I once sat on a completely divided disciplinary council. Half the council was pressing for excommunication, half for disfellowshipment. Arguments on both sides were passionate and compelling. I could see the Stake President struggling under the weight of his approaching decision. At last he told the quorum, with tears in his eyes:
“Brethren, the presidency and I will now go into another room, we will pray and make a decision. The beautiful thing about the priesthood is that when we return with our decision, all of you will sustain it. I’m not saying that every decision we make is the right decision, but the Lord will also sustain us in our decision, as he bears us up in our weaknesses.”
You have to understand, the Stake President was quite a dogmatic conservative, very “letter-of-the-law” and I was stunned to hear something so “liberal” come out of his mouth. It was a beautiful expression of humility and dignity: a recognition that we could err, that we could make the wrong decision, that perhaps it was up to him alone to decide, but that the Lord would sustain it either way. Through all this uncertainty, the love of God would bear us up in our weaknesses.
Some members of the council said they had strongly felt the Spirit tell them it should be disfellowshipment, not excommunication, and in the end the Stake Presidency chose excommunication. But their personal revelations were subsumed in the superior authority of the President. And the council didn’t rebel. They didn’t even question. We could all sense the truth of the President’s message: that the most important thing was to come together in a unity of quorum and receive the Lord’s sustaining ratification of our humble effort to reach a united decision.
My personal opinion is that in many cases like these, the Lord is often happy to sustain either decision. He might have a “best” option, but more than likely He wants us to make the decision ourselves and learn from its consequences. Both excommunication and disfellowshipment are paths that can eventually lead back to full fellowship, perhaps one longer and more difficult than the other. In one stake, an adulterer is excommunicated, in another stake he might be disfellowshiped for the same sin. Both are different paths that give variety to the Lord’s spiritual ways with his children. In the future, I could imagine the church moving away from excommunication all together as the brethren question its efficacy in the repentance process. I could also see them moving away from disciplinary councils in general, resorting to more private or anonymous councils to deal with issues.
However, I do sense that the Spirit ratifies today’s disciplinary process and that the Lord is pleased with the humility and devotion with which it is approached by the brethren. I came away from the experience with a stronger testimony of the priesthood and a greater trust in the leadership of the church. If the men on my Stake council are at all representative of the leadership of the church throughout the world, we are in good hands. Yes, they are conservative. Yes, they are a bit too dogmatic and black and white in my opinion. But many of them are humble, teachable, open to the Spirit, with an intense desire to do what is right. I believe it is this desire will keep our church on the right path.
Questions:
- Have you ever had disagreements with priesthood leadership that you have abandoned in favor of unity? Did you feel right doing so?
- Have you had personal experiences with priesthood leadership that have given you insight into the spiritual direction of the church?
Wheat & Tares 
I can put up with a lot from a person who is sincere, and seeking to do the right thing, who really cares, and who is willing to listen to and consider other points of view in the decision making process, even if I think they got it wrong.
I’m far less comfortable with the idea that the Lord sustains a wrong decision, especially where a persons eternal welfare is at stake, as in a disciplinary council. And frankly the comment made by your SP, comes across to me as somewhat passive-aggressive. I would have been irritated by it, at his stating it.
I do accept, however, that there may be more than one way of doing something, or getting somewhere, and that it often doesn’t matter which, the important thing can sometimes simply be to decide and follow through.
I believe the Lord absolutely sustains “wrong” decisions.
For example, when my daughter chooses a clashing outfit, I tell her it doesn’t match, but when she makes the final decision, I also tell her she made a great decision, even if I can’t stand to look at it.
Even our most monumental decisions are but momentary in the eyes of an omniscient and loving God. The atonement ultimately heals all effects from sincere but mistaken choices. That frees us, making the process of decision-making more important than its “correctness.” We are not here to be perfect, but to become.
SilverRain,
I wish your message got through to the many parents involved in the online and offline horror stories of LGBT (or disaffected, or any issue…) children who do not sustain what they perceive to be their children’s “wrong” decisions re: pursuing relationships, the church, whatever.
I don’t believe the Lord sustains wrong decisions. I believe he allows them. But to approve of wrong decisions seems to run contrary to the nature of God. Especially when those wrong decisions unfairly hurt others. I don’t think a loving God could approve of anything like that.
