A Discussion About Excommunication And Disciplinary Councils

[why me]

 

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.")

 

 

-Allen

People seem to wish to claim victim status rather easy these days. Accordingly, the councils are brutal emotional abuse and vulgar and sad. Life can be brutal, vulgar and sad but not because of disciplinary councils. These are a piece of cake when one considers what is happening in the world that is truly brutal, vulgar and sad. People do not want to be held accountable for their actions. We see this quite often when someone blames everyone else but themselves for their problem. For example, there would be no disciplinary council if the person did not choose to do something wrong that would merit the council sitting. And when they did do what they did, they would know that they may be facing disciplinary action because they must have known that they did somethng wrong.

 

So, what is the problem then? People want sympathy and place blame somewhere else outside themselves. The apostle paul also had disciplanary councils in the early first century, Maybe some found cause for complaint also about emotional abuse etc or they were just accepting of their discipline.

Edited July 2, 2014 by why me

[sethpayne]

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

 

Read carefully indeed.

 

Please cite, precisely, where I said it *was* cultish.

 

Thanks.

[Pahoran]

Please cite, precisely, where I said it *was* cultish.

 

Thanks.

Seth is right. He only said it "seems very cultish."

Not was, just seems.

Seth, your quibbling here seems very dishonest.

But I didn't say it was dishonest, so you don't mind at all, do you?

Regards,

Pahoran

[smac97]

I would expect better reading comprehension of you, Smac.

And I would expect more than reliance on a weasel word ("seems") and insulting the intelligence of your readers.

You accused the Church of engaging in "very cultish" behavior. We can dispense with the silliness that you didn't really make this accusation because you included a weasel word in it ("seems very cultish" in place of "is very cultish"). We know what you meant. You know it.

 

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

First, please dispense with including extraneous and gratuitous references to my profession. I have not attempted to demean you by speaking sarcastically or contemptuously of your profession, nor have I referenced my profession as a credential to bolster my views in this thread. I would appreciate a reciprocal effort on your part.

 

Second, see my comments about about what I think about reliance on weasel words.

 

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

These groups are not religious institutions. I never said they were. But they are communities which regulate the behavior of their voluntary members, hence the comparison.

 

I can't speak to these organizations

But you could speak to the comparison I was drawing. You are simply choosing not to.

Just wanted to be clear about that.

 

State bar organizations discipline their members all the time.  Nobody accuses them of being "very cultish."  Frankly, that would be a rather bizarre accusation, since the raison d'être of state bar organizations is to regulate the behavior of its members, to establish boundaries between appropriate and inappropriate acts.  Disciplinary proceedings are a necessary part of that.  By way of example: In May I was called to testify at a trial against another attorney who was being sued by the Office of Professional Conduct, the arm of the Utah State Bar tasked with overseeing discipline of attorneys.  I was called as a fact witness to address the alleged misconduct by the other attorney in litigation in 2011 (I was opposing counsel in that litigation).  I found the experience sad and difficult, largely because my testimony was, I think, fairly damning.  However, I am glad the OPC brought the suit, because the misconduct in the 2011 litigation apparently really did happen.  If so, it is the responsibility of the OPC to make sure that attorneys who engage in serious misconduct on appropriately censured, because such regulation helps keep other attorneys in conformity with the Rules of Professional Conduct, and also operates to maintain and improve the reputation and standing of the Bar and its members in the community.  

 

Similarly, one of the Church's many functions is to create a cohesive community of Saints, which necessarily includes some measure of regulating the behavior of its members.  Such regulation helps keep other church members in conformity with the laws and commandments of the Restored Gospel, and also operates to  maintain and improve the reputation and standing of the Churcch and its members in society.  

 

There are other analogies we could discuss.  For example, military organizations discipline their members all the time. Nobody accuses them of being "very cultish" (again, that would be a strange accusation). Military branches exist for specific reasons and to fulfill certain purposes. Those purposes are impaired or defeated when individuals in the military misbehave.  Other religions discipline their members as well. The Pope recently denounced members of a Mafia group, the "’Ndrangheta," stating that they are "the adoration of evil and contempt of the common good," and that "Mafiosi are excommunicated."  Are you going to label this action "very cultish" too?  Or is it just the Mormons that earn that particular slur?

 

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.

