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

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

I'm inclined to agree with Bob Crockett on this. It's far too early to be speculating publicly about Church discipline here. The newspaper photo of the teenage daughter of one of the individuals involved embracing her father reminded me that there are innocent people being hurt in all this.

Furthermore, one hears occasionally about news media "feeding frenzies." Such are eclipsed by the social media and grapevine feeding frenzies, which, as frenzies go, are even less responsible, less decent and less professional than the news media kind.

Edited July 18, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[thesometimesaint]

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.

 

Come on you know better than that. At the very minimum that is reckless endangerment, and in some jurisdictions attempted 2nd degree murder.

 

Ecclesiastical authority is fine when it involves church membership. I'm fine with discernment even religious discernment in private matters. However that can not and should not remove the authority of the state to prosecute crime. IE; A member is convicted of a serious crime. The Bishop pronounces him/her innocent. Whom are the members to believe?

[Bikeemikey]

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".

 

There you go again, confusing that process of asking a question with the notion of an underlying agenda. 

 

Does the seriousness of a charge warrant ecclesiastical engagement prior to the completion of a civil or criminal trial? That is an important and difficult question for anyone in a position of religious leadership (not just LDS).

 

It is also not at all what I am advocating for. In fact, so far in this thread I have not intended to advocate for any thing as my feelings on the questions are entirely conflicted.

[Bikeemikey]

Come on you know better than that. At the very minimum that is reckless endangerment, and in some jurisdictions attempted 2nd degree murder.

 

Ecclesiastical authority is fine when it involves church membership. I'm fine with discernment even religious discernment in private matters. However that can not and should not remove the authority of the state to prosecute crime. IE; A member is convicted of a serious crime. The Bishop pronounces him/her innocent. Whom are the members to believe?

 

I never intended to suggest that the State's authority should be removed by religious authority. Quite the opposite. I am saying that, even though I am not really sure how best to answer this issue, I feel that the religious and ecclesiastical authority regarding discipline should NOT be subordinate to the State. 

 

That is to say if there is an issue with a members actions religious action should be totally independent of civil and criminal matters. That is to say the findings of a religious court can, and sometimes should, differ from the findings of the civil and criminal court.

[Bikeemikey]

I'm inclined to agree with Bob Crockett on this. It's far to early to be speculating publicly about Church discipline here. The newspaper photo of the teenage daughter of one of the individuals involved embracing her father reminded me that there are innocent people being hurt in all this.

Furthermore, one hears occasionally about news media "feeding frenzies." Such are eclipsed by the social media and grapevine feeding frenzies, which, as frenzies go, are even less responsible, less decent and less professional than the news media kind.

 

It is fine to avoid specific questions about who should and should not be excommunicated, I think that entirely appropriate.

 

However, it is equally appropriate to take real world events and ask broad-based questions about the limits and scope of our church involvement in members personal actions etc.

 

This thread is not about individuals specifically, rather it is about using this current event to trigger a question about the general framework and scope of church discipline and how our church is currently able or not able to effectively respond to certain sorts of actions taken by members.

[Bikeemikey]

This is slighly condecending and justmental, but I do agree with you.

 

I fully agree with you.

 

Publicly opining that anyone specific individual should be excommunicated is problematic.

 

This thread is about a spectrum of behavior that the church may need to respond to, not about any individual.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

There you go again, confusing that process of asking a question with the notion of an underlying agenda. 

 

Um no. You got it wrong dude. Cause and effect.

[Bikeemikey]

Um no. You got it wrong dude. Cause and effect.

 

Well, I am really simply not understanding what you are meaning then.

 

Cause and effect related to what I have said means what exactly.

 

I thought I had been pretty clear in all my posts but you would not be the first person ive communicated with that has misunderstood what i'm saying... 

 

Judging from you past responses i'm going to assume you will not take up the offer to provide examples in my posts that are indicative of what you are suggesting, but ill offer it anyway.

[thesometimesaint]

I never intended to suggest that the State's authority should be removed by religious authority. Quite the opposite. I am saying that, even though I am not really sure how best to answer this issue, I feel that the religious and ecclesiastical authority regarding discipline should NOT be subordinate to the State. 

