John Swallow & Mark Shurtleff - Does This Form Of Criminal Activity Warrant Excommunication??

[Bikeemikey]

Here is a link to the most recent Fox 13 update: http://fox13now.com/2014/07/15/former-utah-attorneys-general-swallow-shurtleff-arrested/

 

My question is about whether this level of cimrinal action (looks like the State finally has a case to bring) would normally warrant ex-communication in the church. Does anyone have any experience or feedback on this?

 

Cheers.

[stemelbow]

We've been told that that determination rests squarely on the shoulders of their local leaders.  We shouldn't judge that. 

 

With that said, yes. I don't know these two but if they are shedding any negative light on the Kingdom because of bad stuff they ddi, then we need to get rid of them quickly.  Might as well, lest we see some negative impact on us.  If they are innocent then Heavenly Father will bless them accordingly.  But we need to take every precaution. 

[Bikeemikey]

We've been told that that determination rests squarely on the shoulders of their local leaders.  We shouldn't judge that. 

 

With that said, yes. I don't know these two but if they are shedding any negative light on the Kingdom because of bad stuff they ddi, then we need to get rid of them quickly.  Might as well, lest we see some negative impact on us.  If they are innocent then Heavenly Father will bless them accordingly.  But we need to take every precaution. 

 

So you think act even prior to the final determination of a trail? Or wait for a trail verdict and then act if necessary?

Edited July 15, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Storm Rider]

If there is cause the local authorities will interview them and then choose appropriate actions.  If there is a C D court then we will never hear about it unless they talk to the media.  Neither of them seems to want to use the media to meet their own ends; thus, I suspect we will never hear about. 

[Duncan]

If there is cause the local authorities will interview them and then choose appropriate actions.  If there is a C D court then we will never hear about it unless they talk to the media.  Neither of them seems to want to use the media to meet their own ends; thus, I suspect we will never hear about. 

 

 

them's my sentiments

[Bikeemikey]

them's my sentiments

 

Seems to make sense.

 

Does anyone know of excommunication action based on criminal activity?

[stemelbow]

So you think act even prior to the final determination of a trail? Or wait for a trail verdict and then act if necessary?

I meant that tongue in cheek. I really have no opinion about whether they are guilty or whether they should be ex'd.

Generally speaking I'm not sure I find the idea of excommunication all that comfortable as a whole.

[smac97]

A few thoughts:

1. I concur with Stemelbow's comment about excommunication or discipline in any particular case not being within our province to determine. This is a matter best left for the local leaders of accused individuals. With respect, I disagree with Stemelbow's subsequent statement of "with that said," these men should be excommunicated. If excommunication of particular individuals is not within our province to determine, then I also do not think we should publicly speculate or offer opinions on the matter.

2. The title of this thread presumes the guilt of John Swallow and Mark Shurtleff. They have only been charged with crimes, not found guilty of them.

3. There is a three-fold purpose to church discipline: A) Save the Souls of Transgressors, B) Protect the Innocent and C) Safeguard the Integrity of the Church.

4. Church discipline is normally not necessary for the following:

• Failure to Comply with Some Church Standards (WoW, Porn, non-payment of tithing, inactivity in the Church, etc.);
• Business Failures or Nonpayment of Debts;
• Civil Disputes (property rights or other civil controversies);
• Transgressions committed a long time ago.

5. Church discipline may be necessary for the following:

• Serious transgression against morality (attempted murder, rape, sexual abuse, spouse abuse, intentional physical injury to others, adultery, fornication, homosexual relations, abandonment of family, robbery, burglary, theft, embezzlement, sale of illegal drugs, fraud, perjury);
• Abortion;
• Transsexual operation.

As to the first bullet point, note that some crimes are referenced, but not all. I should note that there are many types of conduct which have been designated "crimes" but which seem to lack a significant moral component. Exceeding the speed limit, for example, is a crime, but nobody would seriously suggest that a Church member be disciplined for that. So if a Church member is accused and convicted of a crime, I think local leaders would look to the nature of the crimes to see if discipline would be appropriate.

6. Church discipline is mandatory for murder, incest, child abuse, apostasy, "serious transgression" while holding a prominent Church position, predatory behavior, pattern of serious transgressions, or serious transgression that is widely known.

