Jump to content
Avatar4321

Stake disciplinary council

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes, it would be extraordinarily simply to create a system that is more fair than having one man as the accuser, prosecutor, and judge.

That system wouldn't/shouldn't be accepted anywhere. Simply including more people in the process and judgement would be more fair.

There's the rub, though. That destroys any semblance of our doctrine on priesthood keys. It becomes a completely secular due process process. 

Dollars to doughnuts the preferred system mentioned above would be similar to our court system, where opposing counsel strikes jurors perceived unsympathetic to their client. While "simply including more people in the process" would make it more "balanced" in a secular sense, it would destroy the purpose for church discipline.

Which is kind of where progressive Mormons want to get to. No more worthiness interviews (youth, or adult), no more TR (each person decides), and no more church discipline (who are we to judge?).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, rongo said:

There's the rub, though. That destroys any semblance of our doctrine on priesthood keys. It becomes a completely secular due process process. 

Dollars to doughnuts the preferred system mentioned above would be similar to our court system, where opposing counsel strikes jurors perceived unsympathetic to their client. While "simply including more people in the process" would make it more "balanced" in a secular sense, it would destroy the purpose for church discipline.

Which is kind of where progressive Mormons want to get to. No more worthiness interviews (youth, or adult), no more TR (each person decides), and no more church discipline (who are we to judge?).

No more accountability.

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, rongo said:

There's the rub, though. That destroys any semblance of our doctrine on priesthood keys. It becomes a completely secular due process process. 

Dollars to doughnuts the preferred system mentioned above would be similar to our court system, where opposing counsel strikes jurors perceived unsympathetic to their client. While "simply including more people in the process" would make it more "balanced" in a secular sense, it would destroy the purpose for church discipline.

Which is kind of where progressive Mormons want to get to. No more worthiness interviews (youth, or adult), no more TR (each person decides), and no more church discipline (who are we to judge?).

Like, Sam Young would get to insist on McKenna Denson and Robert Kirby being part of the six "jurors" he gets to pick. You would have precious little church discipline ever applied if you had a "simply including more people in the process" system. And I think that's the point for those who are dismayed each time one of these apostates gets disciplined. 

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, rongo said:

There's the rub, though. That destroys any semblance of our doctrine on priesthood keys. It becomes a completely secular due process process. 

Dollars to doughnuts the preferred system mentioned above would be similar to our court system, where opposing counsel strikes jurors perceived unsympathetic to their client. While "simply including more people in the process" would make it more "balanced" in a secular sense, it would destroy the purpose for church discipline.

Which is kind of where progressive Mormons want to get to. No more worthiness interviews (youth, or adult), no more TR (each person decides), and no more church discipline (who are we to judge?).

I seem to agree with HJW to this extent - a person should not be subject to discipline for refusing to sustain a particular leader. The person may have very good reason for refusing to do so - like personal knowledge of some disqualifying sin committed by the appointee/leader the church needs to know about. The concept of priesthood authority then doesn't truly apply, but I have heard of situations where it is invoked. The concept of authority can be taken too far in absolutisms. I think the Church needs to also be cautious that authority is not abused as it occasionally is in the Church. Extreme loyalty to the point of Nazism bothers me.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I seem to agree with HJW to this extent - a person should not be subject to discipline for refusing to sustain a particular leader. The person may have very good reason for refusing to do so - like personal knowledge of some disqualifying sin committed by the appointee/leader the church needs to know about. The concept of priesthood authority then doesn't truly apply, but I have heard of situations where it is invoked. The concept of authority can be taken too far in absolutisms. I think the Church needs to also be cautious that authority is not abused as it occasionally is in the Church. Extreme loyalty to the point of Nazism bothers me.

He wasn't disciplined for refusing to sustain. Part of the reason was because he encouraged others not to sustain, but it wasn't because he refused to. And if he had simply done that and nothing else, nothing would have happened.

Was he the one behind the "Opposed!" movement? Was he the one bellowing "Opposed!" in multiple conferences? 

By his own admission, he made a spectacle of himself voting opposed in local ward and stake votes. He didn't simply raise his hand when asked. I think that's something that should at least be addressed if it's a chronic thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
57 minutes ago, rongo said:

There's the rub, though. That destroys any semblance of our doctrine on priesthood keys. It becomes a completely secular due process process. 