I think you might be taking a leap to assume a “wrong” decision. Having been involved in a number of DCs, I’ve seen the circumstances very different given what was presented within the DC itself. However, the SP usually has significantly more contact with the person and thus has the benefit of more experience than I did.
We might not agree with the decision, but willing to sustain the SP in his decision based on his authority to be the sole decision-maker and the council’s role as advise and consent.
I’ve often thought that the council can be window dressing for a decision that is already made. But again, I have based it solely on the information I received and the comments and the demeanor of the person who is undergoing the DC.
Usually, I’ve been much less persuaded by the person, so I was always glad it was not my decision.
I really struggle with this Nate, the only example we have from our exemplar is go and sin no more. I know Mormonism demands it’s works but the spirit teaches grace and I know he does not seal all LDS disciplinary council decisions.
The church is a tribe and that is what all of this in-group vs out-group, behavior control, pledging allegiance to leaders, obedience and being peculiar people stuff is all about. None of that adds up to being saved or going to the CK or even being in the Lord’s church.
Why would the Lord build a cohesive tribe around the gospel? To protect it’s longevity so that it will never be taken from the earth again. BUT don’t confuse the cohesive glue with the gospel itself as far too many LDSs seem to. The tribe is not the church, in fact few of the tribe members seem to actually know the Lord’s church.
When I was young, major crises occurred in my life – injuries both physical and emotional which, I was sure, would scar me forever. I have observed the same terrible and tragic things happen in the lives of my children. And as I, and they, grew, we discovered that those earth-shattering crises weren’t as shattering as we had thought, from our initial position of limited experience and vision.
We saw through a glass darkly, and every skinned knee was a disaster from which my three-year-old self would never recover; every bounced check was a permanent blow to my credit rating as a young married man. The pain is no less real, and the problems still require our attention and care, but eternally they are dust in the wind – and I am constantly amazed at the things I once worried about, even just a few years ago, which seem trivial to me now.
This is progress.
In this same way, I think Heavenly Father has a longer perspective and a different understanding of what a “wrong decision” is and what it will mean, and what our pain and hurt really mean. I think that he feels and understands our pain, and mourns with us, but he is no more able to help us understand the true eternal perspective of these things than I was able to help my two-year-old daughter see that her bleeding elbow wouldn’t hurt forever. I am not discounting that pain, nor my duty to “mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort,” nor my duty and desire to improve things for all of us who hurt. But I do believe that, though all is not well in Zion, all will be well, and that no decision by any stake president can change that. Indeed, that would be superstitiously giving to a stake high council a lot more “power to bind and loose” than they actually have. I carry over from my Catholic upbringing the hopeful words of Julian of Norwich, which could have been spoken by Joseph: “All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well.”
And so I share in the prophetic hope of John the Revelator: “And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.”
Silverain that was beautifully stated. I do hope you will introduce your daughter to Ralph Lauren Denim and Supply:)
Andrew, I agree that Silverain’s philosophy should absolutely be applied to LGBT members, while still sustaining the contradicting policies made by our well-intentioned leaders. Maybe that doesn’t sit well with most people, but I see it as the only hope of reconciliation.
Jeff, I didn’t mean to imply that my SP was wrong and I was right, but that perhaps both ways were OK. Really, I think the SP’s decision to excommunicate is in harmony with his own somewhat more hardline view of the gospel. But that is the way God speaks to him and the way he understands God, so who am I to judge God’s voice to him? Another SP might understand and receive completely different messages from God. We understand God as we are, not as He truly is, which is beyond our comprehension.
MOOT and Hedgehog, I think a lot of the discomfort surrounding the idea of “sustaining” mistakes has to do with how we interpret God’s silence, and our own free agency. Is it a “disapproving” silence, an approving silence, or an impartial silence? Does God grudgingly allow mistakes, or happily allow them? Those are all anthropomorphic judgements we impose upon God from our own understanding. If it helps people to imagine a frowning, disapproving God, that’s great. Maybe there is some truth to that. But I see so much suffering in the world God has created (he ordains his cats to play with mice) that I have a hard time imagining a God frowning disapprovingly upon our errors. I see Him as calm, cool, and in control, fiddling while Rome burns because He knows it is dross compared with the heavenly eternities. But that is just my conception, coming from my somewhat detached and emotionally groundless personality.
