- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
TataniaAvalon wrote:
This has been an interesting thread for sure. I met a man on my mission who had been ex’d but still attended church. He wanted to get his membership back but the FP kept saying no. He was ex’d for teaching really false doctrine and unfortunately he still taught it, so I can see why they said No. The bishop did try to work with him on it though.Thanks R4H for sharing part of your story. I do know someone who was disfellowshipped for fornication for 6 months after a nasty divorce. This was a very close friend of mine, and at the time I had different thoughts on the repentance process. Now I very much feel it is between God and I and I really don’t need to involve another person (Bishop) to receive forgiveness for ANY sin. However that is not what is taught unfortunately. I do think excommunication should be reserved for extreme circumstances, perhaps only teaching false doctrine. I personally don’t think adultery or any other sexual sin is a reason to ex someone. There are so many other ways to help the person with love and forgiveness than saying, oh you committed adultery too bad you’re ex’d. I know adultery doesn’t always end in excommunication but it still feels extreme to me. I know another friend of mine who’s husband was ex’d because of adultery, but he was mainly ex’d because he didn’t come clean at the time, instead he kept it for several years and served in PH roles, gave blessings ext. They said if he had come clean when it happened then he probably would have been disfellowshiped, but since he did all those things he was mocking his PH. For those of you who have served in leadership roles would you have ex’d this man?
Excommunication for many is like getting hit in the head with a hammer. It can smart right bad….
It is also so easy to get lost out there in the crowd and be forgotten. According to SWK, being X-ed is worse than being dead, which doesn’t do anything positive for shame either.
Anyway,…I am unusual. I refuse to be lost…I have too big of a mouth!
😆 Rob4Hope: I guess I was getting the feeling that you were calling all LDS women cold and all LDS men sexually deprived.
And I wanted to yell, “Not at MY house!!
Yes, I’m sure it is out there, and I find that really sad.
Because of who I hang out with, assume their more open world-views carry over into most areas of life.
AP wrote Quote:Because of who I hang out with,(I) assume
As I grow older I see how true this is for everyone. We see the world through those connections. As long as we are connected to those connections our view is enforced and our beliefs sustained by them. This holds true for religion, political, social, inter-human, everything – even art forms. It usually takes a significant event to shift that.
For me the startling part of the realization is how I so proudly thought I was this balanced, wise, understanding person. I am not, I am a reflection of what I am surrounded by. I may be respectful or considerate – but I don’t understand much beyond the circle of my input.
amateurparent wrote:Rob4Hope:
I guess I was getting the feeling that you were calling all LDS women cold and all LDS men sexually deprived.
And I wanted to yell, “Not at MY house!!
Yes, I’m sure it is out there, and I find that really sad.
Because of who I hang out with, assume their more open world-views carry over into most areas of life.
AP…it’s all good.I love this site. Everyone here is so polite…but you all really lay it out there.
I want to say how glad I am others had different experiences than mine, because the challenge for me is not how to return to baptism…it’s why would I.
And…I confess openly that my view is heavily colored by my life experience, and in this area I was hurt…so I feel defensive often.
It is a challenge to sometimes see other perspectives. I’m trying…I’m trying.
You all just don’t be stopping on your side is all I ask.
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
rob wrote – Quote:
You all just don’t be stopping on your side is all I ask.We’re a pretty chatty group. I think your safe.
Mom3 wrote: “For me the startling part of the realization is how I so proudly thought I was this balanced, wise, understanding person. I am not, I am a reflection of what I am surrounded by. I may be respectful or considerate – but I don’t understand much beyond the circle of my input.” Yeah .. I keep thinking I have reached some sort of perfect point of community understanding zen/nirvana and then I realize there are more communities. I grew up overseas, so I like to think I have a broader world view, but sometimes it is evident that my culture and background are showing like the wrong slip under a skirt .. Everyone sees it but me.
Rob4Hope wrote:According to SWK, being X-ed is worse than being dead, which doesn’t do anything positive for shame either.