 

That is to say if there is an issue with a members actions religious action should be totally independent of civil and criminal matters. That is to say the findings of a religious court can, and sometimes should, differ from the findings of the civil and criminal court.

 

Yes and no.

 

I think the best answer is to let the criminal justice system do its thing first. Have the Church wait until the verdict is found. If innocent there is no harm to those men and if found guilty there is no harm to the Church, other than the temporary slight embarrassment of a couple of Church members doing stupid things.

 

I agree that normally non-serious crime, or only those acts that justify Church action are the prerogative of the Church.

[Scott Lloyd]

This thread is not about individuals specifically, rather it is about using this current event to trigger a question about the general framework and scope of church discipline and how our church is currently able or not able to effectively respond to certain sorts of actions taken by members.

And yet two individuals are named specifically in the thread title in a way that implies they are guilty, this before they have had their day in court.

[Bikeemikey]

And yet two individuals are named specifically in the thread title in a way that implies they are guilty, this before they have had their day in court.

 

Rubbish.

 

There is no implication of either guilt or innocence.

 

Those are two easily identifiable individuals that are in the media that have had accusations brought against them for alleged illegal activity. That is the sole reason they were used.

 

The question is whether the nature of the activity they have been ACCUSED of warrants excommunication, some other form of discipline, or no form of discipline at all and how and when the church should engage.

 

As you can see from the thread there has been a large amount of conversation about the sorts of activity that could warrant discipline and some suggestions as to when discipline from the church would be best timed, and very little conversation about either of the individuals currently facing legal action.

Edited July 18, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Bikeemikey]

Yes and no.

 

I think the best answer is to let the criminal justice system do its thing first. Have the Church wait until the verdict is found. If innocent there is no harm to those men and if found guilty there is no harm to the Church, other than the temporary slight embarrassment of a couple of Church members doing stupid things.

 

I agree that normally non-serious crime, or only those acts that justify Church action are the prerogative of the Church.

 

That all sounds very reasonable.

 

I still think there may be a series of behavior that would warrant more proactive response from the church even while criminal proceedings are under way, though such instances would be limited to things like sexual abuse accusations where there may be danger to children in a ward etc. 

 

I also think that there may be a substantial series of non-discipline action that might be prudent, for example the temporary removal from callings etc while more information is gathered. This sort of non-discipline response would not impact say a temple recommend but could be a prudent middle ground depending on the nature of the criminal allegations etc.

 

And just as waiting to discipline until after a legal process is completed may seem prudent in order to make sure the jury is not biased by church discipline (that is the LDS church excommunicated him so I am more inclined to find him guilty effect) the absence of discipline may have the opposite impact (that is the LDS church opted to not excommunicate him so I am more inclined to find him not-guilty effect). Because of this it may seem that the church should make disciplinary decisions with out regard to the legal proceedings.

 

Also, is it still the case the the Church Handbook encourages ecclesiastical leaders to discourage legal action between members? If the church is still doing this does it change the obligation of the church in the handling of discipline? That is, a party comes to a bishop and claims to have been defrauded by a member. The bishop discourages legal action between the parties. In making this action does the church have an increased obligation to engage in some sort of internal discipline relating to the issue?

[thesometimesaint]

I do try to be reasonable, but like everyone else I don't always succeed. 

 

Sure. There are probable more examples where a more proactive method is the best. I was speaking in more general terms.

 

I do think it is wise to discourage frivolous lawsuits between members. It does promote bad feels between the two parties and encourages "side taking" among other members. The problem comes in when determining what is a frivolous one and when one has well substantiated claims.

[Bikeemikey]

I do try to be reasonable, but like everyone else I don't always succeed. 

 

Sure. There are probable more examples where a more proactive method is the best. I was speaking in more general terms.

 

I do think it is wise to discourage frivolous lawsuits between members. It does promote bad feels between the two parties and encourages "side taking" among other members. The problem comes in when determining what is a frivolous one and when one has well substantiated claims.

