Church discipline

[Anonymous]

I have had some experiences on stake level disciplinary councils. I really liked HiJolly’s answer, so I won’t repeat it, but believe it has a lot do with insitutional behavior and stage 3 faith.

I do not have a problem with how the church disciplines. I do have a problem with the way some people approach it, the sinner and the judges from time to time. But believe it is because the church is run by people, and we don’t have the Great and Perfect Judge in our midst to handle these things. So all things are done with good intentions, but have a degree of error in the implementations.

There must be order in the church. But there must be charity…or all else is for naught. Finding the balance is the experience we get when we seek how to handle different and unique situations.

All things should be done with love, including chastisements.

[Anonymous]

Poppyseed wrote:

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.

Well said, poppyseed. I compare this to the “dipping in the River Jordan 7 times” requirement. There is nothing magic about a disciplinary council…but it does require humility.

That is not a judgment on jmason…please don’t take it that way. You were humble to go to the meetings and councils. Anyone who can swallow pride and accept the council’s decisions, and seek Christ, will find peace. I just think there is ample evidence throughout church history and the scriptures where it seems God is less concerned with the requirements for repentance, and more concerned with the change of heart that leads towards renewed growth. This is one reason I can accept Joseph as a prophet…he did not puff himself up as a “perfect” prophet worthy of speaking for God. But he was a strong leader about declaring, despite his weaknesses, he was chosen by God to lead, and because of that, was at times harsh with dissenters in the church, even though most journals of individuals describe him as a man of great love.

[Anonymous]

Poppyseed, the Church conducts lots of surveys of leadership and members when evaluating programs. There is very little, ime, that is “untouchable” when it comes to altering a program based on feedback. Look at “Preach My Gospel” sometime in detail. It addresses much of what had grown around the missionary program for years by well-meaning but misguided mission leaders – and it is very clear about things that used to be inproperly emphasized and done. It’s amazing to me what is in there, but so few members realize that.

I might do a post about it at some point, since missionary work is such a struggle for many members.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Poppyseed, the Church conducts lots of surveys of leadership and members when evaluating programs. There is very little, ime, that is “untouchable” when it comes to altering a program based on feedback. Look at “Preach My Gospel” sometime in detail. It addresses much of what had grown around the missionary program for years by well-meaning but misguided mission leaders – and it is very clear about things that used to be inproperly emphasized and done. It’s amazing to me what is in there, but so few members realize that.

I might do a post about it at some point, since missionary work is such a struggle for many members.

I think I will do that. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

HiJolly wrote:

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?

That is absolutely correct. I am questioning wether it really is necessary to confess before a man. I do see your point that you make here:

HiJolly wrote:

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.

Although I see your point I disagree with what you said. I see from a church organizational standpoint why there must be order among the ranks because the church is a unique organization in that there is no professional clergy. In various other churches, people only come to hear the word and learn, they have no position of any kind other than student and adherant. so this kind of system allows for a person to not be in good standing with the faith.

But as we all know our church is different in that we, the common layman are called to act as professional clergy, which requires that one be living in accordance with the rules. I do thinnk that the churches system is beautiful in that we all serve in our different capacities and work together to lead, teach and edify one another. However I do feel that most of the time the quality of sermons and lessons suffer greatly due to the lack of a professional clergy, but that is a discussion for another day. So from this perspective I do see your point.

But I was approaching the question more from a spiritual perspective. Are we not all imperfect anyways, and can you really rate ‘badness’ of sin on a scale? Obviously murder is an exception, but other than that sin is sin and I believe to God there is no difference. So my question then is, If we all fall short anyways, if we are all imperfect people serving and striving to become better, than why is it necessary to go and confess before another sinner just so that he can change your status in the organization. My point is that it really accomplishes nothing to disfellowship or excommunicate a person. Do you really think that a person who willingly commited a sin and then felt no remorse is going to feel any differently because he/she is disfellowshipped and can’t enjoy all of the rites of full membership? Or on the other side of the coin if a person simply made a mistake and they truly feel sorry for having fallen short and offended God, will they not already feel like they have missed the mark and are not worthy of all the blessings of full membership? It does not require a church court to tell the person to repent and change. Why is it necessary to set a period of time? Does it really make a difference if a person feels Godly sorrow and truly repentant for one hour or for one year? I believe that God judges the heart and if a person truly felt the anguish and sorrow for having offended God, then that is good enough for him and he will extend his mercy to them, if they ask.

I am focusing not on the organizational necessity of confessing, but on the spiritual. Further more a person can experience true spirituality and a real relationship with God even if they never step foot inside of a church.

HiJolly wrote:

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.

Why would it be rendered useless? Is anyone perfect in this organization? We all miss the mark and break the rules in our own way. And the institution continues to stand strong. The church is made of imperfect people striving to become like Christ.

