Troubled: Sexuality and the Church

[gree0232]

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?

[Just_A_Guy]

The Mormon woman was punished for her promiscuity and eventually left the church feeling burned. . . we did not do well. . . . The 'rule' as it is failed in that case.

Are you sure? Were you there during the process? Did you sit in on the meetings between her and her bishop? Did you approach the bishop after the fact to get his side of the story?

We disciplined the rape victim rather than the rapist

No; the Church disciplined a fornicator. You ask, "who was the bishop to say that the rape didn't make her into the person he was dealing with"? I ask, "who would I be to say that but for the rape, she would never have fallen into fornication"? We just don't know. Contributing factors can only get you so far--the whole point of "agency" is that at some point, you live with the effects of your own actions.

Rape (from what I've seen) is particularly vicious because, long after the event is over, it continues to mess up your thinking processes and makes it so that you often can't recognize compassion even when it's staring you in the face--you see enemies everywhere, and go into defensive mode at the slightest provocation. What is the Church supposed to do with that--exempt rape survivors from temple recommend interviews until the Millennium?

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?

That's an interesting idea--the current Handbook does encourage listening, asking questions to understand the full situation, and counseling with "sensitivity, warmth and love" and avoid coercion or causing fear.

On the other hand--you might have missed the whole Pace Memorandum mess. Being falsely accused of rape--especially due to a false memory planted by a well-meaning friend, family member or ecclesiastical leader--is a special kind of hell.

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 best policy I could see would be to have a bishop refer a repeat offender to a professional counselor who specializes in sex addiction; and keep following up with the offender to see how the counseling's going.

I hate to say it, but fornication is GOING TO HAPPEN. And given what I have seen, its not that bad.

I understand that, from a relative standpoint given the things you say you've seen. But I fear your experience may have skewed your perspective a bit. Fornication is still bad. Very, very bad.

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?

Oh, I've defended prostitutes in court; so you're preaching to the choir on that one.

But telling someone to "just go see the Bishop", does not rule out professional counseling. In fact, the CHI encourages bishops to consider referring members out for counseling, runs LDS Family Services in the US and Canada, and tries to coordinate networks of counselors in areas outside of North America.

Give 'em a little credit. There aren't easy answers here--even the relatively obvious solutions are often fraught with unforeseen difficulties.

Edited March 24, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[gree0232]

Are you sure? Were you there during the process? Did you sit in on the meetings between her and her bishop? Did you approach the bishop after the fact to get his side of the story?

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?

Edited March 24, 2013 by gree0232

[Just_A_Guy]

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?

Obviously not. But if she's telling you that, but for the rape, she would never have fornicated . . . or that she was completely cooperative and didn't engage in self-justification . . . I don't think we can, or should, go that far.

And that is exactly the problem with reporting instances of abuse. Rather than accept it, we attack it ... why exactly?

And that is exactly a major potential problem with counseling rape victims. Any questioning, any probing, any suggestion of introspection or accountability for the way she's played the (admittedly terrible) hand of cards life dealt her, and suddenly you're the "attacker".

In my previous post I outlined some of the policies that are in place, and also made a suggestion as to why the one specific proposal you have made thus far could be problematic. I wish you'd address those points, rather than simply expressing righteous indignation and asserting that the fact that we have critics means that we must Do Something™.

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?

What shortcoming? That the Church treated a recidivist fornicator like an unrepentant sinner?

Edited March 24, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[gree0232]

Obviously not. But if she's telling you that, but for the rape, she would never have fornicated . . . or that she was completely cooperative and didn't engage in self-justification . . . I don't think we can, or should, go that far.

And that is exactly a major potential problem with counseling rape victims. Any questioning, any probing, any suggestion of introspection or accountability for the way she's played the (admittedly terrible) hand of cards life dealt her, and suddenly you're the "attacker".

In my previous post I outlined some of the policies that are in place, and also made a suggestion as to why the one specific proposal you have made thus far could be problematic. I wish you'd address those points, rather than simply expressing righteous indignation and asserting that the fact that we have critics means that we must Do Something™.

What shortcoming? That the Church treated a recidivist fornicator like an unrepentant sinner?

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.

Edited March 24, 2013 by gree0232

[Guest]

I'm not sure what you want here or what you're asking. Do you want people to agree with you? Do you want other perspectives? Do you want to start a letter-writing campaign to put in the policy you wish to see? What?

[gree0232]

I'm not sure what you want here or what you're asking. Do you want people to agree with you? Do you want other perspectives? Do you want to start a letter-writing campaign to put in the policy you wish to see? What?

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.

Edited March 24, 2013 by gree0232

[The Folk Prophet]

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 with 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.

Your whole premise is based on something that is not accurate. Final judgment and the reward of salvation is Jesus Christ's to give and His alone. Not going to the bishop does not necessarily equate to going to hell. Take, for example, someone who had sinned, had truly and honestly repented, intended to go to the bishop, but had not had the chance because of...we'll go with the military or something...and then they were killed. We don't exactly do bishop visits for the dead. That's because we don't need to. It is not requisite for salvation.

That is an extreme example, of course, and an unlikely scenario. But one that isn't extreme or unlikely is a choice someone makes because of emotional or mental disorders that cause them the inability to comprehend. We are only accountable for that which we know and understand. Someone who is incapable of understanding something (even due to trauma) will not be held accountable.