I'm not interested in discussing euphemisms. I am interested in your demeaning allegation against the Church for behavior (disciplining its members) that is shared by many, many other organizations. Professional associations, military organizations, the Roman Catholic Church, etc., all of which are generally regarded as venerable in our society, regulate and discipline their respective members. But you have not publicly smeared them. Why? What sort of privilege do you imagine you have to dishonor our faith, simply because you have some association with it?

 

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

I read it. All three lines of it. I responded to each part of it.

 

Please cite, counselor, where I suggested or that this was the desired or proscribed course of action.

You publicly defamed the LDS faith because it disciplines its members, calling this "very cultish," and you provided an alternative proposal (summary expulsion, with no explanation or analysis whatsoever). I found that proposal to be facially untenable, even absurd, so I asked you about it.

 

If the Church -- or anyone else -- wants to have some sort of process then fine.  That's their business.

But if the Church utilizes that process, you will publicly defame it for doing so ("very cultish," remember?).  Meanwhile, my question remains: Many other types of other organizations discipline their members. Do you likewise invoke slurs against them? State bar associations? SAG? The military? Medical boards? The Pope?  Are these all "very cultish" too? Or do you save the vicious invectives for the Mormons alone?

 

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.

Well, let's be clear here. Allen Wyatt asked you if you think disciplinary councils in the LDS Church are "outdated" and should be "done away with." Your response was to insult our faith by describing what it is really a very important, very challenging, and very sacred process as "very cultish" (or, if you prefer to keep the weasel word intact, you said it "seems very cultish"). I then asked for further explanation, and we are now arguing over weasel words instead of addressing Allen Wyatt's question posed to you about the continued use of disciplinary proceedings in the Church. I think is a worthwhile question to ask and have answered, particularly since Latter-day Saints find instructions for disciplinary measures in their scriptures and since you have slurred these measures as "very cultish."

 

Heck, if they really wanted to they could take action and not even the person know.

No, they couldn't. The disciplinary measures utilized by the Church are not derived from arbitrary whims. There are scriptural mandates, established and tested policies and guidelines, and above all the Spirit and revelation which are all necessary parts of disciplinary proceedings in the Church.  And your assessment of this aspect of the Restored Gospel was to accuse the Church of being "very cultish" (or, if you prefer to maintain usage of the weasel word, you accuse the Church of "seeming" to be "very cultish").

 

Their organization.  Their rules.   Seems to be pretty straightforward.

No. It's God's organization. God's rules.  That is "pretty straightforward."  And you publicly dishonored what it is really a very important, very challenging, and very sacred process by describing it as "very cultish."

 

I am consistently amazed and appalled at how individuals who have some association with the Church presume to be at liberty to publicly smear the Church, simply because of that association.

 

-Smac

Edited July 2, 2014 by smac97

[why me]

 

I am consistently amazed and appalled at how individuals who have some association with the Church presume to be at liberty to publicly smear the Church, simply because of that association.

 

-Smac

Smearing the church has crossed boundary lines. As I mentioned before posters who say that they are devout are also smearing the church on internet boards. So, it seems very fashionable to do so. And this has become a problem. Quite frankly, if I were an investigator and I would come to the internet for information, I would expect exmembers and critics to be smearing the church...but I would not expect to see people claiming to be active and in the church to be doing it in an aggressive way. It would shy me away from joining the church or having more missionary discussions. Who wants to live in a house where its members are at odds with each other?

 

This was one reason why I challenged one active member who is posting on this board and who seemed to be hyper critical of the church to present to us their own blueprint of how the church should be and not just put it down. Perhaps I wrote it in a too aggressive and it was one reason I was put on limited but I just find it disheartening that many members are putting the church down with smears and innuendos.

 

We seem to be entering a new era of apologetics....defending the church from active members who are smearing it or from those who have an association with it.

[awyatt]

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

 

I do not know. She moved from the ward within 6 months of the council. She and I remained on very good terms during that time, and I even provided her with assistance a few times during that period. I lost track of her after she moved.

 

-Allen

[why me]

 

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.")

 

 

 

-Allen

Interestingly, teachers are also been taught to soften their words when they are disciplining their students. In britain teachers cannot say to their students that hey are naughty but they can say that they are behaving inappropriately. In other words, words must be softer in meaning and context. I am sure that it is the same in America. In fact, I am sure that we have many young people who may have never experienced discipline in their lives because the parents may consider it emotional abuse. Here are some advice on how to discipline a child these days:

 

 

How can I discipline positively?

