smac97 Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/58191132-180/church-mormon-disciplinary-lds.html.csp Meh. What is this pablum? Peggy does nothing here but speculate about what might happen in the future and ends up saying nothing newsworthy (unless the Trib is now presenting sheer speculation and guesswork by a journalist as "news"). Thanks, -Smac 1
Bikeemikey Posted July 16, 2014 Author Posted July 16, 2014 Meh. What is this pablum? Peggy does nothing here but speculate about what might happen in the future and ends up saying nothing newsworthy (unless the Trib is now presenting sheer speculation and guesswork by a journalist as "news"). Thanks, -Smac Sure... but it is a decent synopsis of the internal church process in determining action in this circumstance. Given that LDS excommunication practices are in the media at present they obviously deemed it newworthy... and it is in the news :-)
Calm Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 Sure... but it is a decent synopsis of the internal church process in determining action in this circumstance. Given that LDS excommunication practices are in the media at present they obviously deemed it newworthy... and it is in the news :-)Have Swallow or Shurtleff ever traded on their LDS status? In the sense they paraded it in public as one of their defying characteristics? If not, I find it extremely inappropriate for reporters to bring up speculation of church discipline. I think it is highly inappropriate when someone digs to find out if some politician is supporting birth control is catholic and then makes news out of speculation on what his priest should do to him.Now if the politician has made an issue of it (essentially trust me because I am of _____ faith) there may be a time when it is appropriate to delve into whether that person is in good standing or not...but I really don't see it in this case at all.
Bikeemikey Posted July 17, 2014 Author Posted July 17, 2014 (edited) Have Swallow or Shurtleff ever traded on their LDS status? In the sense they paraded it in public as one of their defying characteristics? If not, I find it extremely inappropriate for reporters to bring up speculation of church discipline. I think it is highly inappropriate when someone digs to find out if some politician is supporting birth control is catholic and then makes news out of speculation on what his priest should do to him.Now if the politician has made an issue of it (essentially trust me because I am of _____ faith) there may be a time when it is appropriate to delve into whether that person is in good standing or not...but I really don't see it in this case at all. News agencies look at all sort of irrelevant stuff, much of it inappropriate. That said the piece is about the zeitgeist of the moment, that is, the Kate Kelly excommunication. The author is exploiting the (albeit fading) national interest in that event to seek a wider audience for this (contrived) Utah controversy. If Kate Kelly had not just been exed in such a public and national fashion I highly doubt this article would have ever been written. However, given that such a public spectacle was made (by Kate Kelly) of Kate Kelly's excommunication it was almost impossible that the question of church discipline relating to these other members actions would not be raised. It is part of the current mood of the time. The question the piece is addressing is excommunication in the LDS church and the author highlighted all the relevant components and conditions that would need to be met for the Church (based on its own handbook) to consider discipline. And for the sake of clarity, this is not a case of "supporting birth control", the allegations are severe fraud. Fraud is consistently reprehensible regardless of ones religious denomination. Edited July 17, 2014 by Bikeemikey
omni Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 Can you be excommunicated for a crime/sin you insist you never committed? Say for example someone was found guilty at a trial for a serious crime, but maintained their innocence?
Calm Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 I would assume that the leaders would consider the crime findings, could find suspected tampering or political manuvuering or a forced confession and therefore believe the claim of innocence...perhaps evidence thrown out on a technicality.
Calm Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 News agencies look at all sort of irrelevant stuff, much of it inappropriate. That said the piece is about the zeitgeist of the moment, that is, the Kate Kelly excommunication. The author is exploiting the (albeit fading) national interest in that event to seek a wider audience for this (contrived) Utah controversy. If Kate Kelly had not just been exed in such a public and national fashion I highly doubt this article would have ever been written. However, given that such a public spectacle was made (by Kate Kelly) of Kate Kelly's excommunication it was almost impossible that the question of church discipline relating to these other members actions would not be raised. It is part of the current mood of the time. The question the piece is addressing is excommunication in the LDS church and the author highlighted all the relevant components and conditions that would need to be met for the Church (based on its own handbook) to consider discipline. And for the sake of clarity, this is not a case of "supporting birth control", the allegations are severe fraud. Fraud is consistently reprehensible regardless of ones religious denomination.The information should have been attached to Kelly's case where she made the connection in people's eyes, not in these later cases. I think unless someone makes a private aspect of his life part of His PR machine, those aspects of his life...such as where his family attends church, kids go to school, etc, should stay private.
