Church's Stance on Disfellowship and Excommunciation


Kayvex
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am really enjoying your guyses inputs and ideas on the matter. And it does seem to be changing with time. Many of the stories I heard were from people years and years ago. Perhaps that's why I've never met an excommunicated member, being young and in the young single adult ward.

 

Vort, your post was exactly the specificity I needed. And Palerider, perhaps you are right, and the people aren't telling the whole story or there are outlying consequences and circumstances.

About 12 years ago I had my daughter in a Displinary Council and she was excommunicated. About 6 months later she moved back home and got her life in order and then a year later was re-Baptised.

Another thing....there are some leaders who don't enjoy Displinary Councils and they will do what they can not to hold them. My opinion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.there are some leaders who don't enjoy Displinary Councils and they will do what they can not to hold them. My opinion

 

 

I think I would be a bit disturbed to find a leader who did enjoy Disciplinary Councils...  Unless of course you are talking about the ones held to lift restrictions and return those to full-fellowship...  I can see those as being very awesome 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the things the leadership of the church needs to do is keep the people unified (under christ)... when someone starts causing division and won't attempt to fix it, then the leadership is going to start cutting them off from the church (so to speak)- even if they have a lot of truth on their side.

And so far every excommunication i've seen that's hit the news has been a case of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I would be a bit disturbed to find a leader who did enjoy Disciplinary Councils...  Unless of course you are talking about the ones held to lift restrictions and return those to full-fellowship...  I can see those as being very awesome

I did not clarify very well.....they don't like doing them at all and will try to NOT have them and some don't like confrontation. I am not speaking for the church. Just talking about what I learned from those who served in the stake where I live.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

As a post-script to all this--Dehlin is appealing his excommunication to the First Presidency.  See the Salt Lake Tribune's coverage, here.

 

Kate Kelley and Nadine Hansen apparently co-wrote a legal-esque brief in his defense.

 

Well, of course he is. And, of course, sharing it with the press. He makes his living on publicity and notoriety. Once it is denied, he'll likely come up with another scheme for staying in the public eye as much as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve been following  this thread for the past week or so, and having quite a bit of personal experience with disciplinary councils (both bishop and stake) I've wanted to participate. But I've been reluctant due to the fact that I couldn't see a way to do the subject justice without a lengthy post. 

I've decided to give it a shot, and while long, hopefully my post won’t be a waste of space.

 

I don't have an exact count, but I'm guessing I've been involved in somewhere around 18 (front end) disciplinary councils. None resulted in probation, one resulted in no action (temporarily), two resulted in disfellowshipment, and the rest resulted in excommunication.

 

Certain sins require a mandatory disciplinary council, but for the most part the decision is left up to the Bishop or Stake Presidency based upon various conditions and circumstances. The bishop and his counselors normally handle cases involving women and non-Melchizedek Priesthood holders. If the case may result in the excommunication of a man who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood (particularly if he has been endowed) the case is transferred to the Stake.

 

Palerider wrote: “Another thing....there are some leaders who don't enjoy Displinary Councils and they will do what they can not to hold them.”

 

This is true. In fact I have seen bishops bend over backwards to avoid holding a disciplinary council; ignoring egregious situations until a Stake President literally had to say "do it or else!" 

It's been my experience that the most difficult cases, and the ones most bishops try to avoid, are those that involve women who have committed fornication or adultery. It doesn’t take much imagination to understand why.

Three men sitting in a room alone with a woman who is confessing to such things is extremely uncomfortable for all involved.

Been there, done that, and don't wish to ever do it again.

 

The thing I really wanted to touch on though is the concept of the "double standard" that a few here have postured.

 

In regards to that I'll note what priesthoodpower wrote: "I would think that the church DC is the same thing and the Bishop/Stake Pres/council members are listening to the spirit as their guiding factor."

 

Listening to the Spirit SHOULD, and I believe in most cases IS the guiding factor. And sometimes that results in actions that appear to be unfair (or a double standard) in the eyes of those who see things only through a "glass darkly" so to speak.

