rape victim. Excommunication really should be the last line of consideration. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the story, I see no reason (struggle though I do with issues of pride) not to offer an apology - its costs nothing - and see what we can do to avoid similar instances. We are not perfect, not any one of us, and not us as a church. That acknowledgement is something I greatly respect about this church ... and one of many reasons I am a member. BTW - if you are advising me to work on my testimony, maybe you should ask me for mine first. The judgement you passed is exactly what people fear. What blocks atonement. And it is not yours to withhold or administer. I know what atonement did for me ... and I see it not being administered elsewhere. Well you did? Others did not. And we should probably help them if it is indeed the right thing to do. We could, also ... a course of action ... scream at them and threaten them? Have not personally seen that tactic work well, not exactly highlighted in "How to win friends and influence people," but I suppose a process as worthy as any other of honest examination.

I agree. I apologize if this comes off as combative. Not the intent. We have a duty to be more than just followers. I have served in positions of great responsibility, literally having the lives of other people's children in my hands. Its tempting indeed to thing that there is perfection in those who are above in us authority ... that is until you get there and fully appreciate the consequences of your own imperfection and the use of authority. Simply put, we cannot know everything - even when we are responsible for everything. If anything in this discussion, I fully see why the Bishops are empowered to do what they do. They are the correct adjudicative authorities. We have a duty, however, to help them make sound decisions. I would be a poor man indeed if, as in the case of that young woman, I thought that the Bishop enacted the disciplinary process realizing he was punishing a rape victim struggling to deal with the aftermath of of the assault rather than just a petulant young woman hell bent on sexual proclivities. But how many of us called to become Bishops know to seek for those things? I have no doubt, having met a few Bishops and former Bishops that we get this more right than wrong. But I can think of two instances in my way word travels where I would have been far more hesitant to seek absolution from empowered Bishops that in the most other cases aforementioned. In the aggregate, we undoubtedly get this more right than wrong. But I honestly believe that ex-Mormon was put in my path for more of a reason than to castigate the Bishopric as she already did. Again, I have no idea whether it would do a lick of good, but advocating guidelines to reduce the chances someone else having a similar experience are worth exploring and a recommended solution passed on. Again, I see it. Plain as day. There are those who do not seek the counsel of Bishop. Why? Well, I will submit that if there are easily removed barriers to that atoning process, then asking the why is worthwhile ... and putting in solutions to removing illegitimate barriers or fears is worth while - while retaining the legitimate ones. As simply as I can state this, I whole heartedly agree with the church's position on the destructive powers of sexuality. Equally clear to me, is that incredible damage done by abuse ... one of whose consequences is the EVEN GREATER damage of promiscuity (among others) when it is ineffective and further damaging coping strategy. I believe that the 'threat' of disfellowship and excommunication may actually be hindrances to an abuse victim. I say this knowing full well that my coping mechanism was alcohol. With that mechanism removed ... I am not sure that I how I would handle a similar instance of abuse and difficulty in coping? I know the temptations, I now how powerfully lonely I felt. I can easily see the slip in myself. Indeed, know of instances where the slip occurred. Where the advice to see the Bishop is ignored. What then?

One other thing Selek, I am reminded of the error of the Old Testament. Adultery was punishable by death - by stoning. Yet it was Jesus himself who asked those who condemned her - because of her choice which fully earned her death - to caste the first stone. There is always a modicum of judgement when sharing information. I made the mistake not a week ago of visiting a 'Christian Forum' that happened to be a right wing forum where I quickly discovered that I was a member of cult rather than a follower of Christ. There on that forum, and called Evangelism of all things, was someone much like the ex-Mormon I ran across only recently. Most of her invective was easily dismissed with a simple, "what pitiful stuff ..." Yet instances similar those where abuse leads to ... discipline? Ex-communication? A rift between a child of Christ and Christ? That is difficult to answer and not so easily dismissed with cries of how pitiful it is. Indeed, I have no answer for it ... And yet it is those exact testimonies being adopted by our critics ... those who castigate us as cult members enslaved by demons (quite literally). Why? Because the criticism is effective. I for one would like very much to be able to counter it. I cannot. We are not a cult, and our response to rape, abuse, and its consequences should not be hidden behind a veil. It should be open, transparent, and easily explainable. As I stated, I know of no guidelines within the church that help those we entrust with the decisions between atonement and accountability to help reach the best decisions. I can reference nothing in that young ladies testimony to counter it. And I know from my own experience with abuse that there is a huge barrier here. One I may not have been able to overcome if it happened NOW. I understand that young woman's anger. I empathize with it. I mourn her pain. And I know nothing to tell her that will not be dismissed as 'pitiful stuff ...' - the same admonition I dismissed those who called us demon possessed cultists with. What happened to that young woman was not right. I know in my heart of hearts, and what I experienced was not as bad as what she experienced, that the same thing could happen to me. It could happen to you as well. The question thus becomes, if you are struggling with something that you know falls short, how would you want to be helped? How do we ensure that the help is given when needed? While others are sent on their way until they are in a place were repentance can indeed gain a foot hold? The more I think it through, the more I see and understand the Bishops are the correct adjudication authorities of the issues created by human sexuality. And yet Bishops, like me and you, are human.