We can't tell who is and isn't capable of that understanding. The final judgment rests with the Lord. All we can do is teach what has been told us is the right path. Going to the bishop when someone has committed sexual transgression is the right path. But if someone literally cannot comprehend or deal with that because of of a legitimate loss of ability, it doesn't necessarily preclude the possibility of salvation. However, I would argue that more often then not that those not going to the bishop because of fear comes down to pride and lack of humility rather than a true and honest inability to comprehend and act. As someone else pointed out...we preach the rule and then deal with the exceptions.

Moreover, your view of bishop's ability to handle complex problems based on abuse and other traumas shows a fair bit of bias. Bishops, certainly, deal with this sort of thing all the time. Abuse, sadly, is not uncommon. Bishops don't just sit on thrones passing down judgment. This is a perception based on fear, but not on reality.

[Guest]

However uncomfortable it might feel, going to the one who is set apart as one's judge in Israel, and given the keys and mantle to deal with sins that require more than private repentance IS the right answer. It just is. Arguing on a message board or writing letters or complaining to whomever will listen will not change that.

However. . . I think that when we meet the Lord, we will find that He is more merciful than we could imagine. We will be judged according to our own personal strengths and weaknesses, and whether we did the best we could with what we were given. If there is someone who really truly could not bring themselves to go to a bishop because talking about past abuse would be too traumatic, that will certainly be taken into His account. In my opinion.

But gree, we are talking about something here that is an exception. Most people are not at that level of trauma or mental illness. Most people can and should get to the bishop's office. If someone won't, it's still my responsibility to recommend it, because that is the right thing. If someone really can't, should I lie and say they don't need to? They do. Maybe they need to work toward it, through professional counseling or praying for the strength or what have you. Maybe they go through repentance personally as far as they can, and then they are granted the strength to go to the bishop and finish. Either way, the right answer is still to get there eventually. If they really, truly can't, do you really think the Lord will sentence them to hell? I don't. But that doesn't change the proper line of authority. It just takes the responsibility to make that judgment away from me.

I think it's really dangerous to start telling people they don't need to go through proper channels if it's too hard for them. I think it's expecting much, much too much from our leaders to make a specific rule for every person's situation.

[selek]

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 with 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.

Gree- you seem to be laboring under a lot of false impressions- and a LOT of unjustified hostility- about what "counseling with one's Bishop" means and what it does not.

Several times now, you have leapt to the assumption that going to the Bishop will AUTOMAGICALLY result in shame, denigration, and castigation.

You have also insisted- despite repeated warnings to the contrary- on equating discipline (and by extension, repentance) with punishment.

No faithful LDS on these boards would suggest that "just seeing the Bishop" is "the" solution, let alone that it represenents the entirety of the solution.

As was pointed out at least once already, the Bishop is there to facilitate the repentance process, not provide absolution.

So long as you persist in cartoon-caricature descriptions of the process, and upon painting the Bishop as some sort of Lord-High-Chamberlain interested only in meteing out vengeance upon the guilty, you are going to be less-than-satisfied with the results you get.

Get serious about what is under discussion- and get the chip off your shoulder- and you'll get a far different response.

There are three things you need to come to grips with before this conversation will be profitable:

1) Seeing the Bishop is the first step in a process of repentance, not punishment. The Bishop has the means and the resources to get people the help they need, both temporally and spiritually. But they have to want that help, and they have to be prepared to see it through.

2) Being a victim of abuse does NOT deprive a person of the responsibility for their actions, decisions, or the consequences of their own behavior.

The fact that I was abused and have suffered tragedies in my life does not obviate my responsibility for my own choices.

Victimhood might mitigate some of the factors in our decision-making, but it does not serve as a "get out of responsibility free card".

Best get that notion out of your mind right now.

Even if we accept the premise that her promiscuity was a "coping mechanism" which allowed her to deal (however ineffectively) with the trauma she suffered, she still chose to engage in acts which she knew were sinful and contary to the commandments and the covenants she made.

Unless you are arguing that she was clinically insane and no longer knew "right" from "wrong", she chose to commit those acts. Part of her repentance process must then include acknowledging her own agency, repenting of, and forsaking that behavior.

It would be inappropriate- and contrary to both eternal law and our calling and commission to simply absolve her of actions she knew were wrong even as she committed them.

3) Your friend's decision to leave the Church is her own responsibility. She made that decision, however she chooses to justify it. Not her attackers, not her Bishop, and not the members.

If the road she travels "leads to Hell" as you put it above, it was NOT because she "went to the Bishop" or did not- but because she has chosen to allow these trials stand between her and the Church, and between her and the Gospel.

I wish your friend well, and I hope and pray that she receives the help that she needs.

But it is an inescapable principle of eternal law that mercy cannot rob justice- nor can our sorrow for her suffering absolve her of actions she freely chose to commit.

Edited March 24, 2013 by selek

[gree0232]

However uncomfortable it might feel, going to the one who is set apart as one's judge in Israel, and given the keys and mantle to deal with sins that require more than private repentance IS the right answer. It just is. Arguing on a message board or writing letters or complaining to whomever will listen will not change that.

However. . . I think that when we meet the Lord, we will find that He is more merciful than we could imagine. We will be judged according to our own personal strengths and weaknesses, and whether we did the best we could with what we were given. If there is someone who really truly could not bring themselves to go to a bishop because talking about past abuse would be too traumatic, that will certainly be taken into His account. In my opinion.

