- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Please have a look at this…it is small and VERY relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY9DcIMGxMshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY9DcIMGxMs” class=”bbcode_url”> I have not hidden that I am involved in church discipline now. I am aware of others as well, the rules they are given, and so forth. It is not uncommon for a disciplined member to be told they are not to open their mouth and participate in any way in anything associated with the church. In my case, from the time the opening prayer is offered to when it ends, I am not to have any involvement. If I am called upon for anything, my response is: “I pass”. I have also been told that I must attend meetings or I will not be allowed to return.
I know what it feels like to be in a room of 800 people and feel utterly alone. Why?…because there is a certain amount of enforced isolation that comes with church discipline. You are an outsider, you are made to feel like an outsider, as you are “dis-fellowshipped” (cut off from fellowship)…or “ex-communicated” (cut off from communion).
Anyway, I have yet to see any increase of love or work to reconnect offered to me. If anything, I have been forsaken. (and, many argue that I had it coming, and since I made my mistakes, I now get to suffer the consequences).
Please look at the URL video and comment. I don’t see how the church policy accomplishes anything positive. We talk in the church about love, helping, and “saving souls”. I was specifically told during my discipline that one of the goals of the discipline is to save the sinner’s soul. In the context of addiction (for example), I think this “saving souls” is at best pie in the sky, and at worst, a flat out lie.
Would love comments on this…
I think it’s harsh. It always bothered me that after a member experiences church discipline, their membership is annotated, they are refused certain callings — even after they are baptized and readmitted to the temple. I don’t really consider it very loving either. I do believe that getting a fresh start in a new area can help. I’m reminded of a really good member who was a senior manager in a large corporation. I used to love to hear him talk. It was never boring. He was a gifted leader. When we needed a Bishop, he couldn’t be called because of the mistake he made 30 years ago as a single adult (you can probably guess what) which got him disfellowshipped. So, they called the next best guy available, and it turned out to be a disaster. It was part of why we left our Ward. Occasionally you get a really bad leader and it’s so bad, EVERYONE talks about it in spite of political repercussions or cultural values against “speaking evil fo the Lord’s annointed”.
Meanwhile, this strong candidate, who had lived for 3 decades without any kind of disciplinary sin, was left out of the running for Bishop — and we all suffered.
Nonetheless, I think it’s still of value to re-engage with the church, but try to shake off old labels eventually when circumstances get you a new start in a new area. One doesn’t have to broadcast membership history — just reengage and do your best to serve others etcetera.
People who need to overcome anything generally need help from others to do so, in some way and to some degree. Isolation doesn’t work, and neither does suppression. AA works for many specifically because of the sponsor model that provides someone who will listen and support and encourage, at the time of deepest need.
Also, just to say it, total silence is not required in disciplinary situations, and it is not the norm in most situations. I can think of very, very few situations where I think it would be warranted – but I can think of a couple involving a long and vocal history of opposition to the Church. However, even in those situations, I don’t think it would be warranted every time or for a long time.
Thank you for sharing this TED talk. People use addictions as an escape from bad life situations. The antidote to bad life situations is (to a degree) connections.
I have long maintained that our church is not very forgiving for people that mess up. Someone said that two types of people are successful at church – the saints and the liars.
I certainly do not believe that it is intentional or malicious. I believe that as a group tries to fit an accepted mold that is held up as an ideal – there may naturally be some marginalization of people that do not meet that ideal. How different can you be and still be one of us. It is not black or white, in or out, but subtlety I believe that those that are different are made to feel less welcome – less belonging.
For these people, (again to varying degrees) church can be the opposite of comforting, restful, or strengthening.
I respect the rights of people to form organizations the way that they see fit with rules for belonging. OTOH what about the person who is rejected and cast out from the group?
Rob4Hope wrote:I was specifically told during my discipline that one of the goals of the discipline is to save the sinner’s soul. In the context of addiction (for example), I think this “saving souls” is at best pie in the sky, and at worst, a flat out lie.
The “save the sinner’s soul” idea is a justification to justify our current practice. I understood that it served to shock the member into a realization of the seriousness of their sins – to jolt them out of complacency. It obviously does not work well as evidenced by the abysmal return rate for those that have been excommunicated.
