Thinking Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 The verdict in a recent high profile court case was rendered. This thread is not about that case, but it raised a couple of questions.To what extent does the LDS Church rely on the legal system to determine worthiness?I am reminded of the seminary principal (this thread is not about that case either) who was fired by the Church immediately after his arrest and before any trial could take place. This suggests to me that the Church knew enough facts to not have to wait for the legal system.It would be a sensitive issue if an active member was acquitted of a serious crime, but many observers disagreed with the verdict.Would the publicity of the case have any bearing on what kind of call that member could receive?I wonder if any bishops or stake presidents on this board have dealt with anything like this.
thesometimesaint Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 The Church has its own methods for determining guilt or innocents for violation of Church rules. The Church has no method for determining guilt or innocents of law. The law can't determine Church rules, and the Church can't determine the law.
Calm Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 The Church has its own methods for determining guilt or innocents for violation of Church rules. The Church has no method for determining guilt or innocents of law. The law can't determine Church rules, and the Church can't determine the law.However, the Church does place limits on individuals based on their legal status, such as whether or not a currently serving time prisoner can get baptized or not.
thesometimesaint Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 However, the Church does place limits on individuals based on their legal status, such as whether or not a currently serving time prisoner can get baptized or not.As I understand it. If a nonmember wishes to join the Church while in custody. We tell them to wait until after release.
Calm Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 As I understand it. If a nonmember wishes to join the Church while in custody. We tell them to wait until after release.Yep.
Tacenda Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 I have a personal story here. My brother was put in jail and then in prison. He was accused by a former fiancé/girlfriend of kidnapping. Which she later admitted that she had lied, this after my brother spent time in prison. But before that our bishop came to my dad and told him that they would need to have him come to bishop's court and that it might lead to a disfellowship. I don't think it took place because I don't think my brother would have attended. At the time, I felt like it what was needed in my TBM mind. But to my dad it was a horrible thing to do to his son, I now see how it was, since she had lied. I know this because when my brother got out of prison, she came to my dad and told him and then proceeded to give my brother a truck, and she had him move in with her. I'm not saying my brother is an angel in all this, he has major judgement issues, especially when he moved in with her!
thesometimesaint Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 If someone accused me of a crime I didn't commit. The last thing I would ever do is move in with that person. Talk about being a glutton for punishment. 1
Calm Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 (edited) I believe they can have courts without the individual the court is for attending, excommunications often occur without the person showing up if stories on the internet are accurate.A court may clear someone as well as disfellowship him/her. I can understand your dad's POV though. I have a young relative who was accused of statutory rape and is now on a sex offenders' list because the mom of his 15 year old girlfriend (he was 19 at the time) forced the girl to accuse him (maybe because she was mad he wasn't thinking of marrying the girl or wanted to pressure him into doing it). This, after the mom was the one who gave them alcohol, saw them get drunk and then watched them go into her daughter's room and shut the door. And she didn't complain about it as soon as she got sober either. While my nephew was wrong and legally culpable due to his age and hers, the mom should have been charged with neglect at the very least. The girl wanted to pick things up again after he was convicted too and my memory says the mom was pushing it as well (the family lives in a 'good' part of town though is not wealthy by any means). I think for a time he was back with her, though more cautious. He thought of himself as rescuing her from her sad plight to a certain extent apparently. Edited July 14, 2013 by calmoriah
rpn Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 Conviction for a crime can be used definitively for church discipline, if it is a crime that involves criminal intent. So I'm not surprised that a bishop might plan to hold a church court for anyone who is convicted of a crime. And they could hold it in the absence of the person (so long as they could figure a way to personally serve the required notice of the disciplinary counsel (they have to hand deliver a letter directly to the person). And most criminal cases end up in guilty pleas, sometimes with the person not admitting to guilt but admitting to accept the punishment that as been negotiated. In those cases, the church disciplinary counsel might not have the two witness proof required for such counsels. Now whether or not that should result in a disciplinary sanction is another matter. 1) People plead to crimes that they didn't commit because they think they will be convicted even though they are not guilty, sometimes because they are guilty of something, even if it isn't what they've been charged with. 2) What is the point of a disciplinary council for someone who is not repentant (not even in a position to repent) and not a danger because they are locked away. 3) How is it fair to have one when the person cannot attend him/herself? And if it isn't fair, how can it be a "court of love".. 4) The last thing a convicted person needs is to also lose the gift of the Holy Ghost when they are in prison. That gift MATTERS (even when one has done lots of things that interfere with its use, and it matters in prison too. 1
CV75 Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 To what extent does the LDS Church rely on the legal system to determine worthiness?I think the Church and her representaives/authorities rely on light and truth from any souurce.I think in some instances "the appearance of evil" might be justification for specifc proscriptions beong placed upon a member's involvement.