But gree, we are talking about something here that is an exception. Most people are not at that level of trauma or mental illness. Most people can and should get to the bishop's office. If someone won't, it's still my responsibility to recommend it, because that is the right thing. If someone really can't, should I lie and say they don't need to? They do. Maybe they need to work toward it, through professional counseling or praying for the strength or what have you. Maybe they go through repentance personally as far as they can, and then they are granted the strength to go to the bishop and finish. Either way, the right answer is still to get there eventually. If they really, truly can't, do you really think the Lord will sentence them to hell? I don't. But that doesn't change the proper line of authority. It just takes the responsibility to make that judgment away from me.

I think it's really dangerous to start telling people they don't need to go through proper channels if it's too hard for them. I think it's expecting much, much too much from our leaders to make a specific rule for every person's situation.

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.

[gree0232]

Gree- you seem to be laboring under a lot of false impressions- and a LOT of unjustified hostility- about what "counseling with one's Bishop" means and what it does not.

Several times now, you have leapt to the assumption that going to the Bishop will AUTOMAGICALLY result in shame, denigration, and castigation.

You have also insisted- despite repeated warnings to the contrary- on equating discipline (and by extension, repentance) with punishment.

No faithful LDS on these boards would suggest that "just seeing the Bishop" is "the" solution, let alone that it represenents the entirety of the solution.

As was pointed out at least once already, the Bishop is there to facilitate the repentance process, not provide absolution.

So long as you persist in cartoon-caricature descriptions of the process, and upon painting the Bishop as some sort of Lord-High-Chamberlain interested only in meteing out vengeance upon the guilty, you are going to be less-than-satisfied with the results you get.

Get serious about what is under discussion- and get the chip off your shoulder- and you'll get a far different response.

There are three things you need to come to grips with before this conversation will be profitable:

1) Seeing the Bishop is the first step in a process of repentance, not punishment. The Bishop has the means and the resources to get people the help they need, both temporally and spiritually. But they have to want that help, and they have to be prepared to see it through.

2) Being a victim of abuse does NOT deprive a person of the responsibility for their actions, decisions, or the consequences of their own behavior.

The fact that I was abused and have suffered tragedies in my life does not obviate my responsibility for my own choices.

Victimhood might mitigate some of the factors in our decision-making, but it does not serve as a "get out of responsibility free card".

Best get that notion out of your mind right now.

Even if we accept the premise that her promiscuity was a "coping mechanism" which allowed her to deal (however ineffectively) with the trauma she suffered, she still chose to engage in acts which she knew were sinful and contary to the commandments and the covenants she made.

Unless you are arguing that she was clinically insane and no longer knew "right" from "wrong", she chose to commit those acts. Part of her repentance process must then include acknowledging her own agency, repenting of, and forsaking that behavior.

It would be inappropriate- and contrary to both eternal law and our calling and commission to simply absolve her of actions she knew were wrong even as she committed them.

3) Your friend's decision to leave the Church is her own responsibility. She made that decision, however she chooses to justify it. Not her attackers, not her Bishop, and not the members.

If the road she travels "leads to Hell" as you put it above, it was NOT because she "went to the Bishop" or did not- but because she has chosen to allow these trials stand between her and the Church, and between her and the Gospel.

I wish your friend well, and I hope and pray that she receives the help that she needs.

But it is an inescapable principle of eternal law that mercy cannot rob justice- nor can our sorrow for her suffering absolve her of actions she freely chose to commit.

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.

Edited March 24, 2013 by gree0232

[Wordnerd]

Gree, I am understanding your concern as a fear that our imperfect understanding of the hearts of those who transgress will drive them further away. All I can say is that our imperfect knowledge is part of the test. The Bishop has been called to help people to return to Christ through the repentance process, he has not been given a perfect knowledge, because he, like all of us must rely on faith and the Holy Ghost as his guide.

Regardless of the reasons we sin, it is a part of our test, however unfair it may seem. I am a convert as well and I struggle with my past life leaving me with "triggers" that tempt me to break the Word of Wisdom that a life long member may not have. That doesn't give me a pass to be held to a different standard just because its harder for me. I still must keep my covenants.

People can be excommunicated and still return, if they choose to keep faith and truly repent, I believe it happens more often than we are aware. Excommunication is not a punishment. In another thread someone said (I apologize for not remembering the thread or the poster) that it is better to have the covenants removed, than to face the serious consequences of continuing to break them. If someone loses faith, and does not return it is their choice and their responsibility.

The responses in this thread have had some really great points, I recommend you search the forums for discussions of Excommunication, I would respectfully suggest that you are misunderstanding it's purpose and that misunderstanding is preventing you from fully understanding what the other posters are trying to convey.

[gree0232]

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.

[gree0232]

Gree, I am understanding your concern as a fear that our imperfect understanding of the hearts of those who transgress will drive them further away. All I can say is that our imperfect knowledge is part of the test. The Bishop has been called to help people to return to Christ through the repentance process, he has not been given a perfect knowledge, because he, like all of us must rely on faith and the Holy Ghost as his guide.

Regardless of the reasons we sin, it is a part of our test, however unfair it may seem. I am a convert as well and I struggle with my past life leaving me with "triggers" that tempt me to break the Word of Wisdom that a life long member may not have. That doesn't give me a pass to be held to a different standard just because its harder for me. I still must keep my covenants.

People can be excommunicated and still return, if they choose to keep faith and truly repent, I believe it happens more often than we are aware. Excommunication is not a punishment. In another thread someone said (I apologize for not remembering the thread or the poster) that it is better to have the covenants removed, than to face the serious consequences of continuing to break them. If someone loses faith, and does not return it is their choice and their responsibility.