 

American Humane encourages parents and other caregivers to use techniques that constitute a positive and appropriate discipline of children, such as:

• Discipline with love
• Listen and communicate
• Focus on the behavior, not the child
• Respond immediately
• Relate the discipline to the offending behavior in duration and severity
• Be realistic
• Remain calm
• Be fair
• Do not harm or injure
• Set boundaries
• Make it a learning opportunity
• Be consistent
• Be creative
• Develop rules and expectations in advance
• Use timeouts
• Reward or praise desirable behaviors
• Model desired behavior
• Encourage the child’s cooperation and understanding
• Develop behavioral contracts and incentive charts

http://www.americanhumane.org/children/stop-child-abuse/fact-sheets/child-discipline.html

 

Seems rather complicated these days. And some people wonder why many children are becoming narcissists?  So, it should be no surprise if those coming up into adulthood or who have experienced such discipline as above may find a church disciplinary court overbearing and emotionally abusive.

     

Back in my day, it was just a good scolding with the voice. And it seemed to do the trick.

Edited July 2, 2014 by why me

[Rain]

I think those suggestions go well with the scriptures and conference talks, though seeing the list together I can see where it seems complicated. I have done a much better job with my younger children using those methods and they behave better and have a better inner sense of doing right than my oldest.

Many of the people that are against all of this are in my generation and were raised more harshly. Then they react and raise children by the anything goes method.

The methods you listed are in the middle of those methods and help a child know he not inherently bad and know that neither are rules a bad thing.

Children raised the first way have more of a tendency to see DCs as harsh. Children raised permissively will see them that way because they were taught things like that are harsh and don't recognize why any discipline would be needed. Children disciplined for their behavior with love will understand why a DC can have much love from those running and will understand that it is their behavior that got them there.

Of course we are always have agency so children don't always react the same way, but over and over I see a pattern in the behavior of people towards the church and how they were disciplined. We just must be careful to not judge and assume parents are doing their best no matter what their style is (unless abusive) and just try to better ourselves as parents.

[USU78]

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.

then the Rotary is a cult and so are the Lions.

[smac97]

then the Rotary is a cult and so are the Lions.

And so is every other secular and sectarian organization that disciplines its members (that is to say, pretty much all of them).

Also, it merits observing that the word "cult" in discussions such as this has no descriptive value except for having a pejorative effect. So "cult" is to "Mormonism" as "Heeb" is to "Jew" or "Raghead" is to "Sikh." It is intended as an derogatory slur, and nothing else.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 2, 2014 by smac97

[awyatt]

USU78:

They aren't cults; they just seem cultish.

Cultish aspersions (or characterizations) aside, Seth is right: The Church, as an organization, can set its own rules for membership. The Church can then decide who meets those rules and doesn't, and it can even make such decisions arbitrarily and apply those decisions inconsistently. In the case of Sister Kelly, it was decided that she broke the rules, so she is out.

That is a very black-and-white stating of what I view as a tragic outcome in the case of Sister Kelly. It does not, however, mean that the Church was outside of its rights or that it did anything improper in exercising those rights in her case.

-Allen

[awyatt]

Also, it merits observing that the word "cult" in discussions such as this has no descriptive value except for having a pejorative effect. So "cult" is to "Mormonism" as "Heeb" is to "Jew" or "Raghead" is to "Sikh." It is intended as an derogatory slur, and nothing else.

I disagree, as the baggage loaded into the word "cult" depends on who is using it. It has sociological meaning, and used properly it is descriptive. Used casually, it is almost always pejorative. (I lay that pejorative baggage at the feet of the Christian counter-cult movement. They are the ones who popularized the term and loaded it with baggage.)

As far as the comparative words are concerned, it doesn't matter who uses them: They are always pejorative slurs, along with dozens of other such epithets.

-Allen

[USU78]

They aren't cults; they just seem cultish.

 

:rofl:

[smac97]

 

Also, it merits observing that the word "cult" in discussions such as this has no descriptive value except for having a pejorative effect. So "cult" is to "Mormonism" as "Heeb" is to "Jew" or "Raghead" is to "Sikh." It is intended as an derogatory slur, and nothing else.

I disagree, as the baggage loaded into the word "cult" depends on who is using it. It has sociological meaning, and used properly it is descriptive.