Kenngo1969 Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 (edited) 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. I doubt you meant anything by it, but I do take issue with your language (and no, I'm not a Mark Shurtleff or a John Swallow apologist). "Get rid of them"? That sounds a little too much like the hyperbole Kate Kelly and her acolytes have been using, and nobody is well served by it. While the process does need to play out in a court of law, I have serious reservations about the way Shurtleff and Swallow apparently have conducted themselves. I think they, wittingly or not (if not, then, quite frankly, they're both either not as intelligent or are very much more unlucky than I had previously assumed) have brought the state of Utah, the Attorney General's Office, the legal profession in general, and yes, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, into disrepute. All of that having been said, if the allegations are completely unjust, then what better reason for them to turn to the Savior and His Church to help them carry (and to help them resolve) that burden? If, conversely, the allegations are not unjust and if, indeed, they have merit, what other organization is in a better position to help them repent than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Excommunication isn't about "getting rid of" people. As I said regarding the Kate Kelly affair, it is either the last step out of, or the first step back into, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Whichever one it is is entirely up to the person who has had action taken against his membership. If they were in my Ward and I heard the "Rumor Mill" working overtime, I would tell anyone responsible for feeding it that, just like anyone else, Swallow and Shurtleff deserve their day in Court. Spreading rumors not only isn't the Christian thing to do, it's bad from a legal standpoint, as well, because it poisons the potential jury pool. And, notwithstanding my personal opinions regarding anything they might've done, I would treat them like my brothers ... because they are. Edited July 17, 2014 by Kenngo1969 2
Rain Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 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 being in the handbook was my understanding as well. DH ran into a problem in Washington state. They said excommunicating someone could affect the outcome of a trial if it were known. 2
BCSpace Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 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. I've dealt with several members returning to society from worse crimes such as violent felonies, etc. Some were ex'd, some were not. I'd rather go after those who publically, even from high places, oppose the Church. The reality is that the polticial opponents of Swallow and Shurtleff, playing to their usual strategies, are saying amongst themselves "It doesn't matter if they are innocent or guilty, what matters is the seriousness of the charges". The Utah anti Mormon media is playing off this in hopes of opening a crack against supporters of the doctrine who happen to be Conservatives claiming "It's only fair" because they are angry about KK and are looking for payback.
Stargazer Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 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. A member of my ward murdered a guy using a knife last year. He also wounded two others at the same time, including one of my step-sons. He was tried and convicted of murder and is presently serving time in the Big House. He hasn't been ex'ed yet, and my Bishop didn't seem very anxious to hold a DC about it, either. The guy is not a MP holder, so the Bishop has the authority to do it. If they won't ex a murderer, why do it for such a technical law violation as mis-use of state funds? It's theft, after all, not murder.
Bikeemikey Posted July 17, 2014 Author Posted July 17, 2014 The information should have been attached to Kelly's case where she made the connection in people's eyes, not in these later cases. I think unless someone makes a private aspect of his life part of His PR machine, those aspects of his life...such as where his family attends church, kids go to school, etc, should stay private. While on the one hand I agree with this sentiment I think you might be overplaying the expectation of privacy that public officials and politicians are entitled to, especially in the instance where their behaviour is possibly illegal. That said, it seems obvious to me that this is simply spill over from the excommunication hype from Kate Kelly, something that she did intentionally make public.
Bikeemikey Posted July 17, 2014 Author Posted July 17, 2014 I've dealt with several members returning to society from worse crimes such as violent felonies, etc. Some were ex'd, some were not. I'd rather go after those who publically, even from high places, oppose the Church. The reality is that the polticial opponents of Swallow and Shurtleff, playing to their usual strategies, are saying amongst themselves "It doesn't matter if they are innocent or guilty, what matters is the seriousness of the charges". The Utah anti Mormon media is playing off this in hopes of opening a crack against supporters of the doctrine who happen to be Conservatives claiming "It's only fair" because they are angry about KK and are looking for payback. Do we face some sort of discipline quota that would result us needing to not engage in discipline for some sin just in case someone does something worse and we will be out of discipline credits to use on them? As for those who "oppose" the church. That is likely a matter of some personal interpretation. If two individuals in high political office have been engaging in fraud and other illegal activity my guess is that many would consider such actions to be in opposition to the church. Perhaps to the political motives at play innocence or guilt is not important. However, to the Church this would be very important. It is likely something the church, at least from a PR perspective would have some vested interest in monitoring. Church discipline aside I imagine that if either of these men were called to be a Stake President, or called and announced in General Conference as a new member of the seventy for all the world to see, then there would be some credibility impact to the Church. Not sure what your Anti-mormon comments are about, or the political reference to Conservatives. Not being very familiar with either group in Utah perhaps I am just not in the know.
