A Discussion About Excommunication And Disciplinary Councils

[awyatt]

Last week I wrote a first-hand article about an excommunication experience, from the perspective of a bishop presiding over a disciplinary council. Yesterday I was interviewed about my article and experiences for the FairMormon podcast.

 

Interestingly, yesterday and this morning those opposed to the entire concept of disciplinary councils started arriving at my blog and commenting. (One called disciplinary councils "brutal emotional abuse" and another added that my commentary was "vulgar and sad.")

 

Disciplinary councils are, of course, claimed as a right by the Church (see Doctrine and Covenants 134:10). But what do you think about disciplinary councils and excommunication? (The latter is, of course, only one possible outcome of a disciplinary council.) Are they outdated? Should they be done away with?

 

 

-Allen

 

[CV75]

Should they be done away with?

Is this one of those things about which "we" are awaiting the brethren to receive further light and knowledge to assuage "our" dissatisfaction?

[Kenngo1969]

I've said it before here, but whether excommunication (I know other results are possible from a disciplinary council, but that's the most serious one) is the final step out of the Church of Jesus Christ or the first step back into it is entirely up to the one being disciplined.  Those who are completely opposed to disciplinary councils would have us believe that the Church has no interests it must protect.  That's not even true from a legal standpoint, let alone an ecclesiastical one.  I think a spirit of rebellion is a far sadder thing than most anything the Church of Jesus Christ might do as a result.

[Duncan]

In any discussion I have seen about this hardly anyone would disagree that a council needs to be convened for adulterers, abusers, criminals, stealing tithing money etc. I wonder though if people think that the recent DC that has been made public is 'emotionally abusive' etc. but would they call a DC for a cheater abusive? 

[Kenngo1969]

Is this one of those things about which "we" are awaiting the brethren to receive further light and knowledge to assuage "our" dissatisfaction?

How a person might answer that question depends, at least in part, on how bad his ears itch.

[Kenngo1969]

In any discussion I have seen about this hardly anyone would disagree that a council needs to be convened for adulterers, abusers, criminals, stealing tithing money etc. I wonder though if people think that the recent DC that has been made public is 'emotionally abusive' etc. but would they call a DC for a cheater abusive? 

Yep.  As I say, it's not as though the Church of Jesus Christ has no interests it must protect.

[JLHPROF]

Of course they're not outdated. The scriptures are very clear that the wicked should not be allowed to remain with the Church. So there has to be a system in place to remove those guilty of the most serious sin, especially when unrepentant.

I think it is "apostasy" or "heresy" that are a little harder for people to swallow in this age of free speech, although it is still necessary. But it can feel a little like a witch hunt to some people.

[ELF1024]

Disciplinary councils are, of course, claimed as a right by the Church (see Doctrine and Covenants 134:10). But what do you think about disciplinary councils and excommunication? (The latter is, of course, only one possible outcome of a disciplinary council.) Are they outdated? Should they be done away with?

 

So, if I read this right... some people got their feelings hurt by disciplinary councils, so now we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater?

 

Uh... it's "discipline"... so go fig while people are getting butt-hurt. I didn't get particularly butt-hurt over mine, because I knew I was wrong and was willing to humble myself and was already taking the advice of the Lord. I was excommunicated anyway, because of the pattern, not because of the particular wrong doing on this occasion.

 

However, I got over myself, and returned to the Church.

 

They are useful, and not outdated. They are necessary.

[Derl Sanderson]

I find this quote fitting:

 

Any community that is entered into voluntarily and can be departed from peacefully is surely entitled to proclaim and live by its own values, to establish its own membership requirements, institutional norms, and conditions of continued membership.

 

The scientific community is not experienced as tyrannical by scientists. Their socialization into its assumptions and rules is so complete that the "prisoners" dance in their chains. They no more regard it as tyrannical than we do the dictionary that tells us how we must spell words or the formal and informal rules of grammar or the alphabet to which we are "enslaved" in order to be free to communicate (Peter Novick, history professor at the University of Chicago. Quoted by Lou Midgley in "Knowing Brother Joseph Again" from the Editor's Introduction to the FARMS Review 18/1).

[awyatt]

In any discussion I have seen about this hardly anyone would disagree that a council needs to be convened for adulterers, abusers, criminals, stealing tithing money etc. I wonder though if people think that the recent DC that has been made public is 'emotionally abusive' etc. but would they call a DC for a cheater abusive? 