 

I agree that when "used properly," for its "sociological meaning," it is descriptive. But when it is used "in discussions such as this" it is not being "used properly" for its "sociological meaning."

 

Used casually, it is almost always pejorative. (I lay that pejorative baggage at the feet of the Christian counter-cult movement. They are the ones who popularized the term and loaded it with baggage.)

As a practical matter, online discussions which use the word "cult" to describe the LDS Church do not utilize the term in its sociological sense. Seth, in describing the Church's actions as "very cultish," was not using the dictionary definition of "cult" as "a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies" or "a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols." The phrase "very cultish" was deployed for its pejorative effect, not its sociological meaning.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 2, 2014 by smac97

[daz2]

When I hear the claim that disciplinary councils are loving, kind, supportive, the claim is usually from the one of the people presiding.  I have served in positions where I engaged frequently with people who had been the subject of such councils.  While many of those individuals said the members of the council were loving, they said that the experience itself often was traumatic, brutal and humiliating.  Many felt so discouraged afterwards that they made no attempt to return.  After a period of time, most lost contact with the disciplining individuals--not be virtue of refusing contact, but because the disciplining person may have been released or one or the other moved.  Disciplinary councils can also be traumatic for the innocent--the spouse or children of the person involved.  In my mind, for LDS--where disciplinary councils represent God in terms of the potential to revoke (at least temporarily) God's promises/ordinances/covenants--the councils and sanctions are more akin to jail than merely to merely a change in status.

 

BTW, I have served as a bishop, and sat on many disciplinary councils at the stake and ward levels.  I certainly tried as hard as I could to be loving and supportive and seek God's spirit and inspiration.  I cannot say for sure how they were received by the people who were the subjects.  I know some have returned.  After I was released as bishop, I periodically would hear from the individuals or their subsequent bishops good news.  In one case, the party's spouse joined the church and they were sealed.  

 

Not long before I was called as bishop, I attended a training meeting with Thomas S. Monson and Bruce R. McConkie.  Elder McConkie spoke about disiplinary councils (they were called courts in those days).  He said the objective of a bishop should be to put our arms around the shoulders of the sinner and help them get back onto the right path.  This was true of sexual sin as well as any other. He said, "If you can do that by disfellowshipping rather than excommunicating, then disfellowship.  If you can do that by putting on probation rather that disfellowshipping, then put on probation.  If you can do it without probation, then do so without probation."  The principle he taught was to use the least restrictive or least harsh sanction that would help.

 

I kept that in mind as a bishop.  I also kept in mind the passages in the Book of Mormon that those whose names were erased from the rolls of the church were those who did not repent.  As I read that, it meant that as a general matter, if a person were genuinely penitent and making the necessary changes in his/her life, excommunication might not be warranted or desirable. 

[smac97]

When I hear the claim that disciplinary councils are loving, kind, supportive, the claim is usually from the one of the people presiding.

I have also heard this claim from people who were recipients of discipline.

I have also heard contrary claims (that disciplinary councils are not "loving, kind, supportive") from people who are hostile to the Church and wish to cast it in the worst possible light.

I concede that there can be and occasionally are instances where a disciplinary council is not conducted in the intended manner. However, having personally participated in more than twenty such councils, I can state that each and every one has proceeded with sobriety, kindness, compassion, and love, and that these sentiments have been apparent to all involved persons (including the persons being disciplined).

 

I have served in positions where I engaged frequently with people who had been the subject of such councils.

Same here.

 

While many of those individuals said the members of the council were loving, they said that the experience itself often was traumatic, brutal and humiliating.

These descriptors ("loving, kind, supportive" and "traumatic, brutal and humiliating") are not mutually exclusive. The point and purpose of such councils is to discuss very unpleasant things with the person who did those unpleasant things. Such a discussion will often be "traumatic, brutal and humiliating" simply due to the existence of the unpleasantness of the topic, not because the priesthood leaders conducting the council are behaving in "traumatic, brutal and humiliating" ways. Rather, my experience has been that such councils are conducted with love, kindness, patience, charity, and honesty.