No Selek, I have provided an example of how it DID lead to castigation, blame, discipline, and eventually excommunication. I contrasted that with my experience with a good friend, also a rape victim, in a different church was battled the same problem of promiscuity WITHOUT the threat of disfellowship or excommunication. One is an ex-Mormon, the other is a happily married Christian. I find that troubling ... and if I cannot ask fellow Mormons about that ... whom indeed should I ask? I have disclosed that even in my profession, where we bring in counselors, plaster the walls with advertising of sexual assault and response, the disclosure rate of abuse is around 20%. I have pointed out that we know, indeed its scientifically documented, that promiscuity is ONE of the possible effects from untreated abuse. I disclosed that I myself struggled with alcohol abuse under similar circumstances. I testified to the difficulty of sharing, the above reported and documented difficulty is disclosing abuse, and ... Pointed out again that a young woman engaging in behavior that was as much a cry for help as it is a sin probably wasn't very well served by being treated as unrepentant serial fornicator in need of swift an exacting discipline rather than compassion. Indeed, you tell me that this is not always the case, but in disclosing that concern right here on this forum from a moderator, I was treated with the very indifference that drives the fear of reporting - and the possible misapplication of atoning authority - which appears to have happened to the young lady whose path I crossed and whose testimony rather forcefully made that block fear ... compellingly clear. And yes, I did respond with hostility to that particularly crass dismissal. That hostility in the face of such indifference was out of place is a matter we will simply have to agree to disagree with each other on. I have personally seen what indifference does to abuse both inside and outside the church, and its not something I will simply ignore. Again, feel free to disagree. Yet, please examine what you just wrote. If I tell you that I am concerned that many people are unwilling to see the Bishop because of fear ... and you basically chew my butt out for voicing what I have seen? For what I am concerned about? Well, perhaps you understand a little bit of the what the barriers are to seeing the Bishop and getting the needed atonement? Again, I know for a fact that many, indeed the vast majority, are very good men. I also know that featuring prominently in the literature and testimony of our critics are instances identical to the one an angry young former Mormon shared with me. Examining it may feel like an attack. It is not. Its about lowering the barrier to seeing the Bishop - who is the correct adjudicator of atonement and judgement - in a way that addresses legitimate criticism. I have nothing I can tell that young when again I cross her path. Nothing. And I sure the sun shines am not going to tell her that she was righteously punished as a serial fornicator. I apologize if that bothers you, but it bothers me as well. Indeed, what should I tell her? Should I invite her in to see my Bishop? What? Or should I castigate myself for having this concern and not simply drinking the proverbial juice? A reminder Selek: 3 Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. 4 And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him. 5 And the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our faith. (Luke 17:3-4) We are not admonished to threaten people with excommunication and disfellowship - much less hell. I am telling you plainly that I know enough about sexual abuse to know that promiscuity is as much a moral failure as it is a coping mechanism. Just as I believe that poor choices should indeed lead to consequences like disfellowship, when abuse is involved ... so too should counseling and compassion - especially if the goal is to STOP THE SINNING and restore the relationship with Christ. If only one in a hundred Bishops gets this wrong? One in a thousand? What then? Please not that there are almost 5,000 Soldiers in 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division ... it only took one SSG Bales.

Again, I pointedly and have repeatedly agreed that going to the Bishop to seek atonement is correct. What I believe is equally important to point out is: #1 - it is sometimes too difficult and thus does not happen. I know it, I see it. Plain as day. I pointedly ask what happens when someone has done that ... and then comes forward later to repent? No answers yet. If the fear were great initially, how much greater would it be as the person progressed through the church as say ... ten years ago cheated on their spouse? Undisclosed? I honestly have no idea what happens in those, yet we are saying that we should invite this? #2 - In some cases, abuse victims going to the Bishop may very well lead to the wrong conclusion unless we have a policy of some sort in place to ... advocate if you will ... digging a little deeper for root causes. I say this because my profession struggles with just this issue. Soldiers return from combat, have problems coping and PTSD and they turn to exactly the same kind of behavior, drunkeness, promiscuity, speeding, combativeness, etc. If we expect, indeed encapsulate in policy, big dumb infantryman to deal with these issues appropriately ... why not the church? Again, this is less about whether a person SHOULD see a Bishop, and more about how we reduce the barriers to encourage a person to do just that. As simply as I can state this, telling a person who has concluded that the price of visiting a Bishop is too high to 'go visit the Bishop' is ... what it is? Not sure how else to express that? Again, commonly seen. Mormon Soldier returns from Afghanistan, has trouble dealing with what he sees and cheats on his wife. Very often, as with abuse victims, whatever the Soldier is struggling with remains undisclosed. If, "You need to see the Bishop," leads to excommunication for adultery? Disclosure of adultery through disfellowship and difficult explanations? I am not sure that is the correct advise? I will disclose that I have never been a Bishop, and I frankly have no idea how Bishops handle this ... but then, there is no policy that I can reference that will help me navigate how this is handled by the church. This is not all on the Bishop. If, as with my last ward, I sent a young lady to a Bishop who confided in me that she was raped, and she was castigated a serial fornicator ... well, policy or not, I would not be very apt to send anyone else into the Bishop. I think the previous comment is an aberration, to be fair, but I have very little sense of how sexuality is dealt with in the church beyond ... 'a visit to the Bishop'. Perhaps is just the cause of rising through the ranks and seeing the truly massive scope of the problem? In my profession, I deal with it and have full transparency in the process. In the church? I know both that its happened and been dealt with by the Bishop, and I know what happened to the young woman I met ... Hence I am troubled. It may simply be as you say, a leap of faith? It may simply just be a need for sympathetic ear to say, "I see your point, but ... or, perhaps you should ..." Its not like I am going to leave or otherwise bad mouth the church, but on the issue of human sexuality ... its open, its obvious, and I was fortunate indeed to have an adult Baptism.

As I know and see that there are people ... not going to the Bishop, which apparently leads to hell, what do we do about that? As I have seen abuse victims struggle with the disclosure of abuse, even as their behavior, which we call sin, leads to discipline, there should be a modicum of ability to acknowledge the point and recommend polices, procedures ... anything, might help. If writing the GA's will help, so be it. Generally speaking its best to float an idea and see what you get to make sure the right message is being delivered. What I do not think is at all appropriate would be calling rape victims struggling with the aftermath of rape to be righteously punished serial fornicators who should know better. No, WE SHOULD. If that is the response of 'sending someone to the Bishop ...,' why would I ever in good conscience send someone to the Bishop? Particularly if I suspected that the person was struggling with abuse issues? Pretend for a second that I am relatively new to the church and that 'just seeing the Bishop' is the universal solution to the problem set I just pro-offerd, because it is ... now imagine what happens when you float that idea and the response is basically, "Why bother? You will just be castigated as a serial and profligate sinner subjected to discipline." Indeed, I am a member in good standing and I for one see absolutely no sense whatsoever in such an action. It certainly isn't the response I expected to get ... here ... of all places. Especially not from a forum moderator. Perhaps, if anything, you see some of the the fear that just might drive a wedge between the authoritive application of atonement and those most in need of it? A barrier that we might do well by putting some policies in place to prevent? Because we DO want people to see the Bishop, indeed I do, not find it so intimidating that they avoid it when its needed ... or be so scared in their presence that they fail to disclose the abuse? It's happening. It's not just an idea that popped in my head for infuriating my fellow Mormons, its quite real. Indeed, a member of my last ward confided in me that she was raped ... after making a very inappropriate advance toward me. My advice was exactly what I saw on this board. She did not disclose the rape to the Bishop - even as she asked for a mission.

