A question about Church discipline


wash_ma
 Share

Recommended Posts

Before being married, but after attending the temple, I broke the law of chastity. After being married, I found out that I might have a child from this pre-marital sin. I have confessed my sins to my wife, bishop and stake president. I was told by the stake president that there will be a church council, but not until and after there has been a paternity test done. He said that knowing if the child is mine will make a big difference on the discipline given. I am guessing that what he is implying is that if the child is not mine, I will be disfellowshipped, but if the child is mine, I will be excommunicated. I am having a hard time understanding why this would make a difference in discipline. I thought fornication was a grievous sin, no matter the consequences of that decision. Please help me understand a little more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just throwing out a thought, but if there's actually been a child born and this happened a long time ago, then it could be that your having left the child without any father figure or financial support for years upon years could be seen as an exacerbating factor.

EDIT: Just saw your other post where you state this happened on your mission. Excommunication is mostly for the benefit of the member, but also partly to protect the good name of the Church.

If rumors have been swirling around your old area that a Mormon missionary got a girl pregnant, and a child was born that was and continues to be proof of that indiscretion--to protect its own good name, the Church has a much stronger interest in letting it be known (even belatedly) that you were excommunicated when it found out what you had done.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to just interject something here. We really don't have enough information to make any kind of explanation about why paternity results could factor in to the decision of disfellowshipment vs. excommunication. Even if we had all of the information, we here do not have the keys necessary to make the decision. This is not a case where any course of action is necessary, and it is up to the local priesthood leaders to make the decision that they feel is inspired to be of most benefit to the member (in this case, wash_ma).

For us to speculate and analyze the situation could have some very unpleasant consequences. What wash_ma is going to be asked to do is trust his priesthood leaders, regardless of what the decision is. This is a chance for him to humble himself before the Lord. If we start analyzing why paternity should or should not make a difference, we run the risk of biasing wash_ma against the reasoning of his priesthood leaders. If he were to disagree and reject the reasoning of his priesthood leaders because we were making a logical case one way or the other, and the inspired decision did not match up, we would be standing in the way of his repentance.

I also feel uncomfortable trying to speculate reasons, criteria, and rules for how to handle a situation such as this because we shouldn't have general guidelines. It should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

So I'll say it again, if you want to know why paternity makes a difference, you really need to ask your priesthood leaders. They are the people responsible for leading you toward repentance and have the keys required to make these decisions. Try to understand their reasoning as best you can. But our guesses here really won't amount to much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just throwing out a thought, but if there's actually been a child born and this happened a long time ago, then it could be that your having left the child without any father figure or financial support for years upon years could be seen as an exacerbating factor.

EDIT: Just saw your other post where you state this happened on your mission. Excommunication is mostly for the benefit of the member, but also partly to protect the good name of the Church.

If rumors have been swirling around your old area that a Mormon missionary got a girl pregnant, and a child was born that was and continues to be proof of that indiscretion--to protect its own good name, the Church has a much stronger interest in letting it be known (even belatedly) that you were excommunicated when it found out what you had done.

Alma had a similar situation with one of his sons. I like what he said...

Alma 42:29-31

And now, my son, I desire that ye should let these things trouble you no more, and only let your sins trouble you, with that trouble which shall bring you down unto repentance.

O my son, I desire that ye should deny the justice of God no more. Do not endeavor to excuse yourself in the least point because of your sins, by denying the justice of God; but do you let the justice of God, and his mercy, and his long-suffering have full sway in your heart; and let it bring you down to the dust in humility.

And now, O my son, ye are called of God to preach the word unto this people. And now, my son, go thy way, declare the word with truth and soberness, that thou mayest bring souls unto repentance, that the great plan of mercy may have claim upon them. And may God grant unto you even according to my words. Amen.

I would hope we can extend the same mercy to our brother here. Alma didn't cast his son out or place a burdensome rock of punishment on his back, he simply reminded him of his duty and the consequence of unrepented sin, and then sent him back into the "good fight". Our brother here will remember his sin each time he writes a child-support payment or picks up the kid for a weekend visit, we don't need to do it for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True; though we have no idea of what transpired between the time Corianton left and the time Alma preached the sermon that is now part of Alma 42.

Alma himself notes the effect Corianton's behavior had on rest of the Zoramites' perception of the Church.

We can't take back what is already there and making one person take possession of the image of the church is slightly unfair. We do stupid stuff. If people are so unmerciful that they can't see past our mortal failings they probably weren't prepared to hear in the first place. So while it is important to be a good example, we cannot place an onerous burden on individuals to be perfect in order to maintain some imaginary myth of a perfect church with perfect people.

Did that make any sense? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share