A member of my ward, who is also a personal friend of mine, was recently sentenced to 1-15 years in prison for some very serious crimes to which he had plead guilty. I attended the sentencing hearing, during which some of the details of his crimes were discussed in open court. I observed my friend and saw that he was very distressed. If called upon to describe that hearing, I think he would describe it as "traumatic, brutal and humiliating." However, the judge who conducted the hearing did so with decorum, civility, respect and compassion. The judge discussed the facts of the case, both the thoroughly unpleasant nature of my friend's crimes and the various efforts my friend had been making in the months leading up to the hearing to correct his behavior and make amends. The judge acknowledged these efforts, but then found that the severity of the crimes involved required more than merely parole (which is what my friend had hoped to get). The judge then sentenced him, but then also spent a few minutes giving him counsel and advice regarding what he should do while in prison (be a model prisoner, participate in therapy programs, write to family often, etc.). In other words, the judge treated him with kindness and decency even while in the very act of sentencing him to prison.

I think that many (most?) disciplinary councils are like this, and that priesthood leaders generally conduct such councils with the intent to find the truth, to treat the individual with kindness and love, and to discern the will of God.

 

Many felt so discouraged afterwards that they made no attempt to return.  After a period of time, most lost contact with the disciplining individuals--not be virtue of refusing contact, but because the disciplining person may have been released or one or the other moved.

Yes, logistical and other difficulties may create difficulties in shepherding disciplined individuals back into full fellowship. Insufficient or failed oversight by priesthood leaders can also be a factor. Anger and pride by the person receiving discipline can also be a factor.

 

Disciplinary councils can also be traumatic for the innocent--the spouse or children of the person involved.

Quite true. My friend who was sentenced to prison left a wife and four children behind. The judge knew that when he sentenced my friend to prison. But the judge felt that the nature of my friend's admitted crimes required prison time. Frankly, I have a hard time faulting the judge for that conclusion. I can imagine that the decision to send a married father of four to prison weighed heavily on the judge. I think we can likewise surmise that priesthood leaders in the LDS Church are cognizant of the potential ramifications of disciplinary actions on "the innocent."

 

In my mind, for LDS--where disciplinary councils represent God in terms of the potential to revoke (at least temporarily) God's promises/ordinances/covenants--the councils and sanctions are more akin to jail than merely to merely a change in status.

Yep. The effect of excommunication or other discipline is can be real and discernible. But since LDS disciplinary councils are conducted pursuant to divine decree, that must mean that God wants His Church to discipline its members.

 

BTW, I have served as a bishop, and sat on many disciplinary councils at the stake and ward levels.  I certainly tried as hard as I could to be loving and supportive and seek God's spirit and inspiration.  I cannot say for sure how they were received by the people who were the subjects.  I know some have returned.  After I was released as bishop, I periodically would hear from the individuals or their subsequent bishops good news.  In one case, the party's spouse joined the church and they were sealed.  

 

Not long before I was called as bishop, I attended a training meeting with Thomas S. Monson and Bruce R. McConkie.  Elder McConkie spoke about disiplinary councils (they were called courts in those days).  He said the objective of a bishop should be to put our arms around the shoulders of the sinner and help them get back onto the right path.  This was true of sexual sin as well as any other. He said, "If you can do that by disfellowshipping rather than excommunicating, then disfellowship.  If you can do that by putting on probation rather that disfellowshipping, then put on probation.  If you can do it without probation, then do so without probation."  The principle he taught was to use the least restrictive or least harsh sanction that would help.

 

I kept that in mind as a bishop.  I also kept in mind the passages in the Book of Mormon that those whose names were erased from the rolls of the church were those who did not repent.  As I read that, it meant that as a general matter, if a person were genuinely penitent and making the necessary changes in his/her life, excommunication might not be warranted or desirable.

I think most priesthood leaders approach disciplinary matters this way.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 2, 2014 by smac97

[sethpayne]

And I would expect more than reliance on a weasel word ("seems") and insulting the intelligence of your readers.

 

 

Are you really arguing that there is not a significant difference between the words "seems" or "is/was."?

 

I am consistently amazed and appalled at how individuals who have some association with the Church presume to be at liberty to publicly smear the Church, simply because of that association.

 

-Smac

 

 

Feel free to contact my bishop, Spencer.  

 

I stay in the church despite of attitudes expressed by you

[Scott Lloyd]

I do not know. She moved from the ward within 6 months of the council. She and I remained on very good terms during that time, and I even provided her with assistance a few times during that period. I lost track of her after she moved.

 

-Allen

My heart aches for her. It sounds like she was on a trajectory to come back. I hope that's what happened.