Dollars to doughnuts the preferred system mentioned above would be similar to our court system, where opposing counsel strikes jurors perceived unsympathetic to their client. While "simply including more people in the process" would make it more "balanced" in a secular sense, it would destroy the purpose for church discipline.

Which is kind of where progressive Mormons want to get to. No more worthiness interviews (youth, or adult), no more TR (each person decides), and no more church discipline (who are we to judge?).

Describe how having a fair process destroys priesthood keys. I'm not aware that priesthood keys require unchecked power. Could a SP not preside over a DC without absolute control and power? There are 15 stake leaders + a Stake Clerk present at a DC. Why would it harm the SP or remove his keys if they all were able to exercise true common consent? If all were able to vote on the possible decisions, without fear of repercussions, then it would be more fair. They could vote anonymously so there was no undue influence or fear of retaliation. Not perfect, but better.

Granting absolute control to a priesthood leader is unnecessary. He can still preside, but he must persuade and convince, not dominate and control.

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, rongo said:

He wasn't disciplined for refusing to sustain. Part of the reason was because he encouraged others not to sustain, but it wasn't because he refused to. And if he had simply done that and nothing else, nothing would have happened.

Was he the one behind the "Opposed!" movement? Was he the one bellowing "Opposed!" in multiple conferences? 

By his own admission, he made a spectacle of himself voting opposed in local ward and stake votes. He didn't simply raise his hand when asked. I think that's something that should at least be addressed if it's a chronic thing. 

No. That wasn't him.

So it's ok to oppose unless it becomes a chronic thing?

He didn't tell people to oppose. He encouraged people to oppose if that's what they felt was right. In other words, he encouraged people to be honest with their vote. Sounds terrible to me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Describe how having a fair process destroys priesthood keys. I'm not aware that priesthood keys require unchecked power. Could a SP not preside over a DC without absolute control and power? There are 15 stake leaders + a Stake Clerk present at a DC. Why would it harm the SP or remove his keys if they all were able to exercise true common consent? If all were able to vote on the possible decisions, without fear of repercussions, then it would be more fair. They could vote anonymously so there was no undue influence or fear of retaliation. Not perfect, but better.

Granting absolute control to a priesthood leader is unnecessary. He can still preside, but he must persuade and convince, not dominate and control.

All of the anonymous voting measures and pressure-free voting are fine, but are you advocating that the anonymous vote determine the outcome, instead of the bishop/stake president's decision? That's where I'm coming from as far as rendering the keys meaningless.

The Church, and the Church's discipline system, is not a pure democracy. It sounds like some people here might be advocating that they should be. 

Presiding without making the decision makes him more of a figurehead than a stake president. 

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, rongo said:

He wasn't disciplined for refusing to sustain. Part of the reason was because he encouraged others not to sustain, but it wasn't because he refused to. And if he had simply done that and nothing else, nothing would have happened.

Was he the one behind the "Opposed!" movement? Was he the one bellowing "Opposed!" in multiple conferences? 

By his own admission, he made a spectacle of himself voting opposed in local ward and stake votes. He didn't simply raise his hand when asked. I think that's something that should at least be addressed if it's a chronic thing. 

I wasn't speaking merely to his particular situation. What's the point of asking for a sustaining vote, if the Church merely excommunicates whoever refrains? I think that ignores that ultimately the authority of Church leaders comes from the members. I see nothing wrong with a person trying to convince others to refrain as well. I think that could well be the point of refusing to sustain. If a church leader is committing incest or child abuse shouldn't others know about it, and be encouraged not to sustain? The feeling that only the leaders have revelation of who the leader should be is not readily ascertainable from our scriptures, but I think is something that has crept into the church, and doesn't seem to comport with the semi-democratic nature of the Church set up in D&C. Indeed, if a leader has lost the confidence of a majority of the Church, he/she would probably be an ineffective leader anyway. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No spin. Broken down into it's most basic functions, my description is how it works.

Not at all correct, but it's broken down alright! LOL

Share this post


Link to post
52 minutes ago, rongo said:

All of the anonymous voting measures and pressure-free voting are fine, but are you advocating that the anonymous vote determine the outcome, instead of the bishop/stake president's decision? That's where I'm coming from as far as rendering the keys meaningless.

