Church discipline

I was in the bishopric in my last ward and had my first experience with a church disciplinary council, to say I was a little disappointed with the process is an understatement. First of all just because of a calling, why is a person entitled to judge another? Just because someone is called as a bishop or member of the bishopric doesn’t change who one is. We all have our shortcomings, and strenghts in different areas. One guy might be great at living the word of wisdom, but maybe he likes to gamble. Why should anyone ever be in a position to judge another because of a church position?

This kind of questioning is natural and an essential part of Stage 4 existence, IMO. The real issue is that your confidence in the truth-claims of the Institution is in trouble, and this influences your confidence in everything the institution of the Church does, how it does it, why it does it, etc. Do you agree?

We all know that when we join a club or other socially organized effort, we give up certain ‘freedoms’ to be a part of the whole. For example, if I don’t pay my annual dues, then I am barred from participation in the Scottish Rite Research Society, and I don’t get the annual issue of Heredom, etc.

It seems to me that this simple reality is terribly complicated by the nature of the Institution that we’re talking about here, which is the Church. Which, in the minds of most of its membership, high and low, is in charge of the salvation and spiritual development of it’s membership. While as a mystic I don’t believe that this is literally the way of it, yet in the social and ecclesiastical setting of the Church all its membership are obligated to see it so. And in that setting, I agree that it is so. This is why we agree to be baptized. Why we agree to attend meetings, partake of the Sacrament, sustain our Bishop, and so forth. We give up a degree of personal autonomy when we join the Church in order to gain from the many benefits of the whole.

I am convinced that these benefits are not purely social, for in my life my agreement to subject myself to the rules and discipline of the Church (including temple covenants) has greatly benefited me spiritually. Most ‘enlightened’ gurus and mystics agree that our personal spiritual unfoldment is dependent upon our interactions with and investment in a ‘social’ spiritually-minded or oriented group. Which the Church is. I love reading the writings of Vitvan (Ralph DeBit), and when I read his requirement for his disciples to join a church or other spiritually oriented social group, I wondered at the idea. Now, years later, I see that it is indeed necessary. Interesting that it comes from a spiritual tradition that is renowned for its solitary and ascetic mystics.

So anyways back to the council. The gentleman that had come in to confess was of course extremely distraught. Throughout the entire thing I could tell by his demeanor and a “feeling” if you want to call it that, that he truly felt sorrowful for what he had done and that he had turned his problem and his heart to God. I felt like just crying with him, giving him a hug and saying, “You are absolved brother” But unfortunately it doesn’t work like that in this organization. The other two members of the council disagreed with my “feeling” and instead chose to disfellowship this good brother.

Sounds to me like it worked exactly as the Lord set it up to work. All of you were entitled to your opinions, you all expressed those opinions, and the Judge in Israel made his choice. Just as it says it should happen in the D&C.

Why? what in the world does disfellowshipment accomplish?

I am puzzled by this question, BoT. Surely you know the stock answer. A member cannot break the rules of an institution without consequences, or the institution would dissolve into chaos and be destroyed, or at least be rendered useless. While this is natural to a stage 3 person, and understood at stage 5, I know that in stage 4 it is hard if not impossible to identify with.

How come when a person is most in need of love and support the church chooses to isolate them by not allowing them to speak, pray, take the sacrament, etc.

I see no reason that this person cannot receive the love and support they need when they are disfellowshipped. In fact, I’m sure that his family can see more clearly than ever his need for love and support when such a church court takes this action. The family may not be motivated to rally to his support without knowing his need is great. The restrictions in speaking and prayer are set to allow the person to realize the impact of his *choice* is more than just internal and personal, IMO. This works upon his psychology in a beneficial way, assuming he desires to continue in the institution for the reasons of spiritual guidance and development. If not, there is psychological benefit for him to leave the institution and align himself with one more in keeping with his own deep-felt values.

But again, surely you know this. I must be missing the core of your concern.