I'll give you an example. 

 

While I was serving on a Stake High Council we had a case before us respecting a gentleman who at the time was serving as a bishop’s counselor. The man had been in an adulterous relationship for quite some time before it was discovered, whereupon he was released from his position in the bishopric and subsequently a disciplinary council was convened. 

The man refused to appear before the council, but he did send a letter, which was read by the Stake President (minus the 4-letter words). The letter informed us that he no longer believed in the Church, no longer wanted to be a part of it, had no plans to leave his adulterous relationship, and that all 15 of us were more than welcome to do something anatomically impossible.

 

After reading the letter the Stake president opened the meeting up to comments and concerns. Those who wished to speak did so, it was determined that the case was a "simple one", numbers were drawn to determine who would speak in behalf of the Church and the accused, the two men who drew the numbers had their say, and the Stake Presidency retired to an office to pray about a decision. 

While they were gone the members of the High Council discussed the case among themselves and it was clear we were all in agreement---the man HAD to be excommunicated.

After quite some time the Stake President and his counselors returned to the room. The Stake President then said words to this effect:

"Brethren, we have supplicated our Father in Heaven for His guidance in this matter and we want only to do his will. And the three of us agree that it is NOT the will of our father in Heaven that Bro. _____________ be excommunicated at this time. Therefore we propose that no action be taken against him until we receive further instructions."

 

You could have heard a gnat burp in that room at that moment. All twelve of us were dumbfounded. None of us could believe what we had just heard. 

The Stake President then went on to say words to this effect: "Brethren, we understand this decision doesn't make much sense to you, and honestly it doesn't make much sense to us, but we believe the Lord has spoken and we ask for your sustaining vote."

The vote was unanimous to sustain the decision, and we all left the meeting in complete bewilderment.

What was even more bewildering is that the woman who Bro._________ was having the adulterous relationship with WAS excommunicated! 

 

Fast forward about four months later.

Another disciplinary council is convened. 

We arrive not knowing what it will be about.

We find out soon enough that it pertains to Bro. __________ who sent us the nasty letter four months previous.

This time, however, he is present at the meeting with his bishop in tow.

His bishop relates the story about Bro. ___________ receiving notice (from him) that the decision was NOT to excommunicate him. 

He tells us that when Bro______________ received that information he proceeded to break down and bawl like a little child. The bishop tells us that his entire demeanor changed and he suddenly became humble and penitent.

Over the next four months Bro.________ made further changes until he was finally ready to appear willingly before another disciplinary council. 

And there he was; standing before us a changed man.

And the story he told was heart wrenching. 

And his closing remarks were humbling to all of us.

 

He said: "Brethren, I just want you to know that I know that you were following God’s will when you declined to excommunicate me four months ago. I was angry and bitter and hateful and I couldn't wait to be free from God and this Church. And had you excommunicated me I do not believe I would be standing here right now. When the bishop told me that you had decided not to excommunicate me something changed within me. I don't really understand it and I don't know how to describe it, but all of the hurt and hate and anger just melted away and I no longer wanted to be without God and the Church in my life. I am here today to tell you that I am now ready to be excommunicated if that is what needs to take place for me to come back, and as a matter of fact, I believe it does.”

 

And he was excommunicated.

And he did come back and was rebaptized.

And as far as I know he is still in full fellowship with God and the Church.

 

The point I want to make with this story is that there were many people in his ward and within the Stake who knew of this man, knew his circumstances, and were extremely put out when his girlfriend was excommunicated while he wasn't. For four months we endured wholesale carping and murmuring from members who decried the "double standard". 

 

Now I'm not going to claim that every decision to excommunicate or not to excommunicate comes from God.

Obviously Bishops and Stake Presidents aren't infallible.

But what I will say is that all of us need to be careful before pronouncing a "double standard" when it comes to disciplinary councils. 