We are quite obviously on very different wave lengths, and indeed I speculate as to whether or not you have read anything I have written or simply responded with what you think I am writing? Let me be clear again, in MY case, the excessive, and sinful behavior that arose from struggling with abuse was excessive alcohol consumption. Technically, were I in the church at the time, I could have been disciplined, including losing my temple recommend (among others), for that behavior. Correct? In the TWO cases of rape, the fornication, the bouncing from one sexual relationship (hence repeated offenses leading to discipline) to another as a RESULT OF A FAILURE TO COPE WITH RAPE. If, again, we use that fascinating modern technology known as the internet, we can easily verify that this type of behavior, promiscuity, is quite common in the aftermath of rape and abuse. Hence, is the church's position on treating promiscuity ONLY as a matter of personal choice correct? I realize that for many lawyers conceding a point is akin to torture, the fact remains that this thread is about a SPIRITUAL issue of sexuality and not the legal tender of services rendered to a paying customer. Now, see if we can set aside the competitive tendencies for a second and respond to what I am actually saying. As an abuse victim, I am telling you plainly that it is easier to pick up a rifle, board a C-17 with a couple hundred of your closest friends, fly to a foreign country and engage in direct combat than it is to sit in front of an authority figure and disclose that you are an abuse victim. Indeed, I have no doubt that if I put a rifle in your hands and pushed you into a C-17 while telling you that you would soon jump froma perfectly good air plane while being shot at by well armed enemy Soldiers ... you would rebel. Does it shock you that a rape victim might find confession of her assault rather difficult? Knowing as I do that the estimate of reported sexual assaults in my own profession, where we invite reporting, is estimated to be around 20% ... perhaps you might be willing to concede a point? Or at the very least acknowledge that point being made ... even if you do disagree with it. No doubt, for courts that is an issue. For a church, it is quite another matter entirely and tied far most closely to the spirit of the gospel than with winning a case. Indeed, an over reliance on the later undermines the former in this case. Indeed, you prove the point perfectly in your finale there - what happens when a rape victim, believe as we preach that Bishops are appointed through divine guidance, then what do we tell young women, whom science and simple common sense (indeed my testimony here) tell us will struggle with promiscuity in the aftermath of an undisclosed rape, who walk into a Bishop and ... instead of being asked why a Mormon who knows the standard is failing? Is there something else the Bishop needs to know? Providing an opening for the person to disclose what in many cases they desperate want and indeed NEED to ... Or, we can cal them "recidivist fornicators and unrepentant sinners," which is clearly what any clinician (or other abuse expert) recommends about identifying and treating abuse and is EXACTLY in keeping with the spirit of Christ. Blame the rape victim as a fornicator? Nice. Perhaps its simple ignorance to what is happening in the world? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/05/world/africa/05somalia.html?_r=0 Would stoning an unrepentant 13 year old rape victim, er ... fornicator be more to your liking? Gang rape victim fights back for girls' education - CNN.com Perhaps, as in Pakistan we should advocate the castigation of women who are the victims of 'honor' rape as serial fornicators? Send her to the Bishop, eh? Again, your final flippant comment perfectly demonstrates what that young girls went through. And treatment like that might fly in a court room where only 'victory' matters, but it will rip a church right in half. I for one think the church can very easily put in a policy that ensure that kind crassness is blocked from effecting the spiritual atonement of those most in need of it. In fact, I strongly recommend it. If it were your child that was raped, I doubt very seriously you would consider a public humiliation and denunciation as an unrepentant sinner to be in the least bit pleasing ... or conduct done with the full authority of God. Is the goal to stop the fornication and return our brothers in sisters to path? Or to castigate and punish them? If its the former we value, then we need a transparent and contextual process for the adjudication of fornication as spiritual matter. If all we care about is self righteous castigation, then I guess we are good. No need whatsoever to let science, compassion, history, or the scripture be a guide in the slightest. I can see very clearly why the Holy Spirit nudged me to start this thread. Of course, I am apparently just a worthless lush ... so, better ignore everything I just wrote.

One of the spiritual gifts is discernment. For better or worse, I know when I am being lied to. There is something about a man pr woman's eyes, their demeanor, the obvious pain and suffering that wracks their body as they explain their experience, the open hostility, etc. that would cause me to lend great credence to her story. So, as I stated up front, we can either speculate away her story, or, using this fascinating modern tool called the internet, we can search the often voracious accounts of our critics and discover a pattern of similar instances at which point, using simple statistical analysis, we can extrapolate, given what we know of humanity's failings (even us Mormons), that there might be a something to her story. Especially when she stated openly that she did not disclose the rape or other instances of abuse to the Bishop. Nevertheless, she was put through the discipline process. Would it be wiser to assume that a Bishop did NOT put a repeat fornicator through the standard discipline process? And that is exactly the problem with reporting instances of abuse. Rather than accept it, we attack it ... why exactly? Of all the questions that young woman's story raised for me, questioning the veracity of her story or her integrity was not something that occurred. The Holy Spirit did not direct me to ponder the young woman's honor, but rather the failing. I realize, particularly as men, that we are more comfortable with tangible facts, but the reality of abuse is that its not rational, its often not tangible, but the effects are so very real ... Well, I am sorry, I need more evidence of your abuse ... is exactly the wrong the thing to do. Either in or out of the church. It's exactly that response that lead me to create this thread. A policy set to deal with fornication, unless enlightened or with guidelines, is BOUND to produce shortcoming with abuse. In my case, the coping behavior was alcohol. I drank myself silly, and it was precisely because I had training, that I recognized the sharp uptick in alcohol consumption as the warning sign that it was. I am personally thankful that the Holy Spirit stayed with in in that trying time, and yet, one day, without explanation withdrew ... on the very day that Gospel Doctrine class (pre-Baptism) taught the effects of alcohol ... including the barrier in put between ourselves and God. Point taken. Have not touched alcohol since. Its not all about evidence. And when it comes to abuse ... if we are hurting those most in need of what the gospel offers, we owe it to ourselves, to our church, and to them (duty, service) to examine the process in a way that reduces or eliminates oversights that liter the literature of our critics. Sometimes, even paranoid people have people that DO follow them. We are, unwise, to simply ignore problems and dismiss them as mere theatrics by disgruntled former members? Or do we need our own Martin Luther? Tell me, you state that the young 18 year old should not hide her sin because she would have to lie at LEAST four times? What does in mean when we avoid shortcomings collectively because we do not want to disparage the church? Evidence can be used to confound anything, just ask an atheist to prove his scientific conclusion that there is no God ... and then enjoy the wide ramifications of 'agnostic atheism'. The upshot? If you believe the young woman is lying, no amount of evidence on this forum will change your mind. I assure you, based on what I saw, she was not. Either than young woman needs to be given an Oscar as the best actress the world as has ever seen, or she was telling the truth. Indeed, what [art of her story is far fetched? She was fornicating and subjected to the discipline of the church? Sounds crazy does it?