[Calm]

"In britain teachers cannot say to their students that hey are naughty but they can say that they are behaving inappropriately"

And thisis a good idea.

Scoldings as you describe them using words like you are naughty or bad may appear to work to change the undesired behaviour, but they have a lot of unintended consequences. Better to focus purely on the behaviour itself, describe why it is wrong and what will work than emotionally browbeating a child into submission through shame. For those it doesn't work, the issue is more complicated and a scolding isn't going achieve any better results. Unfortunately the approaches that will work will most likely require cooperative parental involvement or more adult supervision, neither option available to most teachers in this situation.

[sethpayne]

And I would expect more than reliance on a weasel word ("seems") and insulting the intelligence of your readers.

You accused the Church of engaging in "very cultish" behavior. We can dispense with the silliness that you didn't really make this accusation because you included a weasel word in it ("seems very cultish" in place of "is very cultish"). We know what you meant. You know it.

 

First, please dispense with including extraneous and gratuitous references to my profession. I have not attempted to demean you by speaking sarcastically or contemptuously of your profession, nor have I referenced my profession as a credential to bolster my views in this thread. I would appreciate a reciprocal effort on your part.

 

Second, see my comments about about what I think about reliance on weasel words.

 

These groups are not religious institutions. I never said they were. But they are communities which regulate the behavior of their voluntary members, hence the comparison.

 

But you could speak to the comparison I was drawing. You are simply choosing not to.

Just wanted to be clear about that.

 

State bar organizations discipline their members all the time.  Nobody accuses them of being "very cultish."  Frankly, that would be a rather bizarre accusation, since the raison d'être of state bar organizations is to regulate the behavior of its members, to establish boundaries between appropriate and inappropriate acts.  Disciplinary proceedings are a necessary part of that.  By way of example: In May I was called to testify at a trial against another attorney who was being sued by the Office of Professional Conduct, the arm of the Utah State Bar tasked with overseeing discipline of attorneys.  I was called as a fact witness to address the alleged misconduct by the other attorney in litigation in 2011 (I was opposing counsel in that litigation).  I found the experience sad and difficult, largely because my testimony was, I think, fairly damning.  However, I am glad the OPC brought the suit, because the misconduct in the 2011 litigation apparently really did happen.  If so, it is the responsibility of the OPC to make sure that attorneys who engage in serious misconduct on appropriately censured, because such regulation helps keep other attorneys in conformity with the Rules of Professional Conduct, and also operates to maintain and improve the reputation and standing of the Bar and its members in the community.  

 

Similarly, one of the Church's many functions is to create a cohesive community of Saints, which necessarily includes some measure of regulating the behavior of its members.  Such regulation helps keep other church members in conformity with the laws and commandments of the Restored Gospel, and also operates to  maintain and improve the reputation and standing of the Churcch and its members in society.  

 

There are other analogies we could discuss.  For example, military organizations discipline their members all the time. Nobody accuses them of being "very cultish" (again, that would be a strange accusation). Military branches exist for specific reasons and to fulfill certain purposes. Those purposes are impaired or defeated when individuals in the military misbehave.  Other religions discipline their members as well. The Pope recently denounced members of a Mafia group, the "’Ndrangheta," stating that they are "the adoration of evil and contempt of the common good," and that "Mafiosi are excommunicated."  Are you going to label this action "very cultish" too?  Or is it just the Mormons that earn that particular slur?

 

I'm not interested in discussing euphemisms. I am interested in your demeaning allegation against the Church for behavior (disciplining its members) that is shared by many, many other organizations. Professional associations, military organizations, the Roman Catholic Church, etc., all of which are generally regarded as venerable in our society, regulate and discipline their respective members. But you have not publicly smeared them. Why? What sort of privilege do you imagine you have to dishonor our faith, simply because you have some association with it?

 

I read it. All three lines of it. I responded to each part of it.

 

You publicly defamed the LDS faith because it disciplines its members, calling this "very cultish," and you provided an alternative proposal (summary expulsion, with no explanation or analysis whatsoever). I found that proposal to be facially untenable, even absurd, so I asked you about it.

 

But if the Church utilizes that process, you will publicly defame it for doing so ("very cultish," remember?).  Meanwhile, my question remains: Many other types of other organizations discipline their members. Do you likewise invoke slurs against them? State bar associations? SAG? The military? Medical boards? The Pope?  Are these all "very cultish" too? Or do you save the vicious invectives for the Mormons alone?

