Is the LDS Church Vindictive?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Rollo Tomasi
_Emeritus
Posts: 4085
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:27 pm

Post by _Rollo Tomasi »

harmony wrote:For Mormons, the Atonement only works for the individual up to a point. Personal repentence done for an offense requiring priesthood intervention does not count, according to the church. It's that authority thing again. In other words, he couldn't repent of adultery without a bishop. And as a former bishop, he knew that.

This always seemed screwed up to me. As far as I can tell from scripture, Christ's atonement is not contingent on one's confession to an ecclesiastical leader, but on confession to God. Honestly, there should be no need to confess to man what must be confessed to God, who is the only one who can judge true repentance and grant actual forgiveness. But, somehow, over years and years of tradition and culture the idea has become cemented that a sinner must confess to both God and the Church, in order to be forgiven by God and the Church. I know of no scripture that requires this, and I strongly suspect this requirement was simply added by the Church to 'get its pound of flesh,' so to speak. The CHI also seems to imply this:

Repentance requires that all sins be confessed to the Lord. "By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins -- behold, he will confess and forsake them." (D&C 58:43). Members also should confess to their presiding officer if they have committed serious transgressions. Members who voluntarily and completely confess transgressions demonstrate that they have begun the process of repentance.

(Emphasis added).

Note how confession to the Lord is "required," but a less absolute (i.e., the word "should") approach is used to encourage confession to a presiding officer. Bottom line, a confession to an ecclesiastical leader is not required by God, but by man. Let's leave the repentance/forgiveness process where it belongs -- between the individual and God.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

Rollo Tomasi wrote:
harmony wrote:For Mormons, the Atonement only works for the individual up to a point. Personal repentence done for an offense requiring priesthood intervention does not count, according to the church. It's that authority thing again. In other words, he couldn't repent of adultery without a bishop. And as a former bishop, he knew that.

This always seemed screwed up to me. As far as I can tell from scripture, Christ's atonement is not contingent on one's confession to an ecclesiastical leader, but on confession to God. Honestly, there should be no need to confess to man what must be confessed to God, who is the only one who can judge true repentance and grant actual forgiveness. But, somehow, over years and years of tradition and culture the idea has become cemented that a sinner must confess to both God and the Church, in order to be forgiven by God and the Church. I know of no scripture that requires this, and I strongly suspect this requirement was simply added by the Church to 'get its pound of flesh,' so to speak. The CHI also seems to imply this:

Repentance requires that all sins be confessed to the Lord. "By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins -- behold, he will confess and forsake them." (D&C 58:43). Members also should confess to their presiding officer if they have committed serious transgressions. Members who voluntarily and completely confess transgressions demonstrate that they have begun the process of repentance.

(Emphasis added).

Note how confession to the Lord is "required," but a less absolute (i.e., the word "should") approach is used to encourage confession to a presiding officer. Bottom line, a confession to an ecclesiastical leader is not required by God, but by man. Let's leave the repentance/forgiveness process where it belongs -- between the individual and God.


This is one of the things that just frustrates me.

There is nothing in the canon that requires this. This is not doctrinal. This is a policy, yet it supposedly effects our eternal salvation. And people wonder why we say the church is run by men, not God? Because it's so very obvious that it IS!
_OUT OF MY MISERY
_Emeritus
Posts: 922
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:32 pm

Post by _OUT OF MY MISERY »

truth dancer wrote:I really don't get the whole excommunication thing...

In the case of Simon... the church ex's him, gives him further publicity, brings the issues in the forefront, makes the church look REALLY bad.

From the church's perspective I just don't see the purpose at all... unless it is just to be mean, get some revenge, and exert power or something.


~dancer~



TD

I am with you myself, even though technically I am a card carrying Mormon...it would not bother me in the least to be ex'ed
but....the exing would be hurtful to my family even though it is suppoesed to be private....so yes the Church is vindictive and hurtful....YES
When I wake up I will be hungry....but this feels so good right now aaahhhhhh........
_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Re: Is the LDS Church Vindictive?

Post by _moksha »

harmony wrote: And what exactly does an "inappropriate relationship with a woman" entail?

Non-licensed patty cake?

If the Church wished to distance themselves further from Southerton, beyond his years of inactivity, it would save them face by charging Southerton with something like inappropriate handholding or loitering, rather than being against the findings of molecular biology. Southerton's findings were challenging enough and I imagine it caused a few double-time shifts for the apologists, but it would be even more of a headache for Dr. Peterson's office if Simon Southerton's findings became a cause celebre due to the LDS Church leveling apostasy charges against scientific evidence.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
_Ray A

Re: Is the LDS Church Vindictive?

