How does the LDS church view forgiveness and grace?

Let me give you a specific example.

Assume I was married and in good standing in the church.

Assume that I then left my wife and abandoned my kids. For a few years, I drank excessively and used illegal drugs, had sex with prostitutes, stole from employers, gambled, lied and generally abused myself and those I came in contact with. I certainly did not tithe or even attend church during this time.

Finally, I hit rock bottom. With everything having crashed around me, I want to come back to church.

How would the LDS church respond?



[This message has been edited by El Sid (edited 1/9/2008 9:35a).]

10 million hail josephs

One of my best friends from Seattle was a mormon and was ex-communicated from that church because, according to him, his wife left him and divorced him, which he did not contest.

would it resemble a

series of meetings with a parole board

or a

reenactment of the prodigal's son story.

I have a guess

My take it that it would depend on the circumstances of the person who had left, and also the attitude of the local Bishop and Stake President.

There are a lot of people on the Mormon rolls who are living lifestyles that would generally be considered excommunication-worthy.

But the church doesn't conduct witch hunts to gather these people up and excommunicate them.

They are simply off the radar. However, if you are an active attending member of the congregation (and better yet, have a leadership position), and you fall off the wagon into some pretty bad stuff, your chances of excommunication go way, way up.

This is just a guess. But if you are off the radar, long gone from the church, and then you come back, you would be unlikely to be excommunicated. You would be welcomed back. The Bishop might elect to have you go through informal "discipline", meaning there might be some temporary restrictions placed on you, such as not being allowed to have a leadership position for a certain amount of time, not being allowed to pray in front of the congregation (called "disfellowship" ).

I can't say that I entirely agree that disfellowship in all cases would be useful. I think in many cases it would be detrimental. If someone wants to get back to Christ, why put barriers there? But my opinion counts for nothing.

[This message has been edited by mikewaters (edited 1/9/2008 9:51a).]

I can't say that I entirely agree that disfellowship in all cases would be useful. I think in many cases it would be detrimental. If someone wants to get back to Christ, why put barriers there? But my opinion counts for nothing.
***********
I'd say your opinion is as important as anybody's, especially since I agree.

Mike:

I agree that it is ecclesiastical leader specific, but in most instances it would hover between informal probation, i.e., weekly meetings with leader to assist and to help the member, and formal probation. Some are more hardcore than others.

I've never heard of an excommunication due to a wife leaving a husband and then divorcing him. This I do not believe. In fact, the guidelines to leaders counsels against that. There must be a confession of the sinner, not a remark from outside. So the alleged story in my mind is bogus.

Derrida, I don't really care if you believe the "alleged" story or not.

I don't know any more detail than that. Maybe there is more detail than that, but I don't know it.

The guy in question is a decorated Navy officer (retired) and one of my best friends.

Take it for what it's worth.

We are not Catholics. We don't consider divorce in and of itself to be a sin.

Your buddy is much better off.

Tech:

The story doesn't make sense, as it's contrary to Church guidelines, which I have read. According to Church guidelines, one is NOT to excommunicated for those circumstances. There are very few allowable excommunicatable offenses and the set of offenses described by you are not those which meet the guidelines. So either, he hasn't told you the whole story, or his ecclesiastical leader made a drastic mistake. Nobody should be made to suffer from that sort of mistake and it is contrary to the written policies of the organization.

Fair enough. I may not know the whole story... and I certainly don't understand mormon policies. I'm simply recounting what I have been told by a guy I'd trust with my life, but I will readily acknowledge that I may not have all the details, and I certainly don't have a full understanding.

Soup - I suppose he is better off, but not by much: he's still angry with the church (ANY church) and is a vocal atheist now.

Tech: I would be as well. The only part which kinda makes sense is that women have a lot of power in the Church culture. If a gal states, "my hubbie cheated on me," and he's out to sea, she could apply for a divorce, which is not a sin, and allege he's a lout. She would receive a lot of sympathy and he would feel outcast. So it's possible a renegade ecclesiastical leader made a mistake, but there's gotta be more to the story. Divorced women receive more support in the culture, not the doctrine, of the Church, than do divorced men. Divorced men are often viewed as trash.

quote:

---

Divorced men are often viewed as trash.

---

Derrida, when the LDS church balances 1) the need to encourage righteous behavior against 2) the command to forgive and exercise grace, does the church lean towards enforcing righteousness or giving grace?

Derrida, thanks for that. That may indeed be an accurate account, as she filed for divorce while he was at sea (officer on Ohio class nuke subs).

My friend wasn't a cradle Mormon - he married into the faith as his ex was a (supposedly) devout mormon. He grew up without a church background.