7. John Swallow is accused of mishandling public monies, which may be akin to the "serious transgression that is widely known" mandating discipline, or else a "serious transgression" where discipline may be necessary. John Swallow is also charged with making "false or inconsistent statements," which may be akin to perjury (see #5 above). Again, John Swallow has not been convicted of any of this, and even if he is convicted, it will be the province of his local leaders to determine what, if any, discipline is appropriate.

8. While I am saddened at the impact these events will have on these men and their families, I am gratified that the State of Utah is earnestly investigating these matters. Misconduct by persons in high political office (the AG, no less), if left unaddressed or swept under the rug (such as we seem to be witnessing happening a lot at the federal level - Lois Lerner, for example), will significantly erode public confidence in and respect for elected leaders and the government. Ignoring misconduct by government actors also encourages further misconduct by other government actors, who will think they can get away with it. Imagine how carefully Sean Reyes, Utah's current AG, must be behaving now that he is seeing what is happening to his predecessors. Hopefully other government employees will also take notice.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 15, 2014 by smac97

[Tacenda]

I remember hoping Shurtleff would do more with the FLDS crimes against women and children, and was really disappointed that not much was done.  And now this. 

[stemelbow]

A few thoughts:

1. I concur with Stemelbow's comment about excommunication or discipline in any particular case not being within our province to determine. This is a matter best left for the local leaders of accused individuals. With respect, I disagree with Stemelbow's subsequent statement of "with that said," these men should be excommunicated. If excommunication of particular individuals is not within our province to determine, then I also do not think we should publicly speculate or offer opinions on the matter.

I tried to locate the emoticon wherein it depicts a smiley guy with a tongue clearly and firmly planted in the cheek, but alas I did not. I agree with my first statement and the next was meant to come off as silly or something.

[mfbukowski]

Sigh. More local news on an international (hopefully) board.

 

In my experience it will be up the the local leaders after the trial.  It is not a crime to be accused of anything no matter how "bad" it looks.

 

I understand everyone here beats their wives so all men on this thread must be excommunicated.

 

(My point is that until something is proven, it's just gossip even if it creates a media circus)

Edited July 15, 2014 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

Does anyone have any experience or feedback on this?

I've gotten away with it a few times.

[Bob Crockett]

Sorry to be a nanny, and you can throw me off the thread and it won't hurt my feelings, but publicly and anonymously opining that somebody ought to be exed does not demonstrate a lot of moral fortitude.  

[LoudmouthMormon]

I have been following this a little bit.  John Swallow was in my wife's ward a long time ago.  He once helped us out pro bono by writing a lawerly letter to folks bugging us.  My wife had other dealings with him, and speaks positively about him.  

 

Then a decade and a half went by, we moved out of state, and now we see this on the news.  I'm saddened.  Being totally out of the loop on this, my hope is to see justice done, whatever justice looks like here, and leave it at that. 

 

 

Does anyone know of excommunication action based on criminal activity?

 

Yes.  I once notified a Bishop and stake president about the child sexual abuse conviction of one of their flock.  I knew one of the victims.  I heard back some months later that the result was excommunication.  The stake president called me personally to thank me for the information, and said he hoped that hearing news of his excommunication would help the victim heal. 

[stemelbow]

Sorry to be a nanny, and you can throw me off the thread and it won't hurt my feelings, but publicly and anonymously opining that somebody ought to be exed does not demonstrate a lot of moral fortitude.

That's absurd. But for some reason I agree.

[Calm]

Given the view many Utahns have about church discipline any action will probably delayed so as not to influence the outcome of the investigation and trial (if it goes that far). I believe this is mentioned in the handbook as a guideline.

Edited July 15, 2014 by calmoriah

[Brian 2.0]

If there is cause the local authorities will interview them and then choose appropriate actions. If there is a C D court then we will never hear about it unless they talk to the media. Neither of them seems to want to use the media to meet their own ends; thus, I suspect we will never hear about.

If they are putting negative light on the church then wouldn't we hear about a disciplinary action if it happens?

In situations where "protecting the flock" or "the name of the church" is one of the reasons for excommunication, what purpose would the action have if the church did not announce it? No one would know about this person the church just ex'd to protect the flock or the name of the church, meaning it would have very little of the intended effect.