The responses in this thread have had some really great points, I recommend you search the forums for discussions of Excommunication, I would respectfully suggest that you are misunderstanding it's purpose and that misunderstanding is preventing you from fully understanding what the other posters are trying to convey.

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?

Edited March 24, 2013 by gree0232

[selek]

No Selek, I have provided an example of how it DID lead to castigation, blame, discipline, and eventually excommunication.

According to one woman with a demonstrable conflict of interest. As someone else pointed out, you have professed no first hand knowledge of these events.

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.

In other words, you are operating from the undemonstrated assumption (and we, as military men, both know the dangers of assumptions) that the only difference in these two cases was the threat of Church discipline.

That assumption isn't thin ice- it's quicksand.

I find that troubling ... and if I cannot ask fellow Mormons about that ... whom indeed should I ask?

As I (and others) have already stated- it's not your questions that are problematic- it's the underlying assumptions and agenda.

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.

There are three immediate problems with this statement (aside from the inflammatory rhetoric and judgemental and accusatory tone):

1) you have no evidence that this was, in fact, what she received. Only her characterization of the process as such.

2) whether her behavior was a cry for help or not, she still knew it was wrong when she engaged in it. She CHOSE to sin- however she chooses to justify it now.

3) "well-served" is an entirely subjective standard and far too subject to opinion and back-biting. It is an attempt to shift the blame and responsibility for her decisions onto others.

As was stated before, unless she was mentally incompetent at the time, she chose repeatedly to engage in actions she knew were sinful.

Based solely upon her conduct, she was an "unrepentant serial fornicator" (your rhetoric, not mine).

Sugar-coating it and pointing fingers at others won't change that ugly truth.

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.

In other words, you are blameless in this regard- and we'd all be having a kumbaya moment if all those darn Mormons would just agree with you.

You know- playing the victim doesn't seem becoming for an Army Ranger- silly beret not withstanding.

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.

Except that you are arbitrarily defining our disagreement with your proposition as "indifference".

The only standard by which we can be adjudged "compassionate" is to adopt your new found wisdom and go forth proclaiming the Gospel According to Gree0232.

Sorry, but that's not discussion and it's not compassion.

It's demagoguery- and we are under no compunction to play along.

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?

I might suggest that you do the same.

The keywords in the Scripture you cited are "IF HE REPENT".

Not "unconditional forgiveness", not "get out of jail free", not "blame everyone else for your choices".

IF HE REPENT.

You would have us arbitrarily and prejudicially grant anyone who has sinned a free pass if they can prove they had a trauma in their lives.

Unless its a severe trauma to the head that leaves them mentally incompetent, it just doesn't work that way.

Well, perhaps you understand a little bit of the what the barriers are to seeing the Bishop and getting the needed atonement?

In point of fact, I DO know the courage it takes to repent of serious sin.

I DO know the shame and embarrassment of not being able to pass the Sacrament, or offer blessings upon my childrens heads, and I DO know just how hard it can be to face down and disapppoint someone you respect and whose good opinions you seek.

I DO know the terror of confessing sins that might lead to excommunication.

I've BEEN there.

But arbitrarily and unlawfully excusing sin will not redeem us in the eyes of the Lord, nor will it allow us, as sinners, to become the Saints God would have us be.

I have nothing I can tell that young when again I cross her path. Nothing.

Then perhaps you ought to be working on your own testimony instead of lecturing us about all that is "wrong" with the current processes.

Because if you cannot tell this woman that she is a beloved daughter of God, and that despite whatever sins she has committed or wrongs were done to her, she is precious both in his sight and in ours, then you are unworthy of your Priesthood Commission.

If there is nothing that you can offer this sister except justification for her pride and resentment, then there is nothing you can offer us, either.

And with that, I am done in this thread.

I have been asked to watch my tone, and I'm coming perilously close (even in my own mind) to braiding a rhetorical cord and overturning the moneychangers tables.

Edited March 24, 2013 by selek

[gree0232]

According to one woman with a demonstrable conflict of interest. As someone else pointed out, you have professed no first hand knowledge of these events.

In other words, you are operating from the undemonstrated assumption (and we, as military men, both know the dangers of assumptions) that the only difference in these two cases was the threat of Church discipline.

That assumption isn't thin ice- it's quicksand.

As I (and others) have already stated- it's not your questions that are problematic- it's the underlying assumptions and agenda.

There are three immediate problems with this statement (aside from the inflammatory rhetoric and judgemental and accusatory tone):

1) you have no evidence that this was, in fact, what she received. Only her characterization of the process as such.

2) whether her behavior was a cry for help or not, she still knew it was wrong when she engaged in it. She CHOSE to sin- however she chooses to justify it now.

3) "well-served" is an entirely subjective standard and far too subject to opinion and back-biting. It is an attempt to shift the blame and responsibility for her decisions onto others.

As was stated before, unless she was mentally incompetent at the time, she chose repeatedly to engage in actions she knew were sinful.

Based solely upon her conduct, she was an unrepentant serial fornicator.

Sugar-coating it and pointing fingers at others won't change that ugly truth.

In other words, you are blameless in this regard- and we'd all be having a kumbaya moment if all those darn Mormons would just agree with you.

You know- playing the victim doesn't seem becoming for an Army Ranger- silly beret not withstanding.

Except that you are arbitrarily defining our disagreement with your proposition as "indifference".

The only standard by which we can be adjudged "compassionate" is to adopt your new found wisdom and go forth proclaiming the Gospel According to Gree0232.

Sorry, but that's not discussion and it's not compassion.

It's demagoguery- and we are under no compunction to play along.

I might suggest that you do the same.

