Are Church Disciplinary Actions Ever Coordinated By Church Headquarters?

[Sky]

The Church states that the answer to this question is no:  http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-to-church-discipline-questions

 

"Decisions are made by local leaders and not directed or coordinated by Church headquarters."  

 

But I'm hearing a different story from some other people, one of them being Kevin Kloosterman, a former bishop. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/19/us/critical-online-comments-put-church-status-at-risk-mormons-say.html?_r=0

 

"He said his bishop informed him that an Area Seventy church leader had weighed in on his case (Mr. Kloosterman declined to name him), and that leaders had been monitoring his Internet activity and knew he supported groups that disagree with church teaching."

 

So which is the correct answer?  It seems to me like this either happens or it doesn't.  I really want to believe the Church's statement, but I'm not so sure if I can.  

 

And what of the Strengthening Church Members Committee?  Does this still exist today and exactly what role does it play?  

 

I really don't mind so much if this happens (I can see how there could be a need for it), but why does it have to be a secret or swept under the rug?  Is this simply part of the nature of what we are dealing with in regards to Church antagonizers?     

 

I just want some answers.            

[Freedom]

So you have a guy mad at the church claiming to accurate quote the guy who called him on his shenanigans. I.don't consider that a reliable source for establishing church policy.

[Freedom]

So you have a guy mad at the church claiming to accurate quote the guy who called him on his shenanigans. I.don't consider that a reliable source for establishing church policy.

[janderich]

The Strengthening Church Members Committee existed as of 2012, Elder Holland confirmed it in a BBC interview. I agree with you and can also see where it could fulfill a need but don't understand the secrecy. Perhaps its the idea of, "I'm being watched" that it creates? The potential for a sort of big brother fear? 

 

I do think ultimately the church's statement is correct that it does not direct or coordinate decisions. However, if church headquarters sends information to a Stake President regarding a member who has said or has participated in activities opposing church teachings I think that Stake President may feel obligated to hold a court. I doubt anything more needs to be said in order to prompt action. If information on high profile members is provided to multiple Stake Presidents at the same time it would appear the effort is coordinated.

[JLHPROF]

A friend who was ex'd for legitimate apostasy reasons (at least according to Church rules) was told walking in to his Stake council hearing that the SP had been instructed to "get him out". Now who instructed the SP and how far up that would go I couldn't say. Not really much point in a hearing in that case.

[Duncan]

A friend who was ex'd for legitimate apostasy reasons (at least according to Church rules) was told walking in to his Stake council hearing that the SP had been instructed to "get him out". Now who instructed the SP and how far up that would go I couldn't say. Not really much point in a hearing in that case.

 

 

according to the Doctrine and Covenants it sounds like he can appeal it to the First Presidency

[thesometimesaint]

The Strengthening Church Members Committee existed as of 2012, Elder Holland confirmed it in a BBC interview. I agree with you and can also see where it could fulfill a need but don't understand the secrecy. Perhaps its the idea of, "I'm being watched" that it creates? The potential for a sort of big brother fear? 

 

We're not a watch free zone.

SEE Duties of a Priest D&C 20:54

54. And see that there is no iniquity in the church, neither hardness with each other, neither lying, backbiting, nor evil speaking;

[Grudunza]

So you have a guy mad at the church claiming to accurate quote the guy who called him on his shenanigans. I.don't consider that a reliable source for establishing church policy.

 

If it was one person, I would agree with you, but several others (e.g., Rock Waterman, Denver Snuffer) are saying the same thing, that their bishops or SPs were directed/pressured by a 70 or Apostle to excommunicate them, and we know for sure that one of the Apostles directed the September 6 purge of 1993.  The argument can be made that one 70 or Apostle does not constitute "Church HQ," and may not be the will of the collective brethren.  But still, I think the repeated statements by the Church spokespersons are a little misleading if (IF) there is indeed pressure like that coming from above the bishop/SP level.

[janderich]

We're not a watch free zone.