Andrew, I completely agree. It is such a delicate balance between teaching principles you believe in and love. It is no wonder that so many parents aren’t perfect at it.
I certainly wouldn’t wish the crucible in which I learned that lesson on any parent. All have to learn it eventually, some of us sooner than later.
MOQT, I think you are mistaking “sustain” for “approve.” They are not the same thing.
NI, well said.
Nate, I believe in a God who weeps. Isn’t that part of the point of the Atonement? That God, Himself, suffered alongside us? I think God is calm, cool, and in control, but I know He is not callous to Rome’s burning (so to speak.) He clothes the lilies of the field and accompanies the sparrow in its fall. The body of scripture testifies against such a detachment. He knows it is dross in the eternities, but that to us in our mortal moment it IS our eternity.
So it is when I mourn alongside my daughter when a snotty little eight-year-old won’t play with her because she’s not *fill-in-the-blank* enough. Does it really matter? Of course not. But it matters to me because it matters to her.
The Lord sustains us always (as in, gives us support to keep going), but ratifies a wrong choice? No. Tolerates is more like it. If it was wrong to excommunicate, the stake president will be able to repent through the grace of our Savior. Perhaps it is best that the high council go along with the stake president at a certain point (or perhaps not, let the spirit guide). But each of those men will be accountable for their wrong choices. Getting a group of people to go along with your wrong choice does not make it right.
The sad part of all this is the teaching of the Gospel has, traditionally, been more focused on punitive than love-oriented. We’ve paid lip service to expressions like “God is Love” and “Charity is the pure love of Christ.” We’ve used “Love the Sinner, hate the sin” with the emphasis on the hate part and not the love part.
In my mind, this is in large part our great deficiency. Not how often we read the scriptures, how many times we attend the Temple and how strongly we sustain the leaders.
Our lives are complex, busy and wrought with struggle. It’s hard to get outside of ourselves.
I’d like to call attention to a 1975 GC Priesthood session get tough on transgressors talk by SWK aimed specifically at Bishops and SPs titled To Bear the Priesthood Worthily in which he prooftexts Alma 42 to emphasize …there can be no repentance without punishment. This is as eternal as is the soul. while totally ignoring What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God. which can be found in the same chapter, same discussion just 9 verses later and it totally modifies his prooftexted verses to the opposite meaning given in the talk!
This is *very interesting* given disciplinary councils are supposed to be led by the spirit. Did he say “Give more attention to the spirit’s direction and follow it closer? He did not. He told his Bishops and SPs to get tough on crime of suffer the consequences!
SWK also prooftexted Alma 39 to claim Breaking the law of chastity is one of the most serious sins next to murder. It isn’t btw, read the chapter for yourself and also see The “Sin Next to Murder”
TBMs would be tempted to apologetically argue SWK was just presenting new revelation but that is quite an uphill argument because we have Edward Kimball’s account of what SWK went through to receive the wordless revelation that became OD2 and we have a letter to his son and from these we know that revelation doesn’t come easily or frequently to SWK, it took months and months of work!
So here we have a church President tightening up the behavior of it’s leaders and it’s members by twisting scripture and giving marching orders directly from the pulpit instead of asking leaders to be more in tune with the spirit.
i think the times have changed since even SWK’s days. They went from Church Courts to Disciplinary Councils and the rules about church discipline have changed dramatically. Not as much Ex’ing going on.
Well, that’s good, isn’t it Jeff but I think we make a mistake by waxing too apologetic in an attempt to argue it’s God causing these apparent consistences rather than the arm of flesh!
Nate, it possibly has more to do with the definition of sustain. I like Platt’s comment, but I don’t get the feeling that was the way your SP was using the term.
I don’t necessarily think God looks down with a disapproving frown either, more often a weary headshaking, and sorrow in my imagination.
I guess a more resent version of this top down get tough direction would be the GA that showed up in KK’s and JD’s stakes emphasizing what apostasy is just in case the spirit himself had forgotten.