OK, let me see if I can rephrase the issue. What I have not seen happen is someone who has hidden sin ... pay a visit to the Bishop and fess up. What happens? Technically, they lied in their Temple Recommend interview? And I am sure there are other consequences. Or perhaps, maybe it has happened and I just have not seen it? I would certainly feel better giving the advice to those I know have slipped if I knew I wasn't signing them up for humiliation?

You do realize that you just gave that advice to a Ranger?

And therein is the crux of the issue. The crux of the transition between lower and higher law. We have taken generalities and applied them rather than true context. Adultery. Two examples - true. In my case, my very abusive ex-wife, set me up on my birthday. She set up a dinner to celebrate my birthday. She knew full well how much I valued loyalty, as I maintained that loyalty to her. Nevertheless, when I arrived for dinner, she was not there. Her not being there grew into hours, to the point where I called thinking she was in an accident or something else. She didn't answer her phone. I spent my birthday worrying about her and wondering when to call the police or even whether I should? Was I over reacting? Well, she stumbled home drunk at 4:00AM, and threw her affair in my face (gee, guess why shy didn't answer the phone when I called?) Even worse, her lover showed up the next day at my now ex-wife's invitation, partially to again rub my face in the affair, and to deliberately attempt to provoke some kind of 'abusive' reaction - thank God for Army discipline. The entire thing was designed solely to inflict as much pain as possible, using my virtue itself as a weapon. Perhaps the advice to seek comfort in the arms of some other woman isn't quite as far fetched as it may seem from some well meaning but misinformed peers? Do we think that others in similar circumstances are not getting similar advice? And succumbing? I greatly struggle with the idea that a man or woman having endured that who slips might be disfellowed as a result. I know personally the confusion, anger, desire for revenge, and the terrible pain that flows from such an incident and how tempting a warm smile can be in those lonely circumstances. I thank allmighty God that he was so quick to answer my prayer during that time and bring me to the church. Even then, it was months before I even began hinting of the issues that broke my marriage. In sharp contrast, while deployed, I have seen married men and women slip. Its certainly not done out of malice, but a sense of loneliness, separation, closeness under trying circumstances - and giving into temptation. A human failure. One, like the young woman, is repented of and stopped. Do the parties here confess? Seek out the Bishop and then have to explain to their spouse why they have been disfellowed or worse? In short, its not the same. The context of sin is not always the same. It's why Jesus himself tells the adulterous woman to, "Go thy way and Sin no More." Yet, its equally true to anyone who has seen adultery, that some cases are so egregious and harmful that excommunication is the only tolerable solution. It is exactly this spectrum of sin that makes the proper role for adjudication the Bishop. Yet in the case of the young abuse victim ... I am compelled to look at it and see if we might have done better? The other issue: Is it bad that men and women would hide that sin? You bet. So, what happens when the choice is made to hide the sin? When we then lie in a temple recommend interview about it? It happens ... I have seen it happen. I know it happens. In only one case have seen a young man go through the disfellowship process to return to righteousness. What do we tell those who will not see the Bishop for whatever reason? In short, I see it happening, and I have no idea what to do about it? Perhaps, and its worth pointing out at this time, its worth bearing in mind that I am a convert again. My sins, and I am not perfect, were handled by Baptism. Of course, as a Ranger, pride is a struggle, but as I examine what happened prior to joining the church ... I am not so sure that now, as a full priest holder, in those circumstances that fornicating would have resulted in a trip to the Bishop? (THough I suppose, should it happen, its good to see that I would universally be invited into the process - at least I think so anyways ...) Indeed, as I grow in the church and become aware of these things 'through new eyes' as it were, I know that the feeling is not off the mark. It is happening, and what to do with those who will not see the Bishop ... condemn them to hell? What? I am uncertain?

I we are excommunicating abuse victims ... who exactly are we holding accountable? Mercy is a release from accountability, and it is exactly what the Bishop is there to provide. Yet the Bishop ALSO fills the role of accountability. What we do not have is a transparent guideline about how best to draw that line. Again, a woman mislead in to believing she is on the road to marriage who decided to ... slip the law of chastity? She is potentially under the same 'rules of accountability' as a the man who willfully took advantage of her. The sins are not the same. And where this has issues is when the 'Sins' in question are a result of something more than simple 'agency' being exercised through poor choice - but are rather a call for help. A woman who is behaving promiscuously because she raped, and has hidden that through shame and guilt, needs mercy ... not accountability. The promiscuity being driven by a false sense of utter worthlessness as a result of rape needs accountability first and foremost? Having seen it at least twice now ... well, as I said, I felt compelled to raise the issue.

