Troubled: Sexuality and the Church

[gree0232]

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.

Edited March 23, 2013 by gree0232

[bytor2112]

I think until you experience confession of serious sins like sexual sins to a Bishop with a broken heart and contrite spirit it is difficult to understand the immense relief and overwhelming outpouring of love from the Spirit that you feel at that time. Confession of sexual sin is necessary so that the offender can feel relieved of the burden and begin to have the "might change of heart" necessary to feel clean and worthy.

Remember the Bishop nor the church forgive sin....only the Lord can forgive our sins. The Bishop is there to help the struggling transgressor....

Edited March 23, 2013 by bytor2112

[The Folk Prophet]

I'm a bit confused at what the suggestion is here. Are you suggesting that the recommendations to go the the bishop were mistaken? Or that the bishop must have been wrong to not allow the person in question to go on her mission?

That some sexual acts are worse than others is obvious, and I would doubt that any bishop would look at them all the same. But one thing being horrible doesn't alter the severity of another sinful act. As more and more wickedness enters the world should we downplay the severity of lesser sins?

The bottom line is that sexual sin of any nature is very, very serious. Because there are worse things one can do than fornication does not mean fornication is a lesser sin than it is. And more and more people engaging in sexual sin has no bearing on the nature of its severity either. This is a big part of how Satan is pushing his lies on the world.

Anyhow, I'm not entirely sure what sort of thoughts you're looking for in response as I'm not sure what conclusion you meant to draw or question you meant to ask.

[gree0232]

I think until you experience confession of serious sins like sexual sins to a Bishop with a broken heart and contrite spirit it is difficult to understand the immense relief of and overwhelming outpouring of love from the Spirit that you feel at that time. Confession of sexual sin is necessary so that the offender can feel relieved of the burden and begin to have the "might change of heart" necessary to feel clean and worthy.

Remember the Bishop nor the church forgive sin....only the Lord can forgive our sins. The Bishop is there to help the struggling transgressor....

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.

Edited March 23, 2013 by gree0232

[bytor2112]

If I understand you correctly.....the young lady who was the victim of rape and as a result has been promiscuous and you are asking for mercy as opposed to discipline because the root cause of her actions was because of the trauma associated with the rape?

My initial thinking is that if a Bishop understands the underlying cause he can better assist in repentance and that may require professional counseling. There are many that struggle in the church with various problems to past experiences like rape or that struggle with addictions like pornography or homosexual behavior and seeing the Bishop doesn't always result in "justice" so to speak. Bishops are there to help " the transgressor feel the love of the Savior" and will prayerfully consider all mitigating circumstances.

We all live in glass houses....

[gree0232]

I'm a bit confused at what the suggestion is here. Are you suggesting that the recommendations to go the the bishop were mistaken? Or that the bishop must have been wrong to not allow the person in question to go on her mission?

That some sexual acts are worse than others is obvious, and I would doubt that any bishop would look at them all the same. But one thing being horrible doesn't alter the severity of another sinful act. As more and more wickedness enters the world should we downplay the severity of lesser sins?

The bottom line is that sexual sin of any nature is very, very serious. Because there are worse things one can do than fornication does not mean fornication is a lesser sin than it is. And more and more people engaging in sexual sin has no bearing on the nature of its severity either. This is a big part of how Satan is pushing his lies on the world.

Anyhow, I'm not entirely sure what sort of thoughts you're looking for in response as I'm not sure what conclusion you meant to draw or question you meant to ask.

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.

[gree0232]

If I understand you correctly.....the young lady who was the victim of rape and as a result has been promiscuous and you are asking for mercy as opposed to discipline because the root cause of her actions was because of the trauma associated with the rape?

My initial thinking is that if a Bishop understands the underlying cause he can better assist in repentance and that may require professional counseling. There are many that struggle in the church with various problems to past experiences like rape or that struggle with addictions like pornography or homosexual behavior and seeing the Bishop doesn't always result in "justice" so to speak. Bishops are there to help " the transgressor feel the love of the Savior" and will prayerfully consider all mitigating circumstances.