I don’t think the Lord sustains our wrong decisions. I think the Lord accepts that we make mistakes and loves us in spite of those mistakes. I believe God’s love is unconditional. I don’t think that means you should be comfortable that your stake President’s decision is the one the Lord sustained, or that God sustains the current disciplinary process. God lets humans makes mistakes both large and small.
This is part of the learning experience. Sometimes we get what we feel is confirmation and inspiration on an issue we seek guidance on. Other times we are deceived, not by Satan necessarily, but more likely by our own bias’s and perspectives.
Howard,
“but I think we make a mistake by waxing too apologetic in an attempt to argue it’s God causing these apparent consistences rather than the arm of flesh!”
Reminds me of a joke. A Mormon Bishop, Baptist Minister and a Rabbi are fishing. the topic turns to donating to their respective congregation.
The Mormon says, “We tithe, I give 10% of my income plus other donations. The Minister says, “:When the plate is passed, we put in what we can afford, but we’re generous.” The Rabbi says, “I take my money, throw it up in the air and tell G-d to take what He wants.”
(Just a caveat) Jews pay a lot of money to be members of their congregation and are very generous with their donations as well.
But the point is, God works through people. He gives them a brain, His spirit and His teachings and expects them to operate in the best interest of His people.
Why not recognize that people ( Leaders are people , too) are doing their best rather than always having a negative view?
” I think we make a mistake by waxing too apologetic in an attempt to argue it’s God causing these apparent consistences rather than the arm of flesh!”
People of faith will call the sky blue even when it is raining cats and dogs. People are people and that includes church leaders. Over the years, I sat in on many DCs. Two memorable experiences come to mind relating to church discipline.
The first was during a court involving an art fraud case. I remember saying that I prepare taxes for a living and I am used to people lying to me all the time. I said that the member before us was lying. The HC member next to me agreed. In time, it would come out that the HC member that was sitting next to that night was in the middle of a year long embezzlement scheme of church funds. He got away with $90,000 and probably more but we quit looking. So much for my “extra sense” of sensing liars.
My second experience was actually as the SP was considering a court against a member of the stake. His counselors dissuaded him and there was no court held. As that decision was made, the SP mumbled, “But he’s such as ass.”
If any spirit was attending the DCs I was involved in, it was lost on me. I was impressed by the faith of those who came to the DCs after voluntarily confessing as opposed to those who were caught doing something and had few options.
Howard and Jeff, I personally agree with you that the church could (maybe should) be much less hardline in these cases, and what Jeff says is true, that excommunication is becoming more rare than in SWK’s day.
But what I am more interested in is trying to find a non-combative, sustaining Spirit within a conservative, hardline church, that I have “issues” with.
I can say that a leader made a “mistake.” But in all honesty, I think these men really feel the Spirit confirm these decisions, which I would personally disagree with, and which the Spirit might tell me NOT to take. Again, I see a God playing both sides of the field, conservative, and liberal.
So we can’t really speak in terms of “mistakes.” I think we can argue about what might be “better,” what might be a “higher law” or a more mature decision. But I don’t really want to accuse anyone of making a mistake, because I trust what they say about their own personal revelations. In this particular disciplinary council, I felt the Spirit ratify the final decision. But I also felt it ratify the views of others who argued for disfellowshipment. So I’m trying to understand why God would be so contradictory, supporting us from different, conflicting perspectives.
And then, even when there IS a mistake, I don’t think we can say, like Platt says, that someone needs to repent. A mistake is not a sin. What is important is the heart, the intent. I really feel that the leadership of the church has deeply honest and righteous intentions in their heart. I feel that way about the priesthood ban. I believe it was a mistake, but it was an honest mistake that needs no repentance. God gave Joseph Smith a revelation that said the seed of Cain was cursed regarding the Priesthood. Brigham Young took that literally, and God didn’t tell Him to do otherwise, so it’s God’s fault.
I personally feel better about this kind of bi-polar God when I get away from “the God who weeps” and view Him in a more transcendent way. But I know Mormons are really attached to an anthropomorphic interpretation of God. It gets us into trouble however when we start to try to find reasons for His actions which satisfy our human emotions and moral states of mind.