SEE Duties of a Priest D&C 20:54

54. And see that there is no iniquity in the church, neither hardness with each other, neither lying, backbiting, nor evil speaking;

Agreed. I'm questioning the secrecy. Is this required? Is it helpful in some way?

[The Nehor]

A friend who was ex'd for legitimate apostasy reasons (at least according to Church rules) was told walking in to his Stake council hearing that the SP had been instructed to "get him out". Now who instructed the SP and how far up that would go I couldn't say. Not really much point in a hearing in that case.

Who told him that?

[USU78]

yup, double hearsay

[Stone holm]

Those statements or disclaimers by the Church are not aiding its credibility, I have yet to meet any Mormon who believes that a Stake President or Bishop would initiate a potentially high profile apostasy trial without a green light from Salt Lake. It just stretches credibility too far.

[Rain]

There is a difference between a green light and a police officer directing you to "go this way now!"

[Calm]

I agree Rain. I can see many of my leaders and former leaders having confidence enough to institute proceedings, especially if they had just received training that leniency for apostasy is not beneficial for anyone, though being intelligent they would also inform higher ups what they were planning on doing so they could prepare for media inquiries.

[Stone holm]

There is a difference between a green light and a police officer directing you to "go this way now!"

I agree, but I suspect also that there is probably some direction as well. Few Bishops or Stake Presidents convene a disciplinary council if some form of discipline is not being at least contemplated, and if a GA says convene a disciplinary council...how many are likely are to resist.

[The Nehor]

Those statements or disclaimers by the Church are not aiding its credibility, I have yet to meet any Mormon who believes that a Stake President or Bishop would initiate a potentially high profile apostasy trial without a green light from Salt Lake. It just stretches credibility too far.

 

I believe it. I would do it myself if that were my situation and I held a position requiring it. If I expected it to cause a media storm I would notify the next person up the chain if I expected media fallout as a courtesy but permission? No. 

[Avatar4321]

I've seen General authorities push for a council for a guy who committed murder. But I suspect that would have happened regardless.

[iamse7en]

Of course. Very recently too: look at the case of Denver Snuffer. 

 

Do you think the September Six was a complete coincidence all derived from local leaders all at around the same time?

[The Nehor]

Of course. Very recently too: look at the case of Denver Snuffer. 

 

Do you think the September Six was a complete coincidence all derived from local leaders all at around the same time?

 

Of course General Authorities can contact local leaders and tell them about something going on in their ward or stake or share information pertinent to a disciplinary council. The article does not say otherwise. It does say that the decisions of those councils are not directed or coordinated by the General Authorities. In other words the Apostles and Seventies do not tell the Bishop or Stake President what their decision should/must be.

[Buzzard]

Does anyone really think the Brethren get together each week with a "hit list" of enemies they need kicked out of the church? On the other hand, it seems to make eminent sense that a visiting GA might suggest to local leaders that an individual in a certain area that was causing division and dissension in the church in that area be dealt with. And suggesting that local leadership take a look at a situation is not the same as demanding that so and so be exed. 

[Alan]

 

"Decisions are made by local leaders and not directed or coordinated by Church headquarters."  

 

 

"He said his bishop informed him that an Area Seventy church leader had weighed in on his case (Mr. Kloosterman declined to name him), and that leaders had been monitoring his Internet activity and knew he supported groups that disagree with church teaching."

 

 

        

 

I would point out that an "Area Seventy" does not amount to "Church headquarters".

I would also point out that an Area Seventy could be considered a local church leader. Remember, an Area Seventy is not the same as a member of the area presidency, nor are they considered general authorities.

[gtaggart]

Here's the key passage from the Church's statement linked to in the OP: 

 

In these rare cases, local leaders have the responsibility to clarify false teachings and prevent other members from being misled. Decisions are made by local leaders and not directed or coordinated by Church headquarters.