The keywords in the Scripture you cited are "IF HE REPENT".

Not "unconditional forgiveness", not "get out of jail free", not "blame everyone else for your choices".

IF HE REPENT.

You would have us arbitrarily and prejudicially grant anyone who has sinned a free pass if they can prove they had a trauma in their lives.

Unless its a severe trauma to the head that leaves them mentally incompetent, it just doesn't work that way.

In point of fact, I DO know the courage it takes to repent of serious sin.

I DO know the shame and embarrassment of not being able to pass the Sacrament, or offer blessings upon my childrens heads, and I DO know just how hard it can be to face down and disapppoint someone you respect and whose good opinions you seek.

I DO know the terror of confessing sins that might lead to excommunication.

I've BEEN there.

But arbitrarily and unlawfully excusing sin will not redeem us in the eyes of the Lord, nor will it allow us, as sinners, to become the Saints God would have us be.

Then perhaps you ought to be working on your own testimony instead of lecturing us about all that is "wrong" with the current processes.

Because if you cannot tell this woman that she is a beloved daughter of God, and that despite whatever sins she has committed or wrongs were done to her, she is precious both in his sight and in ours, then you are unworthy of your Priesthood Commission.

If there is nothing that you can offer this sister except justification for her pride and resentment, then there is nothing you can offer us, either.

And with that, I am done in this thread.

I have been asked to watch my tone, and I'm coming perilously close (even in my own mind) to braiding a rhetorical cord and overturning the moneychangers tables.

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.

Edited March 24, 2013 by gree0232

[gree0232]

Now, as I can see this topic is rather emotional - which is not really the intent, I will ask that the one hanging issue be addressed.

What happens to those who do not follow the advice to see the Bishop? I am sure in the long history of the church there have been those who accept the wisdom of the church and repent ... albeit belatedly? I am familiar with the story of Oliver Cowdry and his drifting from and return to the church ... but that seems ... ill fitted? Advice to give in the modern context of sexual misconduct? (Not sure if that makes sense?)

I would appreciate anyone sharing what they know, and what happens with issues like temple recommends, etc.? It would be of use as, seeing the Bishop is important, but it would also be nice to be able to offer some expectation about what to expect.

Right now, I simply cannot answer that question. Once again though, I see it happening and the universal agreement seems to be to recommend that they see the Bishop.

I would appreciate any insight.

Edited March 24, 2013 by gree0232

[selek]

Now, as I can see this topic is rather emotional - which is not really the intent, I will ask that the one hanging issue be addressed.

What happens to those who do not follow the advice to see the Bishop? I am sure in the long history of the church there have been those who accept the wisdom of the church and repent ... albeit belatedly?

Since no one else seems to be here to answer your question, I will violate my own resolution and do so.

Those who repent- truly and sincerely, will be put on the path to repentance and forgiveness.

There was an article in the Ensign (I cannot remember which GA authored it, nor the edition, nor even the title of the article), but the author testified about being called to counsel a couple who had sinned- as I recall, they slept together the night before their Temple sealing.

They had carried that shame and guilt with them for decades- and yet had served honorable callings, (IIRC) raised sons who had served honorable missions, and children who were married in the Temple.

They, too, were put on the path of repentance and forgiveness.

It was not enough that they had lived decent and honorable lives of Christ-like service. They had to confess their sins before they could receive the assurance of forgiveness which they sought.

But what an awful gamble they had taken!

As the Scriptures clearly state, we are NOT to procrastinate the day of our repentance, nor to seek to justify or excuse our sins.

Repentance, sincerely forsaking and abandoning our sins, and walking uprightly before the Lord are the only way that true repentance can be achieved.

Any other path will lead only to disappointment, disillusionment, and spiritual death.

I would appreciate anyone sharing what they know, and what happens with issues like temple recommends, etc.? It would be of use as, seeing the Bishop is important, but it would also be nice to be able to offer some expectation about what to expect.

As I recall, this couple was disfellowshipped for a time- but they had already borne that unnecessary burden for all those years.

That was a punishment harsher than any their Bishop might have laid upon them had they confessed earlier.

Right now, I simply cannot answer that question. Once again though, I see it happening and the universal agreement seems to be to recommend that they see the Bishop.

As has already been stated, THAT is where the path of repentance and forgiveness begins.

Any other answer would mislead you.

Finally, for the record, I apologize for my angry words above.

It is very frustrating to see someone cling to their perceptions and refuse to address any of the arguments and statements which contradict their preconceptions.

Your sin, however, does not justify mine- a point I have taken great pains to emphasize.

Nor did I threaten you- (look up the word "rhetorical" and then contrast it with "literal"), nor did I deliberately insult you.

You came here seeking validation for your position, not discussion.

We cannot give it to you.

You came here to "enligten" us, not to learn why your position might be wrong.

I am heartily sorry that we cannot give you what you seek.

Your premises are still wrong:

- The Bishop is not there to mete out punishment, retribution, or justice, but to encourage true and sincere repentance. It is not his calling to excuse sin when convenient or politically correct, but to bring people (according to the best of his ability and judgement) into harmony with God.

That a tiny minority might err or abuse their authority does not inavlidate the system, which was laid down by the Lord himself. HIS Church, HIS rules.

- Discipline does not automagically equate to punishment. As a military man, you should be well acquainted with the difference between the two.

You argued above that discipline should go hand-in-hand with counseling (where needed). In point of fact, I happen to agree. Yet the only evidence you have provided that this is NOT the case, is the hear-say testimony of avowed and open enemies of the Church.