Post by _Ray A »

Rollo Tomasi wrote:Southerton was not ex'ed for adultery -- the official reason given by the Church was Southerton's "inappropriate relationship with a woman." Seems to me that the disciplinary council could not establish adultery, so, instead, used this very vague reason as a pretext to get rid of him for his controversial writings.


That may be the case, I don't know, but Simon told the ABC (Australia) that he was exed for adultery. Perhaps he was just being more explicit, i.e., calling a spade a spade. I gave the interview link on that thread.
_twinkie
_Emeritus
Posts: 327
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 4:01 am

Post by _twinkie »

Rollo Tomasi wrote:
harmony wrote:For Mormons, the Atonement only works for the individual up to a point. Personal repentence done for an offense requiring priesthood intervention does not count, according to the church. It's that authority thing again. In other words, he couldn't repent of adultery without a bishop. And as a former bishop, he knew that.

This always seemed screwed up to me. As far as I can tell from scripture, Christ's atonement is not contingent on one's confession to an ecclesiastical leader, but on confession to God. Honestly, there should be no need to confess to man what must be confessed to God, who is the only one who can judge true repentance and grant actual forgiveness. But, somehow, over years and years of tradition and culture the idea has become cemented that a sinner must confess to both God and the Church, in order to be forgiven by God and the Church. I know of no scripture that requires this, and I strongly suspect this requirement was simply added by the Church to 'get its pound of flesh,' so to speak. The CHI also seems to imply this:

Repentance requires that all sins be confessed to the Lord. "By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins -- behold, he will confess and forsake them." (D&C 58:43). Members also should confess to their presiding officer if they have committed serious transgressions. Members who voluntarily and completely confess transgressions demonstrate that they have begun the process of repentance.

(Emphasis added).

Note how confession to the Lord is "required," but a less absolute (i.e., the word "should") approach is used to encourage confession to a presiding officer. Bottom line, a confession to an ecclesiastical leader is not required by God, but by man. Let's leave the repentance/forgiveness process where it belongs -- between the individual and God.


This is something that seems weird to me, too! I agree that it is between the person and the lord.
_Bond...James Bond
_Emeritus
Posts: 4627
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:49 am

Post by _Bond...James Bond »

twinkie wrote:This is something that seems weird to me, too! I agree that it is between the person and the lord.


The question I always ask is if it's between the person and the lord why is church needed? Why the proxy?

Bond
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
_Gazelam
_Emeritus
Posts: 5659
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:06 am

Post by _Gazelam »

Psalm 82:6
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

The persons being addressed here are the Judges of Israel. They were those set apart to act as God in judgeing the people. This is the same as a Bishop in our day.

D&C 107:74
74 Thus shall he be a judge, even a common judge among the inhabitants of Zion, or in a stake of Zion, or in any branch of the church where he shall be set apart unto this ministry, until the borders of Zion are enlarged and it becomes necessary to have other bishops or judges in Zion or elsewhere.

Image

President Stephen L Richards, First Counselor to David O. McKay, stated:

To whom should confession be made? To the Lord, of coarce, whose law has been violated. To the aggrieved person or persons, as an essential in making due retribution if that is necessary. And then certainly to the Lord's representative, his appointed Judge in Israel, under whose ecclesiastical jurisdiction the offender lives and holds membership in the kingdom.

Is the offender justified in bypassing the immediate church authority and judge, and going to those who do not know him so well to make the confession? Almost universally, I think the answer should be No, for the local tribunals are in position to know the individual, his history and environs far better than those who have not had close contact with him, and in consequence the local authorities have a background which will enable them to pass judgment with more justice, and also mercy, than might be reasonably expected from any other source. It follows that it is the order of the Church for confession to be made to the Bishop, which entails heavy and exacting responsibilities on the part of the bishop, the first of which is that every confession should be received and held in the utmost confidence. A bishop who violates such a sacred confidence is himself guilty of an offence before God and the Church. Where it becomes neccesary to take councelors into his confidence, as it frequesntly does, and where it is necessary to organize tribunals, the bishop should inform the confessor, and if possible obtain his permission so to do.

Why is confession essential? First, because the Lord has commanded it, and secondly, because the offendor cannot live and participate in the kingdom of God, to receive the blessings therefrom, with a lie in his heart.