 

 

Note that local leaders make the "decisions," that is, the ultimate decision about a member's membership. The Church's statement simply says that those "decisions" are not directed or coordinated by Church headquarters. Might headquarters become involved in a bishop or stake president's determination to convene a court? My guess is yes. I'd bet money on it in some cases. Bishops consult stake presidents on all sorts of matters. Stake presidents consult with area authorities, and so on up the chain of command. What's surprising about that? But the disciplinary council, the fasting, the crying to Heavenly Father for guidance, the gut-wrenching decision? That's done locally. It's the order of things in this Church. Most everybody knows that. But hey, it's much more fun to speculate and assign malevolent motives and evil deeds to good men. And most everybody knows that as well.

 

That said, I have major doubts that Church headquarters directs or coordinates a disciplinary court's decision. I doubt that happened in the case of the September 6. I doubt it's happening now. As President Packer would say, "It's not the unwritten [or written] order of things."

 

All that said, I wish the Church would be clearer on this matter. I wish the PR  arm of the Church would simply say, "Yes, Church headquarters sometimes consults. Yes, we respond to questions from bishops, stake presidents, etc. But ultimately, the decision to excommunicate or to disfellowship or to do nothing is up to local leaders. Read the Church Handbook of Instructions for Hell's sake! Section 6.2 for starters. The book's floating all over the Internet! Kate Kelly, John Dehlin, and Rick Waterman surely have copies on their hard drives, ask them."

 

It's also worth reading the last few paragraphs of Section 6.10.12:

 

Questions about Procedure

     If a bishop is unsure of the procedures to follow in administering Church discipline, he consults his stake president. If a branch president is unsure of procedures, he consults his stake or mission president. A stake or mission president refers unresolved procedural questions to the Office of the First Presidency.

 

Questions about Decisions

     Local presiding officers should not expect General Authorities to tell them how to decide difficult matters. Decisions of Church discipline are within the discretion and authority of local presiding officers as they prayerfully seek guidance from the Lord. (underlined emphasis supplied)

 

First Presidency Authority

     The First Presidency has ultimate authority over all Church discipline. Decision of the First Presidency take precedence despite any rule or procedures to the contrary. [is President Packer in the First Presidency? Elder Ballard? Elder Clayton? I don't think so.]    

Edited June 23, 2014 by gtaggart

[Stone holm]

I realize that correlation does not equal causation, but in order to make the statement that the recent apostasy cases were not coordinated, we would need to know more statistical data on how frequently you have apostasy trials.  If they tend to be in bunches like the September 6, or the recent flurry -- then that would tend to very strongly suggest that in fact they are being coordinated.  Stake Presidents usually have telephone conferences with their Regional Seventy every Sunday, and then call their Bishops.  It would be very easy for things to be coordinated.  Yes, the ultimate decision is either the decision of the Stake President or the Bishop -- but to say there is no influence with respect to high profile cases, or that instituting the cases in the first place was not influenced.  Do you really find that very convincing?

[The Nehor]

I realize that correlation does not equal causation, but in order to make the statement that the recent apostasy cases were not coordinated, we would need to know more statistical data on how frequently you have apostasy trials.  If they tend to be in bunches like the September 6, or the recent flurry -- then that would tend to very strongly suggest that in fact they are being coordinated.  Stake Presidents usually have telephone conferences with their Regional Seventy every Sunday, and then call their Bishops.  It would be very easy for things to be coordinated.  Yes, the ultimate decision is either the decision of the Stake President or the Bishop -- but to say there is no influence with respect to high profile cases, or that instituting the cases in the first place was not influenced.  Do you really find that very convincing?

 

99% of cases for apostasy receive no media coverage and no one but local leaders and the person in question know about them unless you count the bean counters who store the records. In most cases the person also does not attend. We are obviously not going to post a statistical graph of confidential meetings.

[Brian 2.0]

Is there something wrong with church HQ telling local leaders to convene a disciplinary council? They are church headquarters! If they have information from the STMC or have decided that a high profile individual should be dealt with, why not ask the local leader to call one? Everyone in the organization gets counsel, training, and assignments from higher up the chain of the organization. The church isn't a franchise run by independent owner bishops and stake presidents.