We all live in glass houses....

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.

[Anddenex]

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.

In relation to this comment, I think it well to suggest reading Doctrine and Covenants 95: 1-2. This scripture specifies that our Lord chastens whom he loves. Chastisement is actually part of the atonement, or as Isaiah shared, "the chastisement of our peace was upon him." (Mosiah 14: 5)

People who have committed a sexual sin, especially if they are endowed members, stand of need of receiving chastisement, however, chastisement is not hell and fire, but an expression to the individual the seriousness of their sin, and mentioning there is hope through the atonement for salvation.

If a bishop, or stake president, are doing the best according to their knowledge, then the individual will need to accept the chastisement in order to fully accept the atonement. However, even stake presidents and bishops are human and fall into human error and weakness. When this happens the individual needs to accept their human weakness and continue to progress forward in righteousness.

What then? What do we do with the people who ignore that advice based on fear? Embarassment?

We wait and exercise love in their direction. In some cases, if we know of the sin, the bishop is able to establish and appointment with them, and hopefully in a scenario of faith, hope, and charity that the person will be willing to confess their sins.

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?

I am confused a bit when you mention rape, thus I will clarify my response with two types of people: the rapist and the person, typically a woman, who has been raped.

If a rapist, then the individual should expect a more severe chastisement and punishment. He/she shouldn't expect anything less. They have voluntarily abused their brother or sister for their personal pleasure, or just to be incredibly mean. They should come before the bishop with a broken heart and contrite spirit, confess and then accept whatever the bishop/stake president decides on their behalf in order to forsake the sin and be completely forgiven.

Individuals who have been raped or abused in any such matter are not sinners. They are victims and they don't need to visit their bishop for any transgression. They may choose to visit the bishop for comfort, but no chastisement is required, nor necessary. An express show of love and concern is what is needed.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

If a rapist, then the individual should expect a more severe chastisement and punishment. . . They should come before the bishop with a broken heart and contrite spirit, confess and then accept whatever the bishop/stake president decides on their behalf in order to forsake the sin and be completely forgiven.

Just for clarification...the police would be notified, and depending on the courts, jail time served.

[bytor2112]

Gree0232....I think the problem lies in believing that "discipline" is punishment. It is not....it is an act of love and kindness. It is a period of time to overcome the sin so that the sinner doesn't re-transgress over and over. I think many see this as punishment and having sat on a disciplinary council and witnessed a brother excommunicated...I understand it can seem that way. Even if sins results from past abuses....the sin still must be overcome.

Edited March 24, 2013 by bytor2112

[Just_A_Guy]

The thing is, LDS bishops have access to the best "policy manual" of all-the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the authority of their callings. I don't deny that bad bishops are out there; but I think they are far rarer than many online would care to admit. I've had seventeen bishops and never had a bad one. I've also worked individually with five of those bishops in dealing with a pornography addiction - some were more effective than others, but none were the nightmare of judgment and condemnation - or even well-meaning insensitivity - you seem to contemplate.

Again - I don't blind myself to the fact that there are probably some real stinkers serving as bishops in some wards; but I think generally speaking one's experience with a bishop to a very great degree tends to be a reflection of one's own preconceived attitudes and expectations.

Edited March 24, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[gree0232]

Gree0232....I think the problem lies in believing that "discipline" is punishment. It is not....it is an act of love and kindness. It is a period of time to overcome the sin so that the sinner doesn't re-transgress over and over. I think many see this as punishment and having sat on a disciplinary council and witnessed a brother excommunicated...I understand it can seem that way. Even if sins results from past abuses....they sin still must be overcome.