I can only tell you what I know, the rest is speculative, and - as I worry - more about peeling over the legitimate criticism rather than addressing it. The Mormon woman was punished for her promiscuity and eventually left the church feeling burned. When, as I am older and wiser now, having for better or worse seen the reality of human sexuality, and knowing her struggles with abuse ... we did not do well. The 'rule' as it is failed in that case. We disciplined the rape victim rather than the rapist (though undoubtedly, had the rape been known the rapist would have been disciplined as well). The rule failed. Because, as I state with my own experience, the abuse is VERY OFTEN reported AFTER the symptomatic coping behavior. A rule or guideline in seeking out causation, particularly in repeat offenders seems a warranted change. Not only would it have BEST SERVED the abuse victim, it would have rooted out the abuser and exposed him to discipline as well would it have not? The response, systematized, is then one of BOTH discipline/atonement and professional counseling. We very often change our legal code based on the repeated demonstration of loop holes and shortcomings and I see no reason not to do so here? Again, I contrast that with the non-Mormon whom I watched endure a similar struggle with promiscuity arising from rape ... without the threat of disfellowship or excommunication, and although the path was still difficult, that ability to be frank and open and the symptoms allowed them to be dealt with. Once again in this case however, there was a failure in that case as well to connect the promiscuity with abuse ... Again, I believe there is a simple rule change that can effect those kinds of things without the need to speculate away the possibilities. Call it "Guidelines for Dealing with Sexuality" or whatever, but not only would it help to ensure (nothing perfect) that cases of abuse are identified and handled correctly, it also allows us, as members, to better help straddle the potential hurdles to seeing the Bishop. The fact that there are undoubtedly cretins who deserve accountability for their actions, trust me, I see 19 year old boys every day, in no way reverses what that young woman went through. And we would be poor adherents of Christ if we took the actions of young men and women in need of accountability and stated that these were reason enough to ignore the plight of the young ... now ex-Mormon ... in this case. To be blunt, having experienced what I have of human sexuality, there is something to be said of focusing on fornication. I hate to say it, but fornication is GOING TO HAPPEN. And given what I have seen, its not that bad. I understand the spiritual and devaluation of humanity that this behavior entails - its why I have no problem signing up for the law of chastity. Yep once you see prostitution up close? The human supply chain behind it? Do we tell the prostitutes to 'just go visit the Bishop'? The Johns? I stake prostitution up against the 18 year old girls slip ... repentance ... and return to standard and think we are missing something here? The worst part is that, as the leaders of our church often tell us, is that sin leaves its mark. I was a very naive young man when I stepped off the plane in Korea. I had never 'seen' prostitution before that. Now, even years later, I can no longer 'not see' it. The same principle applies here. Abuse is a far larger problem than I realized as a young naive man ... and I am not sure that a policy set for dealing with fornication is the best solution to the problem of abuse ... not after my encounter with the ex-Mormon at any rate.

This is exactly what I worry about. "Humility is humility. Abject humility is abject humility. All of us must come to that. A full giving of ourselves over to the Lord and His kingdom on earth. Anything less is insufficient." Well, guess what then? We are ALL going to hell. We may struggle with different sins, but I daresay that we have all fallen well short of the standard even with the potentially anonymous confession during the sacrament. By that standard, even the smallest hint of pride universally condemns. As a US Army Ranger brother, pride is indeed a struggle. Leading other humans will naturally compel one to consider to the potential shortcomings born of pride. I would be lying is I said my humility and confession of each struggle with pride been in the spirit of abject humility. I am guilty as charged. Condemned ... Hence I fully appreciate the grace and power of Jesus and his sacrifice. It is that realization that brought me to Christ, not accountability, but mercy. My 'sins' of pride as they are do not require a public confession to the Bishop. I am thankful in the extreme of the cleansing power of atonement and the often fumbled refining process that atonement provides - it is a wondrous blessing, one that Jesus willfully sacrificed himself to bring to us. Abject humility is a process that is created through trust - and in the cases that compelled my ... unease ... that trust was absent. Yet the knowledge of atonement, what it brings, its necessity ... and seeing it thwarted in cases where it is perhaps most needed? I think there is a duty to examine that? Or perhaps I am simply making a mountain out of a proverbial mole hill? As I said, troubled rather than angry ... Again, this is not to say that visiting the Bishop is bad advice, it saying that I believe we can do a better job collectively in assuring that the visit to the Bishop is ... addressing some of the criticism? Not sure if that is expressed correctly? Indeed, what do we do with those who do ignore this call to see to Bishop? What do we do with those whose option to see the Bishop within the reality of human foibles is ... perhaps not best? One still needs the atonement? What do we do for those who are not getting it?

I agree, and my personal experience with Bishops has been universally positive. However, we do not set policy based on the expectation of universal perfect adherence, that is simply an exercise in avoidance. Because most Bishops are quite good we should wall paper over those who are not? After all, the 'nightmare of condemnation and judgement' has happened to people I have encountered - at least one of them, and I have no doubt that she was honest, used it in an attempt to undermine my own faith. Indeed, I have no good answer for her experience. None. I find that troubling. As I believe I should. I, indeed we, would be poorly following the gospel call to seek wisdom if we simply avoided that reality. It was reading this thread that helped push the contextual examination into my though process. http://www.lds.net/forums/advice-board/52579-church-lost-burnt-refuge.html One of things that I have always admired about the transition between new and old testaments is that wise call to contextual application of standards. Right here on this forum, and certainly off the forum, we are given reinforcing measures to weigh context before issuing advice. For example, if the young lady here: http://www.lds.net/forums/advice-board/52592-repentance-sexual-sins-impending-mission.html Were going to highly judgmental branch president with a high risk of losing her mission (with all that entails), would we be so quick to simply say, "Go visit the Bishop/Branch President?" What then are the alternatives? Because given that advice in that context, the young lady or man may not be all that willing to follow it through. If not, and the price is hell ... and where I worry, hence the feeling of unease, what then? Wait and visit a different branch president or Bishop? See the Stake President instead? A universal solution to varying contexts is something that Bible, reinforced by all our scripture, has taught me to be wary of ... an instilled wisdom I have, while traveling to the often darkest parts of the world, found to be invariably wise. I am, as I said, uneasy when I see universal responses when I know individual circumstances can vary so much, that unease rises when the advice is given without consideration to local or individual context, and ... well, my exposure to the potential shortcoming caused me to examine the process a bit and see what I can shake lose. Perhaps I am just shaken up a bit by the inability to address the presented context and knowing the pain of separation that was endured?