We should remember that God's ways are higher than our ways; and his thoughts higher than our thoughts. And since none of us knows what goes on in a disciplinary council that we have no part in, we should be willing to give a bishopric or a stake presidency and high council the benefit of the doubt.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I’ve been following  this thread for the past week or so, and having quite a bit of personal experience with disciplinary councils (both bishop and stake) I've wanted to participate. But I've been reluctant due to the fact that I couldn't see a way to do the subject justice without a lengthy post. 
I've decided to give it a shot, and while long, hopefully my post won’t be a waste of space.
 
I don't have an exact count, but I'm guessing I've been involved in somewhere around 18 (front end) disciplinary councils. None resulted in probation, one resulted in no action (temporarily), two resulted in disfellowshipment, and the rest resulted in excommunication.
 
Certain sins require a mandatory disciplinary council, but for the most part the decision is left up to the Bishop or Stake Presidency based upon various conditions and circumstances. The bishop and his counselors normally handle cases involving women and non-Melchizedek Priesthood holders. If the case may result in the excommunication of a man who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood (particularly if he has been endowed) the case is transferred to the Stake.
 
Palerider wrote: “Another thing....there are some leaders who don't enjoy Displinary Councils and they will do what they can not to hold them.”
 
This is true. In fact I have seen bishops bend over backwards to avoid holding a disciplinary council; ignoring egregious situations until a Stake President literally had to say "do it or else!" 
It's been my experience that the most difficult cases, and the ones most bishops try to avoid, are those that involve women who have committed fornication or adultery. It doesn’t take much imagination to understand why.
Three men sitting in a room alone with a woman who is confessing to such things is extremely uncomfortable for all involved.
Been there, done that, and don't wish to ever do it again.
 
The thing I really wanted to touch on though is the concept of the "double standard" that a few here have postured.
 
In regards to that I'll note what priesthoodpower wrote: "I would think that the church DC is the same thing and the Bishop/Stake Pres/council members are listening to the spirit as their guiding factor."
 
Listening to the Spirit SHOULD, and I believe in most cases IS the guiding factor. And sometimes that results in actions that appear to be unfair (or a double standard) in the eyes of those who see things only through a "glass darkly" so to speak.
I'll give you an example. 
 
While I was serving on a Stake High Council we had a case before us respecting a gentleman who at the time was serving as a bishop’s counselor. The man had been in an adulterous relationship for quite some time before it was discovered, whereupon he was released from his position in the bishopric and subsequently a disciplinary council was convened. 
The man refused to appear before the council, but he did send a letter, which was read by the Stake President (minus the 4-letter words). The letter informed us that he no longer believed in the Church, no longer wanted to be a part of it, had no plans to leave his adulterous relationship, and that all 15 of us were more than welcome to do something anatomically impossible.
 
After reading the letter the Stake president opened the meeting up to comments and concerns. Those who wished to speak did so, it was determined that the case was a "simple one", numbers were drawn to determine who would speak in behalf of the Church and the accused, the two men who drew the numbers had their say, and the Stake Presidency retired to an office to pray about a decision. 
While they were gone the members of the High Council discussed the case among themselves and it was clear we were all in agreement---the man HAD to be excommunicated.
After quite some time the Stake President and his counselors returned to the room. The Stake President then said words to this effect:
"Brethren, we have supplicated our Father in Heaven for His guidance in this matter and we want only to do his will. And the three of us agree that it is NOT the will of our father in Heaven that Bro. _____________ be excommunicated at this time. Therefore we propose that no action be taken against him until we receive further instructions."
 
You could have heard a gnat burp in that room at that moment. All twelve of us were dumbfounded. None of us could believe what we had just heard. 
The Stake President then went on to say words to this effect: "Brethren, we understand this decision doesn't make much sense to you, and honestly it doesn't make much sense to us, but we believe the Lord has spoken and we ask for your sustaining vote."
The vote was unanimous to sustain the decision, and we all left the meeting in complete bewilderment.
What was even more bewildering is that the woman who Bro._________ was having the adulterous relationship with WAS excommunicated! 
 