I acknowledge that I'm getting one side of the story, and maybe not the whole story, but based on his account it wouldn't surprise me to learn that something like that had happened.

It depends on who's speaking. One speaker may focus upon doing what's right and another may focus upon grace. There's growing tension to raise the profile of grace within general counsels. It's subtle but it's there.

It seems one needs to track it by decade, as for a while we'll see the fire and brimstone types, then the grace types come to the front. Right now, a lot of emphasis on grace exists in counsel, but there still exist those fundamentalists who don't get the forgiveness angle. Forgiveness is for them and not for others.

quote:

---

We are not Catholics. We don't consider divorce in and of itself to be a sin.

---

Please tell me where Catholic teaching says that divorce isn't a sin.

Tech:

If you haven't already done so, just let him he's a great guy, and that not everybody in the Church agrees with how the culture treated him. Many acknowledge our shortcomings and work to overcome them. It's a sad story from his perspective nonetheless. And it wasn't addressed properly or so it seems.

What you all don't realize is that "excommunication" is an act of love and the start of the repentance process. The person is encouraged to complete the repentance process. If the grievous sin is committed when holding a leadership position, although the person may be rebaptized, he will never again be allowed to hold a leadership position for he will have violated a sacred trust.

[This message has been edited by Genesisag (edited 1/9/2008 3:16p).]

G. ag. Don't start that. Not every member finds it loving.

You're giving the ultra-orthodox, ultra-fundamentalist perspective on it, and many members don't share that viewpoint. Your perspective represents the extreme wing of church culture, and moderates are more the norm than are you.

[This message has been edited by Derrida (edited 1/9/2008 2:30p).]

i never thought of it (excommunication) as something based off of love. I see why that would be however since it is a step in repentance.
i also didnt realize they could never hold a leadership position. i assumed since they were rebaptized, and presumable had the priesthood restored (not sure this is the right verb) they could participate in any calling given.

it's not true. They can hold leadership positions, and it depends on what type that may be in question.

Some of the old timers remember when they couldn't hold leadership positions.

Derrida -Whether the person recognizes it for what it is at the time, it doesn't change the fact that it is a court of love because you can not start the repentance process until then. As it says in Prov. 13:15 "The way of transgressors is hard." As you know, it states in the Doctrine & Covenants that when they turn from the light, their curse is far worse than it would have been had they never known the truth (D&C. 41:1; 76:29-37); 82:1-7; 104:8-9; 121:13-25).

Now if the individual has not sinned unto death, and if they do repent, there is yet hope. By baptism, entrance can again be gained into the Church, and following testing and faithfullness all their former blessings may be restored. All this being said, no man that I know of, who is guilty of committing an immoral act while serving as bishop, stake president, etc. resulting in excommunication has ever been allowed to hold that position again. If in doubt about that, ask your bishop or the stake president.

Apostasy, rebellion, cruelty to wives and children, immorality and all crimes involving moral turpitude, are among those which warrant excommunication. The Lord imposes upon church officers the responsibility to handle every such case of transgression. As far as the man who claimed he was excommunicated "only" because his wife divorced him, I can promise you, he had the opportunity to defend himself in a Church court. The wife also testified before this court. Whatever she claimed and whatever he claimed, they believed her and not him and took, after much prayer and consideration, what they felt was appropriate action.

Let me ask you to consider how Jesus Christ described forgiveness.

quote:

---

Luke 15:11-32

11Jesus continued: "There was a man who had two sons. 12The younger one said to his father, 'Father, give me my share of the estate.' So he divided his property between them.

13"Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living. 14After he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole country, and he began to be in need. 15So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs. 16He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything.

17"When he came to his senses, he said, 'How many of my father's hired men have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! 18I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. 19I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired men.' 20So he got up and went to his father.
"But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.

21"The son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.'

22"But the father said to his servants, 'Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let's have a feast and celebrate. 24For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' So they began to celebrate.

25"Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. 26So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on. 27'Your brother has come,' he replied, 'and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.'

28"The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. 29But he answered his father, 'Look! All these years I've been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. 30But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!'

31" 'My son,' the father said, 'you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. 32But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' "

---

The major issue is repentance before God and God's willingness to forgive. Notice that the father in the story did not set up a long period of repentance for his son.

The son humbly confesses his sin and is about to ask for forgiveness when the father cuts him short.

He is restored IMMEDIATELY to full "sonship" as signified by the "best" robe and signet ring. The robe would instantly identify him around town as part of the family, and the ring was an important symbol of heirship.


Repentance was no long, drawn out process. It required a humble and contrite heart, but it meant an absolute and immediate reversal of status for the son. He was instantly and fully a son. He did not have to work to earn the robe and ring. The father lavished the lost one with blessings simply because the lost one came home with a contrite and humble heart and a recognition of his position.