Think of the rumors and gossip this kind of thing causes. Instead of support, the person is most likely judged again, and shunned by other more “worthy” church members. I am not saying this last scenario always occurs, many people are truly Christ-like and do not judge, but you have to agree that it does occur.

Surely. And the Church teaches its membership that this is sin. We NEED that dynamic in the body of the Church to allow us to experience and weigh our own hearts. This is a critical function and benefit of the socialized religious meleau.

But why???? Why is all this necessary? Why does there have to be middle man? Why can a person not deal with their own problems between themselves and God. If a person truly repents in their heart before God and have felt his forgiveness, why would it be necessary to face further guilt and ridicule?

Because they have agreed to the social constraints of the Church. For the mutual benefit of both.

For example this brother I mentioned, had a wedding planned, he had announced his date to a large number of people and they were of course excited for the couple. Because of his disfellowshipment, this good man then had to call his mother, father, grandma etc. to explain that he could no longer be married on the date given because he had been disfellowshipped. What good did this accomplish? Instead of now a problem between him and God, it became the problem of hundreds of people. Why shame him like that? he is a good man. He simply made a mistake.

I am sure he IS a good man. He didn’t have to say anything to anyone about his problem, but he did. This allowed the dynamic of individual and institution to act on him as it should.

BoT, I think I understand your view. Hang in there, and try not to take offence in behalf of other people. Sometimes when I relate my story to others, they want to become angry and offended for me. I have to try and convince them that I am the only one justified to be angry for what happened to me, and if they can’t accept my happiness, I mourn for them.

HiJolly

This works upon his psychology in a beneficial way, assuming he desires to continue in the institution for the reasons of spiritual guidance and development. If not, there is psychological benefit for him to leave the institution and align himself with one more in keeping with his own deep-felt values.

For better or worse, this is the heart of the issue, and, in fact, at the heart of every experience we have in life. What information can I use/not use? What do I learn for my own continuing growth and progression?

Unfortunately, it’s such a difficult process when we see others stuck in stage 3 mentality. We get so hopeful for others and sometimes we hurt for others.

I think an interesting way to frame this is from your own perspective. What did YOU learn? You learned interesting things about the other members of the council, you learned the heartbreak of stage 3, you learned alot about the institution and it’s practices from a practical standpoint.

What are you going to do with this new information? Make adjustments to your own thinking and perspective? Re-align your expectations of others? Feel motivated to make a change to the institution? Bark at the moon?

My DW is going through a similar but completely unrelated thing. She counts on someone to take my son to piano lessons after school one day a week. That person has proven to be unreliable at random times over the last couple years. My wife has just put up with it but now realizes it is affecting her negatively to the point that it is more valuable to find another alternative. It’s no one’s fault. It is what it is. My DW finally realized it was pointless/fruitless blaming this person and instead is weighing the options and discovering that going a different direction is the net positive experience she wants in her life going forward.

Life happens. It’s the inner-life we must concern ourselves with in healthy, emotionally self-aware ways.

Why? what in the world does disfellowshipment accomplish? How come when a person is most in need of love and support the church chooses to isolate them by not allowing them to speak, pray, take the sacrament, etc. Think of the rumors and gossip this kind of thing causes. Instead of support, the person is most likely judged again, and shunned by other more “worthy” church members. I am not saying this last scenario always occurs, many people are truly Christ-like and do not judge, but you have to agree that it does occur.

I would tend to think the same way – if we’re going to err, ALWAYS err on the side of mercy. God can pick up the pieces later and exact justice if need be.

But so much of this perspective comes from my own temperament. Christ certainly wasn’t always this way. There were times that he turned over tables and condemned people to hell.

We have to judge. Righteous judging is truly loving (think of a parent correcting a child). We are not truly loving if we do not call each other out every once and a while. And my temperament makes this more difficult for me – but it’s got to be done and I’m glad there are people that are better at it.