Fast forward about four months later.
Another disciplinary council is convened. 
We arrive not knowing what it will be about.
We find out soon enough that it pertains to Bro. __________ who sent us the nasty letter four months previous.
This time, however, he is present at the meeting with his bishop in tow.
His bishop relates the story about Bro. ___________ receiving notice (from him) that the decision was NOT to excommunicate him. 
He tells us that when Bro______________ received that information he proceeded to break down and bawl like a little child. The bishop tells us that his entire demeanor changed and he suddenly became humble and penitent.
Over the next four months Bro.________ made further changes until he was finally ready to appear willingly before another disciplinary council. 
And there he was; standing before us a changed man.
And the story he told was heart wrenching. 
And his closing remarks were humbling to all of us.
 
He said: "Brethren, I just want you to know that I know that you were following God’s will when you declined to excommunicate me four months ago. I was angry and bitter and hateful and I couldn't wait to be free from God and this Church. And had you excommunicated me I do not believe I would be standing here right now. When the bishop told me that you had decided not to excommunicate me something changed within me. I don't really understand it and I don't know how to describe it, but all of the hurt and hate and anger just melted away and I no longer wanted to be without God and the Church in my life. I am here today to tell you that I am now ready to be excommunicated if that is what needs to take place for me to come back, and as a matter of fact, I believe it does.”
 
And he was excommunicated.
And he did come back and was rebaptized.
And as far as I know he is still in full fellowship with God and the Church.
 
The point I want to make with this story is that there were many people in his ward and within the Stake who knew of this man, knew his circumstances, and were extremely put out when his girlfriend was excommunicated while he wasn't. For four months we endured wholesale carping and murmuring from members who decried the "double standard". 
 
Now I'm not going to claim that every decision to excommunicate or not to excommunicate comes from God.
Obviously Bishops and Stake Presidents aren't infallible.
But what I will say is that all of us need to be careful before pronouncing a "double standard" when it comes to disciplinary councils. 
We should remember that God's ways are higher than our ways; and his thoughts higher than our thoughts. And since none of us knows what goes on in a disciplinary council that we have no part in, we should be willing to give a bishopric or a stake presidency and high council the benefit of the doubt.

 

 

Best post ever!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I’ve been following  this thread for the past week or so, and having quite a bit of personal experience with disciplinary councils (both bishop and stake) I've wanted to participate. But I've been reluctant due to the fact that I couldn't see a way to do the subject justice without a lengthy post. 
I've decided to give it a shot, and while long, hopefully my post won’t be a waste of space.
 
I don't have an exact count, but I'm guessing I've been involved in somewhere around 18 (front end) disciplinary councils. None resulted in probation, one resulted in no action (temporarily), two resulted in disfellowshipment, and the rest resulted in excommunication.
 
Certain sins require a mandatory disciplinary council, but for the most part the decision is left up to the Bishop or Stake Presidency based upon various conditions and circumstances. The bishop and his counselors normally handle cases involving women and non-Melchizedek Priesthood holders. If the case may result in the excommunication of a man who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood (particularly if he has been endowed) the case is transferred to the Stake.
 
Palerider wrote: “Another thing....there are some leaders who don't enjoy Displinary Councils and they will do what they can not to hold them.”
 
This is true. In fact I have seen bishops bend over backwards to avoid holding a disciplinary council; ignoring egregious situations until a Stake President literally had to say "do it or else!" 
It's been my experience that the most difficult cases, and the ones most bishops try to avoid, are those that involve women who have committed fornication or adultery. It doesn’t take much imagination to understand why.
Three men sitting in a room alone with a woman who is confessing to such things is extremely uncomfortable for all involved.
Been there, done that, and don't wish to ever do it again.
 
The thing I really wanted to touch on though is the concept of the "double standard" that a few here have postured.
 