Rob4Hope: The TED talk captures so much of what is known about addictive behavior. The Vietnam study he mentioned went into a lot more depth and details. Of all the soldiers who used heroin in Vietnam, only about 5% needed interventions later. When I see an addict now, I see someone self medicating. By the drugs that are being abused, you can often figure out what the underlying mental health issue is. Other addictive behaviors might be just as well studied, and equally tied to social issues but they aren’t in the journals I read, so I don’t know.
Story: I had a dear friend who was very active in her ward. She held prestigious callings within the ward/stake structure. She told me that when she was 18, she took a job for the summer with the forest service. She shared a cabin that summer with two other Rangers. Male Rangers. And yes to everything you can imagine.
Her home ward was in the area, they knew of the situation. By 20, she had made changes in her life and was back active in the church. Her home Ward treated her horribly. As the years went by, she would go back to visit her parents. But memories are long, and the people of the ward never forgave her for the choices she made as an 18 year old.
God forgives easily and quickly. We are taught to forgive ourselves and others. Unfortunately, a culture has developed in the church that expects individuals to get everything right the first time. That isn’t realistic. It isn’t fair. Life is supposed to be about learning. When we really learn lessons in life the process includes failures.
If church is truly going to be a hospital for sinners instead of a shrine for saints, we need to be more accepting of people and all of their humanity. We don’t save souls by shunning people.
In my own life, I am not doing anything outside the rules of the LDS church. I have huge doubts that I am not sharing with my ward. I am just not holding positions right now. The social vacuum has been very disheartening. Church used to provide a large part of my social life. Socially I feel betrayed. Those feelings of betrayal are making the situation worse. Not only am I struggling with a FC, I no longer trust my church friends as being really friends. I find myself looking outside of my Ward for “real” friends.
When I think of someone in some sort of formalized church court process .. It just sounds terrible. I am sorry that you are experiencing that first hand.
The people I have known in the church who have done well as former addicts were all people who were 20+ years into a recovery program and they were not on the original ward where they had been when they had the addiction. I would be interested to hear if anyone has had a positive recovery journey and acceptance while staying in the same ward.
There is too much schadenfreude in the Church. We look at one another and when someone falls, we sigh with relief. “At least I’m not THAT bad!”. We will never achieve that state of Zion until we push this tendency away. Imagine a situation where we could actually publicly discuss our sins and turn to our ward members and say, “Please help me with this.”. As already mentioned, a kind of AA for sinners. But what do we focus on? Earrings, white shirts, beards, clothing, etc. We have a long way to go, IMO. Gerald wrote:There is too much schadenfreude in the Church. We look at one another and when someone falls, we sigh with relief. “At least I’m not THAT bad!”. We will never achieve that state of Zion until we push this tendency away. Imagine a situation where we could actually publicly discuss our sins and turn to our ward members and say, “Please help me with this.”. As already mentioned, a kind of AA for sinners. But what do we focus on? Earrings, white shirts, beards, clothing, etc. We have a long way to go, IMO.
Sigh. So true. So very true.amateurparent wrote:Not only am I struggling with a FC, I no longer trust my church friends as being really friends. I find myself looking outside of my Ward for “real” friends.
All of my close friends are outside the church (with the exception of the anonymous friends I have here and other online sites). I don’t look to the formal church any more for anything social at all–it doesn’t fit the need nor do I believe it ever will.
I am of the opinion that the only people who really can connect are those who have been wounded. There may be an extension of that rule, depending on the level of empathy someone has; but generally, those who connect are those who have been wounded.
In my quest to connect with people, I gravitate toward those who understand, who cry, who are broken inside. Why?…because they can look at me without judging me. Sad to say that, but in the church, I don’t find that.
amateurparent wrote:
When I think of someone in some sort of formalized church court process .. It just sounds terrible. I am sorry that you are experiencing that first hand.
It had a different affect overall: it hardened me. All of those: “Oh, this poor said little man..” looks made me angry. The fact that the SP required my then wife to be in the room when the whole thing went down…against my wishes, THAT REALLY made me angry. But, he had his reasons…it was his court, his rules, his choice, his decision. I don’t know why I even attended. Had I not been there, she would have attended anyway. Whatever–whats done is done.
Total and utter humiliation. I blew it, made big mistakes, and I answered for them. All because I someday wanted to have the possibility of coming back if I chose. I have yet to choose to come back, and possibly never will.
