The Brethren and Church Discipline

[Guest]

So, am I supposed to believe that the apostles want people like Droopy to go around publicly accusing whichever individual member is sinning?

Is that what it means to exhort, expound, and warn?

Okay, I will do you a favor. I will go to an apostle and say that Droopy on mormondiscussions is publically accusing people of sinning. I will get back to you about his reaction. I am sure that when he hears that it is Droopy, he will take immediate action. But what about Bugs Bunny? Does he get off scott free?

[_moksha]

Hyrum told me of his rebuke from BRM, screaming at the top of his lungs right in his face, but this was in an appeal situation where the meeting was behind closed doors in the appeal

In all fairness to Elder McConkie, it must be remembered that he was suffering from full moon withdrawl during the meeting in question.

[_Dr. Shades]

Hyrum told me of his rebuke from BRM, screaming at the top of his lungs right in his face, but this was in an appeal situation where the meeting was behind closed doors in the appeal

Hyrum who?

[_RayAgostini]

Hyrum who?

Hyrum L. Andrus.

[_Drifting]

So, am I supposed to believe that the apostles want people like Droopy to go around publicly accusing whichever individual member is sinning?

Is that what it means to exhort, expound, and warn?

Okay, I will do you a favor. I will go to an apostle and say that Droopy on mormondiscussions is publically accusing people of sinning. I will get back to you about his reaction. I am sure that when he hears that it is Droopy, he will take immediate action. But what about Bugs Bunny? Does he get off scott free?

To which the Apostle will say...

"Security, SECURITYYYYY!!! How the beelzebub did this fruit loop get in here?"

[_Kishkumen]

I didn't see that anywhere. All I saw was your interpretations of what Greg Smith wrote, and your extrapolations as to what he "really meant".

Being deliberately obtuse is not an effective strategy.

[_LDSToronto]

I love when I can pay it back to the good Reverend for all the good he's done.

In my experience, public chastisement is rare. Very rare. In fact, I have never seen anyone rebuked publicly by name. However, there was an incident a few years back....

A family in a small branch had been badmouthing the branch president, quite publicly. I can't recall exactly why the badmouthing was happening, nor do I recall the topic of the badmouthing. My stake president discussed this in a number of stake presidency meetings, and referred to the handbook to determine what must be done.

Because the badmouthing had polarized the ward, the SP decided he was within his rights to privately speak to the family and tell them that they were on the verge of apostasy because they were encouraging people not to listen to proper priesthood authority. Next, he spoke to the ward in sacrament meeting, re-affirming the authority of the branch president and, in a very mild way, told the ward they needed to get behind their BP.

The 2010 Handbook states that church discipline can be administered to those who pose a spiritual threat of others, for apostasy, and for those who impair the good name or moral influence of the Church. Apostasy includes those who act in clear, open and deliberate opposition to the Church or it's leaders.

To that end, an argument can be made that Droopy has moved beyond his authority when calling members to repentance. Droopy is not a so-called "common judge in Israel" and so has no purview beyond his own life. Hence, one could make a case that Droopy poses a spiritual threat to others and that he is impairing the moral influence of the church.

As another nugget, one can see, given the wide net the aforementioned definitions cast, that Dan Peterson and his cadre are precariously close to openly and deliberately opposing the Church and it's leaders. And to be fair, John Dehlin, friends in high places notwithstanding, falls into the same camp.

Hope this helps,
H.

[_Kishkumen]

As another nugget, one can see, given the wide net the aforementioned definitions cast, that Dan Peterson and his cadre are precariously close to openly and deliberately opposing the Church and it's leaders. And to be fair, John Dehlin, friends in high places notwithstanding, falls into the same camp.

Hope this helps,
H.

Thanks, H. I will concede that John Dehlin may be acting contrary to the doctrines and policies of the LDS Church. I just leave it to his priesthood leaders to judge. Likewise with the MI editors in exile. At the same time, I can be happy that their days of publishing slams on other LDS folk from BYU campus are over.

[_LDSToronto]

Thanks, H. I will concede that John Dehlin may be acting contrary to the doctrines and policies of the LDS Church. I just leave it to his priesthood leaders to judge. Likewise with the MI editors in exile. At the same time, I can be happy that their days of publishing slams on other LDS folk from BYU campus are over.

That really is the central point. (Most) Church discipline is a private affair for a reason. While I have never participated in a miscarriage of church discipline, I have seen the reactions of members who felt that a transgressor did not receive their just desserts.

I'd suggest that most of us have no idea what really happens behinds the scenes when disciplinary action is administered or withheld, and so characters like Droopy who make attempts to take justice into their own hands are really doing so from a place of outrage and hatred, and not love or compassion.

H.

[_Kishkumen]

I'd suggest that most of us have no idea what really happens behinds the scenes when disciplinary action is administered or withheld, and so characters like Droopy who make attempts to take justice into their own hands are really doing so from a place of outrage and hatred, and not love or compassion.

H.

So, this is mostly about Droopy illegitimately taking Church disciplinary matters into his own hands because he does not have faith and trust in God and His priesthood.