I first started trying to learn about and understand church disciplinary councils when I was in my mid 20s. I was living in Southern Germany at the time and attending the local military branch. We shared a meeting house with the Augsburg German Ward.
I was waiting in the hallway outside the presidency offices and council room for a meeting with my branch president, who was finishing up with a disciplinary meeting scheduled prior to my appointment. I could hear the murmur of voices, and eventually a sister from the branch who was serving there in the military came out and walked by me. I have no idea what the problem was, or what the decision was, but I went away troubled by the reality that church membership can be suspended or revoked. I saw it as harsh and punitive, and worried about the effect punishment like that would have on someone struggling with weaknesses.
Since then I have come to a much different viewpoint. Although the loving nature of a council is probably greater or lesser according to what is in the hearts of the leaders who conduct it, there is no question in my mind that it is intended to be administered in love and concern for the individual who is being considered for judgement, and I would speculate that it almost always is done in a spirit of love, concern, and regret for negative actions that are decided upon.
There are two main factors that form my opinion.
First
The goal is to bring a focus on the things in the life of the person brought before the council that are causing concern so that they realize exactly what they are doing wrong, why it is wrong and serious enough to jeopardize full membership, and offer a chance to turn these actions around so that full membership can be retained or regained. The objective is to bring that person back into harmony with the gospel and allow them to repent and move forward in their progression again.
In some cases the restriction or revocation of membership is part of a penalty required as part of the repentance process and allows that person to 'pay the price' and prove themselves faithful before being restored to full membership again. Often the council action is not initiated until the person comes to their bishop wanting to resolve the sin and complete a repentance process. That might be the case for members who decide to live together before marriage. No action will be taken until they express a desire to clear this sin from their lives. I knew one sister who had carried the burden of having had an abortion for many years. When she finally went in and confessed it, she was excommunicated because of the nature of the offense, but encouraged to continue to faithfully attend and live a righteous life for a period of time, after which she could be re-baptized, which she did.
Second
This is my understanding. When someone is committing or has committed a serious sin, or is in rebellion or defiance against church doctrine and leadership, affiliated with apostate groups, or otherwise standing in opposition to the church and even trying to gain support and agreement from others, and is not repentant or willing to change what they are doing or promoting, then it is actually a kindness to release them from covenants they have made. When we make covenants like baptism and temple covenants we become held to a higher standard by the Lord and there are eternal consequences for breaking those covenants. When someone is excommunicated they are no longer liable for breaking those covenants and no longer have to have that weight of sin to pay for after this life. They are also not eligible for certain blessings, but serious sin, rebellion and apostacy would eliminate those blessings anyway.
The opportunity to repent and return is always there too, so someone who has been subject to church discipline always has an open door waiting to welcome them back in and they can re-make covenants and be eligible for the blessings again. (Not sure if this applies to first degree murder though, I'm not current on that)
Certainly, to the unrepentant, being disciplined in any way can feel punitive no matter how much love is expressed by those who are making the decisions. Someone can be so certain that they are right and the church is wrong that they feel the judgement and action of the council is wrong and that hardens their feelings against the leadership of the church as they see themselves as wrongly judged.
Case in point is the quote I read today in the Salt Lake News Tribune from Kate kelly, whose council has been held but the decision not made yet. She says, "I strangely enough feel a lot of hope...because it's not too late for them to do the right thing." My question is, what is the right thing? My opinion is that the right thing is for them to carefully weigh out everything that has been presented before them in their own minds, decide what they think about her possibly being in apostasy enough to be excommunicated or otherwise restricted in her membership, and then pray about what they have decided. That is the pattern we have been given for receiving revelation from God. Then, they should come together and see if their thoughts and impressions from the spirit give them a consensus of what course of action the Lord is in harmony with. This is our checks and balances. More than one person deciding, and taking it to the Lord for confirmation, repeating the process until they feel the approval of the spirit confirming their decision.
What seems 'hopeful' to me is that this council is taking extra time to get confirmation by personal revelation and mutual agreement before they make a decision. A faithful member of the church has the faith, Knowledge and trust (see my previous post) to be humble enough to take correction, and to trust and be obedient to the will of the Lord. She has the option to let go of deciding what is right or wrong for the council to do and seek in humility with an open mind herself to see what the Lord approves of. It is difficult to let go of a cause when there is so much gratifying warmth and support coming from followers, and I'm not surprised that she is not considering that. The only thing is, that having decided that the church leaders are wrong not to ordain women to the priesthood, and being unwilling to budge from that goal, she is proving the point that she no longer sustains church leadership. By not being willing to stop promoting her views to recruit followers and take down her web site, she proves it even more. She states clearly in her letter to the council deciding this matter that she will not comply with any of their conditions for retaining her full membership, and in that, she has proved their case against her.
Personally, I feel confident that the decision made about her membership, whatever it is, will be made not just by personal opinions, but by guidance and confirmation of the spirit and that it will be correct for her at this time. Correction by a loving father in heaven is not a punitive thing. It is an invitation to learn and align with his superior knowledge of what is best for us and lovingly sacrifice our own will to his so that we can hopefully go back and be with him forever. Not trusting Priesthood leaders to help with that is a significant clue to what is wrong in this situation.
No comments:
Post a Comment