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 .... ;-)

Edited March 24, 2013 by gree0232

[The Folk Prophet]

Gree0232....I think the problem lies in believing that "discipline" is punishment. It is not....it is an act of love and kindness. It is a period of time to overcome the sin so that the sinner doesn't re-transgress over and over. I think many see this as punishment and having sat on a disciplinary council and witnessed a brother excommunicated...I understand it can seem that way. Even if sins results from past abuses....the sin still must be overcome.

I think (if I'm understanding correctly) that he's pointing out that it is perceived as discipline. Which is true. It is hard. It is scary. And sometimes it is not handled well.

My take on it is that it doesn't much matter. 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. Whatever reasons one has for their pride, no matter how valid their position, no matter the sadness of the tale, it doesn't matter. Humility is humility. Faith is faith. Trust is trust. Sacrifice is sacrifice. Obedience is obedience. Consecration is consecration. We cannot conditionally define these principles and laws.

Of course this does not justify bishops being insensitive jerks, which happens. But in the grand scheme of things, a bishop being a jerk no more justifies sin than having been abused or having taught horrible things by your parents or anything else. Justifications play a role into how things should be handled, but they're less important to our choice to humble ourselves or not. We must all get there. For some it is harder than others, but we trust the Lord that it is fair and that He will be fair in the end.

We all have handicaps. Some are natural traits of personality, some are chains of sin, some are chains of situation, some are mental disorders or emotional or chemical imbalances. Everyone has to deal with these. It's part of life. Some have minor issues and some have major MAJOR issues. For some it is their own faults and for others it is not their fault in any way. Regardless, we all must humble ourselves and come to the Savior, sacrificing all that we have and consecrating our lives to Him and His kingdom on this earth. The imperfections in the men and women of the church are no excuse.

Should bishops be more understanding and perfect. Yes, of course. But the idea that there is a policy problem...? Not so sure I agree. Perhaps. But wicked people will mess up any policy. Bad bishops will continue to be a problem because people aren't perfect. But we have to accept that this is part of the Lord's plan.

That being said, I cannot imagine the church is sitting back and saying "whatever" about local leadership problems, something they surely get hounded about constantly. I feel confident that continued training, addition or change of policy, and general responses all align with best efforts to face these difficult and traumatic situations, that only worsen as the world slides further and further into the grasp of the father of lies.

But it comes back to the same thing. Humble yourselves and come unto Christ, or don't. The choice is there for all of us in spite of bad bishops. And my advice remains the same for those who have transgressed sexually, no matter the reason. Go to your bishop. He has the keys given to him for this purpose and it IS the right suggestion.

[gree0232]

The thing is, LDS bishops have access to the best "policy manual" of all-the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the authority of their callings. I don't deny that bad bishops are out there; but I think they are far rarer than many online would care to admit. I've had seventeen bishops and never had a bad one. I've also worked individually with five of those bishops in dealing with a pornography addiction - some were more effective than others, but none were the nightmare of judgment and condemnation - or even well-meaning insensitivity - you seem to contemplate.

Again - I don't blind myself to the fact that there are probably some real stinkers serving as bishops in some wards; but I think generally speaking one's experience with a bishop to a very great degree tends to be a reflection of one's own preconceived attitudes and expectations.

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?

Edited March 24, 2013 by gree0232

[The Folk Prophet]

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.

Going to see the bishop is not a solution to the problem. It is only the start of a solution.

Going to see the bishop is the right answer though because only one's bishop has the keys and the rights to address these things in the church. It is his right and responsibility and he has the keys, the resources, and the mantle required. He has the right to the guidance of the spirit for these issues in ways that no one else does. Any other advice is potentially wrong. Go see your bishop is the right answer.

I can understand that this policy being difficult, and appreciate your thoughts on it. But I'm not sure anyone has the rights of stewardship to really suggest anything else.

[gree0232]

I think (if I'm understanding correctly) that he's pointing out that it is perceived as discipline. Which is true. It is hard. It is scary. And sometimes it is not handled well.