If you are excommunicated, as in one of the cases, your sin is not overcome. Quite the contrary. If the root cause of that sin is unreported, and thus untreated, rape ... well, we can see that an injustice has been done. Indeed our stated intention and goal has instead been undone. I apologize if the intent of this appears to be critical of the church, it is not. Not by a long shot. Mostly, this is about thinking through a process - a feeling if you will - that arose when pursuing the board. There is something to be said about talking through an issue to the point where a solution can be found or a recommended change made. Or perhaps just simple understanding? What I fear however is that, and I say this a member of more than just the church, when problems and legitimate critisicisms arise, we (collectively as humans) tends to offer well practiced responses to the sometimes legitimate criticism. I am well aware that our church has any number of irrational critics, but we have the blessing of both the acknowledgement of human imperfection and a Prophet that can institute change based on legitimate criticism - indeed the church has done just that many times in its history. This particular issues touches on more than just my church life, as the military struggles the enormous problem of abuse, sexuality, and drunkeness. Yet, in each of those cases, the church offers solutions that are enlightened and reassuring. Where I am, and this is partly just the way I am wired, is when I see a universal solution offered to a complex problem. That is, as with Mosaic Law, A WAY, but not necessarily the best way. The church, the gospel, the fellowship of genuinely warm people seeking God and accepting and tolerant of each others imperfection is EXACTLY the kind of environment that abuse victims need. Yet I cannot help but fear that the policy of 'Just see the Bishop' may be hindering those most in need of the solution the gospel and those who adhere to it can offer. The intent of raising this issue is not to criticize the church or the gospel, its about thinking through a feeling of unease, promptings I have learned to not simply ignore, and see if, in this case, there is a more comprehensive explanation that we can give those seeking 'help'. Atonement. Indeed, advice given to a repeated offender in the area of promiscuity should include seeing the Bishop, but there should also be a advice and compassionate exploration given to root causes - like abuse - that may be fostering this. As I think through the issue and the prompting of unease, there is the realization that the acknowledgement of abuse almost always follows the acknowledgement of symptomatic behavior - like promiscuity or chronic drunkeness. That would include in my own case, where the acknowledgement of now ex-wife's behavior took years to fully divulge. That is from a US Army Ranger, and fear of reporting issues or failure to critically self examine is not something often associated with that particular profession. Ergo, the upshot, as I think it through is that there may be two take aways, at least for now: #1 - A policy change that helps ensure Bishops look at these symptomatic 'sins' a little deeper - that would, at least possibly, have prevented the young woman from being 'righteously' set adrift by the discipline process ... through ignorance (IMHO) rather than any malice or ill intent. #2 - As members, or anyone, seeks advice from us as members (and they do and will), we can scope the 'universal' advice in a way that is best heard by those in desperate need. It will also, allow us to probe these issues and, if necessary, help prompt the Bishop as the advised seek his counsel. I cannot escape the feeling that someone visiting the Bishop in the excommicee's (Not sure if that is even a real word) and having a conversation about suspected abuse might have prompted a more gentle approach to discipline? Might have encouraged a response that included law enforcement and professional counseling and treatment? That is the intent - not to castigate, but to refine. Apologies to any inadvertent offense given. In my defense however, this isn't an issue I can bounce of the resident JAG .... ;-)

My issue with that is that, in two cases, one Mormon, one not, the confession of promiscuity preceded the confession of rape. In the case of the Mormon, she was disciplined and eventually left the church. It was years before she connected the abuse to her promiscuity. That promiscuity was her 'choice', but it was as much a coping mechanism as is hard drinking in PTSD case. Indeed, there is in any case (in or outside the church) a reporting issue with abuse - we confess our own sins to Bishop not someone else's. Yet the simple fact of the matter is that the discipline process felt as much a violation to this young woman as did the actual assault. Our process failed at least one most in need of atonement. Indeed, there is no church policy for the Bishop's to seek out issues of abuse, etc. to prevent that from happening. In the later case, she was not Mormon, but there was no small amount of heart ache as she set herself on a path to chastity and slipped. The promiscuity was likewise a coping mechanism in her case, and there was no small amount of frustration and disappointment in that process. Yet she was never threatened with disfellowship, nor indeed hell as I have seen on this forum, as she struggled. When, many years after I met her and witnessed these struggles, she confided her rape experience is shed and entirely new light on the circumstances. I am not sure our process would have best served her? Indeed, in these cases, where people are most in need of compassion and atonement, I fear that our process, without guidelines of guidance to identify these types of issues, may not be the correct answer at all. Yet it is universally given anyway? Without regard to context? Again, I appreciate the difference between the lower and higher law, and wonder if our universal advice may be in need of a little more ... rounding? If that makes sense? I would hate to send an abuse victim into a disfellowship of excommunication.

More a question of policy. An example. There is a rule book in the Catholic Church for the confession of sins. When you go into he confessional the priest has a range of potential 'penances' that he can give you. This range prevents what is essentially clerical abuse - a priest from giving ridiculous penance, or, as not all priests are equally, from being over zealous in the punishment of human sin. Again, as per the initial response, this ensures, in the Catholic Church, that genuine repentance equates to atonement rather than unseemly castigation. We are not the Catholic Church however. Ergo, the advice to visit the Bishop is undoubtedly correct, but there is no assurance that such a visit will result in more atonement than chastisement. Indeed, I know the temptations that creep in with say .. abusive relationships and divorce. As, having traversed that process with an abusive spouse, one of the reasons I came to the church is that my fellow Christians were advising that I find solace in the uncaring arms of another woman. It was advice like that which lead me to prayer and asking for the 'correct path', a prayer that lead me to the church. I tell you plainly that the temptations are powerful in these situations. I tell you equally as plainly that there are members of the church who have succumbed. I tell you plainly that they are all given the same advice to see the Bishop, and I tell you plainly that there are a great many people who ignore that advice based on a fear of consequence. What then? What do we do with the people who ignore that advice based on fear? Embarassment? As I stated in the initial, I have seen, in several years now, exactly ONE man follow through on the disfellowship process. He is not the lone sinner - not by a long shot. Just go see the Bishop may be the universal advice, but it is not the universal slave as, its often ignored, and, if there are deeper issues (like rape and abuse), it might make things worse? Human sexuality is complex. A simple one sized fits all answer seems ... short? There is a feeling of unease with that universal advice, one Identical to the feeling of unease I get when reading the Leviticus Law. One does not necessarily need to reach the stories of poor branch presidents to know that there are potential issues with 'visiting the Bishop'. Indeed, the very reason that the Catholic Church created that list of guidelines is precisely because of the potential clerical inequality became a barrier between the way word faithful and atonement. A simple solution may be easier to explain, but ... its just not that simple.