The Church, and the Church's discipline system, is not a pure democracy. It sounds like some people here might be advocating that they should be. 

Presiding without making the decision makes him more of a figurehead than a stake president. 

It doesn't render keys meaningless. It would simply shift the way that keys are utilized. Absolute power / totally meaningless is a false dichotomy. The way keys are exercised in DC's right now is more policy based than doctrinally based. It may require a minor shift in practical usage, but I think it would be very minor.

That was just one example I shared. It doesn't have to be a pure democracy, but there should be safeguards. For example a SP could still have a veto power. Lets say all other members of the council vote to convict but the SP thinks that is the wrong decision. He could veto, rendering a No Decision. But on the other hand if the entire council votes to acquit except the SP, the SP wouldn't be able to impose his verdict. At that time he may have to try to persuade and convince the others, or shift his verdict. Instead of excommunication maybe everyone else agrees it's disfellowshipment etc. The handbook already states that the SP "may" go back and bring in other witnesses etc to persuade others, but this would make it more of a requirement.

I disagree. I think presiding in that way makes him more of a leader, rather than a dictator. A SP would still preside, he would decide which councils to call and which ones not to call. He could have veto power. Again, just because he doesn't have absolute power, doesn't mean he wouldn't have any.

If you haven't noticed, the idea of absolute power is troubling to me :) 

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Not at all correct, but it's broken down alright! LOL

Instead of just telling me I'm wrong, could you try to explain it.

Tell me how I'm wrong that the SP/Bishop makes the accusation and calls the council

Tell me how the SP / bishop are not responsible for the prosecution of the case

Tell me how the SP / bishop don't have unilateral decision making for the verdict.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

 There were tears, on all faces, but she seemed to be the happiest person in the room, and the fact that we were all men didn't seem to be a "thing" at all.  

Aren't there only three or four people present in a ward DC? (as opposed to the entire high council and Stake Presidency at the stake level)?

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Since it wouldn't be correct for a bishop to excommunicate a holder of the Melchizedek priesthood, he might have been completely accurate in claiming he was a priest.  Unless he was a deacon or a teacher.

 

......an adult male in his late 30s uses his Aaronic priesthood office as a resume enhancer for his anti-Mormon creds......😏

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Another weird Mormon story to add.

Who was weird? Does this reflect poorly on the bishop or the Church?

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Instead of just telling me I'm wrong, could you try to explain it.

Tell me how I'm wrong that the SP/Bishop makes the accusation and calls the council

Tell me how the SP / bishop are not responsible for the prosecution of the case

Tell me how the SP / bishop don't have unilateral decision making for the verdict.

My comment that you responded to with this stuff, and which started this exchange, was that the Stake President's decision does not require the unanimous support of the High Council. Quite the summary of a simple statement!

I see no value in using a judiciary court lexicon to describe a Church disciplinary process. If you were doing this to ask questions about how things work, that is one thing (and you could be corrected), but you're defending this description after disregarding the ecclesiastical and spiritual contexts and tone of D&C 102, Church Handbooks, what fellow posters have described from personal experience.

So I'd rather explain what you don't understand about what you have chosen to disregard if you can revisit that part of your analysis.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

My comment that you responded to with this stuff, and which started this exchange, was that the Stake President's decision does not require the unanimous support of the High Council. Quite the summary of a simple statement!

I see no value in using a judiciary court lexicon to describe a Church disciplinary process. If you were doing this to ask questions about how things work, that is one thing (and you could be corrected), but you're defending this description after disregarding the ecclesiastical and spiritual contexts and tone of D&C 102, Church Handbooks, what fellow posters have described from personal experience.

So I'd rather explain what you don't understand about what you have chosen to disregard if you can revisit that part of your analysis.

I'm hearing you say that you can't dispute those statements, other than to say, it doesn't sound good to use judiciary lexicon to describe what was formerly known as church court. IIRC there are many pages in CH1 that describe the process of convening a disciplinary council and if I'm not mistaken some of that judiciary lexicon that you deride is used in the handbook. I no longer have access to CH1 so I can't prove it. Either way, whether you like the words or not, the description is clear and the point remains. The SP/Bishop holds unilateral decision making in choosing who to hold a court for which is a formal accusation, convening and prosecuting the DC, and then deciding the outcome. You can change the words all you like, but that truth remains. Rongo has even been arguing that it would diminish the keys of the SP if it didn't work that way.

