JustAnAustralian

High Council From the handbook When a Membership Council Is Required or May Be Necessary Type of Sin Membership Council Is Required (see 32.6.1) Membership Council May Be Necessary (see 32.6.2) Violent Acts and Abuse Murder Rape Sexual assault conviction Child or youth abuse Violent predatory behavior Attempted murder Sexual abuse, including assault and harassment (see 38.6.18 for when a council is required) Abuse of a spouse or another adult (see 38.6.2.4 for when a council is required) Sexual Immorality Incest Child pornography Plural marriage Sexual predatory behavior Adultery, fornication, and same-sex relations Cohabitation, civil unions and partnerships, and same-sex marriage Intensive or compulsive use of pornography that has caused significant harm to a member’s marriage or family Fraudulent Acts Financial predatory behavior, such as fraud and similar activities Robbery, burglary, theft, or embezzlement Perjury Violations of Trust Serious sin while holding a prominent Church position Serious sin while holding a position of authority or trust in the Church or the community Serious sin that is widely known Some Other Acts Most felony convictions Abortion Pattern of serious sins Deliberate abandonment of family responsibilities, including nonpayment of child support and alimony Sale of illegal drugs Other serious criminal acts And since "it's mandatory to go on a mission unless you have a disability of some kind" isn't actually church doctrine, it's not apostasy either. So to answer your question directly. Based on my reading of the handbook, I do not think a Bishop or Stake President standing up in front of a conjuration and telling the young men that it's their decision whether to go on a mission or not is grounds for a membership council

No. But if someone who is a Bishop, didn't serve a mission (by choice), then it's pretty clear that serving a mission isn't necessary. The draft wasn't a concern. He hasn't been a bishop for a while, so I don't think his wife would appreciate him storming the stands.

I've previously had a bishop who was called as a bishop even though he hadn't served a mission (by choice). Why would he need to declare it when he's sitting there in front of everyone every week for several years?

Our stake must be doing it wrong then. Multiple very active males who chose not to serve missions. Not treated any differently to anyone else that I can see.

I expect it probably happened, but it took more effort to get the initial information. These days court case information is open and on the internet, books can be scanned to PDF and have searchable text automatically embedded quicker than it would take to run off a series of photocopies, etc. Searchable indexes of book contents from hundreds of years ago can be browsed with only a few clicks. Let's face it, if the first vision happened today, Joseph Smith and his extended family would be doxxed, comments his dad put on facebook 10 years ago would be used to deplatform him, and his parents would be abused for using their child to push religion.

I tend to see drift-aways rather than up-and-leaves in the 20s-30s age group here. Life gets busy and they prefer to have some free time. Or work/sport. Or 2 weeks of holiday, then 1 week of illness, then maybe a family function, and suddenly they're not going anymore. I have seen a few up-and-leaves, but mostly in the older age groups.

Nothing about the church's statement is political.

Very cool. I didn't know Anki let you do custom algorithms like that.

How many of those actually understand Latin?

A period of 9 years does seem like it could be that way.

This is an interesting timeframe. A big chunk of that would have been during the no-church-meetings covid lockdowns. Sure looks that way. They were known personally, not via his church involvement. I wonder if the no-church period gave him more opportunity to offend, and that's what finally brought things to a head.

Are there any stats for the full district->circuit->supreme court flow? i.e. percentages of A -> A -> A A -> A -> B A-> B -> A A -> B -> B As in, is it the circuit that's the "problem", or the districts that are the "problem"? (Let's assume for a moment that the supreme court isn't the problem)

That's my area of interest with this donation. We know the church has been sued directly over it (https://apnews.com/article/sexual-abuse-by-clergy-lawsuits-arizona-sexual-abuse-90d2cff3ef5668cfc28f3a3269c09b1c), but I guess it depends what's in the agreement. Does it treat the church the same as the insurance company (as in money paid into fund = liability removed)?

Document https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.814559/gov.uscourts.cacd.814559.55.0_1.pdf

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/09/14/judge-tosses-out-james/ "Judge tosses out James Huntsman’s tithing lawsuit against LDS Church" "U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson struck down Huntsman’s claims Tuesday, according to his order granting the church’s motion for summary judgment. Wilson wrote that no reasonable jury would believe church leaders had misrepresented how tithing funds would be used."