The church makes a big mistake, IMHO, when they isolate people with their discipline. They run the risk that maybe,…just maybe those they isolate might become acclimated to the isolation. Then, the church will spend effort to try to draw those people back out of isolation they themselves created.
Ever hear of people becoming institutionalized in the prison system?…who go out and commit additional crimes because they can’t stand being OUT of prison and want back IN?
Why would I want back into the church when they are so good as isolating me? I’ve become accustomed to isolation. I sit in church for 3 hours and don’t say a word, don’t raise my hand, don’t participate in any way. I am really surprised they let me sing the hymns.
Oh,..one other comment AP, about this church court system. I can’t think of anything more humiliating than a woman being required to sit in a room with a closed door, while 4 men sit in judgement on her, especially if her sin involved chastity. I think it is possible for her to have someone there with her, thank goodness, but otherwise, this sounds like a recipe for humiliation. I would be interested in hearing where such a court happened and was handled in a way that did NOT cause more damage.
Old-Timer wrote:Also, just to say it, total silence is not required in disciplinary situations, and it is not the norm in most situations. I can think of very, very few situations where I think it would be warranted …
I don’t know why you see this Ray, because my experience is exactly opposite you. I know several people who are in trouble, and they are all required as the norm to be utterly silent. I certainly have been required to be that.
I’ve read the handbook where they talk about this, and the bishops/SP folks I know have increased the restrictions “to be safe” as it were. I don’t understand why they do this, but they do.
This TED Talk also applies to pornography/masturbation problems as well. There are multiple forms of “addiction” (if such a thing really exists), and lets not negate that one. There is a crusade in the church against this “problem”…and it spills into all kinds of other areas.
And, I bring that up because of all of the “sins” out there, the one that creates the most shame IMHO is PM (Porn/Masturbation). This one, above all else, seems to drive individuals underground–they hide it, deny it, lie about it, and by doing that, begin to self isolate.
We all need connection according to the TED Talk, but is there even an open and safe environment for (you) church members to actually connect and get help? The 12 step program of the church for PM is, from many I have spoken with, ridiculous: there is no sponsorship, no phone numbers are exchanged, and no program for connecting in any way outside the group exists. Members are to look to God for all their needs.
I have often wondered something about 12 step programs the church has: how is the isolation eliminated? On the one hand, you have church discipline where you are formally isolated in a very real way. On the other hand, there is this 12 step church program that requires you to turn over everything to God who will do everything for you.
I’m sorry, but I haven’t had a sit down talk with God where he answered me and was my friend. I can’t remember the last time I needed a hug really bad and God came down and gave me the hug. And, since participation and even involvement is not necessary in the church (because of discipline that somehow is part of the healing pathway), I have wondered how God would somehow make that all possible for me.
I find all my service opportunities, connections, hugs and everything else outside of the church AND outside of 12 step programs offered by the church. Why in the world would I ever want to come back to the church?…they offer nothing, and I can love outside the church just as much as inside.
The answer is not inside the church,..it is outside. So what value is the church?
(I’m just letting my musing dictate what is being written)
Rob4Hope wrote:This TED Talk also applies to pornography/masturbation problems as well. There are multiple forms of “addiction” (if such a thing really exists), and lets not negate that one.
I am an advocate of not using the word addiction in regards to porn/masturbation in most cases. However I do agree that it can be a form of coping mechanism and that the need for this coping would grow stronger the more isolated one felt.
Rob4Hope wrote:I find all my service opportunities, connections, hugs and everything else outside of the church AND outside of 12 step programs offered by the church. Why in the world would I ever want to come back to the church?…they offer nothing, and I can love outside the church just as much as inside. The answer is not inside the church,..it is outside. So what value is the church?
Essentially what you are asking here is what is the value proposition of the church. I believe that the answer is different for each individual. Many here have acknowledged that for a LGBT person the value proposition of the church may be more negative than positive. It seems only reasonable that other groups may find the church more harmful than beneficial. In a vacuum we could make decisions solely based what is best for us individually. In the real world our decisions are messy and affect people around us.
I say it, Rob, specifically because my experiences have been different than yours. I said “not required” and not the norm in my experience – and I am speaking of all disciplinary situations, not only excommunications or excommunications for specific offenses. Also, just to say it, yours (all…) is more restrictive and conclusive than mine (not all…). Almost by definition when individual discretion is allowed (which is the case in a large percentage of disciplinary situations), all or never won’t be an accurate conclusion.