I am not sure that the Lord ratifies or sustains our mistakes either. I think the Lord allows the church, and any councils in the church, a full expression of agency. In the case of excommunication that maybe shouldn't have happened, or was not done in righteousness, for example, He allows the church to withdrawal its witness of the ordinances. Conversely, I believe that in cases like that, the witness of God, Angels, and heaven still stand.
That said, I do think the Lord forgives us for making mistakes, and He hopes that we will be just as forgiving to each other all the way 'round.
Yes, once in a while. That is what they often expect (us agreeing with them as unity) so I can respect this convention if I want to play in their sandbox, besides, I find that contention for my ego's sake just isn't worth the loss of the Spirit. Interestingly, the one thing in my life I thought I would recieve the most trouble from priesthood leaders has been the most simple to work with.
Yes, and this is why I have a hard time seeing what other members see when they talk about conservative leaders letting politics or conservative thought guide them (the leader) instead of being guided by the Spirit. The thing I worried about most (from my comment above) is definitely a decisive issue between conservative and liberal camps, and yet it hasn't ever been a issue between the leaders and I, especially after they have said they have sought counsel in prayer. My insight into the spiritual direction of the church, from my own experiences, is we are guided by the Lord and moving forward, as long as we seek through honest, open minded prayer. It's just slow and messy.
Jeff, I agree with the sentiment of your comment #18, certainly God works through normal (flawed) people. Who else is available? What bothers me is the binary orthodox thinking that is so prevalent in the church combined with the hurry and back-fill the logic hole just uncovered with just invented to suit apologetic baloney. We go from the long time party line of our leaders are (almost totally) infallible therefore we should do what they say to our leaders are just flawed humans like ourselves so we should do what they say!
Nate says: But in all honesty, I think these men really feel the Spirit confirm these decisions, which I would personally disagree with… My testimony is that this is wishful thinking on your part, some do and some don’t and some DC decisions completely lack the spirit. In fact I know of one DC that wasn’t even held due to a single question being asked about attendance by a SP in a parking lot, he just canceled the DC and proceeded directly to excommunication. I see a God playing both sides I have no doubt that this happens as well but it doesn’t explain all of the contradictions.
Regarding mistakes. I suspect God allows them and I suspect we take them far too seriously. I’ve had profound spiritual experiences both inside and outside the church and they began AFTER my excommunication and before my return, the church has no monopoly on spirituality The church is a set of religious training wheels with saving ordinances attached (because we’re so literal we think we actually need them). God allows DC mistakes because aside from the mortal damage it does it really doesn’t matter in the long run if you’re active or inactive or a recommend holder or an exMo. More LDS are inactive than active. It’s Kool-Aid they’re selling. My very profound personal relationship with God doesn’t require an authorized broker and neither does yours or anyone else’s. Who was Joseph’s authorized broker???
I think this is a beautiful example of why it is important, critically important, to understand what the exclusion from decision rights do to women in the church. This played out the way that it was supposed to play out. Real advocacy for different positions and ultimately a decision to be made by the person with the formal authority to make the decision. The councilors accepting the decision. It beautifily exemplifies what it means to hold “keys” in the Mormon church, the ultimate decision right as well as the right to shape the decision making process. Because those decisions are ultimately made by imperfect people and will never be always optimally expressions of God’s will we should be very understanding and aware of where the systematic biases might be in the system. In our case, the perspective of women will never enter the room as either legitimate, neutral advocates nor as one wielding keys. Ergo, sub-optimal decisions will on average be more susceptible to male biases which overtime build precedents, common practice and train future decision makers. The result being systematically less fair processes for women, less understanding and less ability to empathize etc.
It is because I believe it will always be required to have someone holding and making the final decision that I also believe women need equal representation in the governance and making of these decisions. To build up practice, precedent and individuals decisions that will not skew in only a single direction. Or at very least we should all recognize and not deny this is what is going on and maybe awareness will help decrease these errors in one of our highest stakes and most senstive decisions at least on the margin. We owe it to our women. And of course, lets remember no women actually gets this type of DC. They can be completely excommed by 3 people making gender bias even more likely.
