The New Allowable Sin

[_bcspace]

That's because there is almost always clear evidence against apostates.

The real difference is the ability to see other POV's. Those who have this ability tend to be much more open minded, while those who don't tend to be very close minded. Unfortunately I haven't seen you demonstrate this ability very well.

Yet that's exactly how I know I'm open minded and how I know that you're not actually judging my open mindedness by this standard but rather by whether or not I agree. And by extension I know that you and others like you don't accept truth but rather make it up as you go along.

[_LDSToronto]

I can say that the husband of my wife's college roommate did admit to the bishop that he had been naked in the same room on at least 3 occasions with the other woman but that "nothing" happened. How can you been naked in the same room and also be carrying on a secret relationship for 3 years and have "nothing" happen.

He may be lying, but the bishop can only go on what he says or evidence that implicates him on a more serious violation of church rules.

Themis is right. Unless some party admits to having a sexual relationship, the stake president can't start formal church discipline. Disciplinary councils aren't inquests.

H.

[_Themis]

If these men held the Melch PH, they would not be "dealt" with by their Bishops. It would have been a Stake Disciplinary Council. Discipline can only be administered to men by the big shots.

Actually the bishop can. He cannot excommunicate a MP holder. If he or the SP thinks excommunication may be a possibility then a stake disciplinary council is held.

Runtu is right that confidences are not keep very well in the church. The Catholics have a much better system.

[_Themis]

Yet that's exactly how I know I'm open minded and how I know that you're not actually judging my open mindedness by this standard but rather by whether or not I agree. And by extension I know that you and others like you don't accept truth but rather make it up as you go along.

You tend to lack seeing other POV's and make simple assertions as fact without backing them up. It has nothing to do with whether we agree on various topics or not.

The quote I used in my last post from you is one of your many simple assertions without backing it up with anything. It brings up another ability which shows if one is actually trying to see others POV's. This is asking questions of others to see if they understand the other POV. I don't recall you doing this much if at all around here. Your democrats can't be good Mormons is a good example.

[_rallychild]

Ok, the whole "every bishop handles discipline differently and blah blah blah blah" is a bunch of BS. My Melchizedek priesthood holding, tithing paying, hometeaching every month father admittedly cheated on my mother to his bishop and was even caught in the act once. By original LDS standard, he should have been excommunicated, right? Well, he wasn't. He was put on "probation" for a year, divorced my mother and married the woman he had been sleeping with. This happened about 15 years ago, but now my dad and his new wife have 2 kids and are active members of the church. He even got sealed to his new wife last year.

Then, on the other hand, I recently had a female neighbor, who is in her 20's, get excommunicated after confessing to her bishop that she has sex with her boyfriend. So what's worse: a father with 6 kids cheating on his wife and leaving his family getting put on probation? Or an unmarried, church attending woman getting exed for having sex with her boyfriend?

It just doesn't add up. Seems a little unfair to me.

[Guest]

1) Alpha Males will ALWAYS have "affairs". They are genetically inclined to do so.

2) Women, including Mormon women, will ALWAYS fall in love with Alpha Males, and this is why these two women married adulterous men.

3) The Church does NOT "ex" adulterous men, because they seen over the last 150 years that women who marry adulterous men (i.e. womanizers) will 100% of the time MARRY AGAIN the same sort of man, and AGAIN, and AGAIN, and AGAIN...ad infinitum ad nauseum...So, the Church figures it is best they simply remained married to the first Adulterous man. It makes things less complicated. "IF" the man is a "good Member of the Church" (i.e. has a history of meeting attendance, tithe paying and not questioning Mormon leaders), he'll be put on "Probation" and not exed. Show me WHERE in the D&C is there anything about "probation" as a Church discipline.

4) Church leaders figure men are gonna be men, they're gonna "cheat". AS long as they are loyal to the Chruch (i.e. obedient to Church leaders) they are not punished. I was was almost excommunicated once because I refused to stop talking about Adam-God. Mormon leaders can "understand" Mormon guys boning other women, but they don't like little intellectual assholes like me discussing things that ought not be discussed.

I was told repeatedly that Mormon women DO NOT DATE, much less marry, men who are not 100% morally worthy! I was told a LOT of things that I later discovered was PURE HORSE crap!!!

Just finished having lunch today with a friend of our who used to be in our ward over 10 years ago. In the past 10 years her husband had a couple of affairs which led to their divorce.

My wife has a roommate from college who's husband of 19 years has been having an affair with another member in their ward for the last 3 years.

What do these 2 cases have in common besides the affair? Both women went to their Bishop and Stake President with information and proof of the affair and neither of their husbands had any noticable "church discipline" taken against them. The only other connection I could think of is that both men earn a pretty good salary. Only one of them was put on "probation" (sounds like something out of animal house) but neither was disciplined.