This is how God forgives.

Finally, far too often we find ourseleves behaving like the "righteous" brother. We should have joy when a penitent returns. Reconciliation involves not only God and the individual but also the individual and the community.

Thoughts?

I may be wrong, but my understanding is that if you go through formal discipline, forever after, your membership record is asterisked, and it requires special permission from higher-ups to have any sort of leadership position.

El Sid, I agree with you and not with G. Ag's rote interpretation.

As stated, G. Ag is incapable of thinking outside the box, or examining anything other than his own thoughts, but he doesn't recognize them to be his own thoughts. He puts the imprimatur of the "Lord" upon his thoughts. It's again why I reject scriptural "proof texts".

I do understand G. Ag's line of thinking but there are additional thoughts which G. Ag would not welcome and probably not recognize.

First, I reject the notion the Church discipline is inherently necessary for repentance, because it has changed over time. It is simply a mechanism allowed by God but created by men to exercise control. Now, a control group would necessarily try to sell it as loving in order to make the group swallow it.

I accept the concept of faith, repentance, baptism and the gift, but don't believe the current or even future correctional structures are the sine qua non for repentance. That said, a person agreeing to be a member has to abide by the Group's rules. But, G. Ag, you won't for one moment convince of your non-thinking orthodox approach as required or necessary, but simply allowed.

Case in point. At one time, a person having committed adultery was excommunicated, but not it is not automatic, but case specific. There are reasons for this, as God does not condone adultery now any more than he disapproved of it in the past. Church discipline is simply discipline imposed by man.

Sid -The son seemingly held no ecclesiastical position of authority in the Church. It does not even disclose whether he held the priesthood and thus would have made covenants with God that he would have broken.

But it is interesting that the Lord told Joseph the following as recorded in D&C 64:10 -"I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men. That is is incumbent on each of us but Bishops and Stake Presidents are judges in Israel and only they have delegated authority to enforce church discipline. By this process of chastening the Lord helps prepare his saints for salvation. It is one of His ways of turning erring souls to paths of righteousness. As varying situations require, chastening may include rebukes for misconduct or subjection to trials and afflictions. Remember Sid that in Heb. 12:6-11 is states that "For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

It was right that the father killed the fatted calf for him and dressed him nicely. But he did not give him back his former position now held by his brother nor was he a "joint-heir" with his brother. The Prodigal Son also still would have had to answer to his priesthood leaders who had a different responsibility than the father.

genesis/ibmag, you do not understand the parable.

I suggest you study it. It is a wonderful teaching from Jesus.

Sid -believe me, I understand the parable. I studied it at the BSu. I have studied it in our SS lessons many times. I have read what the Apostles have had to say about it. I consider the status of the prodigal son, forgiven as he was and should have been, still not the equal of what he was before he decided to sow his wild oats. You might want to focus on this verse: 31 "'My son,' the father said, 'you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. It is more like the prodigal son has become, temporally, the equivalent of only a ministering angel compared to godhood.

G. Ag would make a wonderful mullah or pharisee. Maybe there's a job opening.

Notice the absence of even the slightest rebuke, words of condemnation or harsh statements by the father!

The ring brought with it the authority of the family. In essence, the giving of the signet restored what had been broken. He was again a son, a member of the family, with all the rights and privileges that came with it.

The sandals might seem an afterthought, but they are also important, for only free men wore shoes. His freedom was instantly restored.

[This message has been edited by El Sid (edited 1/9/2008 5:30p).]

in the afterlife genesis will be doing the laundry for all the people who he once thought were less worthy than himself.

I will make sure to have holy skidmarks.

Texas velvet maestro -I am too busy working on myself than to worry about anyone who I think "is less worthy".

Derrida -The bottom line is that the Prodigal Son was forgiven and welcomed, but he was no longer a joint-heir with his faithful brother nor did he assume the position he once held. Just learn to read the scriptures and/or read what the modern apostles have had to say on the subject. If you don't agree, well that is your choice. I am not the one passing judgement. If my son had gotten into the same kind of fix, I would be just as thrilled and more than happy to do the same thing when he came to his senses.

G Ag, you must remember it is a parable, and parables are not precise.

If you believe that a person's hereafter is determined, even if that person is fully repentant, then I think you're smoking loco weed.

You can admonish me to read as much stuff as you wish, but even if leaders hold certain opinions, it is not doctrine, but speculation. You might view it as well-placed speculation, but speculation nonetheless.

However, you try to bludgeon your audience with poorly crafted argued attuned only to ultra orthodox LDS audiences. If you get the ultra radical right wingers, they will agree with you.

I don't believe you understand the parable.