I am more on the Lord allows bad decisions that hurt others only because our agency must be so important and so sacrosanct that he can not intervene without hurting our over all ability to progress. I would point out that the decision not to intervene in a decision such as excommunication versus disfellowshiping in our church is small potatoes compared to other mistakes he lets a make that hurt others. Rape, murder, child abuse all come to mind. Clearly God, if he/she exists, will let us do all types of awful horrible things to each other that they can’t possibly endorse or agree with. So I see no reason to ahve to believe they endorse a sub-optimal or wrong decision by some priesthood holder. He let prophets endorse slavery and teach people they were cursed because they happened to be black or that people became gay through masturbation or that we should kick them out of our homes or Adam/God Theory or Blood Atonement or that polygamy is the order of heaven and neccesary to salvation. I feel no need to argue that God endorsed or justified such things. At least not my God.
Yes, Nate, one does need to repent of mistakes. If you find yourself “mistakenly” engaged in destructive attitudes or behavior, you need to wake up from that state and turn away from it, no matter how well-intentioned it was.
A perspective: disciplinary councils are held by our own friends and neighbors whom we have previously sustained and re-sustained, fellow members of our own villages, so to speak — they aren’t strangers or officials of a distant organization.
Platt, I agree that once someone comes to understand that they made an inadvertent mistake, that they should learn from it so it doesn’t happen again. Perhaps they should also apologize to those who it adversely affected.
But I still don’t think we can call it a sin, nor do we need to repent to God or invoke the atonement. Joseph Smith said, “Never afflict thy soul for what an enemy hath put it out of thy power to do, if thy desires are ever so just.” In this case the “enemy” is our own lack of knowledge, which is not our fault, but God’s for only giving us a limited degree of light and knowledge. A sin is to act deliberately against greater light and knowledge. Elder Oaks explained this in his essay “Mistakes and Sins.”
I adressed this topic further in my post “Is the Road to Hell Really Paved with Good Intentions?” http://www.wheatandtares.org/13429/is-the-road-to-hell-really-paved-with-good-intentions/
I think it’s a very important concept to keep in mind. We are constantly judging people from our own perspective of right and wrong, which is a great fallacy. Yes, there are universal laws and universal consequences. For example, if same-sex marriage is indeed evil, there will be negative cultural fallout from it. But God still will not judge those who advocated for it, because they advocated based upon the best light and knowledge He had given them: humanist values of equality, empathy, tolerance, and democracy. He will not judge them for rejecting “unlearned and despised” prophets who talk about golden plates and baptizing dead people. The truth is deliberately hidden from them. So they will suffer, but they will not be judged for things they did according to their best light and knowledge, even if they broke universal laws. The consequence is enough.
ji wrote: disciplinary councils are held by our own friends and neighbors whom we have previously sustained and re-sustained, fellow members of our own villages
A comforting thought perhaps if we happen to be conservative, orthodox and exclusive personalities, far less comforting if we happen to be more liberal, heterodox or inclusive. Leadership positions are filled with those who are “like me” which generally means conservative and orthodox. As Nate said We are constantly judging people from our own perspective of right and wrong, which is a great fallacy. So when you’re more liberal, heterodox or inclusive a DC is anything but a jury of your peers.
And when you are woman, a DC is never your peers since no women participate.
Nate, I suspect we are working with different definitions of “repent.” Sure, we can feel bad for caving to temptation and doing something we know we shouldn’t. And we can beat ourselves up in proportion to our perceived gravity of the bad act.
But I am referring to something that can be instantaneous and really is largely the act of recognizing our ignorance and turning to God, shrinking from our awful state and grateful for God’s wisdom and grace to show us the way. We blame God and refuse to repent of our ignorance (“mistakes”) at our peril.
I think the church should return adulthood to it’s members and follow Jesus’ example of “go and sin no more” by ending DCs for ALL sexual transgressions unless they involve both an adult and a minor. DCs are largely ineffective at “saving the souls of the transgressors” (saving yourself from yourself). Sexuality has been vilified by the church in an ironic Victorian backlash of over correction for it’s freewheeling polygamous past. Get over it already, sexual sin is not even close to murder! And porn shoulders? Well…they’re just shoulders!
Have you had personal experiences with priesthood leadership that have given you insight into the spiritual direction of the church?
I have been involved in a sealing cancellation. I have never felt so helpless in my entire life. I was the only woman involved in the process. My bishop put me through the wringer, feeling that this shouldn’t be an easy process for anyone. My stake president was kind but still indicated that everything was out of his control. I had to wait for months, having no idea what was going on. I am glad some men have had positive experiences participating in disciplinary councils. Unfortunately, no women will ever be in a position to experience anything but the victim role.
