Church Discipline Question

[Just_A_Guy]

Thanks, Rameumptom. I have no direct experience with either; but my understanding of a bishop's court was very obviously wrong and I appreciate the correction.

For some reason, I had the idea in my noggin that the ultimate decision for excommunication at the stake level (aside from the Lord, of course) lies with the stake president alone.

[Palerider]

I have seen this happen a few times on the Stake level where High Council voted to ex....Stake Presidency went away into Stake Pres office to pray about this decision. When they returned it was not to be ex'd but disfellowshipped and explained why. High Council is always asked to sustain final decision. They are a Court of Love.

[Vort]

You don't think adultery is a bigger deal than fornication? I sure do.

Extramarital sex by one who is endowned is adultery by definition, whether or not that person is married.

[rameumptom]

Vort,

As regarding disciplinary councils, that concept does not apply. What is considered is the following:

1. Whether the person is currently married

2. Whether that marriage is sealed in the temple or not

Yes, whether a person is endowed is considered, but is a separate issue. The person has broken his covenants on chastity, but this does not equate to adultery - where the person has sinned not only against God and Church, but also against the covenant he/she has made with a spouse. The reasoning is, if a person will not be faithful to a covenant made to a person here on earth, he will not be faithful to covenants with God.

[Vort]

Vort,

As regarding disciplinary councils, that concept does not apply. What is considered is the following:

1. Whether the person is currently married

2. Whether that marriage is sealed in the temple or not

Yes, whether a person is endowed is considered, but is a separate issue. The person has broken his covenants on chastity, but this does not equate to adultery - where the person has sinned not only against God and Church, but also against the covenant he/she has made with a spouse. The reasoning is, if a person will not be faithful to a covenant made to a person here on earth, he will not be faithful to covenants with God.

I'm sure you are right about the DC applications; you've been there and I have not.

But "adultery" means "covenant-breaking", as in calling Israel "adulterous". In LDS circles, "adultery" has always been applied to fornicators who have received their endowment, whether or not they are married. That's all I was pointing out.

[HEthePrimate]

I'm sure you are right about the DC applications; you've been there and I have not.

But "adultery" means "covenant-breaking", as in calling Israel "adulterous". In LDS circles, "adultery" has always been applied to fornicators who have received their endowment, whether or not they are married. That's all I was pointing out.

No, adultery does not mean "covenant breaking" in general. It refers specifically to violation of the covenant of marriage. When the prophets call Israel adulterous, they are using the term figuratively. (Though, of course, if the Israelites were indeed cheating on their spouses, the prophets could use the term in a literal sense.) Saying "'adultery' means 'covenant breaking'" is rather like claiming that "Her eyes were glistening jewels" means she literally had precious stones in her eye sockets.

[unixknight]

Not odd at all. Frankly, I'm a little dismayed that this is being discussed. (The part about the different disciplinary actions for the different people, not the sidetrack about what adultery is.)

We're not qualified to form an opinion on what went on in a private meeting, in private prayer, between people who hold the details in confidence. I don't know why 2 people got different responses for similar behavior and I don't care. The details are not for us to know. It's enough that Church discipline is about helping individuals to return to the Path, and not a "one size fits all" solution.

"Well, Brother Jones... it seems you're very repentant and sincere in your desire to return, but last year we excommunicated a guy for doing the same thing you did and, well we wouldn't want to look inconsistent..."

I, for one, am glad things aren't that way, and I don't see the value in armchair quarterbacking the decisions of Church authorities.

[HEthePrimate]

My friend was excommunicated a couple of years back. He was an endowed member of the church, inactive for 15 years and even when active...not really. He was just going through the motions to please family. He has since returned to church and was exed after confessing to numerous adulteries and fornications after divorce.

His former wife (endowed) has now returned after 15 years of inactivity and has confessed to fornications after divorce and well, no disciplinary action towards her other than briefly abstaining from the Sacrament?

Two different Bishops....same Stake President. Odd?

Not knowing the details of either case, I can't say for sure if the differences of discipline are just or not. But it is quite possible that even if your friend and his ex committed the exact same sins, two different bishops could decide two different things. A lot is left up to the discretion of local leaders. I could be wrong, but I think excommunicating an endowed member would be a stake matter. But whether or not the case is referred to the stake for purposes of excommunication would be up to the bishop. If the bishop thinks probation or disfellowshipment is enough, then it would end there.

Odd? Perhaps. Unjust? Perhaps. But that's the way it is.

[Blackmarch]

No, adultery does not mean "covenant breaking" in general. It refers specifically to violation of the covenant of marriage. When the prophets call Israel adulterous, they are using the term figuratively. (Though, of course, if the Israelites were indeed cheating on their spouses, the prophets could use the term in a literal sense.) Saying "'adultery' means 'covenant breaking'" is rather like claiming that "Her eyes were glistening jewels" means she literally had precious stones in her eye sockets.

Many times it was both figuratively and literally. A lot of worship of other gods involved pretty immoral behavior.

[rameumptom]

Israel has/had a covenant relationship with God as a nation and people. When the nation strays to other gods, then it is cheating on its relationship with God. For this reason, God called Israel "adulterous" when they worshiped Baal or other gods.

Yet it is a figurative concept. After all, the Ten Commandments covers this in the first and second commandments as regarding to the covenant with God and Israel. But then, it also has an additional commandment regarding the covenant between man and woman (thou shalt not commit adultery). So even in the covenant, the two are distinct and considered separately.