OK- so go ahead and explain what I don't understand.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

For example a SP could still have a veto power.

He already does. Why change it only to leave that in?

Quote

Lets say all other members of the council vote to convict but the SP thinks that is the wrong decision. He could veto, rendering a No Decision.

Oh, a veto wouldn't veto it, it would just be a "tie" and a "hung jury," necessitating further action to resolve. I would say that is a neutering of his present keys, wouldn't you?

Quote

But on the other hand if the entire council votes to acquit except the SP, the SP wouldn't be able to impose his verdict.

Again, not a real veto, then. 

These are really interesting to think about. I think in practice council dissent takes the form of disagreement, but sustaining of the decision --- in which there are no lingering hard feelings or consternation. I've given an example where I voted to disfellowship, but the bishop's decision was formal probation (it was a MP holder designated by the SP to be tried at the ward level, so excommunication was also off the table). I still to this day think disfellowshipping (at least) was the correct decision, but I 100% sustained his decision (and, in fact, the brother and his wife and family are doing very well today. In hindsight, the less harsh outcome was the best). I think it is extremely rare (bordering on non-existent) where the vote is 14-1 or 12-3, and if it were, I think every council on the planet would reconsider and revisit if it were that stark. So, I think the system we have already has inherent safeguards. 

Quote

At that time he may have to try to persuade and convince the others, or shift his verdict. Instead of excommunication maybe everyone else agrees it's disfellowshipment etc. The handbook already states that the SP "may" go back and bring in other witnesses etc to persuade others, but this would make it more of a requirement.

As I said, I think all we need is already in our procedure. What you are suggesting is more of a European-style coalition government, where the SP/bishop would have to "get enough votes." I think that completely neuters the keys. I think that the keys mean something, and so does being a judge in Israel. Our system is "advise and counsel," but they don't get an authoritative vote. And I actually think that is the way God wants it to be. 

Quote

I think presiding in that way makes him more of a leader, rather than a dictator. A SP would still preside, he would decide which councils to call and which ones not to call. He could have veto power. Again, just because he doesn't have absolute power, doesn't mean he wouldn't have any.

I actually don't think that the current system is really that different from what you are proposing. Very few stake presidents are dictatorial with their councils, and the vast majority are open to adamant counsel given by their councils. 

And again, your suggestion for veto power is really no veto power at all. ;) 

ETA: I'm really enjoying this discussion, by the way. You and others are helping me to see things a different way.

I find that this topic in general is one of great interest, and it's rarely talked about. I had a 5th Sunday discussion once about disciplinary councils, and people were on the edge of their seat. It's something that people want to discuss and know more about, but rarely get to. 

Edited by rongo

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm hearing you say that you can't dispute those statements, other than to say, it doesn't sound good to use judiciary lexicon to describe what was formerly known as church court. IIRC there are many pages in CH1 that describe the process of convening a disciplinary council and if I'm not mistaken some of that judiciary lexicon that you deride is used in the handbook. I no longer have access to CH1 so I can't prove it. Either way, whether you like the words or not, the description is clear and the point remains. The SP/Bishop holds unilateral decision making in choosing who to hold a court for which is a formal accusation, convening and prosecuting the DC, and then deciding the outcome. You can change the words all you like, but that truth remains. Rongo has even been arguing that it would diminish the keys of the SP if it didn't work that way.

OK- so go ahead and explain what I don't understand.

I guess your hearing is off.. I dispute them alright, not because "it doesn't sound good," but because they are making apples of oranges. Even the term “church court’ conveys the matter of religious discipleship and discipline, some administrative terms that are shared with the domestic/civic judicial setting notwithstanding. You might want to do some therapeutic exercises to help your memory recall and retrieval of the more unique ecclesiastical terminology for the process and procedures as well! Even Wikipedia gets this right, your next best go-to since you don’t have the Handbook (though I’m sure you can find a copy). Most of the terms you’ve chosen to use are definitely not in the Handbook, and as a result you have created a laughable, perverse misrepresentation of the process.

I’ll be happy to explain what you don’t understand once you can articulate what you want help understanding. I'm not just going waste time refuting conclusions you are not willing to revisit either critically or empathically.

