- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
DarkJedi wrote:
But the handbook is very clear on how disciplinary councils are supposed to work. Unfortunately, most (but not all ) of that is included in Handbook 1 and is unavailable to most.
Not unavailable, but somewhat inconvenient for some; my former bishop was quite open about handing over CHI1 and letting you read for yourself what the exact text was. In visiting other wards, I’ve occasionally pulled bishops aside for a question and gotten the same about 30-50% of the time when there was something in 1 that was relevant to my question, so as long as you have other wards in visiting range it’s highly likely that asking around will get you a look at the text reasonably easily.
I’ve had a little experience in disciplinary councils, and it was probably my least enjoyable part of the calling. I agree that the example Dandee related seems expressly against what’s in the handbook, or what was in three of the handbook 1’s that I’ve had (based on my memory, at least). The bishop and SP requirement for the guy sounds like something from the OT and D&C, but not the handbook. They’re basically taking away his agency, and holding his membership hostage until he marries the woman they want him to marry, rather than let him marry who he wants. By their logic (presuming this is all true), they better start making disciplinary appointments for all those who divorced anyone who wasn’t disfellowshipped or ex’d, then married someone else, cuz man, once you’ve made those commitments, you can’t change your mind! Something sounds fishy…
I have a somewhat similar story, however. I watched an apparent vengeful ex keep her ex from getting sealed to his new wife, or even getting a temple recommend, because she insisted he wasn’t current on alimony even though he insisted he was. She called his Bishop frequently to make sure he knew. So the bishop felt he had no choice but to deny the man a temple recommend, even though he was reportedly worthy in all other areas. The man eventually got tired of trying to prove his financial obligations were met, and tired of fighting it, and eventually went inactive.
Cnsl1 wrote:
I agree that the example Dandee related seems expressly against what’s in the handbook, or what was in three of the handbook 1’s that I’ve had (based on my memory, at least). The bishop and SP requirement for the guy sounds like something from the OT and D&C, but not the handbook. They’re basically taking away his agency, and holding his membership hostage until he marries the woman they want him to marry, rather than let him marry who he wants. By their logic (presuming this is all true), they better start making disciplinary appointments for all those who divorced anyone who wasn’t disfellowshipped or ex’d, then married someone else, cuz man, once you’ve made those commitments, you can’t change your mind! Something sounds fishy…
Well, I think most Bishops and many of us would agree, it’s wrong to turn your back on marriage covenants without a good reason. “There’s no such thing as no-fault divorce”, I once heard. Not to mention, “whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” In the SP’s mind, since the wife “repented”, she was free of the sin of adultery, which means her husband was wrong to divorce her. I’m pretty sure that was his line of thinking.
On top of that, from the MOMENT Christianity first begun, there were major disagreements over doctrine, policy, etc. We like to say the Church is exactly the same Church, no matter where you go, but that is absolutely not the case. ESPECIALLY when you have Church leaders governing by the “Spirit”, which is apparently telling all sorts of different things to different people.
dande48 wrote:In the SP’s mind, since the wife “repented”, she was free of the sin of adultery, which means her husband was wrong to divorce her.
I wonder if said SP would so quickly welcome someone who had violated his most sacred trust back into his own life just because they claimed to repent. (And did so only after being caught.)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.