Old-Timer wrote:I say it, Rob, specifically because my experiences have been different than yours. I said “not required” and not the norm in my experience – and I am speaking of all disciplinary situations, not only excommunications or excommunications for specific offenses.
Also, just to say it, yours (all…) is more restrictive and conclusive than mine (not all…). Almost by definition when individual discretion is allowed (which is the case in a large percentage of disciplinary situations), all or never won’t be an accurate conclusion.
Our experiences have been different. I only know of about half a dozen of these discipline experiences,..well, more like a dozen. There is discretion given the bishop or SP when making the rules, and often (and this is my opinion, but I think it has some merit) what the bishop or SP gathered from previous policies carries over. For example, I remember when excommunicated members were announced to the adult membership generally. I was there when something like that happened–though not allowed to be in the room at the time. The humiliation was overwhelming, and it was because of practices like that adults were leaving the church and taking their family with them. So, the church would “discipline” the person, and in the humiliation process, the person would leave and the church would loose the whole family.
From what I understand still, there is not a very high rate of return when someone is disciplined.
So, I don’t know what the policies were for cutting someone off (including class participation as a guest) from the older handbooks, but I think some of those old practices still affect today.
Anyway,..my point is that in my experience, the “cutting off” portion of the discipline requires the individual to not participate in any way, including no involvement in class to ask questions, read a scripture, or anything. I was told, for example, that I was forbidden to be in the ward choir. I was ONLY allowed to sing hymns, and other than that, I was to sit and not participate in any way. From the people I know, my experience is not unique,…it is the norm.
I’m glad your experience is different Ray. Mine is exactly as I have explained. From my perspective, disciplined members are actually not wanted at all–they get the impression they are a nuisance and everyone would be better if they just disappeared. Several of my friends, including myself, feel that way. NO effort has been made to reclaim us that I can see.
NOW!!! back on topic.
The TED Talk explains that the opposite of addiction (or sin if that can be placed here) is connection. If the current discipline policy cuts people off from connection, it abets continuation of the sins and lack of connection. Lack of participation of involvement in classes or activities continues the lack of connection and creates a more formal isolation. All of this is destructive–it makes the sin look more and more inviting (referring to the TED talk again).
Do we really believe in saving a soul by formal discipline?
Rob4Hope wrote:From what I understand still, there is not a very high rate of return when someone is disciplined.
http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=2866&hilit=excommunication+return There is a 3% rebaptism rate for those that have been excommunicated… or a 97% loss rate.
Again, helping someone change through ostracism seems to be quite counterproductive. There can be other reasons for excommunication – but the justification of “saving their soul” rings pretty hollow.
Roy wrote:Thank you for sharing this TED talk.
People use addictions as an escape from bad life situations. The antidote to bad life situations is (to a degree) connections.
I have long maintained that our church is not very forgiving for people that mess up. Someone said that two types of people are successful at church – the saints and the liars.This can be seen really clearly in the Singles problem in the church. It is stated frequently that there is simply not enough guys that fit X criteria because they have done Y at Z point in time.
Rob4Hope wrote:This TED Talk also applies to pornography/masturbation problems as well. There are multiple forms of “addiction” (if such a thing really exists), and lets not negate that one.
There is a crusade in the church against this “problem”…and it spills into all kinds of other areas.
And, I bring that up because of all of the “sins” out there, the one that creates the most shame IMHO is PM (Porn/Masturbation). This one, above all else, seems to drive individuals underground–they hide it, deny it, lie about it, and by doing that, begin to self isolate.We all need connection according to the TED Talk, but is there even an open and safe environment for (you) church members to actually connect and get help? The 12 step program of the church for PM is, from many I have spoken with, ridiculous: there is no sponsorship, no phone numbers are exchanged, and no program for connecting in any way outside the group exists. Members are to look to God for all their needs.
If you have the PM problem, don’t ever expect anyone to ever consider you worth loving and you can expect to be viewed as being worse than pond scum or horse crap by people. Also, don’t ever consider it worth while to try to have a relationship with someone of the opposite gender that could involve love or more; it will never happen and you are a fool for believing it.
Only Peter Priesthood guys have a chance of marrying a LDS Girl/Woman; everyone else has no chances.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.