mercyngrace Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 I have personal knowledge of a case where an active priesthood holder ended up in prison for a white collar crime and maintained his innocence throughout (and still). His accusers, to a man, acknowledged that their testimony was coerced by prosecutor and they later recanted in front of a judge.Didn't matter to his stake president though, he received a notice by mail that he'd been excommunicated, while he sat awaiting trial. The stake president and bishop never even bothered to communicate with this brother directly and, as of the last time I spoke with his wife, haven't even reached out to the family at all. I know another man who committed a crime. Acknowledged his guilt. Went to prison. And was never faced with any church discipline because the local leaders knew him and his family and took the time to work through the spiritual issues and deal with some of the heartbreak which led to the crime in the first place.Different leaders. Different responses. Personally, I believe mingling the laws of a fallen society with the laws of the church is a dangerous practice. It can allow for spiritually immature members to conflate the two and can create the illusion that we prioritize determinations made by the state over the power of the atonement. If we do live in the kind of society Moroni saw, the kind warned of in Ether, then what level of trust should we put in the words of lawyers and judges whose stock in trade are technicalities, loopholes, conviction rates, a system of imprisonment larger than any other in the world (1 in 32 Americans are in jail, on probation, or on parole) and with recidivism rates that bear witness to its failings?I wish someone would adopt Joseph Smith's presidential platform in this regard...PS For some good reading on this, try Three Felonies a Day. 2
Bob Crockett Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 It is against Church policy to undertake disciplinary proceedings while criminal proceedings are pending as to the offense for which discipline may be contemplated. 3
Duncan Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 I have thought about this subject as well. I have no personal involvement with any legal situations but I think deal with the legal system first then deal with the Church second. I know that no one is perfect but cops and lawyers can tell when someone is lying or a situation sounds illegal and something is amiss, Bishops aren't trained to deal with that. Of course there exceptions are either side, but I am dumbstruck when I hear sometimes a member getting involved in a legal matter and they go to the Bishop first, like go to the authorities first if you suspect your whatever of doing something illegal, they know the score, then if it's nothing then it's nothing if it is legitimate then it's legit. 1
Buzzard Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 This purely a hypothetical, but can you imagine if a member were convicted of a serious crime, in a high profile case where it was in the media, etc...., but acquitted in a church court? The bishop/SP would have to keep quiet about it due to confidentialty reasons, but the family of the accusers, local law enforcement, etc..., it could get kind of interesting.Reverse could happen as well. For example, if O.J. Simpson had been a member.
Duncan Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 This purely a hypothetical, but can you imagine if a member were convicted of a serious crime, in a high profile case where it was in the media, etc...., but acquitted in a church court? The bishop/SP would have to keep quiet about it due to confidentialty reasons, but the family of the accusers, local law enforcement, etc..., it could get kind of interesting.Reverse could happen as well. For example, if O.J. Simpson had been a member.I don't know all the details but the Mark Hacking case, he killed his wife and unborn baby. He served a mission to where I live and I remember him too, not sure what happened to him in the Church courts though. Plus too it's gets sticky if someone gets convicted of a crime but they didn't actually do it but they got exed or disfellowshipped regardless
Stone holm Posted July 15, 2013 Posted July 15, 2013 (edited) The real irony of Church disciplinary proceedings is that if you are active you are more likely to get disfellowshipped or excommunicated than if you are totally inactive. Edited July 15, 2013 by Stone holm
Tacenda Posted July 15, 2013 Posted July 15, 2013 The real irony of Church disciplinary proceedings is that if you are active you are more likely to get disfellowshipped or excommunicated than if you are totally inactive. Exactumundo!
canard78 Posted July 15, 2013 Posted July 15, 2013 The real irony of Church disciplinary proceedings is that if you are active you are more likely to get disfellowshipped or excommunicated than if you are totally inactive.This is true. Having said that, most people who are active and commit serious transgression meet more than one criteria for excommunication. We don't simply go round excommunicating people for the same transgression. Active members are also more likely to:- Be endowed/current recommend holders - Temple sealed- Melchizedek p'hood holder (if male)- In a calling/known by friends to be active and therefore more likely to 'bring the church the church into disrepute.'All of the above would make the sinner more likely to face discipline. It's not simply because the less active member is 'out of site out of mind' but because an active member has (usually) taken greater responsibility to be accountable for given they are still active. 1
Calm Posted July 15, 2013 Posted July 15, 2013 The real irony of Church disciplinary proceedings is that if you are active you are more likely to get disfellowshipped or excommunicated than if you are totally inactive.If one of the primary purposes of a court is to help with the repentance issues, I don't see the irony. Especially as the scriptures teach that to whom much is given, much is expected.
Stone holm Posted July 15, 2013 Posted July 15, 2013 This is true. Having said that, most people who are active and commit serious transgression meet more than one criteria for excommunication. We don't simply go round excommunicating people for the same transgression. Active members are also more likely to:- Be endowed/current recommend holders - Temple sealed- Melchizedek p'hood holder (if male)- In a calling/known by friends to be active and therefore more likely to 'bring the church the church into disrepute.'All of the above would make the sinner more likely to face discipline. It's not simply because the less active member is 'out of site out of mind' but because an active member has (usually) taken greater responsibility to be accountable for given they are still active.True, except that is not the reason for the greater likelihood, which is that the Bishop sees them every Sunday in Church.
Stone holm Posted July 15, 2013 Posted July 15, 2013 If one of the primary purposes of a court is to help with the repentance issues, I don't see the irony. Especially as the scriptures teach that to whom much is given, much is expected.True. But there is still a certain irony.
thesometimesaint Posted July 15, 2013 Posted July 15, 2013 (edited) edit. Edited July 15, 2013 by thesometimesaint
Stone holm Posted July 15, 2013 Posted July 15, 2013 However, the Church does place limits on individuals based on their legal status, such as whether or not a currently serving time prisoner can get baptized or not.Also, if a person is being prosecuted for or is convicted of a sex crime, that person is not going to be called to a youth calling no matter how absolute and thorough the repentance.
Recommended Posts