HiJolly wrote:

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

Whatever happened to the buffet idea? Once one has progressed from TBM to enlightened understanding does one not take the good (for each person it will be different) and leave the not so good ideas?

[Anonymous]

Quote:

can you really rate ‘badness’ of sin on a scale?

Absolutely. Yes, all sin and come short of the glory of God, but not all sins are alike. Murder is an extreme exception, but anything that receives automatic excommunication according to the CHI is very serious in nature, as well. Stealing a candy bar from a store vs. rape; lying to a teacher vs. serial adultery; occasionally losing your temper and yelling at your kids vs. breaking their bones in anger; self-medicating in your own home vs. driving drunk; etc. Absolutely, sin can be ranked on a badness scale.

It’s also important to rank “badness” of sin on an effort and repetition scale – meaning one’s willingness to try sincerely to repent (meaning only “change”). That’s why it’s hardest on addicts – and why the Church is so focused on addiction avoidance. It’s hard to repent (meaning “change in a positive, growth manner”) when your lack of self-control is greater than others.

Finally, I think it’s important in a general discussion like this to reiterate that church disciplinary councils rarely happen over trivial things. That used to happen frequently in the early years of the church. It’s amazing to me what used to be used by some members to drag someone else into a church court. Once a level of maturity was reached and the basic guidelines were established, and once it moved from being a “church court” to a “disciplinary council”, things settled down and only the most egregious things were supposed to be addressed. If a council is called for a trivial matter now, that is a serious breach of protocol – and it very rarely happens now.

Again, the central issue now is that the individual often doesn’t see his/her actions as “bad” enough to warrant punishment or even organizational attention – and I’ve seen that attitude even in cases of serial sexual misconduct.

[Anonymous]

This is a fascinating topic with LOTS AND LOTS of gray.

I agree with believer in the ideal of “we all need to ‘change’ from inside to make it real change”.

I also agree with Ray. There are definitely sins of scale: rape, murder, child molestation, physical abuse, etc. However, all of these sins are severe enough that, in reality, the legal/law enforcement system should be the active pursuer of justice, and when convicted by the legal system, that member is automatically excommunicated. I’m sure that’s the right system and I doubt anyone would argue with that.

So, from a practical standpoint, it seems that the only “sins” left to the church disciplinary system are sexual in nature and/or substance abuse problems. (obviously, there still may be apostasy)

From this standpoint, I see what believer is saying. The “disciplinary council” feels more like an emotional abuse tool to coerce a change of behavior. I’m sure most, if not all, of the men on the council are good, loving, caring people who believe they are doing the right thing. But, just because you get someone to change behavior doesn’t mean they are doing it for the right reason therefore they haven’t changed their heart though they may have changed their actions.

You see it in the addiction area alot; there is a such thing as a sober drunk. Meaning, the individual is sober by sheer force of will but all of the underlying issues have not been addressed, the individual is not actually sober in the appropriate usage of the term. They’re just not acting out.

I don’t mean to mix the addiction component in here, I was just making a point.

Another perspective to illustrate this point: when someone resigns from the church, this is not called “resignation” by the church. It’s called “name removal”. The term “resignation” is the legally accepted term in the U.S. for an individual who would like to sever ties with a religious organization and it is a legal term because there have been legal actions taken in the past when this happens. (In other churches)

What is the underlying message the church is demonstrating by calling it “name removal” rather than “resignation”?

What I’m getting at is that I can see believers perspective: the disciplinary councils just feel like emotional abuse. When the ideal is the true change of heart in the individual, the external stuff starts to feel abusive.

Old-Timer wrote:

That’s why it’s hardest on addicts – and why the Church is so focused on addiction avoidance

There’s two parts to this: first, addicts won’t respond well to what may feel like a shaming exercise, ie, church court. Addiction is an illness, not a sin. It looks like sin, it smells like sin, etc. but the root of addiction is not sin, it’s sickness. Western civilization is just waking up to the fact that an individual can be emotionally “broken”. Western civilization has discovered physical “brokenness”, mental “brokenness” and we now are becoming aware of emotional “brokenness”.

Emotional brokenness is not weakness, sin, pride, etc. It is an ailment, akin to a disability. It can be treated and conquered, but it’s ashes are always present, throughout a person’s life. This is why addicts will usually claim that they’ll always be an addict. It’s hardwired, but there’s hope. Many have overcome the underlying issues and discovered ways to keep the ashes from re-igniting.

Generally speaking, a church disciplinary council is the absolute worst way to try to treat addiction. In most cases, it was this kind of emotionally manipulative system that created the addict in the first place.

There’s a reason the AA twelve step program works. Everyone there is an addict (or they’ve been invited unanimously by the group). Unconditional love and acceptance in that group setting is the actual saving grace for most addicts who have recovered in the twelve step program. No one judges (at least out loud), there is no reprimand, no consequences. You will get called out if you’re obviously taunting the system or if your thinking has gotten sideways. But it’s not done to shame or guilt, there’s no consequences and most take these moments as loving prods.