Now the confessed offender is not left without hope, for he can obtain forgiveness by following the cource outlined, and by forsaking sins comparable to that commited, as well as all other sin, and living before the Church and the Lord in such manner as to win approbation of both. The offender who has brought stigma and affront to the ward, the stake or the missionj should seek the forgiveness of those he has thus offended. That may be had at times through the presiding authorities of the various divisions of the Church. At other times it may be appropriate and quite necessary to make amends for public offences and seek forgiveness before organizations of the people. The judges of Israel will determine this matter. (Conf. Rep. Apr., 1954, p.10-13)

it should be clear that bishops and other church officers, when confessions are made to them, do not forgive sins except in the sence that they forgive them as far as the Church is concerned; they remit any penalty which the Church on earth might impose; they adjudge that repentant persons are worthy of full fellowship in the earthly kingdom.

Ultimate forgivenes is reserved to the Lord Jesus Christ. Though at times he has given authority to his eartly agents. (John 20:21-23)

Gaz
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
_Rollo Tomasi
_Emeritus
Posts: 4085
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:27 pm

Post by _Rollo Tomasi »

Gazelam wrote:D&C 107:74
74 Thus shall he be a judge, even a common judge among the inhabitants of Zion, or in a stake of Zion, or in any branch of the church where he shall be set apart unto this ministry, until the borders of Zion are enlarged and it becomes necessary to have other bishops or judges in Zion or elsewhere.

Hmm, no mention of confession.

President Stephen L Richards, First Counselor to David O. McKay, stated:

To whom should confession be made? To the Lord, of coarce, whose law has been violated.

Agreed.

To the aggrieved person or persons, as an essential in making due retribution if that is necessary.

Agreed.

And then certainly to the Lord's representative, his appointed Judge in Israel, under whose ecclesiastical jurisdiction the offender lives and holds membership in the kingdom.

Why?

... for the local tribunals are in position to know the individual, his history and environs far better than those who have not had close contact with him, and in consequence the local authorities have a background which will enable them to pass judgment with more justice, and also mercy, than might be reasonably expected from any other source.

Doesn't the Lord know us better than anyone else can, including the "local tribunal"?

Why is confession essential? First, because the Lord has commanded it, and secondly, because the offendor cannot live and participate in the kingdom of God, to receive the blessings therefrom, with a lie in his heart.

But if one repents and is forgiven by the Lord, then there is no "lie in his heart." Again, SFR has given no compelling reason to require confession to a bishop.

Now the confessed offender is not left without hope, for he can obtain forgiveness by following the cource outlined, and by forsaking sins comparable to that commited, as well as all other sin, and living before the Church and the Lord in such manner as to win approbation of both.

Seems to me that SFR is putting "the Church" on equal (if not greater) par with the Lord when it comes to granting forgiveness. I think this is incorrect.

The offender who has brought stigma and affront to the ward, the stake or the missionj should seek the forgiveness of those he has thus offended. That may be had at times through the presiding authorities of the various divisions of the Church. At other times it may be appropriate and quite necessary to make amends for public offences and seek forgiveness before organizations of the people. The judges of Israel will determine this matter.

Public confessions are no longer required. Even decisions from a disciplinary council are no longer publicly announced (as they used to be; today only those persons "with a need to know" are informed). And I submit most sins are of an individual nature (as opposed to involving the ward, stake or mission).

It should be clear that bishops and other church officers, when confessions are made to them, do not forgive sins except in the sence that they forgive them as far as the Church is concerned; they remit any penalty which the Church on earth might impose; they adjudge that repentant persons are worthy of full fellowship in the earthly kingdom.

Why not just leave this judgment to the Lord? Again, it seems like you are putting "the Church" on par with God when it comes to forgiveness.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
_christopher
_Emeritus
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:17 pm

Post by _christopher »

It was nothing but vengence upon Southerton. To say otherwise is pure BS.

If I recall, he says he did have an affair a couple of years ago, but had broken it off and he and his wife were trying to work through things. I served in several bishoprics and branch presidencies. If this had happened, (an inactive member had an affair but was back trying to work things out with his wife), even if he had decided to come back to church, we never would have ex'd him.

Crap, I served as a councilor in a branch just a few years ago. The other councilor was single, got his his girlfriend pregnant, and all we did was release him. They got married, and we did not even disfellowship him.


Chris <><

PS: For those looking, this is just example number 6,000,345 where the LDS church simply lies about itself. Just say it..."We ex'd him because he wrote a book that we didn't like and we didn't want him on our rolls." Appearance is more important than truth to these guys.
Post Reply