In regards to that I'll note what priesthoodpower wrote: "I would think that the church DC is the same thing and the Bishop/Stake Pres/council members are listening to the spirit as their guiding factor."
 
Listening to the Spirit SHOULD, and I believe in most cases IS the guiding factor. And sometimes that results in actions that appear to be unfair (or a double standard) in the eyes of those who see things only through a "glass darkly" so to speak.
I'll give you an example. 
 
While I was serving on a Stake High Council we had a case before us respecting a gentleman who at the time was serving as a bishop’s counselor. The man had been in an adulterous relationship for quite some time before it was discovered, whereupon he was released from his position in the bishopric and subsequently a disciplinary council was convened. 
The man refused to appear before the council, but he did send a letter, which was read by the Stake President (minus the 4-letter words). The letter informed us that he no longer believed in the Church, no longer wanted to be a part of it, had no plans to leave his adulterous relationship, and that all 15 of us were more than welcome to do something anatomically impossible.
 
After reading the letter the Stake president opened the meeting up to comments and concerns. Those who wished to speak did so, it was determined that the case was a "simple one", numbers were drawn to determine who would speak in behalf of the Church and the accused, the two men who drew the numbers had their say, and the Stake Presidency retired to an office to pray about a decision. 
While they were gone the members of the High Council discussed the case among themselves and it was clear we were all in agreement---the man HAD to be excommunicated.
After quite some time the Stake President and his counselors returned to the room. The Stake President then said words to this effect:
"Brethren, we have supplicated our Father in Heaven for His guidance in this matter and we want only to do his will. And the three of us agree that it is NOT the will of our father in Heaven that Bro. _____________ be excommunicated at this time. Therefore we propose that no action be taken against him until we receive further instructions."
 
You could have heard a gnat burp in that room at that moment. All twelve of us were dumbfounded. None of us could believe what we had just heard. 
The Stake President then went on to say words to this effect: "Brethren, we understand this decision doesn't make much sense to you, and honestly it doesn't make much sense to us, but we believe the Lord has spoken and we ask for your sustaining vote."
The vote was unanimous to sustain the decision, and we all left the meeting in complete bewilderment.
What was even more bewildering is that the woman who Bro._________ was having the adulterous relationship with WAS excommunicated! 
 
Fast forward about four months later.
Another disciplinary council is convened. 
We arrive not knowing what it will be about.
We find out soon enough that it pertains to Bro. __________ who sent us the nasty letter four months previous.
This time, however, he is present at the meeting with his bishop in tow.
His bishop relates the story about Bro. ___________ receiving notice (from him) that the decision was NOT to excommunicate him. 
He tells us that when Bro______________ received that information he proceeded to break down and bawl like a little child. The bishop tells us that his entire demeanor changed and he suddenly became humble and penitent.
Over the next four months Bro.________ made further changes until he was finally ready to appear willingly before another disciplinary council. 
And there he was; standing before us a changed man.
And the story he told was heart wrenching. 
And his closing remarks were humbling to all of us.
 
He said: "Brethren, I just want you to know that I know that you were following God’s will when you declined to excommunicate me four months ago. I was angry and bitter and hateful and I couldn't wait to be free from God and this Church. And had you excommunicated me I do not believe I would be standing here right now. When the bishop told me that you had decided not to excommunicate me something changed within me. I don't really understand it and I don't know how to describe it, but all of the hurt and hate and anger just melted away and I no longer wanted to be without God and the Church in my life. I am here today to tell you that I am now ready to be excommunicated if that is what needs to take place for me to come back, and as a matter of fact, I believe it does.”
 
And he was excommunicated.
And he did come back and was rebaptized.
And as far as I know he is still in full fellowship with God and the Church.
 
The point I want to make with this story is that there were many people in his ward and within the Stake who knew of this man, knew his circumstances, and were extremely put out when his girlfriend was excommunicated while he wasn't. For four months we endured wholesale carping and murmuring from members who decried the "double standard". 
 