In point of fact, you have offered NO evidence whatsoever that the current system is, in fact, the problem.

- Ignoring sins will not lead to redemption, nor to true healing and forgiveness.

We are all sinners- myself no less so than any other. But pointing the fingers at our attackers, at the Church, or at some nameless faceless authority who didn't do things the way you wanted him to doesn't absolve us of responsibility for our sins.

If you truly want to encourage people to find forgiveness for their sins and develop a real and lasting relationship with their Savior, then spreading anti-Mormon horror stories, and lowering the bar on sin are not the way to go about it.

Better to teach them meekness, humility, patience, penitence and charity towards their brethren than that their sins are justified, or that they are somehow owed forgiveness because of wrongs done to them by others.

We do our brothers and sisters no favors when we preach them any Gospel other than Christ's- and that means teaching them to repent and forsake their sins through the proper channels and in the proper way.

Edited March 24, 2013 by selek

[gree0232]

Since no one else seems to be here to answer your question, I will violate my own resolution and do so.

Those who repent- truly and sincerely, will be put on the path to repentance and forgiveness.

There was an article in the Ensign (I cannot remember which GA authored it, nor the edition, nor even the title of the article), but the author testified about being called to counsel a couple who had sinned- as I recall, they slept together the night before their Temple sealing.

They had carried that shame and guilt with them for decades- and yet had served honorable callings, (IIRC) raised sons who had served honorable missions, and children who were married in the Temple.

They, too, were put on the path of repentance and forgiveness.

It was not enough that they had lived decent and honorable lives of Christ-like service. They had to confess their sins before they could receive the assurance of forgiveness which they sought.

But what an awful gamble they had taken!

As the Scriptures clearly state, we are NOT to procrastinate the day of our repentance, nor to seek to justify or excuse our sins.

Repentance, sincerely forsaking and abandoning our sins, and walking uprightly before the Lord are the only way that true repentance can be achieved.

Any other path will lead only to disappointment, disillusionment, and spiritual death.

As I recall, this couple was disfellowshipped for a time- but they had already borne that unnecessary burden for all those years.

That was a punishment harsher than any their Bishop might have laid upon them had they confessed earlier.

As has already been stated, THAT is where the path of repentance and forgiveness begins.

Any other answer would mislead you.

Finally, for the record, I apologize for my angry words above.

It is very frustrating to see someone cling to their perceptions and refuse to address any of the arguments and statements which contradict their preconceptions.

I did not threaten you- (look up the word "rhetorical" and then contrast it with "literal"), nor did I deliberately insult you.

You came here seeking validation for your position, not discussion.

You came here to cry repentance unto us, not to learn why your position might be wrong.

I am heartily sorry that we cannot give you what you seek.

Your premises are still wrong:

- The Bishop is not there to mete out punishment, retribution, or justice, but to encourage true and sincere repentance. It is not his calling to excuse sin when convenient or politically correct, but to bring people (according to the best of his ability and judgement) into harmony with God.

- Discipline does not automagically equate to punishment. As a military man, you should be well acquainted with the difference between the two.

- Ignoring sins will not lead to redemption, nor to true healing and forgiveness.

We are all sinners- myself no less so than any other.

If you truly want to encourage people to find forgiveness for their sins and develop a real and lasting relationship with their Savior, then spreading anti-Mormon horror stories, and lowering the bar on sin are not the way to go about it.

Better to teach them meekness, humility, patience, and penitence than that their sins are justified, or that they are somehow owed forgiveness because of wrongs done to them by others.

We do our brothers and sisters no service when we preach them any Gospel other than Christ's- and that means teaching them to repent and forsake their sins through the proper channels and in the proper way.

Selek, are you attempting to Evangelize me? Because I got enough of that from the right wing ding bats last week. Once I realized what they were up to, and as angry as it initially made me to be a demon possessed cult member ... there is a point at which your realize that your are wasting time. If you are frustrated because you think I am not accepting your points? I am. I fully acknowledge that the Bishop is the right point of authority if you will. I was uncertain given context in the beginning of this thread, but no more. The point is conceded.

If you are angry at being ignored? Then please understand how I feel at pointing out that sexual assault and abuse can gravely, in a way that heavily influences our agency, effect choices when we are ineffectively dealing with the aftermath of abuse. If we advise people to seek the Bishop post haste (which I fully support), we also should have some measure of assurance that we are not signing them up to scolded as young harlots and serial recidivists if what something is so heavily influencing their agency in this one. Again, I know first hand how difficult it can be when we are grievously wounded, and no sane man would call me either weak or a coward. An invitation to see the Bishop? It has the potential to be wondrous ... but also quite painful is it exacerbates that wheel of guilt and self destruction. And I unfortunately know what that wheel looks and feels like.

As an abuse victim, one who believes that sending another abuse victim to the Bishop is the right thing, as I would with my friend who struggled with promiscuity, what exactly am I sending them into? Even as I tell you plainly that I believe going to the Bishop is correct, I am horrified by comments like, "Well, based on her actions she was righteously punished as a recidivist fornicator." She was also caste adrift in her moment of need. She understandably angry about it. I would be too.

The idea that sharing a testimony of a failing is anti-Mormon?

I AM MORMOM. Whatever would posses you to think that unquestioning adherence to guidance is the ONLY acceptable way in this church? We do not always get things right, and in the case of that young woman ... its not anti-Mormon to acknowledge a mistake. Quite the opposite, and I say that as a man who openly acknowledges his struggles with pride.