Part of my becoming a more whole (Christlike) person is accepting the ‘shadow’ part of myself, learning to think in a way that is not natural for me. Maybe as I become more whole, I’ll be able to see all that God sees. Until then, I think God will use different people differently. I know I’ll reach people that others won’t, and others will reach people that I just can’t. Sometimes people need to be forgiven, sometimes disciplined.

I trust, most of the time, the process works more than well, and when it doesn’t, I trust that God will pick up the pieces for all the well intentioned mistakes we make, all the people that we needlessly hurt. I think He will.

As someone who has sat on multiple disciplinary councils, I believe strongly that the vast majority are driven by an attempt to ascertain the will of God – and I have seen initial opinions changed from the beginning to the end. Individual courts can end in conclusions that might not be perfect, and there certainly is a possibility of unrighteous dominion, but the formal structure that is supposed to be followed is absolutely inspired, imo.

I learned a long time ago that nearly everything is subjective, and in these cases, I believe rightly so, we only hear the individual’s side of the situation. We are not supposed to hear the other side – and I think that is appropriate. Those who participate in these councils pledge to not talk about the details, and that is an important and valuable thing with which I agree totally. What it does, however, is allow those who are displeased with the decision to be the only voice – and memories and perspectives while under stress are incredibly tricky things.

It becomes especially difficult whenever mental or emotional issues are present, since it’s almost impossible to trust completely that the personal who has such issues will be able to control them in a way that allows them to avoid repeat offenses. Add to that the automatic confidence of many that they won’t sin again, even if there isn’t evidence of that ability, and disfellowshipment becomes a reasonable “probationary” measure for many instances – a chance to delay a more extreme action (in either direction) and allow the person to prove themselves (one way or the other). In my experience, disfellowshipment often is the most merciful decision possible – especially when the offense truly is serious and remorse seems real. Just like a time out or grounding or removal of privilege for a child can impress on him the seriousness of something done, without having to resort to extreme measures, disfellowshipment can do the same in tricky or complex situations where the council wants to believe the person but can’t have full confidence yet.

In the end, I try not to judge anyone involved in a disciplinary council (in any position in that council), since I know I never will have the full story – sometimes even when I’m involved in it personally.

Having said that, one of the most amazing spiritual experiences of my life was a council where someone was cleared to be re-baptized. I will NEVER forget that glorious experience. When done as intended, for the truly penitent, these councils are an amazing thing.

You have to love the men on the councils and the people subject to them. You don’t have to love the tradition or the process. The people will be with us in heaven. The organization and the process won’t.

Well said – although, again, I don’t mind the ideal process as laid out. The application gets screwed up too often, and that really is a problem – as you said.

I agree, jmason and bruce, the church disciplinary system dealing with addicts is woefully, shamefully inadequate. I would imagine that in most cases, an addict will get worse after this experience. Mostly because the addiction is usually fueled by a lack of self-worth and a lack of feeling worthy of good things happening to oneself. And disciplinary action would validate the low self-worth and unworthiness thus accelerating the addict cycle down.

sometimes very true. but sometimes addicts need tough love. addicts face strict rules in other groups like AA, NA; and they’ll call you out if you’re not getting with the program.

good thing these disciplinary meetings call upon the spirit because they need it – every case so unique, and messing with the soul can be dangerous. But, like I said, when done right, I think these meetings work beautifully.

I have a question…..

Does anyone know if and how the church does its fact finding or evaluating of its programs and practices? Are their commitees? Focus groups? Or do they get their feedback only from disgruntled letters and emails? I am just wondering how this process works. Seems like the church over the years has tried to course correct when there is a need, albeit a very slow moving ship (and a lay, rotating ministry with very little instruction). As a side note, I would like to see newly called leaders gain some training in some of these complicated and sensitive areas.

I would also hope that the person entering church discipline would be able to see over the imperfections of the process to the vision and direction of their journey back to Christ.