Now I'm not going to claim that every decision to excommunicate or not to excommunicate comes from God.
Obviously Bishops and Stake Presidents aren't infallible.
But what I will say is that all of us need to be careful before pronouncing a "double standard" when it comes to disciplinary councils. 
We should remember that God's ways are higher than our ways; and his thoughts higher than our thoughts. And since none of us knows what goes on in a disciplinary council that we have no part in, we should be willing to give a bishopric or a stake presidency and high council the benefit of the doubt.

 

Post of the year candidate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to stick my neck out here and ask a question that might generate some uncomfortable responses, but its something that I've occasionally wondered about but never came up with a good answer. From what I have heard and seen, disciplinary councils are sometimes held when and perhaps because temple covenants have been broken. Surely a divorce is a breaking of the most solemn temple covenant, but I've never yet heard or seen of a disciplinary council being held for the breaking of the most solemn temple covenant. I'm curious about that. It almost gives the impression that the church is being selective in how it responds to the breaking of temple covenants. I'm, not making this comment to judge or criticise, I'm asking because I don't know the answer, and would like to.

Edited by askandanswer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There would probably be a role for the Holy Ghost in disciplinary councils of this nature. It seems to play quite a helpful, reliable  role in other disciplinary councils, as indicated by many of the other posts on this topic. Numbers 5: 11-31 can be read as a precedent for the use of divine intervention in determining marital fidelity. Obviously, divorces can be caused by far more than marital infidelity, but if divine intervention can be used for this purpose, then applying the same principle more broadly, divine intervention as manifest through the Spirit could also be used to when trying to work out how a disciplinary council could respond to the breaking of temple covenants resulting from a divorce.

 

(Old Testament | Numbers 5:11 - 23)
11  ¶ And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
12  Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man's wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him,
13  And a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, and be kept close, and she be defiled, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken with the manner;
14  And the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be defiled: or if the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be not defiled:
15  Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, and he shall bring her offering for her, the tenth part of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon it, nor put frankincense thereon; for it is an offering of jealousy, an offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance.
16  And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the LORD:
17  And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water:
18  And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and uncover the woman's head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse:
19  And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse:
20  But if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee beside thine husband:
21  Then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell;
22  And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen.
23  And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out with the bitter water:
Edited by askandanswer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to stick my neck out here and ask a question that might generate some uncomfortable responses, but its something that I've occasionally wondered about but never came up with a good answer. From what I have heard and seen, disciplinary councils are sometimes held when and perhaps because temple covenants have been broken. Surely a divorce is a breaking of the most solemn temple covenant, but I've never yet heard or seen of a disciplinary council being held for the breaking of the most solemn temple covenant. I'm curious about that. It almost gives the impression that the church is being selective in how it responds to the breaking of temple covenants. I'm, not making this comment to judge or criticise, I'm asking because I don't know the answer, and would like to.

The dissolution of marriage by court decree is the dissolution of an earthly ordinance, not the eternal covenant. So there's that.

But, in the case where the dissolution of marriage was caused by some serious sin on either party - e.g. adultery/pornography... those do go to disciplinary councils.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To my knowledge you cannot be brought before a disciplinary council for a porn addiction, someone please correct me if I'm mistaken.

If you're trying to overcome it, yes. If you find nothing wrong with it, you can.

I don't know much of the details but a youth in our ward is not allowed to come back to church because he was watching porn while the Youth was having an activity in their house and some of the youth walked in on him and he continued watching it and even showed it to them.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The dissolution of marriage by court decree is the dissolution of an earthly ordinance, not the eternal covenant. So there's that.

 

 

I was thinking more along the lines that in a temple marriage, we make covenants to love and cherish and be true to each other for eternity, but when divorced, or often prior to a divorce, those things stop happening. The divorcing couple turn away from those covenants and no longer keep them - in effect, breaking them. But a divorce seems to be treated differently to the breaking of other temple covenants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're trying to overcome it, yes. If you find nothing wrong with it, you can.