 

Well, let's be clear here. Allen Wyatt asked you if you think disciplinary councils in the LDS Church are "outdated" and should be "done away with." Your response was to insult our faith by describing what it is really a very important, very challenging, and very sacred process as "very cultish" (or, if you prefer to keep the weasel word intact, you said it "seems very cultish"). I then asked for further explanation, and we are now arguing over weasel words instead of addressing Allen Wyatt's question posed to you about the continued use of disciplinary proceedings in the Church. I think is a worthwhile question to ask and have answered, particularly since Latter-day Saints find instructions for disciplinary measures in their scriptures and since you have slurred these measures as "very cultish."

 

No, they couldn't. The disciplinary measures utilized by the Church are not derived from arbitrary whims. There are scriptural mandates, established and tested policies and guidelines, and above all the Spirit and revelation which are all necessary parts of disciplinary proceedings in the Church.  And your assessment of this aspect of the Restored Gospel was to accuse the Church of being "very cultish" (or, if you prefer to maintain usage of the weasel word, you accuse the Church of "seeming" to be "very cultish").

 

No. It's God's organization. God's rules.  That is "pretty straightforward."  And you publicly dishonored what it is really a very important, very challenging, and very sacred process by describing it as "very cultish."

 

I am consistently amazed and appalled at how individuals who have some association with the Church presume to be at liberty to publicly smear the Church, simply because of that association.

 

-Smac

 

I wasn't going to respond to smac's purposely dishonest characterization of my original comments but I think it is important to make a very important point.  Folks on this board know me very well.  They also know I support the Church and encourage folks to remain members as they work through touch questions.  For Spencer to claim that I "smeared" the Church is not just wrongheaded, it is a lie perpetuated so Spencer can continue his rhetorical assaults on .... well frankly, I've lost count of the things Spencer seems stirred up about.

 

Not once did I describe the actions as cultish.  This is a lie by Spencer.  What I claimed is that the processed *seemed* cultish in the context of culture.  One who is not a Mormon and observes this process as an outsider may indeed see the proceedings as cultish.  Outside a Mormon context, the thought of 3 men instructing a women they just excommunicated on her underwear choices certain seems cultish.  

 

To a Mormon insider, of course, we know this is not cultish because it is part of a much larger theological framework.  I would have thought this would be obvious.  Especially to an educated lawyer who relies on precise language as part of his profession.

 

Spencer has deliberately misrepresented my statements.  He lied.   

 

Reminds me of how thankful I am that my immediate family, ward, HTs, stake, etc... accept me and my opinions.  It is unfortunate that a a relative of mine has chosen to lie and deliberately misrepresent my statements for purposes of polemics.  I would have expected better from a Taylor with roots in Colonial Mexico.

[Scott Lloyd]

I wasn't going to respond to smac's purposely dishonest characterization of my original comments but I think it is important to make a very important point.  Folks on this board know me very well.  They also know I support the Church and encourage folks to remain members as they work through touch questions.  For Spencer to claim that I "smeared" the Church is not just wrongheaded, it is a lie perpetuated so Spencer can continue his rhetorical assaults on .... well frankly, I've lost count of the things Spencer seems stirred up about.

 

Not once did I describe the actions as cultish.  This is a lie by Spencer.  What I claimed is that the processed *seemed* cultish in the context of culture.  One who is not a Mormon and observes this process as an outsider may indeed see the proceedings as cultish.  Outside a Mormon context, the thought of 3 men instructing a women they just excommunicated on her underwear choices certain seems cultish.  

 

To a Mormon insider, of course, we know this is not cultish because it is part of a much larger theological framework.  I would have thought this would be obvious.  Especially to an educated lawyer who relies on precise language as part of his profession.

 

Spencer has deliberately misrepresented my statements.  He lied.   

 

Reminds me of how thankful I am that my immediate family, ward, HTs, stake, etc... accept me and my opinions.  It is unfortunate that a a relative of mine has chosen to lie and deliberately misrepresent my statements for purposes of polemics.  I would have expected better from a Taylor with roots in Colonial Mexico.

Seth, I say this with respect and as one of those who recognizes that you do support the Church and that you encourage people to remain in it as they sort through what to them are tough questions.