 

The comment about my recounting of one of my disciplinary council experiences didn't mention the reason for the council; I only recounted the procedures, process, and feelings. At least in the eyes of a few commenters, it was the process (irrespective of the reasons) that was abusive.

 

According to the handbook, there are only a handful of situations in which a disciplinary council *must* be held.

 

-Allen

[DJBrown]

Last week I wrote a first-hand article about an excommunication experience, from the perspective of a bishop presiding over a disciplinary council. Yesterday I was interviewed about my article and experiences for the FairMormon podcast.

 

Interestingly, yesterday and this morning those opposed to the entire concept of disciplinary councils started arriving at my blog and commenting. (One called disciplinary councils "brutal emotional abuse" and another added that my commentary was "vulgar and sad.")

 

Disciplinary councils are, of course, claimed as a right by the Church (see Doctrine and Covenants 134:10). But what do you think about disciplinary councils and excommunication? (The latter is, of course, only one possible outcome of a disciplinary council.) Are they outdated? Should they be done away with?

 

 

-Allen

 

I enjoyed your article.  I have had similar experiences with these councils and appreciate you articulating this uncomfortable reality.

 

I think the main function of these councils is to bring the seriousness of a person's sins to the forefront of his of her mind and heart.  It is like having the chance to have a preliminary court and judgment prior to the real thing and having the opportunity to change one's behavior so that the ultimate, real judgment is most favorable for the individual.  We all will be judged someday by a perfect judge.  Church disciplinary councils are a merciful and generous gift from God that is intended to allow a person a peek into what is inevitable if he or she does not repent.

[awyatt]

Well said.

[cinepro]

Frankly, I'm a little mystified by this whole KK/JD thing.  If the Church (or any private group) has a disagreement with a member of the group about whether or not that person should be a member, why wouldn't the Church (or any private group) have the authority to tell the person to take a hike?

 

I run a non-profit adult recreational sport league in my city, and we occasionally have to tell players who violate our Code of Conduct that they are no longer welcome to play.  Almost always, the players take great offense, and try to insist that we can't do that, regardless of how they behave (arguing that they have a "right" to play in the league.)  They're always disappointed to learn that this isn't the case.  It's also usually the case that they feel like the decision was unjust, based on personal bias, and that they were totally innocent of any wrongdoing (even when I had a video recording of one instance of misconduct!)

 

Obviously a church is very different, but it has given me an interesting insight into the different ways people can perceive their membership in a group, and any disagreements they might have with the leaders of the group about that membership.

Edited July 1, 2014 by cinepro

[Tiki]

D&C 134:10

[Glenn101]

Actually I think that the church is pretty lenient in letting people speak their minds and retain their membership, and maybe even temple recommends. After every General Conference you can visit the Mormon Archipelago and you will see a litany of posters dissecting many of the talks, pointing out supposed "false doctrines" and other places where a general authority "got it wrong." And Heaven help a poor woman who happens to speak on just about any subject. Every communication from the Church is dissected and all of the "errors" are pointed out in lurid detail. Yet, very few disciplinary councils have been convened for those "protesters". If so, they have not been advertised by a community that is not reticent about advertising all of the supposed ways the church is in error. From that chorus of boos, one would think that the church leaders are right maybe ten percent or less of the time and right only when their actions and pronouncements agree with the dissenter(s).

 

For many problems of immorality there is a bright line, unmistakable which says "Thou shalt not cross." But for some things like apostasy, there is no hard and fast rule, no one line drawn in the sand. That is because each case is different, each individual unique. And even then, continuing efforts are made to work with each individual, to counsel and advise. There will come a poit, when a person says, in effect, "I am right. You (the bishop, etc.) are wrong, the general authorities are wrong, and anyone else who disagrees with me is wrong", that a disciplinary council will be convened.

 

Discipline is not punishment. It is supposedly a teaching tool, but it is up to the "student" whether he or she learns anything.

 

A wolf, however the appearance, is much more effective inside the pen. A wolf outside the pen can only growl and attack any of those who should foolishly wander away from the fold and the shepherd, or attack loose sheep who are hesitant to joining the flock.