 

 

I'm not so sure about that.....If I find nothing wrong with drinking coffee can I be brought before a disciplinary council? Let's assume I keep my beliefs to myself and the only one complaining is my wife. I do not advocate the drinking of coffee to others, nor do I discuss it openly with other church members, but for me it's OK....

 

I'm going to say no....it's between me and the Lord, now expand that to pornography....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not allowed to come back to church at all?

 

This is his parents restricting him right? not his priesthood leaders I hope

Sounds like a difficult situation. I can imagine a person being prevented from coming to church if there is evidence that his presence could have a corrupting influence on others at church, but I'm also aware of D&C 46: 3 - 4

 

 Nevertheless ye are commanded never to cast any one out from your public meetings, which are held before the world.

 Ye are also commanded not to cast any one who belongeth to the church out of your sacrament meetings; nevertheless, if any have trespassed, let him not partakeuntil he makes reconciliation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not allowed to come back to church at all?

 

This is his parents restricting him right? not his priesthood leaders I hope

 

Could as easily be a legal no-contact order.  "Providing harmful materials to a minor" is a criminal offense, and some jurisdictions are strict enough that they'll even file charges against an offender who is a juvenile--if the kid's facing criminal charges in juvenile court, then no contact with the "victims" pending trial could easily be one of the temporary orders.

 

I was thinking more along the lines that in a temple marriage, we make covenants to love and cherish and be true to each other for eternity, but when divorced, or often prior to a divorce, those things stop happening. The divorcing couple turn away from those covenants and no longer keep them - in effect, breaking them. But a divorce seems to be treated differently to the breaking of other temple covenants.

 

I see where you're going and sympathize, to some degree; but you've got a few problems.  First, you've got to figure out exactly what the temple sealing covenant entails (I think the ideas you cite are implicitly included, but they are not explicitly part of the sealing rite).  Second, you've got to wade through a quagmire of facts and he-said, she-said about every little thing from the time she burned dinner and wouldn't fix it to the time he declined to pick up his socks--all that would take literally days to get through.  And third, you're incentivizing divorcing couples to throw each other under the bus before their High Council (at the risk of their own membership), thus guaranteeing that there will no longer be any such thing as an "amicable divorce" in the LDS Church.

 

 

but if divine intervention can be used for this purpose, then applying the same principle more broadly, divine intervention as manifest through the Spirit could also be used to when trying to work out how a disciplinary council could respond to the breaking of temple covenants resulting from a divorce.

 

Could it not have been divine intervention that led the Church into its current policy of just not getting involved in these kinds of messes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Could it not have been divine intervention that led the Church into its current policy of just not getting involved in these kinds of messes?

 

lol, yes, nice point. But then we are still left with the seemingly odd situation where breaching some temple covenants can result in an excommunication, and breaching other covenants seemingly has not impact on the breaker's church standing. And yes, while its true that these covenants are only implicit, strictly speaking, I only covenanted not to have sexual relations with anybody except my lawfully wedded wife, but that term "sexual relations" seems to have been expanded to include a lot of actions that are only implicit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not allowed to come back to church at all?

 

This is his parents restricting him right? not his priesthood leaders I hope

Not the parents. The Bishopric. He is not allowed to be with the Youth. So, can't attend Church and Youth Activities. His parents tried to attend a different ward but the Bishop said he'll have to notify the Bishopric in that ward of what transpired and then it's up to the Bishop in that ward what to do with it. The parents did not want that following him around so they decided to just not go to Church.

I'm sure there's a lot of details that led to that situation that nobody but the parents and the bishopric knows about, so dunno really. But, the main gist has to do with porn. By the way, the youth ended up in juvie and from what I understand, one or more of the other youth parents filed the charges - possibly the Bishopric (I really don't know, I'm just guessing) because 2 of them have kids in YM/YW program that were in that activity.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
 Share