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, rongo said:

He already does. Why change it only to leave that in?

No. A SP doesn't have veto power. He doesn't need it because no one else's vote counts. Any vote for sustaining of a verdict is more ceremonial than anything else. If a SP had veto power the only person he would be able to veto in a stake DC would be himself. Of course a SP can override the decisions of bishops, but that's a little different. That's more like an appeals court process.

Oh, a veto wouldn't veto it, it would just be a "tie" and a "hung jury," necessitating further action to resolve. I would say that is a neutering of his present keys, wouldn't you?

It sounds like prudence to me. If there were situations where there was significant disagreement about guilt, that disagreement should be considered. If the SP has one decision but everyone else has a different judgement, then the SP may want to humbly reconsider why everyone is wrong but him.

Again, not a real veto, then. 

No. A veto stops an action. It doesn't unilaterally create an action. So yes, it would be similar to a hung jury or maybe a better analogy would be when a judge overturns a jury verdict because it is unjust. I believe that creates a mistrial and the case can be adjudicated again. 

These are really interesting to think about. I think in practice council dissent takes the form of disagreement, but sustaining of the decision --- in which there are no lingering hard feelings or consternation. I've given an example where I voted to disfellowship, but the bishop's decision was formal probation (it was a MP holder designated by the SP to be tried at the ward level, so excommunication was also off the table). I still to this day think disfellowshipping (at least) was the correct decision, but I 100% sustained his decision (and, in fact, the brother and his wife and family are doing very well today. In hindsight, the less harsh outcome was the best). I think it is extremely rare (bordering on non-existent) where the vote is 14-1 or 12-3, and if it were, I think every council on the planet would reconsider and revisit if it were that stark. So, I think the system we have already has inherent safeguards. 

I agree that would be very rare. But one of the reasons why it might be rare is because there is a culture where one is expected to sustain, whether or not they agree. Is a person sustaining the decision or sustaining the keyholders right to make the decision? If the culture were changed so that HC/bishoprics truly participated in rendering the judgement by voting on guilt and sentence, then it may not be so rare.

As I said, I think all we need is already in our procedure. What you are suggesting is more of a European-style coalition government, where the SP/bishop would have to "get enough votes." I think that completely neuters the keys. I think that the keys mean something, and so does being a judge in Israel. Our system is "advise and counsel," but they don't get an authoritative vote. And I actually think that is the way God wants it to be. 

But in most cases judges don't unilaterally decide guilt and sentence when there is a jury trial. If he overturns the jury verdict and sentence then that is something that is noted and can be an important part of an appeal. Having a real appeal process that functions as more than a rubber stamp would also provide a good opportunity to avoid unjust judgements.

I actually don't think that the current system is really that different from what you are proposing. Very few stake presidents are dictatorial with their councils, and the vast majority are open to adamant counsel given by their councils. 

Maybe. The first SP I dealt with in a DC was very dictatorial. He didn't follow handbook guidelines at all for prosecution/defense etc. He made his decision and expected everyone to get on board without question. There was one HC in particular who had served as bishop multiple times and in multiple HC who was well respected and seasoned. He brought up the failures of following the DC guidelines and was strongly rebuked before being released a short time later. I have a hard time believing that my experience(s) are so rare that there is no need for safeguards against abuses of power.

And again, your suggestion for veto power is really no veto power at all. ;) 

If you don't like "veto" other procedures could be put in place as a protection. Instead of vetoing the SP could call for a cooling off period where no decision is rendered for a week or two until the council reconvenes and studies the issues out again. But for any of that to be practical more than one person would need to be involved in deciding the judgement and the sentence.

ETA: I'm really enjoying this discussion, by the way. You and others are helping me to see things a different way.

I find that this topic in general is one of great interest, and it's rarely talked about. I had a 5th Sunday discussion once about disciplinary councils, and people were on the edge of their seat. It's something that people want to discuss and know more about, but rarely get to. 