The comments appear to have run their usual course. So answering the OP:
I have been through a period of disfellowship. My experience with the individuals in the council was nothing less than positive. I also believe that the year I was disfellowshipped was the most powerful tool toward changing my life that could have been implemented. I shudder to think what my spiritual condition would be if my Priesthood Leaders had just told me to not do it anymore.
In regards to Priesthood leadership’s fallibility, I think we are way too quick to try to judge some action by a leader to be right or wrong. The reality is that the action *is.* During my time working with the above mentioned bishop, he said things that, “right” or “wrong,” caused me pain and had the potential to deter me from re-fellowship. One of the lessons I learned was that “The Atonement Can Fix That, Too.” Whatever the pain, whatever the source–my fault, someone else’s fault, nobody’s fault–anything that could get in the way of my salvation and exaltation–Christ’s Atonement was specifically designed to correct, overcome, and/or compensate for it. The process of accessing the blessings of the Atonement are a bit different for each situation. But just as any sin of mine could be forgiven and redeemed, so could the Atonement heal my soul from any mistake, offense, or poor decision my Bishop might make.
The reality is that God had called that man to be a Bishop, knowing full well his flaws and limitations. Whatever damage he might intentionally or inadvertently cause, Christ had already compensated for it. This is a principle that applies to any situation where we are hurt by mortality or through the actions of others. How much more swift and certain must the Savior be to grant grace when it’s need is caused by one called to act in His Name?
So, yeah, Priesthood leaders make screwy decisions all the time. I fully believe that many of those decisions are not what the Savior would do in that situation. *And* I believe that the Lord called those men to those positions, knowing their imperfections. Rather than ensuring that they never make mistakes, rather than inspiring me to correct them or undermine their leadership, He chooses to deal with those mistakes on a personal level, by granting me grace to see beyond their flaws, to be strengthened in my faith, to be comforted by His Spirit.
Well said Kevin, and thanks for sharing your experience. It’s an excellent point that God calls these people knowing full well the consequences well before hand. You’ve got to give Him credit (or blame) for that. “The Atonement can fix that too” as you say.
Platt, I can buy what you are saying. Mistakes should bring us to humility. We certainly shouldn’t be cavalier about having made them.
Well glad to hear disfellowship helped you get your mind right.
No! No! No!! This has hit a very sensitive nerve. Warning: I have some strong opinions.
I am so done with not allowing leaders the opportunity to accept and overcome their short comings. Since when has it been okay to accept mediocre behavior especially from those in leadership roles. We are a church whose goals from what I am pretty sure was taught is to improve lives, specifically our own lives, not “others” lives. Yes, even if you are SP, RS or B believe it or not there is room for improvement. Not the obligatory self deprecating kind, but the real kind. You have not reached the perfect zone and your duty is not to get the other lessunfortunates to your level. Rather, you have been entrusted with an extra responsibility to reach out and help others who are on the same path as you. Offer a little kindness, encouragement, and give leadership from someone who may have a slightly broader view of the journey. Why do we always write off & excuse bad behavior?! I don’t believe and will not accept that Heavenly Father calls people knowing their weaknesses and enables them to literally destroy peoples lives as they receive flawed “council”. As a leader we should realize our council has great weight to those we serve. We should take that responsibility seriously. The thought should never enter our brains that because I was called to this stewardship that I am correct. We are on His errand. Only the spirit can guide what that one person needs in that one moment.
As a matter of excommunication i’m all for it for criminals, especially registered sex offenders. They shouldn’t be able to blend in and lead YSA sisters to believe that they are honorable & that they don’t have a secret deviant life. And priesthood leaders shouldn’t show compassion on them. They shouldn’t be given another chance. I feel very strongly about that. I don’t have a qualified opinion on anything else as I have never had experience to know their heart or if they need to be cut off from the body of Christ to change their heart and give them the opportunity to feel the gospel in their lives.
-Getting off my high horse to deal with my obviously unresolved issues.