The silver lining of this is that both of these formerly stalwart Mormons have lost faith in the Priesthood leadership. In one case one has left the church in the other case she has stopped attending every week and asked out of her callings.

I can only assume that affairs aren't taken as seriously by church leadership. Anyone have other examples. It seems to me that these 2 women get screwed twice. Once by the hubby cheating and the other by the church.

[_Jason Bourne]

Well let me see, so much to comment on. Maybe I can help clarify a few things having had a bit of experience in such things.

First of all, let me qualify this by emphasizing that indeed, due to local leadership style and views the application of Church discipline is varied. That can result in some unfortunate results at times. I cannot imagine as one poster noted, men committing adultery not being at least disfellowshipped and young umarried women ex'd. Today that just would not happen at least where I live.

So, let me tell you what the handbooks says, well at least the one I had a few years ago. Adutlery is not an auto excommunication event. It is one that may require a DC. But it really depends on who did it, what their status in the Church is, are the endowed, and do they hold a prominent position.

Next, all DC issues initially start with a bishop. If the offender is a MP holder then bishop consults with the SP. If the outcome of any DC for a MP holder could likely by excommunication then the SP handles the DC. If not the SP can send the DC back to the bishop. A bishop can disfellowship a MP holder.

That said, in my experience the Church is less and less interested in exing members. This is because so often the ex'd person does not come back. At least this is what a number of higher ups told me. Young persons are rarely if ever ex'd for sexual sin. It would have to be extreme. This is somewhat of a change because I think 30 years ago it might have happened some more than it does today.

As for active endowed members who commit adultery typically there will always be a DC. But the outcome will vary and it will depend on the person, their heart for repentance and so on. I could share a number of varied outcomes for such things that I was involved with but I don't give such details. I can say that in all cases if the member was endowed it at least resulted in a short disfellowshipment.

Now that said, as noted it does and can vary. I can only speak to what I have experienced where i live now and have for 28 years.

[_LDSToronto]

Well let me see, so much to comment on. Maybe I can help clarify a few things having had a bit of experience in such things.

First of all, let me qualify this by emphasizing that indeed, due to local leadership style and views the application of Church discipline is varied. That can result in some unfortunate results at times. I cannot imagine as one poster noted, men committing adultery not being at least disfellowshipped and young umarried women ex'd. Today that just would not happen at least where I live.

So, let me tell you what the handbooks says, well at least the one I had a few years ago. Adutlery is not an auto excommunication event. It is one that may require a DC. But it really depends on who did it, what their status in the Church is, are the endowed, and do they hold a prominent position.

Next, all DC issues initially start with a bishop. If the offender is a MP holder then bishop consults with the SP. If the outcome of any DC for a MP holder could likely by excommunication then the SP handles the DC. If not the SP can send the DC back to the bishop. A bishop can disfellowship a MP holder.

That said, in my experience the Church is less and less interested in exing members. This is because so often the ex'd person does not come back. At least this is what a number of higher ups told me. Young persons are rarely if ever ex'd for sexual sin. It would have to be extreme. This is somewhat of a change because I think 30 years ago it might have happened some more than it does today.

As for active endowed members who commit adultery typically there will always be a DC. But the outcome will vary and it will depend on the person, their heart for repentance and so on. I could share a number of varied outcomes for such things that I was involved with but I don't give such details. I can say that in all cases if the member was endowed it at least resulted in a short disfellowshipment.

Now that said, as noted it does and can vary. I can only speak to what I have experienced where i live now and have for 28 years.

Thanks for this, Jason. I'll add a bit - I definitely have seen many young people commit sexual transgressions and not suffer excommunication. Many times a council isn't even held.

In every case, not just some, but every case, my stake president has made an honest attempt to work with the transgressor prior to going to a disciplinary council. He will do everything he can to avoid a council, to help the transgressor repent, and to help the transgressor make restitution if necessary. Only when he's exhausted that route will he move to a disciplinary council.

I don't know how common that is amongst other stakes, but this has been the experience I've had.

H.

[_Dr. Shades]

I'll add a bit - I definitely have seen many young people commit sexual transgressions and not suffer excommunication.

Do they let you watch, or do you film them in secret?

[_harmony]

The other is seriously considering it but because she stopped going to school and worked to put her husband though school and then became a stay at home mom, she is now faced with no job skills in a poor economy. She is scared of what will happen if she leaves him. A bad situation for anyone to be in let alone to be a newly divorce mom with 4 kids at home.

If she wants a divorce, she needs to get to the biggest shark in the pond first. And she needs to ignore any priesthood counsel to the contrary.