So I will once again reiterate the problem set THAT I SEE. As is, its a real problem. There are people who sin grievously, whom I know for a fact do not do what you did. Are not doing it. Are not being admonished to do it. Indeed, the longer they wait the more uncertain of the response I am ... and have no guidance to give, no compelling case to make, no methodology of admonishment or gentle persuasion. Indeed, what does ... "They, too, were put on the path of repentance and forgiveness" mean? Were they put through the disfellowship process? Something else?

There lies the problem though. I know people are not taking this advice. I feel ... like I am with holding information when if am to tell them, "You will be put on a path to repentance and forgiveness."

Additionally, and I state this both from a professional and spiritual stand point, that testimonies like this young sisters are not exactly so uncommon as to be dismissed as anti-Mormon swill. That girl was angry. Obviously hurt. And palpable pain of being caste adrift in her greatest moment of need? Of having to connect the dots between rape and her actions by herself? It was genuine. I assure you of it.

Having suffered abuse myself, I am very sympathetic to her plight - and I believe I have every right to be do I not? I also believe that there is no harm done is asking what we can do to prevent such things from happening? Of insuring that before we caste someone adrift we at least ask the question: are there issues of abuse or sexual assault at play here?

If there is ... maybe there are some additional tools we can bring to bear?

I really don't think having a policy to ask that question is damning of the church ... or particularly out of line. If indeed the young woman's story is false, we have knowledge of the policy and, without having to know details, can be assured that appropriate steps ad checks were taken as a matter of policy ... or if not ... that appropriate redress can be sought.

As a minimum, even if they must be caste adrift, there is hope that they will return as some point when a spirit of repentance DOES take hold of them. And knowing that someone has struggled with issues of abuse or sexual assault makes that reintegration process a little more .. involved? not sure if that is the right word ... than say someone who just grew up and realized he was being an idiot. Even teh spirit of being cast adrift is different as in, "You are an unacceptable fornicator!!!!," vs. "I know that you are struggling with what happened, but you are choosing a path that is self destructive and we simply cannot condone it. We love you too much to sit aside and do nothing while you make these choices. We respect you enough to agree with your decisions. When you are ready, we will be here." Huge difference. One that when the dots are connected between fornication and abuse ... might make the discipline less angering and incomprehensible.

I have seen abuse rip apart too much, and that young lady ... you cannot fake that kind of anger and genuine pain. It is not anti-Mormon in the slightest to seek a method to relieve it.

We have a big tent. We owe our critics a Mormon answer - and a good one. Indeed we owe our members a good answer.

In short, its can be a very intimidating process ... and particularly cases of abuse ... I am not so sure that is best. In cases of simple immaturity? It might very well be. Its the difference between knowing when one is putting their salvation at risk due to the inability to handle more pain than any of us should? And putting one's salvation at risk because one is to self absorbed, immature, or just plain downright stubborn? Its literally, do you understand what you are risking vs. one who is so much pain they do not care. A threat does nothing for the later. And punishment - as opposed to discipline and standards - can make that pain worse.

Again, I may be beating a dead horse here, but I saw that exacerbated pain very clearly in that young lady. It's not something I would even inadvertently will on another. Christ is central to the healing process, and for her ... he is gone.

In short, seeing that young lady and seeing the testimonies out there, knowing abuse for what it is, I guess I am just looking for some assurance that I am not making things worse? That I will not be creating another 'Ex-Mormon'?

Edited March 24, 2013 by gree0232

[estradling75]

In short, seeing that young lady and seeing the testimonies out there, knowing abuse for what it is, I guess I am just looking for some assurance that I am not making things worse? That I will not be creating another 'Ex-Mormon'?

You are asking for something we can not give... No one can promise you that someone will not use their agency to make poor choices.

Remember what we have been taught about the Preexistence... Our Heavenly Father, the ideal of perfection, of understanding, of compassion. Reached a point were he had to take action that resulted in a one third part of all his children being lost. Why did so many become exes then? Because they knowingly and willfully made bad choices. How many of them do you think even now blame God for not being compassionate enough, or blame others actions for their failures?

The only thing we can give is the direction to, and the assurance of, that it is the path that God ordained. We can make no assurances that whomever takes up to start walking that straight and narrow path will endure to the end. And that path can be very hard, it has alot of very flawed people who are also working their way along.

So if you really want to help your friends, help them gain and keep a testimony, help them draw closer to the Lord. Because that is their armor, that is their shield, and it is the only way any of us get through.

Edited March 24, 2013 by estradling75

[The Folk Prophet]

I recommend you look for your answers outside of a forum. Particularly, look to the scriptures and the writings and words of prophets and apostles. There are plenty of answers about this sort of thing. I highly recommend The Miracle of Forgiveness, by Spencer W. Kimball, for example.

You have a strong testimony of the gospel, that is clear. But you don't seem to have a strong testimony of the repentance process. You have some trust issues with the system. That trust indicates a lack of testimony, but you CAN gain a testimony of the process. Just as with anything, study it, read, ponder, pray, etc... The process of repentance is a VERY difficult thing. It is part of why sinning is such a big problem and partly why we are counselled so strenuously to avoid sin.

I have to go back to humility. None of us can truly repent without humility. Your response to my initial post about humility tells me that you don't quite get that. Without getting that, you won't understand repentance. We cannot come to the Lord in repentance with pride and think our offering will be accepted. Humility is paramount. We must lose ourselves to find Him.