I agree. A DC is a HUGE deal but relatively few people have experience with them, yet everyone is subject to them. Your 5th sunday discussion sounds like a great idea because everyone should be aware of how it works and how it could effect them. Basic instructions are generally given before a DC but for the most part, an accused/repentant person would have no idea whether or not the DC was proceeding properly or if the SP/bishop is following handbook rules for a fair DC. Everyone deserves to know

 

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I guess your hearing is off.. I dispute them alright, not because "it doesn't sound good," but because they are making apples of oranges. Even the term “church court’ conveys the matter of religious discipleship and discipline, some administrative terms that are shared with the domestic/civic judicial setting notwithstanding. You might want to do some therapeutic exercises to help your memory recall and retrieval of the more unique ecclesiastical terminology for the process and procedures as well! Even Wikipedia gets this right, your next best go-to since you don’t have the Handbook (though I’m sure you can find a copy). Most of the terms you’ve chosen to use are definitely not in the Handbook, and as a result you have created a laughable, perverse misrepresentation of the process.

 

I’ll be happy to explain what you don’t understand once you can articulate what you want help understanding. I'm not just going waste time refuting conclusions you are not willing to revisit either critically or empathically.

 

I think you're being overly sensitive about my use of judicial terminology. I'm not even an attorney, but it does help to understand how things functionally work. Here are a couple of judicial terms used in the Wikipedia article.

*a disciplinary council is an ecclesiastical trial

*also referred to unofficially as church courts

*hearing all of the evidence

*the accused

*The council begins by the presiding officer stating the reported misconduct and asking the accused person to admit or deny it.  (sounds like the formal accusation to me)

*right to appeal

*judge

I don't recall how closely this matches the handbook, yet there are many terms that are used in both the legal system and a DC. It's really not a surprise so I'm not sure why you're arguing about it. Everything I've said is accurate, you just don't like the specific words because you seem to think they characterize the DC as a more civil kind of court. But whatever. I'm fine if you don't like my characterization, but if you are going to say I'm inaccurate, you should give some examples.

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think you're being overly sensitive about my use of judicial terminology. I'm not even an attorney, but it does help to understand how things functionally work. Here are a couple of judicial terms used in the Wikipedia article.

*a disciplinary council is an ecclesiastical trial

*also referred to unofficially as church courts

*hearing all of the evidence

*the accused

*The council begins by the presiding officer stating the reported misconduct and asking the accused person to admit or deny it.  (sounds like the formal accusation to me)

*right to appeal

*judge

I don't recall how closely this matches the handbook, yet there are many terms that are used in both the legal system and a DC. It's really not a surprise so I'm not sure why you're arguing about it. Everything I've said is accurate, you just don't like the specific words because you seem to think they characterize the DC as a more civil kind of court. But whatever. I'm fine if you don't like my characterization, but if you are going to say I'm inaccurate, you should give some examples.

Church and ecclesiastical should say it all. Prosecutor and verdict are not used in the Wikipedia article (nor the Handbook; which does use the word judge, once -- but not in the Wikipedia article, but we all know the background for that). There are more inaccuracies resulting from omitting the “weightier matters of the law” that are written into D&C 102 and the Handbook and that are observed by experience.

Evidently you have no question of me that would help you understand the process. I think it would help to ask your bishop to let you read the Handbook and not overlook these aspects that more fully reflect the power and influence involved.

Edited by CV75

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Church and ecclesiastical should say it all. Prosecutor and verdict are not used in the Wikipedia article (nor the Handbook; which does use the word judge, once -- but not in the Wikipedia article, but we all know the background for that). There are more inaccuracies resulting from omitting the “weightier matters of the law” that are written into D&C 102 and the Handbook and that are observed by experience.

Evidently you have no question of me that would help you understand the process. I think it would help to ask your bishop to let you read the Handbook and not overlook these aspects that more fully reflect the power and influence involved.

So what? Why so sensitive? Would it make you feel better, for example, if I used "judgement" instead of "verdict"? I'd have no problem changing that to help you feel better.

Having participated in many DC's I feel I have a decent understanding of the process and purpose of DC's so I'm not sure why you think I'd be asking you questions about what you think I don't understand. It's kind of funny that you tell me I'm wrong and then expect me to specifically ask you about things I'm wrong about because apparently you can't tell me how I'm wrong. So tell me what those weightier matters are instead of using such vagaries. Actually, never mind. You've stalled so long I no longer have interest. This has been a rather frustrating non-conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You would have been outside the room at that time, it is not done with the accused in the room.

Thanks for following up on my post.  I thought about that after I posted.  

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Who was weird? Does this reflect poorly on the bishop or the Church?

That couple...

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×