I've been on the 'receiving end" of a church court as well, also for personal behavior, and Wade's comments are appropos. Let's now take a look at how this was handled by the resident Lollypop League here:
Now this has got my interest piqued! Perhaps this goes some ways towards explaining Wade's fascination with pseudo-psychoanalysis, CBT, and other such "help"?
First, Scratch weighs in with another sterling indication of abject ignorance (Cognitive Therapy and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy are a well known and growing modality for a number of psychological and developmental problems-something Scratch might do well to consider looking into before its too late).
In my opinion, it's quite impossible for an unmarried adult to not do something in private to cause church discipline sooner or later.
Then, Slim Shady treats us to an utterly irrelevant and preposterous statement that indicates yet another committed anti-Mormon with a knowledge of LDS doctrine and culture so vastly limited that the mind reels like Ted Kennedy on New Year's Eve at the compound.
Scratch then comes roaring back with...
No, no---you are misreading my OP. I actually sympathize with Wade here, and wish him well, and suspect that he was a victim of abuse of priesthood authority. I also viewed his post on the fittingly named MADboard as a springboard for speculation on whether or not this episode is in any way related to his behavior on this board, trying to psychoanalyze people, etc.
Notice that Scratch suspects precisely what Wade clearly denies in his post.
Then the golden cat that appears to be looking upward at an approaching combat boot says:
I NEED COFFEE or a GOOD STIFF DRINK.
Don't tempt me on this one..
Then, out on nowhere, like Al Gore in a snowstorm, comes Dan Vogel with:
Sorry, to hear how much more complicated the church has made life for you. I hope it's worth it.
Again claiming exactly what Wade denied was the case in his previous posts on the subject, proving that CBT may actually be just what the doctor ordered in this forum (as some here can't seem to make heads or tails of clear, at face value honest and sincere statements about the church from active members)
Dapper Dan continues:
It's abuse of authority when they really have no authority on which to condemn, shame, and punish you. They only have what authority you give them.
Mr. Vogel seems to be laboring under the assumption that faithful LDS are in the church and remain in and committed to it for some other reason than...that they are faithful and committed to it. Of course it is true that the church only has authority as we give it to them. We can all leave the church tomorrow if we so desire and it will have no more authority over us. At that point, someone or something else will. We do not have a choice of whether or not there will be some authority to whom we will submit ourselves at some point, but only which it will be. Some of us have just chosen that the LDS church and its teachings are authoritative and that its authority is valid. This, as opposed to say, another theistic religion, a secular religion or ideology, or our own personal fantasies of self authoritativeness (humanism).
So, if you recognize a problem, what do you need them for? Wade, you are not responsible for anyone but you, especially since you are single and have no children. But it is not your job to be an example for others to follow. That's way too big of a burden to put on yourself. I know Mormons constantly worry about others not accepting the gospel because of setting a bad example, but that's a load of cr*p. No one is going to go to hell because of you.
Vogel here sounds like a typical liberal radio pop psychologst telling someone that they are islands unto themselves and nothing they do is anyone elses business. Ah yes, the fantasy of a consequence and effect free existence in which not only are we not our brother's keeper, but our moral and spiritual selves exist in a ontological and societal vacuum in which things like sin, addiction, and serious personal weaknesses become atolls in our own islands of personal atomistic self sufficiency.
Vogel here sounds a standard leftist theme that I've grown up with and know well:
Relax. Don't worry. There are no absolutes. Moral standards are a trap set by people who want to control and enslave you. We have no responsibilities to our fellow beings to be examples and role models of the things we believe. We are resposible to ourselves and ourselves alone for our deeds.
For those of you who haven't caught on yet, this is a version of Korihorism.
Why? Isn't it between you and God? If you have seen the error of your ways, there is little more to learn. Why the self-flagellation? Mormons are so dramatic. Sometimes it is a miracle of forgiveness in the LDS church. I prefer the Catholic way of penitence and then move on with your life. Mormons want to wallow in their misery and hate their flesh.
Yes, it is between him and God, and, in certain cases, it is between him and the church and God's representatives who govern that church. Vogel seems opaque to the concept that the church is a
community of faith in which all are supposed to bear the burdens and assist each other with weaknesses and problems. That's a primary point of having a church.
I have no idea what he's talking about in the rest of his statement as to Mormons flagellating themselves and wallowing in misery. That's an individual thing, and I've never noticed it as a element of Mormon culture per se. Its always been taught against in all the counsel I've ever had, and its not encouraged. I think we have here yet another self styled "expert" on things Mormon who in actuality has a meager background in that very area.
Well, Wade, your secret is safe with me. And just think, all the time you were pounding me on the FAIR board with your theory that apostates were apostates because they needed to excuse their sins, and here you were in need of "moral guidance" yourself.
Many of them are, no question. Others are just liberals who realize at the outset that the principles of the church would cramp their style (including those so very important "alternative lifestyles" we here so much about these days) and are hostile to it on general principles. Others may have no serious sins to excuse but their intellectua pride (a sin in its own right) prevents them from accepting any source of authority highter than their own.
Oh, and by the way, CBT is not Psychoanalysis, indeed, quite far from it. And by the way again, psychotherapy is, in my opinion, as much, or much more, an art than someting that can be learned at university. Wade has, if his knowledge base is substantive and he has the personality attributes and "aptitude" for connecting with and facilitating theraputic dialog and thought processes with others, as much right to "practice" what he knows here or anywhere else. What Scratch and others here are threatened by is that Wade may have at least a few digits of their proverbial numbers.
Loran