I don't disagree with you, and indeed my post above is about the disparate need for exactly that. That is not necessarily what one gets when visiting a Bishop though. The reason that confession is necessary to a Bishop, rather than just anyone, is because the Bishop is the authorized authority (i.e. proper conduit) for God's healing atonement. Again, that Bishop is ALSO the proper authority of accountability. When we go into the Bishop's office with that sin ... there is a risk that we will get more than atonement. I speak frankly, I know that there are member of the church who avoid seeing the Bishop altogether rather than risk confessing to both a friend and an authority. My worry is in ensuring that what I know to be common is more tilted toward receiving ... the immense relief of and overwhelming outpouring of love from the Spirit. You will forgive me, but I have little desire to break my covenants and fornicate simple to be reassured on the subject as I visit the Bishop. Again, ANY fornication requires a visit to the Bishop. What happens when, as above, the visits are repeated violations of chastity? Yet the underlying cause is, as I have seen, rape? However illogical it might seem to me, the reality is that confessing promiscuity was easier than admission of and seeking help for the rape. That is a concern that was recently strengthened upon encountering a former member who drifted from the church precisely because she was abused, and the coping mechanisms abuse (much like a combat veteran drowning his PTSD in alcohol) caused a rift. It was years later that woman connected the abuse with behavior, but the rift of trust created by 'discipline' remained as much a violation as the rape to her. As I said, I understand the church's position of sexuality and agree with it hole heatedly. What I am not so certain we have correct is the proper mechanism for dealing with disciplinary side of human sexuality. I understand the party line (so to speak), but I also see the pragmatic side and where may just be preventing that love of the spirit from fully connecting. I understand the joy of absolution, which, in my case, came through Baptism and remission of sins. It is certainly something I would advocate for anyone, for all of us, who stumble as we make this journey through life. The question then is how do we ensure more atonement for common sins than discipline? A method for, as the example above, of fishing out the 'repeat offenses' have other causes rather than simple pride? We all, Bishops included, must make decisions based on what we know at the time (as a combat veteran, I think I understand that better than many), but, as a member of profession that uses deliberate and often scathing after action reviews I am also aware of potential problematic areas as well. Atonement is for everyone, but there are some who need it desperately.