Any Sister, thanks for commenting. You could be right that the respect we give to a leader’s authority should not absolve any wrongdoing. Appeal processes exist in the church, as well as the ability to withhold a sustaining vote, yet we almost never use them. There is a case to be made for standing up and not tolerating ecclesiastical abuse, when we feel strongly that something is wrong. I however did not mean to imply in my own experience that a mistake nescessarily had been made as it was a controversial decision that could have gone either way. My SP was simply being humble about his imperfections, not trying to absolve himself from error, responsibility or consequence.
However, when ecclesiastical abuse has been perpetrated, and we are not in a position to do anything about it directly, I think Kevin L is saying that all things can work towards our good, even bad things done by the church. “The atonement can fix that too.”
Every year the stake high council should be required to watch “12 Angry Men” together and have a discussion about group judgment and decision-making dynamics.
Hi Nate,
I’m sorry I didn’t mean to imply that your SP made a mistake. I’m having a difficult time articulating my thoughts. Full disclosure I am currently in the middle of a mess.
In my recent experience I am finding people doing the most absurd things because of a bishops council. And hearing people, reasonable people, tying themselves in knots making the bishops council seem completely inspired and for the greater good. I was sharing this with a friend in a completely different state and she wasn’t surprised and pointed out that we are taught to always to follow the bishop council.
I particularly appreciated your SP council. And I assumed that he listened to the all the opinions in the room. And I think that is what is so great, when leaders hear the experiences and opinions of others and take them into their considerations. I do believe that if done properly and with humility (real humility. Not the fake kind) everyone in that room would have been enriched through that process. In my ever humble opinion (/snark)that is the real purpose of priesthood leadership. To humble leaders enough to genuinely feel the pain and happiness of those they serve.
I also apologize to Kevin, I probably implied the opposite of what I meant. I was really touched by his experience and because he came out the other side better for it made me upset because in my current geographical area & experience priesthood leaders seem to be more concerned about losing the adulterer, the sexual offender, the stalker etc and offending their family than they are about the victims of their sins. It’s painful to watch the sister who’s husband left her for another woman have to endure the outpouring of love and welcoming for her not yet ex but who sometimes attend the ward with his new lady. He is not disciplined and he is showered with love and concern. And he has a new younger lady. What’s the downside?
“Every year the stake high council should be required to watch “12 Angry Men” together and have a discussion about group judgment and decision-making dynamics.’
It appears you miss the actual dynamics of a DC. The men who sit on it are NOT a jury. They get no real vote. They are there to offer their insight and opinion on what they have witnessed. 1/2 represent the Church, the other half the person who is the subject of the DC. Anyone who has been involved in a DC knows it is a gut-wrenching experience for which no pleasure is gained from it. When you have a reinstatement Council, you have the joy in knowing that the person is coming back to the Lord after their period of repentance.
I find it terribly interesting that no one has discussed the deep psychological damage that councils can cause to individuals. If many of you had sat with the women I have after such events I wonder if you would be making the same comments. Suicides have occurred after ex communications. I know of at least one case for surety. As I sit listening to women talking about wanting to commit suicide after such councils, suffering from PTSD, having flashbacks, feeling violated, I cannot think that the system has anything to do with the Jesus who is discussed in the New Testament. He did not hold a council for the women in adultery. People are not objects. Having ones’ deeply private life (in many cases) discussed in a room full of people is simply not healthy. The fact that the practice is even justified to me is appalling. Would any of these people take part in such activities if they did not have a belief that they had a direct root to God? No, I don’t think many would. There’s no concrete proof that they have – it’s all based on faith. Why would God intervene and give answers in these situations when he doesn’t warn people about earthquakes or other natural disasters. I totally believe in inspiration but for myself. I do believe in a God. I don’t believe though that a creator who can created our earth and universe would involve themselves in such practices. However people try to say this is loving, the people I’ve supported have not found it a loving experience. I think it is discipline by postcode. Simply based on the life experience of the leader in charge. I agree that sexual abuse should never ever be tolerated but this should be dealt with by law enforcement. Christians got rid of these kind of courts many centuries ago. The fact that people follow decisions against their better judgment (giving up independence of thought) is when evil can occur. It in my opinion is not something to celebrate. God in my view is LOVE not obedience and control, inflicting shame and in some cases pure humiliation.