My take on it is that it doesn't much matter. 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. Whatever reasons one has for their pride, no matter how valid their position, no matter the sadness of the tale, it doesn't matter. Humility is humility. Faith is faith. Trust is trust. Sacrifice is sacrifice. Obedience is obedience. Consecration is consecration. We cannot conditionally define these principles and laws.

Of course this does not justify bishops being insensitive jerks, which happens. But in the grand scheme of things, a bishop being a jerk no more justifies sin than having been abused or having taught horrible things by your parents or anything else. Justifications play a role into how things should be handled, but they're less important to our choice to humble ourselves or not. We must all get there. For some it is harder than others, but we trust the Lord that it is fair and that He will be fair in the end.

We all have handicaps. Some are natural traits of personality, some are chains of sin, some are chains of situation, some are mental disorders or emotional or chemical imbalances. Everyone has to deal with these. It's part of life. Some have minor issues and some have major MAJOR issues. For some it is their own faults and for others it is not their fault in any way. Regardless, we all must humble ourselves and come to the Savior, sacrificing all that we have and consecrating our lives to Him and His kingdom on this earth. The imperfections in the men and women of the church are no excuse.

Should bishops be more understanding and perfect. Yes, of course. But the idea that there is a policy problem...? Not so sure I agree. Perhaps. But wicked people will mess up any policy. Bad bishops will continue to be a problem because people aren't perfect. But we have to accept that this is part of the Lord's plan.

That being said, I cannot imagine the church is sitting back and saying "whatever" about local leadership problems, something they surely get hounded about constantly. I feel confident that continued training, addition or change of policy, and general responses all align with best efforts to face these difficult and traumatic situations, that only worsen as the world slides further and further into the grasp of the father of lies.

But it comes back to the same thing. Humble yourselves and come unto Christ, or don't. The choice is there for all of us in spite of bad bishops. And my advice remains the same for those who have transgressed sexually, no matter the reason. Go to your bishop. He has the keys given to him for this purpose and it IS the right suggestion.

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?

And if he chooses to never do that? You put your own salvation at risk because of that?

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?

Edited March 24, 2013 by gree0232

[Just_A_Guy]

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. . .

Sure; but it may be worth noting that you haven't told me what your lady friend's bishop's view of the situation was. Nor, as far as I know, do we have any weigh in from ArcticTofu's bishop regarding the situation set out in the thread you linked to.

There are some principles that just don't change. One of them is that covering one's sins generally doesn't end well.

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?

What then are the alternatives?

What are you proposing? That she live a lie, serve her mission anyways, and "confess" later when she has a bishop she really likes on a personal level (which trust me, is its own set of issues)?

(I'm assuming you're aware that the expectation for LDS females to serve a mission is FAR less than the expectation for LDS males to serve a mission; however, I'm continuing to address your hypothetical because the individual could hypothetically just as easily be a male.)

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?

I think it goes back to that story Elder Packer is fond of telling which culminates in the saying "first we'll deal with the rule; and then we'll talk about the exception".

I'm a lawyer. Exceptions are my bread and butter, and I can tell you: for every person who honestly warrants an exception to the general rule, there are ten or twenty more who THINK an exception should apply to them but really just find the rule's demands personally inconvenient.

And even granting there may be (VERY) rare situations where confession at the instant moment to the current bishop may not be advisable--there's a heckuva big difference between just slinking into the shadows of the ward versus seeking the bishop out, telling him you want to serve a mission, and then lying to priesthood authority (twice) in order to get the mission call and then twice more in order to get your temple recommend and receive your endowment.

[The Folk Prophet]

Well, guess what then? We are ALL going to hell.

Yes. Except....

Hence I fully appreciate the grace and power of Jesus and his sacrifice.

Dead on.

It is that realization that brought me to Christ, not accountability, but mercy.