[Storm Rider]

If they are putting negative light on the church then wouldn't we hear about a disciplinary action if it happens?

In situations where "protecting the flock" or "the name of the church" is one of the reasons for excommunication, what purpose would the action have if the church did not announce it? No one would know about this person the church just ex'd to protect the flock or the name of the church, meaning it would have very little of the intended effect.

 

An DC is only between the member of the responsible priesthood leadership.  The Church never announces that it is hold a court on a specific member; it is a private matter.  The only way we hear about such things is if the person involved chooses to announce it.  That was one of the reasons some reacted badly to Ms. KK who felt that it has not stopped being an overwhelming need for her to talk about.  The Church's primary objective is not to protect the flock, but to call an individual to repentance.  

 

I think what you are talking about is when an individual attempts to openly lead members astray through various methods.  Is it their disobedience that leads to a DC or is it the fact they are attacking the Church and the membership?  I tend to always think of the individual's eternal welfare first and then all other things second.  I think you will find most leadership to be in line with that thinking also. 

[Calm]

A court itself may not be announced, but at times disfellowshipping or excommunications are announced I believe. Sometimes this is necessary to protect members and others.

[Bikeemikey]

Smac97...

 

Thanks for you thoughts.

[LoudmouthMormon]

In situations where "protecting the flock" or "the name of the church" is one of the reasons for excommunication, what purpose would the action have if the church did not announce it? No one would know about this person the church just ex'd to protect the flock or the name of the church, meaning it would have very little of the intended effect.

Consider the case of an excommunicated child abuser.  The flock is protected because the abuser won't be given a calling with the youth.  The name of the church is protected because nobody can say "I hear the mormons took that guy and made him cubmaster".  Effective, even though the church does not announce the excommunication.  Right?  

 

Consider the case of a roving predator.  Guys who show up, charm everyone to gain trust, then skip town when their nefarious deeds are discovered, popping up again a county or state away.  It doesn't matter how much an excommunication is announced to the congregation of the last victim, the new congregation won't have heard about it.  It's not like clerk's offices keep records of all convicted felons.

 

This flock and good name protection can extend even if the ex'd member is rebaptized later.  For serious felonies, a permanent annotation can be made to a member's record, which (I think) only a bishop sees.  

[Bikeemikey]

Sorry to be a nanny, and you can throw me off the thread and it won't hurt my feelings, but publicly and anonymously opining that somebody ought to be exed does not demonstrate a lot of moral fortitude.  

 

Has some one done that?

 

Off with their heads.

 

Also, I think you would make a great nanny, but should do so unapologetically.

[Bikeemikey]

I have been following this a little bit.  John Swallow was in my wife's ward a long time ago.  He once helped us out pro bono by writing a lawerly letter to folks bugging us.  My wife had other dealings with him, and speaks positively about him.  

 

Then a decade and a half went by, we moved out of state, and now we see this on the news.  I'm saddened.  Being totally out of the loop on this, my hope is to see justice done, whatever justice looks like here, and leave it at that. 

 

 

 

Yes.  I once notified a Bishop and stake president about the child sexual abuse conviction of one of their flock.  I knew one of the victims.  I heard back some months later that the result was excommunication.  The stake president called me personally to thank me for the information, and said he hoped that hearing news of his excommunication would help the victim heal. 

 

Thanks for sharing your experience. I have seen instances of excommunication about criminal activity relating to sexual actions, but never around stuff like fraud. Have you seen disciplinary action around non-sex based crimes before (fraud, exthortion etc)? 

 

Maybe it is just not common for LDS to be criminal, that would be good news.

[Bikeemikey]

Given the view many Utahns have about church discipline any action will probably delayed so as not to influence the outcome of the investigation and trial (if it goes that far). I believe this is mentioned in the handbook as a guideline.

 

That is an interesting thought.

 

Although it seems that excommunication would be more likely to influence the investigation in areas with high LDS populations (Utah would count). How else would church discipline influence an investigation?

[Bikeemikey]

A court itself may not be announced, but at times disfellowshipping or excommunications are announced I believe. Sometimes this is necessary to protect members and others.

 

That has been my experience with the implementation of disciplinary action as well.