Alcoholic in Church

[Jeff Lebowski]

So you were instructed to shun the sinner? Wow.

Somewhere Jesus is rolling in his grave. No, wait.... Ah, you know what I mean.

[byu71]

I agree with the Bishop. While probably never doing anything bad, while drunk a guy could throw up, fart, swear, offend someone, etc. Why deal with the potential problem.

They didn't say he wasn't welcome to be in a spiritual atmoshpere, just do it somewhere else and let them worry about it. It is kind like BYU kicking someone out for a HC violation.

[wuapinmon]

We had people show up drunk in New Orleans frequently. There was no special set of drunk rules. As long as they acted appropriately, nothing they did would get them kicked for being drunk that we wouldn't kick anyone else out over.

We only ever kicked one guy out, and that was because he touched a child, and he wasn't drunk.

[clackamascoug]

It's better than one man should parish, than a whole ward dwindle in unbelief.

A couple of issues here. Public intoxication is against the law, and the Church reserves the right to allow access to its buildings. Also, you have to "protect the field." People who come to church sober have a right to distraction free worship from those who are not sober. The congregation as a whole has a incumbent right for insulation from the outside world while at church. It's the Bishop's role to make sure the members rights are protected.

[TripletDaddy]

If you have an iPhone, iPod Touch or an iPad, you could ask suspected scofflaws to use this Breathalyzer App before the start of each class

http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/breat...324999850?mt=8

[Indy Coug]

We had people show up drunk in New Orleans frequently. There was no special set of drunk rules. As long as they acted appropriately, nothing they did would get them kicked for being drunk that we wouldn't kick anyone else out over.

We only ever kicked one guy out, and that was because he touched a child, and he wasn't drunk.

We've had people that had been drinking, stoned (most likely), reeking of smoke and also had some people attending because they were allowed out of jail for a few hours to attend church.

[NorthwestUteFan]

If you have an iPhone, iPod Touch or an iPad, you could ask suspected scofflaws to use this Breathalyzer App before the start of each class

You blew a 0.02? Did you get a bad ice cube, or just go overboard with the mouthwash this morning?

[byu71]

We've had people that had been drinking, stoned (most likely), reeking of smoke and also had some people attending because they were allowed out of jail for a few hours to attend church.

Yea, but don't you live in a ward that has poor people and minorities in it. I don't think those things would be allowed in Provo East Bench ward.

[Indy Coug]

Yea, but don't you live in a ward that has poor people and minorities in it. I don't think those things would be allowed in Provo East Bench ward.

In my parents' East Bench ward, the boundaries are over 95% LDS and they have around 90% activity, so there isn't a lot of opportunity to try out this theory.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Damn predictive text

[Jarid in Cedar]

My response? You mean the one where I suggested there might be more to the story than Red Sox was aware of -- a comment which Red Sox acknowledged as true?

Yeah, that was a real knee-jerk response right there.

I am sure that Red Sox hadn't thought that there was more to the story when he started the thread. He was probably clueless to the fact until you so dashingly pointed it out to him.

The knee jerk response is you riding in on your white charger to save the day any time someone posts any frustration, any irritation, or any outright question to the authority of a priesthood leader

[Indy Coug]

The knee jerk response is you riding in on your white charger to save the day any time someone posts any frustration, any irritation, or any outright question to the authority of a priesthood leader

At the bare minimum, it balances out the 10 other posts on the other side of the ledger. That's OK, though. You just keep on dropping your drawers and shitting on things and I'll just keep on trying to clean it up.

[Jarid in Cedar]

To get back to the subject at hand. As I understand it, the question is whether Red Sox should ignore Drunken Brother if he asks questions in his class or if he wishes to add commentary to the lesson simply because the member of the bishopric has requested that he do so. I would say that if he was not belligerant, asked questions or added comments that were pertinent to the discussion that you should interact with him. I don't see what harm can come from engaging someone who has something to learn or something to add that may be valuable to another member of the class.

Drunken Brother may be causing trouble outside of Red Sox classroom that is not readily apparent, and if he is, the leadership is fully in their duty to removing from the ward house. If he is not exhibiting that behavior in a class setting is it right to remove him/ignore him simply because he has been drinking?

[Katy Lied]

I have a similar problem in my GD class. There's a man with very low IQ but still independently functioning. I'd say his reasoning skills and memory is pretty good, he just lacks some social skills about what is appropriate to bring up in class.

All week long, he reads the paper and then on Sunday is bursting to discuss current events, which he brings up if there is even a scant link to something we are talking about in class. For example, a discussion on modesty will trigger his extended exposition on Lady Gaga's meat dress. If I ignore his comment, he just gets louder and talks longer.

Before I was called to be teacher, I'd watch the teachers before me, and they'd always get deer-in-the-headlights when he raised his hand. What has helped me:

The class is able and willing to distinguish between my responding directly to this brother, and my summary of someone's comments for the rest of the class. So when he insists on my response to something he's brought up (say, that Utah won the rivalry game this year when BYU missed the kick), I find it is easier to comment on it even tho it doesn't have any place in the lesson. ("Yes, wasn't that an exciting end to the game?"). If I can make a link to the lesson, I will but if I can't, I just pause and then continue with the lesson.

Nobody bats an eye.

[Jarid in Cedar]

The problem I have with a drunk showing up at church is not that he has a drinking problem, but that it distracts from other people's experience. It's the same reason I try to keep my kids reasonably quiet at church. You already noted as much you could tell he was drunk, meaning that his comments weren't entirely normal, if not in content, at least in style. That's distracting to even reasonable people, and I doubt that you were the only one to recognize it. We're also hardly the only church (or organization) that doesn't welcome intoxicated people attending (and participating in) their meetings.

I don't have anything against alcoholics, but to treat them like they don't have to obey certain social rules isn't doing them any favors in overcoming their addiction.

While I don't disagree that it's distracting to be inebriated, it seems that in the initial post the guy was not intentionally being distracting and he was even participating. Maybe he was slurring his words or something else that led Redsox to think he was drunk.

However, what if the person smelled like smoke? Would that also be distracting enough to ask them to not attend? Is it only distracting because it's not something familiar to us because we have purged all the infidel (outwardly noticeable) WoW breakers from our chapels? Are babies that run around and make noises not distracting because we are used to seeing that (and frankly they give us an excuse to not listen to the boring lesson being taught)?

Sorry, I'm not attacking you but your post raised some thoughts in my mind.

To be honest, smelling like smoke would probably be distracting to some, but not to the level of excluding them. I'd probably ask that they not smoke at ward activities? The difference in my mind is that cigarettes don't affect your mental status, and this guy was affected to the point where at least the teacher, and probably others, noticed it. And he's participating in a discussion that hopefully requires some thought. Even if his points are eloquently and perfectly made, that's a problem, much like alcohol on my breath is a problem, even absent any medical decision errors.

The question is why are these distracting and why would they warrant exclusion?

How would these appearances fit into the distraction spectrum?


1. Green spiked hair
2. Nose or eye brow piercing
3. 9 ear piercings
4. visible tatoos
5. t-shirt and jeans

The reason that many of the things discussed in this thread are a distraction is because they stand out. The gentleman who smells of cigarette smoke, the girl with the purple hair, etc. stand out because he does not conform within the norm of what is expected by many of the members at church.