@Ray:

You implied the church was doing alot to prevent addiction. I haven’t seen or felt this in a real way, ever. I don’t take the countless lectures on p0rn at the priesthood session as “addiction prevention”. If anything, it’s “addiction promotion”.

Sorry to be so direct, but addicts get hardwired by constantly berating themselves for their actions, only to be validated in that hardwiring by the prophet, no less.

In fairness, treating addiction is so far out of the normal OT way of thinking for most orthodox christian denominations, they will all be slow to get there.

Ironically, the Saviors treatment of the prostitute/adulterer is the correct way of handling addicts. Non-judgmental outpouring of unconditional love.

[Anonymous]

swimordie wrote:

Ironically, the Saviors treatment of the prostitute/adulterer is the correct way of handling addicts. Non-judgmental outpouring of unconditional love.

Perfectly said!

I think what we have is an evolution in the church. “Church Courts” were the Utah correction system in the early years here. When one person stole another’s cattle, it was handled in Church Court. Obviously, that’s not how it is today, but we have remnants of it as a punitive system. It is changing, but like many things, a bit slowly, IMHO.

[Anonymous]

I wish that I could agree that addiction is only an illness. Addiction causes people to do things that are immoral, and abusive, and sometimes against the law. Not all addicts are really nice people with sad histories and big problems. Sometimes addicts are mean and hurtful and selfish. And I absolutely feel like each case much be evaluated on a individual basis. We don’t help addicts by excusing or underplaying the outcomes of their out of control thought processes and subsequent behavior. Sometimes addicts need to have the full weight of their consequences handed over to them and I feel strongly that church courts, though not always pleasant, can be an effective tool. Handing someone the responsibility for their lives is NOT a shaming activity. It may hurt. It may embarrass and even anger. But let’s be very clear on what is kind and what isn’t. Excusing, looking the other way, sympatizing…..sometimes these are just other forms of denial and enabling and saying it’s an illness is sometimes a very convenient way to avoid owning ones life choices.

With regards to the addict that is in recovery or who needs recovery desperately, the court isn’t the cure some think it is. We have already talked about that. I think the court happens best when it is part of the intervention stage of things. OR when everything has been tried and a person is determined to self destruct as they take everyone they can with them. And if someone is in an addictive headspace, do you really think they have any business serving as a bishop or high counselor or exercizing the priesthood? There IS a time to take away ones religious privilages and stewardships. A drunk shouldn’t have access to my car or babysit my kids …..I think you get the idea. Whether or not the church court is a shaming exercize is really up to the brethren who administer it. And it think this is where it gets precarious.

I don’t think the Saviors love of the adultrous woman was unconditional. He did say, Go and sin no more. There was a condition. A big one. I don’t think this underplays the power and breadth and mercy of the love of Christ either. I think it enhances it.

[Anonymous]

Amen, Poppyseed.

I know addiction often has underlying neurological causes that sometimes can be outside one’s control. I get that – and I believe those things are covered by the Atonement as expressed in the 2nd Article of Faith (which is FAR more powerful and expansive, imo, than most members realize). However, addiction often is the result of conscious choices and it very often can be controlled through intentional effort and use of a sponsor / mentor / buddy system.

It really does need to be evaluated on an individual basis.

[Anonymous]

Maybe one solution for the church, and I am just thinking here, would be for the church to have a “self referral” program. There are programs such as this in the organization I work for and they work splendidly.

The idea of this program is that a person who is an addict can go and speak to a counselor in complete confidentiality, with the promise of no negative repercussions.

What if the church could have a program like this? I think many times people are afraid to seek help because they don’t want everyone to know they have a problem (this would be more hidden addictions like pornography, for others like drug addiction I’m pretty sure lots of people know already.)

But what if the church had a program such as this where a person who truly felt sorrow for what they had done, wants to change, but just can’t overcome the addiction and doesn’t want grandma to find out that he/she is not walking the line? Would a program like this work in the church? Or do most of you feel that their sins must be brought before the council?

My opinion is that it would work and would be a great blessing to many members. The addict would have the promise that their sins would not leave the room unless they specifically gave permission, and they would have the benefit of a counselor who is a member of the church who understands their dillema, shares the same faith and wants to help them change.

What do you all think?

[Anonymous]

Sorry believer, I’m editing this cause you beat me to the submit button. I think your idea is absolutely fabulous (with the option of a non-lds counselor as well, if desired)

@poppy:

I’m not saying that addicts shouldn’t be responsible for their actions. They absolutely should be. But there’s almost always something else going on.