Any advice given to someone about repentance, including visiting the bishop, must incorporated this thinking. We HAVE to subject ourselves to the Lord's way and will. The offering expected is a broken heart and a contrite spirit. Have you thought about what that means? A Broken heart. It's not just some catch phrase. There is important meaning in that.

Edited March 24, 2013 by church

[Just_A_Guy]

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?

Funny; I was just wondering the same thing.

Hence, is the church's position on treating promiscuity ONLY as a matter of personal choice correct?

The elephant in the room is that we seem to be approaching this from a vast philosophical difference. You seem to believe that horrors in one's personal history excuse that person from accountability for all manner of unacceptable behaviors thereafter; that rape utterly destroys a person's agency. I--and, I daresay, the bulk of the other participants here, and the Church itself--acknowledge that history can mitigate such behavior; but we reject your implicit assertion that history can or should excuse it.

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.

Oi, vey. I'm sure that based on our respective professions we could make all manner of ugly assertions about each other. So let's just stick with the arguments and lay off the personal attacks, shall we?

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.

A person who persists in sin may be emotionally damaged--perhaps even clinically ill with a diagnosable condition--and is obviously in need of compassion. But "repentance" is, by definition, "change". A person who cannot or will not stop sinning is, by definition, unrepentant.

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?

gree, I love you man; but seriously--snap out of it. No one here is making that argument. Let's tone down the melodrama and focus on the problem the Church is actually facing.

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.

How do you make a process "transparent" without also making it "public"?

[From a later post]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.

You were not met with indifference. You were met with an invitation to submit a specific policy proposal, an observation as to why the proposal you offered might be problematic, an anecdote of my personal experience with bishops, and a statement that - yes - sin still equals sin, and God nearly always expects people to use the full repentance process He has outlined, regardless of their personal histories. I even acknowledged the possibility that there may be very rare temporary exceptions.

But you still came out swinging. So I repeat the question asked by Eowyn and others:

What, specifically, are you looking for here?

We are not admonished to threaten people with excommunication and disfellowship - much less hell.

As individuals, you're right.

As a Church? You are very, very wrong. Excommunication for people who will not stop sinning, is scripturally mandated.

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?

I've already talked about the policies that exist, which you ignored. If a bishop is bound and determined to act like a goon, one more written policy from Salt Lake isn't going to make a difference.

Edited March 24, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[MsMagnolia]

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).

It seems to me that the victim of rape was not disciplined for the rape. They were disciplined for actions and choices made afterward.

Now before you get mad let me explain.

Everyone and I mean everyone has to make choices. We are indeed the sum total of our experiences but we have a choice no matter what happens to us. Bad things happen to people. I am not in any way saying that the victims of sexual abuse have not gone through something horrible. What I am saying is that EVERYONE has a choice as to how they proceed. They can turn to their Savior and receive comfort and get the healing they so desperately need. They are still held accountable for their actions.

All our actions have consequences. We ay not like the consequence that comes but nevertheless they still exist. One major problem in the world today is that we want to not be held accountable for OUR choice.

Just my thoughts,

Mags

[classylady]

I haven't read all the posts, so I apologize in advance if I repeat anything already said. I'm sitting here in the San Francisco airport waiting for my flight, so don't have as much time as I'd like.

Repenting of a serious sexual sin definitely can be intimidating. It doesn't matter what led up to the sin, (being raped is not a sin), but the behavior afterwards (whatever it may be), may be sinful and any sin needs to be repented from, for the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance. All sins must be repented of, for no unclean thing can be in God's presence. So, unless we're repentant, no matter what the sin, none of us will enter into God's Kingdom.

Fornication requires going to the Bishop. And, yes, it is extremely hard to admit to such a sin to your Bishop. There is the fear of being disfellowshipped or excommunicated. It's embarrassing to refrain from taking the Sacrament with your fellow ward members watching. It's embarrassing to tell the Relief Society President (or Sunday School Teacher) that you're unable to give a prayer in class after being asked.

But, the repentant person goes to the Bishop willingly and humbly, ready to accept whatever it takes to be "right" in the Lord's view. Even if the Bishop is a "letter of the law" individual, and deems that excommunication is the answer, then the repentant individual accepts that with humility and gratitude in order to get their spiritual life back on track. The truly humble and repentant person will want that burden lifted from their shoulders. They will do whatever it takes to be clean again, no matter what the circumstances were that led to their sin. How wonderful it is when an excommunicated person comes back into the waters of baptism and washed clean. I have seen this happen. It is a a beautiful testament that no matter what we have done in our lives, we can be made clean.

We must take responsibility for our own sins, own up to it, don't give excuses, and get our sins taken care of. The Lord knows our hearts. He knows our struggles. He knows our sorrows. He knows our weaknesses. He knows our trials. He knows how we have been hurt by others. He knows it all. There will be no mistakes made with His judgment. If we have been told that confession to the Bishop is required for sexual sin, then do it. Don't put it off because of fear.

If the unrepentant person leaves the church because they can't handle going to the Bishop for fear of being disfellowshipped or excommunicated, then they have made a decision to leave anyway. If they still have a testimony and yet stay away from the church, they are hurting their chances to grow in the Gospel, and of having the Spirit to be a constant companion. The constant companionship of the Holy Ghost is a wonderful blessing. Isn't that what we should all want? After baptism and confirmation, we are given the promise of having the Comforter with us always, if we do our part. If we don't do our part, we have no promise. The truly repentant person will do whatever it takes, with a humble and contrite spirit, to have the Holy Ghost with them again. They will gratefully accept whatever path they need to take in order to have that awful burden of guilt removed from them.

Edited March 24, 2013 by classylady