Bikeemikey Posted July 17, 2014 Author Posted July 17, 2014 A member of my ward murdered a guy using a knife last year. He also wounded two others at the same time, including one of my step-sons. He was tried and convicted of murder and is presently serving time in the Big House. He hasn't been ex'ed yet, and my Bishop didn't seem very anxious to hold a DC about it, either. The guy is not a MP holder, so the Bishop has the authority to do it. If they won't ex a murderer, why do it for such a technical law violation as mis-use of state funds? It's theft, after all, not murder. My understanding is that if the act was conducted by a MP holder/and or a public figure it would be automatic excommunication for murder (and many other crimes). Perhaps the delay is because the member was not a MP holder.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 This waste of time thread is still going? The question asked is not even relevant until after they trial and they are found guilty. 1
mnn727 Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 Seems to make sense. Does anyone know of excommunication action based on criminal activity?Yes, but then one of my callings in the past was to minister to Saints in a local federal prison. (GREAT calling BTW - I loved it)Excommunication is not automatic however. Each case is decided locally by the Bishop or Stake Presidency (through a disciplinary council) 1
thesometimesaint Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 Do you think the same approach ought to be taken for other kinds of criminal action, eg. sexual abuse claims, assualt etc? The appraoch you outlined above is where I intuitively find myself comfortable, though not for all criminal actions. Yes. But I don't get to make the rules. I would not say All criminal actions should warrant such, but serious criminal activity should. IE; Going one or two miles per hour over the posted speed limit? Say going 67 in 65 mph zone. No; that isn't serious enough to warrant Priesthood action. Going 90 miles per hour through a school crossing and hitting a kid. Definitely YES. .
Bikeemikey Posted July 17, 2014 Author Posted July 17, 2014 This waste of time thread is still going? The question asked is not even relevant until after they trial and they are found guilty.Perhaps, though I have to say I believe that there are all number of criminal allegations that warrant immediate inquiry from local church leaders even if a trial has not concluded. For example, if someone in my ward worked in the youth and they were accused of sexual abuse I would want to know the church was not just waiting for the trial conclusion to investigate. Likewise if someone working with ward tithing funds was accused of fraud or embezzlement I would hope a pro active approach was taken rather than a let's see what the court decides.
Bikeemikey Posted July 17, 2014 Author Posted July 17, 2014 Yes. But I don't get to make the rules.I would not say All criminal actions should warrant such, but serious criminal activity should. IE; Going one or two miles per hour over the posted speed limit? Say going 67 in 65 mph zone. No; that isn't serious enough to warrant Priesthood action. Going 90 miles per hour through a school crossing and hitting a kid. Definitely YES. .What about driving 90 miles per hour through a busy school zone and not hitting a kid?Should we only engage ecclesiastically when illegal and irresponsible behavior does result it harm? Or should we act when such behavior might result in harm?Personally I'm uncomfortable with leaving a lot of the decision making process regarding ecclesiastical involvement to a jury and court room... That seems a little backwards in a church where bishops have the gifts of discernment and the added value of a priesthood mantle.
ERayR Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 What we should do is to arduously aggressively question everybody periodically and excommunicate anybody who is even thinking about breaking the law or commandments. 1
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 What we should do is to arduously aggressively question everybody periodically and excommunicate anybody who is even thinking about breaking the law or commandments.I mean seriously this is what would happen if Mike was in charge here. That is basically what he is advocating. "The seriousness of the charge warrants an investigation".
Kenngo1969 Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 A member of my ward murdered a guy using a knife last year. He also wounded two others at the same time, including one of my step-sons. He was tried and convicted of murder and is presently serving time in the Big House. He hasn't been ex'ed yet, and my Bishop didn't seem very anxious to hold a DC about it, either. The guy is not a MP holder, so the Bishop has the authority to do it. If they won't ex a murderer, why do it for such a technical law violation as mis-use of state funds? It's theft, after all, not murder.I understand why you are frustrated. Perhaps a chat with your Stake President is in order? (Or, if not, while I know this is "cold comfort" in the short run, even if neither your Bishop nor your Stake President will take any action, God will not be mocked. I wish you well.
ERayR Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 A member of my ward murdered a guy using a knife last year. He also wounded two others at the same time, including one of my step-sons. He was tried and convicted of murder and is presently serving time in the Big House. He hasn't been ex'ed yet, and my Bishop didn't seem very anxious to hold a DC about it, either. The guy is not a MP holder, so the Bishop has the authority to do it. If they won't ex a murderer, why do it for such a technical law violation as mis-use of state funds? It's theft, after all, not murder. Remember those members who commit offenses worthy of excommunication must go before the judgement bar of Christ in full fellowship, which judgement is one where more is expected.
sunstoned Posted July 18, 2014 Posted July 18, 2014 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. This is slighly condecending and justmental, but I do agree with you.
Kenngo1969 Posted July 18, 2014 Posted July 18, 2014 ... The reality is that the polticial opponents of Swallow and Shurtleff, playing to their usual strategies, are saying amongst themselves "It doesn't matter if they are innocent or guilty, what matters is the seriousness of the charges". ... For clarification, are you including the bipartisan Utah House panel that investigated Swallow and Shurtleff and the bipartisan prosecution team that just filed charges against them among their "political opponents" who allegedly are doing what you describe?
Recommended Posts