The good people that are close to me that are recovering addicts are just that, good people. They’ve done horrible things and they have to account for that. But when an addict is acting out, they’re irrational. And I don’t mean just a little irrational. I mean completely-different-individual-type irrational.

This is NOT an excuse. I’m NOT accepting their behavior. But, to pretend that they’re just like any other criminal, playing out their most wanton, self-serving, selfish carnal desires is NOT true. Their condition is treatable. Their behavior is manageable. But to try to treat it or manage it in abusive, coercive, manipulative ways is self-defeating. Holding the “you can’t use your illness as an excuse” card over someone’s head is not helpful, in my humblest of humble opinion.

Poppyseed wrote:

I don’t think the Saviors love of the adultrous woman was unconditional. He did say, Go and sin no more. There was a condition. A big one. I don’t think this underplays the power and breadth and mercy of the love of Christ either. I think it enhances it.

I love you, poppy, but I couldn’t disagree more with that statement. It’s the absolute opposite of what I believe. 😳

Old-Timer wrote:

However, addiction often is the result of conscious choices and it very often can be controlled through intentional effort and use of a sponsor / mentor / buddy system.

I agree with the second half of that, Ray. The first half, I would replace the word “conscious” with the words “emotionally irrational”. There’s a keen difference between what I would consider a “conscious” choice and an “emotionally irrational” choice. Again, I’m not excusing/accepting/sympathizing the choice. There just needs to be an awareness of how controlling the addiction can be. And, again, it’s NOT weakness, pride, selfishness. It’s emotional brokenness. And it’s just as real as a broken arm or schizophrenia or any other debilitating disease/condition.

[Anonymous]

swimordie wrote:

There just needs to be an awareness of how controlling the addiction can be. And, again, it’s NOT weakness, pride, selfishness. It’s emotional brokenness. And it’s just as real as a broken arm or schizophrenia or any other debilitating disease/condition.

Well, you guys are ALL right, in a sense. we treat addictions with both emotionally corrective empathy AND setting basic limits. Without empathy there’s little healing, and without limits there’s little progress. Part of the success of AA or NA is that they provide both in a group setting. So does/should the church.

[Anonymous]

believeroftruth wrote:

But what if the church had a program such as this where a person who truly felt sorrow for what they had done, wants to change, but just can’t overcome the addiction and doesn’t want grandma to find out that he/she is not walking the line? Would a program like this work in the church? Or do most of you feel that their sins must be brought before the council?

My opinion is that it would work and would be a great blessing to many members. The addict would have the promise that their sins would not leave the room unless they specifically gave permission, and they would have the benefit of a counselor who is a member of the church who understands their dillema, shares the same faith and wants to help them change.

What do you all think?

Doesn’t the church now offer many special classes for “Overcoming Addictions” that is voluntary for people to attend and learn about this? I am pretty sure our stake has this available, but I have no idea if people feel comfortable coming forward and attending it or not, nor do I know the content or if it is effective. I just wonder if the church is also hearing that same line of thinking and trying to meet that need.

I think there is such a focus in the church on the second principle of the gospel, repentence, and surely everone needs it, but because it is taken seriously… repentence requires living Christ’s teaching to the woman caught in adultery…”Go and sin no more”. Addictions and the repetitive sinning is not in line with Christ’s teachings.

However, until the soul is experiences godly sorrow and is ready to seek repentence, church leaders should preach and love and help explain the purposes of disciplinary councils and the purposes of the church standards. While I have participated in councils, I have never been privy to the discussions prior to a council to know what led up to it or what effort was made to prepare for it. Perhaps this is an area lacking in the process?

[Anonymous]

Swim…..don’t you worry bout a thing! You can absolutely disagree with me. I am not afraid. I am guessing that our hearts on the subject may be closer than we think. Perhaps as we discuss it we will come to understand better why we see things the way we do.

And I don’t think I meant to imply that you didn’t feel strongly about personal responsibility. I am sorry you took my comments that way. That would probably be the last assumption I would make about you considering your understanding of codependency. I was speaking from my own personal experience and subsequent positioning on the issue. Amidst all the love and empathy, there is room for outrage too.

Quote:

But to try to treat it or manage it in abusive, coercive, manipulative ways is self-defeating. Holding the “you can’t use your illness as an excuse” card over someone’s head is not helpful, in my humblest of humble opinion.

I don’t believe I said anything close to this. I think Jordan said my feelings very very well. I wish I could adequately show you the compassion in my heart for someone who finds themselves in this perdicament — even those on both sides of it. BUT…. In my experience, it doesn’t usually go down this way. In fact it is the other way around as the addictive fog causes addicts to make excuses and blameshift and manipulate to stay in their destructive patterns and shake off all the loving efforts to help them.

With regards to new ideas for the church………I would love to be in on conversations that open our minds to different/more effective ways of dealing with addictions and the family members surrounding it. We have lots of unmet needs in this arena.

[Author]

Posts