Not sure if this is the correct section of the forum to post this issue, but its an area that I have 'struggled' with in terms of wisdom (as opposed to compliance). As I have pursued the board and sen the discussion on sexuality and its various contexts, I am a little shocked at seeing, regardless of circumstance, the same answer given to questions of sexuality, "Go see you Bishop." I will confess that such uniformity, given the lessons of rules based morality in the Old Testament, that I find the uniform answer troubling - especially given that seeing one's Bishop is a very different process across the church. Lets see if I can explain this. To begin with, I am a convert. I accept the church's stance on sexuality as correct and warmly embrace it. The idea that we control our sexuality, rather than the other way around is undoubtedly correct. The idea that we see people as people first, and confine sexual relationships to intimate and committed relationships is both the ideal and correct. I have no problem with this line of thinking and agree whole heartedly with position. As a convert however, following a path similar to Joseph Smith - save I have no illusions about restoring gospels ;-) - I have also seen many churches and their approach to handling sexuality. That can range from strong denunciation and excommunication for sexual sins, to the proverbial wink and a nod to Biblical ideas of sexuality while members engage in casual sex. Some of the approaches are obviously more effective and authentic than others. The lesson though is seeing the different approaches to handling the reality of human sexuality and the various results. What brought this to the forefront of my mind was reading the thread on the 18 year old girl who slipped and had sex with her boyfriend. Most amazingly, especially in this day in age when sexual slipping is not uncommon, is that she stopped. What followed this asking for advice was the universal admonition to see her Bishop even as she prepares for her mission, interspersed with a few 'hell beckons' comments for further beckoning. My issue here is perhaps better appreciated as a convert. I converted later in life, well after the time most Mormons serve their missions. Nevertheless, I am frequently asked, "Where I served my mission?" In my case, the answer is obviously that I converted well after the normal time frame, which usually draws either stunned silence or invites more questions (perhaps a discussion for a different thread?) Nevertheless, the reality is that a mission, serving or not, has implications within the lds community. When hiring, is the status of having served a mission important? You bet. It is a clear identifier of merit both within and without the church. If one has not served ... the reason for it will be asked. So what happens if this young ladies' Bishop happens to be something of a hard liner, and, in line with church teaching on those struggling with chastity, removes this young lady from her mission? Will she spend the rest of her life answering the question as to why she did not serve a mission with, "Well, I fornicated?" Has she been absolved of the sin under these circumstances, or has she simply invited a lifetime of regret? Might we just have inadvertently created a modern scarlet letter? And that really is the point of the Bishopric: Absolution through the correct authority. There is certainly a need for accountability and that authority correctly lies with the Bishop. MOST IMPORTANTLY, at least IMO, is the authority that rests with absolution - particularly in the case with an obviously repentant young woman - and the fulfillment of atonement. What brings this to further attention, at least to me, is the reality that, although I have certainly seen more than one person slip both within and without the church, I have only ever seen one man use the repentance process, as a multiple offender, and navigated the disfellowship process back into good standing. That in and of itself created problems, as when a person suddenly, and without explanation, stops taking the sacrament - well, everyone sees it. Ergo, the comments about avoiding this process condemning us to hell ... simple inference tells us that there are a great many members 'in good standing' who would and indeed are hiding their sins rather than risk the public ritual of disfellowship - or even possible disfellowship. Are these people then condemned to hell? What really makes me ponder this though is, as a Soldier who has deployed all over the world, I have, and not always by choice, seen the reality of the full spectrum of human sexuality. Like any sin, there is a range of sexual sin with varying consequences, yet the rules on the reality of sexuality seem ... universal in their response to the complex reality of human sexuality. Here are a few of the things that have driven this study: #1 - I have the unfortunate experience of having burst into a complex in Iraq and discovering a torture/rape room. We did capture the perpetrators of this grave injustice, and, in this particular case, one man in particular, a wild look in his eyes, though his actions a legitimate form of resistance to American Military efforts. The problem here was that he was captured by our Iraqi friends, and the man continually berated his captors as puppets until we showed up at the holding facility and warmly greeted our genuine Iraqi friends and fellow combatants. It was only upon seeing that we were truly equals and the genuine warmth between the Iraqis and Americans that the reality of what he had done to so many innocent people set in. There was no resistance, it was simple rape. That knowledge fell upon the man like a sledge hammer, the wild angry look in his eyes changed to one of genuine horror and stiff backbone, became slumped with sorrow and regret. That was a man in genuine need of absolution. There is a reason the adversary is known as the Father of Lies. #2 - Prostitution. As a young man, the reality of prostitution was thrust upon me when I was assigned to Korea. Prostitution was simply unavoidable, open, and though I never participated, the practice was so open and common that it was like trying to walk through the Ocean without getting wet (even if you weren't actually swimming). The proverbial lonely man certainly applies to some of the situations in young men far away from home. The reality was, seeing it the open, was overly sexualized conduct of Johns who used women as trophies to their own egos. On the other end, there was certainly women who were doing it 'for the money', but these were a minority. The reality was that many of the women were trafficked from foreign countries, often under false pretenses, and the trapped in the systematized exploitation of prostitution - used by the demand created by men lacking compassion or sympathy in the slightest as they sought only sexual glory. The horror of seeing out of control sexuality was tangible. Not only was the result the creation of a system of slavery to meet that aberrant demand, but the wanton disregard, both official and unofficial, to the scale and scope of the problem was truly disheartening. #3 - Adultery. I have unfortunately, both personally and tangentially, see the damage that adultery does. Unlike Prostitution above, there are no massive unjust systems created as a result of this sin, save perhaps divorce attorneys. However, on a personal level, I have never seen a more damaging action. The dissolution of trust, and the horrible pain of ... a Soldier calling home to talk to his wife and having his wife's live in boyfriend answer the phone is ... well, there are no words and no sympathy save the passage of enough time, to salve that anguish. I have seen the opposite, where Soldiers thinking themselves safely enmeshed by distance, break the bonds of their commitment and be caught. What I have never seen is adultery do anything other than needlessly inflict massive pain right at the root of what we, as humans, value most - committed, love based relationships. I cannot think of a more damaging sin, and even as our society has normalized this process, the heavy penalties within the church for committing this sin remains, IMO, a good thing. #4 - Fornication. As I analyze the others, it is in this case that I find I am most troubled. We face today, more than ever, pressure to engage in sexual activity. The constant thrum of sexual laced advertising, if not overt pornography, peer pressure and a promiscuous attitude toward sex are prevalent and powerful. I know this first hand, as, while a member of a church giving a wink and a nod to sexuality, I stumbled. Yet the remission of my sins ostensibly comes through Baptism rather than by confession to the Bishop. (Without getting into details, please trust that the conversion was honest as were the answers and the absolution process of a different church). What I did not have to do, was risk disfellowship or public humiliation as a result of my slipping. Yet the absolution given by Baptism in my case was both necessary and authoritive - a fresh start if you will. The case of a close friend adds yet more unease to the consideration. As a young college student, three male friends dropped by her place to say hello, she knew them and thought nothing of it. Upon gaining entrance to say 'hello', they assaulted and raped her. Not only did this incident wreck her academic progress leading her to drop out, but she was so devalued as a human being that she spent years jumping from highly sexualized relationships thinking, incorrectly, that men only valued her body. She is today, happily married with children, but how would the disfellowship and excommunication process for a repeat offender work in her case? I knew her for years before she ever told me about the rape, and yet I knew about the promiscuous portion of her life, and with knowledge of my own short comings in the area, found no reason to castigate her for her failings in the area but rather offered praise as she struggled to overcome that behavior - in the end successfully. Yet I am deeply troubled that she was more shamed by the rape, which was not her fault, then she was by subsequent empty promiscuity and the knowledge that the confession of the later would, and indeed did, come before the former. The part that is most relevant to me is that I would never have found God had it not been for a repentant highly promiscuous rape victim, who saw in me a man who valued her for far more than her body, and through her own struggles slowly opened my own eyes to the power and desperate need of grace and atonement. What makes this all so personally troubling to me is the one sized fits all solution to a wide and varying process - coupled with the uncertainty of visiting varying Bishops, in response to the problem of human sexuality. It does not take me re-reading Dante's Inferno and seeing 'Lust' as the least of the deadly sins, knowing Dante's own struggle with the issue, to realize that there is potential disconnect here. The societal pressure on human sexuality is immense, and I believe that the issue, based on uncertainty of consequence when approaching a Bishop, that we are condemning a segment of our church based not a choice between pride and repentance, but one of fear and repentance. I know that given conditions in our society that, as per the young lady both with the bravery to tell of her sins and moral fortitude to stop, people are going to slip. The need for absolution and corrective action, and if necessary counseling, rather than punishment in clear. Highly sexualized behavior is as much a result of abuse and dysfunction as it is simple poor choices, and I am deeply troubled that genune victims of abuse might have risk disfellowship rather than receive aid. The need for accountability of grievous sexual sins remains equally clear however. I am troubled by the fact that a young woman lead to believe she was on a path to marriage who slips and is then abandoned by a man who was simply on a con for sex faces the same potential punishment as a man who recklessly cheats on his under the huburistic belief that he can get away with it. Though I understand the generalities of what happens given context, the simple fact of the matter is that Bishops, as are we all, are not all created with equal insight. I fear that this is preventing many otherwise worthy individuals, genuinely repentant individuals, for seeking and getting the critical absolution needed for what, given conditions, is no doubt common. A case in point, when we send our children away from home, the world is not, or at least not yet, in synch with the church. The military is a secular place, and not six months ago I watched a young man, while talking with his friends repudiate his faith with embarrassment, in order to avoid being teased for his ... chaste views of women. I was, in that case, able to identify myself as an senior officer and remind the womanizing Soldiers of the need for professionalism and potential criminal consequences to such overtly sexualized comments, but was able to identify myself as a Mormon to the way word young man and remind him that our teachings, if followed in this case, could have prevented potential criminal consequences. Yet the fact remains, at some point, as that 18 year old boy grows in life, as I did, the wisdom of the church's teaching will become apparent. As he is already baptized ... how much of a bridge will we need to build to allow him back onto the correct path when he is ready? Apologies on the length, its as much about proper explanation of the issue as it is about using the explanation process to think it out myself.