 

I am sure that I will get a litany of denials or the like from some posters, pointing out that indeed our leaders are flawed human beings and can make mistakes. But that is hardly the issue. Because it is flawed human beings that can make mistakes that are "calling them out." I have told me that faith that our leaders are called of God, but I do not put my trust "in the arm of flesh." I put my trust in God. He has never, and will never let me down. And so far, He has not told me that His chosen leaders are erring 90 percent of the time.

 

Glenn

[awyatt]

Actually I think that the church is pretty lenient in letting people speak their minds and retain their membership...

...for some things like apostasy, there is no hard and fast rule, no one line drawn in the sand. That is because each case is different, each individual unique. And even then, continuing efforts are made to work with each individual, to counsel and advise. There will come a poit, when a person says, in effect, "I am right. You (the bishop, etc.) are wrong...

I personally know of a guy in a ward where I used to be in a leadership position. He was called in by the bishop to discuss his behavior. The guy didn't take it well and eventually said to the bishop "Well, you can think what you want, but Jesus told me this is OK and He outranks you."

The guy wasn't disciplined, even then. (I can't convey on a message board the *way* in which the statement was made, and the manner of expression makes all the difference in the world. Suffice it to say he was referring to being personally visited on the matter.) So, yes, I agree with your statement that "the church is pretty lenient in letting people speak their minds and retain their membership."

-Allen

[Scott Lloyd]

Last week I wrote a first-hand article about an excommunication experience, from the perspective of a bishop presiding over a disciplinary council. Yesterday I was interviewed about my article and experiences for the FairMormon podcast.

 

Interestingly, yesterday and this morning those opposed to the entire concept of disciplinary councils started arriving at my blog and commenting. (One called disciplinary councils "brutal emotional abuse" and another added that my commentary was "vulgar and sad.")

 

Disciplinary councils are, of course, claimed as a right by the Church (see Doctrine and Covenants 134:10). But what do you think about disciplinary councils and excommunication? (The latter is, of course, only one possible outcome of a disciplinary council.) Are they outdated? Should they be done away with?

 

 

-Allen

The entitlement mentality is a bane of our modern-day society. Symptomatic of that mentality is the sentiment that disciplinary councils are "emotional abuse," that they are "outmoded," whatever. Behind that thinking is the assumption that anyone is entitled to membership or participation in a religious or other group with no obligation to abide by conditions of membership.

 

This may sound harsh, but I'm losing patience with some of the opinions I've been encountering in the past couple of weeks.

[Scott Lloyd]

Last week I wrote a first-hand article about an excommunication experience, from the perspective of a bishop presiding over a disciplinary council. Yesterday I was interviewed about my article and experiences for the FairMormon podcast.

 

Interestingly, yesterday and this morning those opposed to the entire concept of disciplinary councils started arriving at my blog and commenting. (One called disciplinary councils "brutal emotional abuse" and another added that my commentary was "vulgar and sad.")

 

Disciplinary councils are, of course, claimed as a right by the Church (see Doctrine and Covenants 134:10). But what do you think about disciplinary councils and excommunication? (The latter is, of course, only one possible outcome of a disciplinary council.) Are they outdated? Should they be done away with?

 

 

-Allen

I have to know: Did the sister ever return to the Church?

[sethpayne]

 

Disciplinary councils are, of course, claimed as a right by the Church (see Doctrine and Covenants 134:10). But what do you think about disciplinary councils and excommunication? (The latter is, of course, only one possible outcome of a disciplinary council.) Are they outdated? Should they be done away with?

 

 

Perhaps part of the problem is based in culture. Having a group of men "discipline" a another adult seems very cultish.  

 

Simply stating that Sister Kelly, because of her action, was no longer welcome as a Church member is 100% true, and 100% the right of any private organization.  She broke the rules.  Done.

 

There really shouldn't have to be any more explanation than that.

Edited July 2, 2014 by sethpayne

[Pahoran]

D&C 134:10

Nice one.

Also (and this has particular relevance to recent events) D&C 1:14.

Regards,

Pahoran

[smac97]

Perhaps part of the problem is based in culture. Having a group of men "discipline" a another adult seems very cultish.

I am intrigued by this. The Utah State Bar regularly "disciplines" its members (all of whom are voluntary members of it). Is the state bar a cult?

What about when SAG (Screen Actors' Guild, whose members are voluntarily part of it) disciplines a member for appearing in a non-SAG film? Is that cultish?