I agree statements like this are bad for those feeling shame or guilt. I also believe SWK was wrong. Besides, what’s so bad about being dead? Isn’t that part of our progression?:wtf: :shifty: (ETA emoticons in an effort to clarify that this comment is indeed tongue-in-cheek as noted below. I am not encouraging death as an alternative to excommunication, and death and excommunication are indeed apples and oranges – which is why I disagree with SWK.)
Before anyone criticizes DJ’s comment, I am certain it was written with tongue implanted deeply in cheek. 
DarkJedi wrote:Rob4Hope wrote:According to SWK, being X-ed is worse than being dead, which doesn’t do anything positive for shame either.
I agree statements like this are bad for those feeling shame or guilt. I also believe SWK was wrong. Besides, what’s so bad about being dead? Isn’t that part of our progression?I’m laughing before I read your follow up Ray.
It hit my funny bone.
Lest I have given ANYONE the wrong impression,…I have learned to laugh. My situation really sucks. Sometimes,…all I can do it just say: “Oh SH!Z…what a mess”…and I have to chuckle. What else can you do?
:crazy: Oh yeh…and my monkey is cuter than all your monkeys as well…so there!
When there is life, there is hope. Keep moving forward.
Keep the tongue firmly in the cheek.
Don’t bite down.
OK…so back on topic,..I want to ask another question. I know a woman who was tried for her membership at the stake level. She sat in a room with 17 men, and she was asked personal questions about what she did. She felt (and it has been over a decade since she was re-baptised) that this room was filled with “dirty old men” who were getting a thrill from her being required to tell them details of her mistakes.
Now, I’ve heard her tell me this to my eyeballs. She is a good woman,..a kind and tender woman. This experience, as I was listening, made me angry. I do NOT think it is all that unique, even if handled at the local ward level.
I have two questions here: 1) unless I am mistaken, you can bring someone in with you during your court–the same for men and women. Is this not the case? 2) is there a solid reason WHY bishops or SP can’t ask there to be women in the room as “judges” as well in certain circumstances?
It seems utterly (let me rephrase that)…it seems ABSOLUTELY AND UTTERLY UNFAIR!!!! for a woman to be tried by a bunch of men who have exclusive control over her fate.
Thoughts?
The basic proceedings of the stake disciplinary council are outlined in D&C 102. Disciplinary councils are a priesthood matter (judges in Israel and all that) and no mention is made of women being involved. I do believe it is common practice to allow the individual appearing before the council to have someone there to support them if they desire, however I also recall there being instructions about “character witnesses.” The individual is also permitted to have others speak in their behalf, particularly those who have direct knowledge of the matter at hand. That said, don’t shoot the messenger, however I don’t see this changing. On the other hand, I didn’t foresee the new role of ward councils in planning SMs either, and that is about to come to pass (and it is long overdue).
I would love to see women involved more in disciplinary councils, but it is a change that will have come from the very top. I’m not holding my breath, but I also see what has happened recently with the Ward Council rising above the PEC and the impending move of Sacrament Meeting oversight to the Ward Council instead of the Bishopric, and I look forward to what will come next. Old-Timer wrote:I would love to see women involved more in disciplinary councils, but it is a change that will have come from the very top. I’m not holding my breath, but I also see what has happened recently with the Ward Council rising above the PEC and the impending move of Sacrament Meeting oversight to the Ward Council instead of the Bishopric, and I look forward to what will come next.
It will be interesting to see how this all works out. I know of wards (i’ve seen them), where those other than the bishop virtually worshiped HIM, and deferred to him every chance they could. It was an interesting way of doing business.
You can’t have input if the meetings are run where the bishop controls things,…and I have not seen many wards NOT do that. That is just my experience again….
The November world-wide training session included a passionate plea for Bishops and other leaders to allow everyone in councils to provide their input before the leader suggested anything. The apostle leading that part of the training (ironically, I think it was Elder Bednar) even went as far as to say that if a Bishop offered his opinion first and then asked what everyone else thought, the consensus would be, “We agree.” He then said, “DUH!” – in such a way that it was obvious that was not a good thing. The top leadership has been preaching a council model of decision-making for a long time – over and over and over and over . . . I have seen it used and work in multiple locations; I also have seen it not used and not work in others.
Water to the end of the rows.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.