 

That said, I also had raised eyebrows when I read your initial remark, largely because it seemed unlike you. In the context in which it was made, it seemed like a slur to me as well, and I have to say I interpreted it much as Smac, Pahoran and others have done. The subsequent differentiation between "is" and "seems" struck me as hardly better than doubling down on what you said at first.

 

Only now, as I have read the above explanation, am I coming to a clearer understanding of what you say was your intended meaning.

 

Perhaps it's time we all back off a bit and give one another the benefit of the doubt here.

Edited July 2, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

I wasn't going to respond to smac's purposely dishonest characterization of my original comments but I think it is important to make a very important point.  Folks on this board know me very well.  They also know I support the Church and encourage folks to remain members as they work through touch questions.  For Spencer to claim that I "smeared" the Church is not just wrongheaded, it is a lie perpetuated so Spencer can continue his rhetorical assaults on .... well frankly, I've lost count of the things Spencer seems stirred up about.

 

Not once did I describe the actions as cultish.  This is a lie by Spencer.  What I claimed is that the processed *seemed* cultish in the context of culture.  One who is not a Mormon and observes this process as an outsider may indeed see the proceedings as cultish.  Outside a Mormon context, the thought of 3 men instructing a women they just excommunicated on her underwear choices certain seems cultish.  

 

To a Mormon insider, of course, we know this is not cultish because it is part of a much larger theological framework.  I would have thought this would be obvious.  Especially to an educated lawyer who relies on precise language as part of his profession.

 

Spencer has deliberately misrepresented my statements.  He lied.   

 

Reminds me of how thankful I am that my immediate family, ward, HTs, stake, etc... accept me and my opinions.  It is unfortunate that a a relative of mine has chosen to lie and deliberately misrepresent my statements for purposes of polemics.  I would have expected better from a Taylor with roots in Colonial Mexico.

I have written a private message to Seth and, like Scott, I have revised my assessment of Seth's previous remarks now that he has provided more context for them. I therefore retract my previous criticisms of Seth on this point and apologize to him for the misunderstanding.

Thank you,

-Smac

[Kenngo1969]

[sethpayne] Heck, if they really wanted to they could take action and not even the person know.  [sic; "let the person know"?]

 

 

 

[smac97] No, they couldn't. The disciplinary measures utilized by the Church are not derived from arbitrary whims. There are scriptural mandates, established and tested policies and guidelines, and above all the Spirit and revelation which are all necessary parts of disciplinary proceedings in the Church.  …

 

 

Take this for what it's worth, since it comes with the usual caveat that I'm not a lawyer.  Not only does the Church of Jesus Christ have regular procedures for disciplining its members, it could be held to account (legally, conceivably) for a failure to follow those procedures (including failing to give notice, if that is the usual procedure).  Even churches and private organizations often are subject to at least minimal due process requirements. Members of such organizations often are regarded as having proprietary interests in those memberships and in the benefits such memberships confer.  If an organization were to deprive a member of those interests and benefits without resorting to its usual process for doing so (including providing notice to the member), the organization potentially would open itself up to litigation.

Edited July 2, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[USU78]

 smac's purposely dishonest characterization

 

Mindread much?

[why me]

I know that if I went to the bishop I may be disciplined. So, I don't go. Now if I did go, I know that I would be put on probation, disfellowshipped or excommunicated. I would know what was in store for me. So, why would I find it abusive? I did wrong...and would receive the discipline which I deserved. No problem. One way to avoid the court is to not do something seriously wrong. How should the court treat me? Nicely. with love. with understanding but they will still discipline me. Should I find it all emotionally abusive or just necessary? I would find it necessary and not emotionally abuvise. I know right from wrong and I do know the rules of the game. I did wrong. So, I have been disciplined,

 

Decades ago we all knew this. We all knew that if we did something seriously wrong and confessed our sin, we may would face a punishment and given a way to return. Maybe we were stronger back then and not soft around the edges. And we could take it without feeling emotionally abused.

 

FInally, lets look at this board. We also have discipline on this board. I have been placed on limited because I broke the rules. How should I feel? Emotionally abused? Angry? Misunderstood? Maybe but I broke the rules and was given my sentence. Will I ever be returned to full fellowship on the board. Maybe not. But I knew the rules. Likewise for church discipline. But at least with church discipline there is a way to return, if one wishes to return.

Edited July 3, 2014 by why me