But we cannot, as I'm sure you know, discount accountability because of that mercy. We are accountable. But our accountability will not and cannot save use. We must rely on mercy for that. But we are accountable.

[gree0232]

Sure; but it may be worth noting that you haven't told me what your lady friend's bishop's view of the situation was. Nor, as far as I know, do we have any weigh in from ArcticTofu's bishop regarding the situation set out in the thread you linked to.

There are some principles that just don't change. One of them is that covering one's sins generally doesn't end well.

What are you proposing? That she live a lie, serve her mission anyways, and "confess" later when she has a bishop she really likes on a personal level (which trust me, is its own set of issues)?

(I'm assuming you're aware that the expectation for LDS females to serve a mission is FAR less than the expectation for LDS males to serve a mission; however, I'm continuing to address your hypothetical because the individual could hypothetically just as easily be a male.)

I think it goes back to that story Elder Packer is fond of telling which culminates in the saying "first we'll deal with the rule; and then we'll talk about the exception".

I'm a lawyer. Exceptions are my bread and butter, and I can tell you: for every person who honestly warrants an exception to the general rule, there are ten or twenty more who THINK an exception should apply to them but really just find the rule's demands personally inconvenient.

And even granting there may be (VERY) rare situations where confession at the instant moment to the current bishop may not be advisable--there's a heckuva big difference between just slinking into the shadows of the ward versus seeking the bishop out, telling him you want to serve a mission, and then lying to priesthood authority (twice) in order to get the mission call and then twice more in order to get your temple recommend and receive your endowment.

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.

Edited March 24, 2013 by gree0232

[gree0232]

Yes. Except....

Dead on.

But we cannot, as I'm sure you know, discount accountability because of that mercy. We are accountable. But our accountability will not and cannot save use. We must rely on mercy for that. But we are accountable.

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.

[The Folk Prophet]

The sins are not the same.

Maybe a side note...but your compounding sins and comparing them as the same thing. Rape is worse than fornication because it includes more sins than just sex. It involves sins including but not limited to violence, theft, humiliation, abuse, etc., etc... It is much worse than consensual fornication, but not because the actual sex act is worse, but because of all the other evils and sins that are part of it as well. This is also true of adultery. It includes deception, lying, disloyalty, betrayal, etc., etc... And so forth with other sexually related sins.

[The Folk Prophet]

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.

The accountability I refer to is not simply going to one's bishop. To say that going to the bishop equates to absolution is absolutely false. The bishop does not, in any way, absolve sin. There is only one who can absolve sin, and that is the Savior.

Yes, we go to the bishop because it is the means the Lord has set for us in His kingdom on earth to work through the process and satisfy the requirements for that absolution. But it is only one part of the equation.

It seems like you're saying: It's not fair that the rapist and the fornicator both have to go the bishop to be absolved from sin. But it's much, much more in depth than this. Frankly, the bishop, in reality, has much, much less to do with absolution for sin than our own change of hearts and our acceptance of the Savior. But it is part of the equation.

I'm not just trying to argue the point, by the way. I have a strong testimony of the keys of the priesthood and the role of bishops in the kingdom of God. I honestly hope my point of view is helpful and not just frustrating. :)

[gree0232]

Maybe a side note...but your compounding sins and comparing them as the same thing. Rape is worse than fornication because it includes more sins than just sex. It involves sins including but not limited to violence, theft, humiliation, abuse, etc., etc... It is much worse than consensual fornication, but not because the actual sex act is worse, but because of all the other evils and sins that are part of it as well. This is also true of adultery. It includes deception, lying, disloyalty, betrayal, etc., etc... And so forth with other sexually related sins.

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?

Edited March 24, 2013 by gree0232

[The Folk Prophet]

In short, I see it happening, and I have no idea what to do about it?

...only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile— (D&C 121:41-42)

That is all any of us can do.

[gree0232]

...only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile— (D&C 121:41-42)

That is all any of us can do.

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