I struggle to understand your position, Seth. Every group which involves voluntary association has the right to regulate the boundaries of its members' behavior. This seems to me to be an entirely self-evident and unobjectionable sort of thing, but here you are describing it in harsh, pejorative terms.

What gives? Do you likewise object to any other group which regulates its boundaries? Or do you reserve the vicious invective for Mormonism alone?

 

Simply stating that Sister Kelly, because of her action, was no longer welcome as a Church member is 100% true, and 100% the right of any private organization.  She broke the rules.  Done.

 

There really shouldn't have to be any more explanation than that.

What? No discussion? No consideration? No weighing of evidence? No giving Kate Kelly an opportunity to present her position? Just summary exclusion?

Talk about "cultish" . . .

Thanks,

-Smac

[sethpayne]

I am intrigued by this. The Utah State Bar regularly "disciplines" its members (all of whom are voluntary members of it). Is the state bar a cult?

What about when SAG (Screen Actors' Guild, whose members are voluntarily part of it) disciplines a member for appearing in a non-SAG film? Is that cultish?

 

 

I would expect better reading comprehension of you, Smac.  

 

Please cite, counselor, where I said the action *was* cultish.

 

Also, I didn't realize that the Bar and SAG were religious institutions claiming to hold the keys of the kingdom, as it were.

 

I can't speak to these organizations but I can say that there has been a shift -- in at least some of the companies I've been involved with.  No longer are employees disciplined but rather, "coached", "put on an improvement plan" ... whatever.  The euphemism doesn't matter.  It means the same thing.   

 

 

What gives? Do you likewise object to any other group which regulates its boundaries? Or do you reserve the vicious invective for Mormonism alone?

 

 

Apparently you didn't read my entire post before responding.

 

 

What? No discussion? No consideration? No weighing of evidence? No giving Kate Kelly an opportunity to present her position? Just summary exclusion?

Talk about "cultish" . . .

 

 

Careful reading, Smac.  Take time to carefully read.

 

Please cite, counselor, where I suggested or that this was the desired or proscribed course of action.  If the Church -- or anyone else -- wants to have some sort of process then fine.  That's their business.  But at the end of the day it comes down to the simple fact that the Church can choose its members and set membership requirements.  It may choose who and who is not a member at its leisure.  I'm not sure why the Church needs to provide an explanation to you, me, or anyone else.  Heck, if they really wanted to they could take action and not even the person know.  Their organization.  Their rules.   Seems to be pretty straightforward.

 

Thanks,

 

 

You are quite welcome.

 

Edited July 2, 2014 by sethpayne

[mfbukowski]

Last week I wrote a first-hand article about an excommunication experience, from the perspective of a bishop presiding over a disciplinary council. Yesterday I was interviewed about my article and experiences for the FairMormon podcast.

 

Interestingly, yesterday and this morning those opposed to the entire concept of disciplinary councils started arriving at my blog and commenting. (One called disciplinary councils "brutal emotional abuse" and another added that my commentary was "vulgar and sad.")

 

Disciplinary councils are, of course, claimed as a right by the Church (see Doctrine and Covenants 134:10). But what do you think about disciplinary councils and excommunication? (The latter is, of course, only one possible outcome of a disciplinary council.) Are they outdated? Should they be done away with?

 

 

-Allen

Wonderful article and very representative of my experiences as well.  They are horribly draining for all who attend.

 

But no, there are a necessity.  If the church has standards for membership, and the mere existence of the temple shows that standards must be kept, we must always have them

Edited July 2, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Mystery Meat]

I would expect better reading comprehension of you, Smac.  

 

Please cite, counselor, where I said the action *was* cultish.

 

 

Go back and read your original post. Your exact word was "cultish."

 

Read carefully indeed.

[Mystery Meat]

But no, there are a necessity.  If the church has standards for membership, and the mere existence of the temple shows that standards must be kept, we must always have them

 

I agree, but I will add one thing. The standards are not arbitrarily set by the Church. Members have made sacred covenants. When you are violating those covenants you bring yourself under a greater condemnation. If a person is excommunicated it is not a punishment. It is a act of love to help the person repent and relieve the condemnation that is placed upon when they sin under the burden of those sacred covenants. I don't know how to have a conversation with somebody who doesn't understand that simple principal. These are the requirements of God, not men. 

 

I know your post didn't contradict what I just wrote, but I felt like chiming in here.