 

I was under the impression that the policy was to avoid litigation between members regardless of the merit of the claim? Was the policy of legal avoidance only ever meant to apply to frivolous issues?

[ERayR]

Rubbish.

 

There is no implication of either guilt or innocence.

 

 

Does This Form Of Criminal Activity Warrant Excommunication??

 

Looks like presumption of guilt to me.  Am I reading this wrong?

[Scott Lloyd]

Rubbish.

There is no implication of either guilt or innocence.

The thread title gives their names, then asks a question about "this form of criminal activity" warranting excommunication. There is no caveat about it being only an allegation or accusation at this point, no acknowledgement that it has not yet been established that there was criminal activity, let alone that they perpetrated it. You have in effect convicted them without a trial.

If you meant only for an academic discussion to ensue you could have easily accomplished that without use of names or direct reference to them.

Edited July 18, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The thread title gives their names, then asks a question about "this form of criminal activity" warranting excommunication. There is no caveat about it being only an allegation or accusation at this point, no acknowledgement that it has not yet been established that there was criminal activity, let alone that they perpetrated it. You have in effect convicted them without a trial.

If you meant only for an academic discussion to ensue you could have easily accomplished that without use of names or direct reference to them.

Scott gets it.

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott gets it.

That may be one of the highest compliments to which I could aspire.

[Bikeemikey]

The thread title gives their names, then asks a question about "this form of criminal activity" warranting excommunication. There is no caveat about it being only an allegation or accusation at this point, no acknowledgement that it has not yet been established that there was criminal activity, let alone that they perpetrated it. You have in effect convicted them without a trial.

If you meant only for an academic discussion to ensue you could have easily accomplished that without use of names or direct reference to them.

Your probably correct...

Though as I am sure you are aware this thread has had very little direct reference to those named in the title. It has not been a thread discussing their personal worthiness or any such thing.

Your observation about the title and lack of additional clarity relating to the distinction between being accused vs guilty has merit, I would also expect that you can clearly see that this thread has not been critical of those named and has clearly discussed these concepts in the general.

[Bikeemikey]

Scott gets it.

The opening post stated that the state is currently bringing charges, not that they have been found guiltily or are guilty.

My honest assumption was that those who recognized the names in the thread title would already be aware that no one had been found guilty, rather they had simply been accused.

Part of the questions I was asking included the issue of how the church should deal with people accused of crimes but who had not yet completed trial.

[Calm]

You forgot the all important "alleged" before "criminal activity".

And one would be most likely put on probation, not excommunicated during an investigation into behaviour by church leaders..use of excommunication did make it sound to me like the conclusion about guilt was already drawn in the question.

But you have explained your intent, so no big deal.

[Bikeemikey]

You forgot the all important "alleged" before "criminal activity".

And one would be most likely put on probation, not excommunicated during an investigation into behaviour by church leaders..use of excommunication did make it sound to me like the conclusion about guilt was already drawn in the question.

But you have explained your intent, so no big deal.

:-) ... Thanks!

[Stone holm]

Does This Form Of Criminal Activity Warrant Excommunication??

 

Looks like presumption of guilt to me.  Am I reading this wrong?

Not really. The question relates to the type of illegal activity. So assuming the activity took place, would that warrant excommunication. That may well depend if it brings the name of the Church into disrepute. There are some things which may be illegal, yet not something warranting action. For example, the Church sends undocumented aliens directly to the mission field rather than to the MTC, supposedly so the MTC won't get raided by the Feds. One might conjecture that sending missionaries out who are quite possibly not in the country legally, might be a questionable practice. But surely we wouldn't excommunicate all of the Bishops, Stake Presidents, mission Presidents , and General Authorities involved. So the question is the crimes these two are accused of like that, or do they involve moral transgression?

[Bikeemikey]

Not really. The question relates to the type of illegal activity. So assuming the activity took place, would that warrant excommunication. That may well depend if it brings the name of the Church into disrepute. There are some things which may be illegal, yet not something warranting action. For example, the Church sends undocumented aliens directly to the mission field rather than to the MTC, supposedly so the MTC won't get raided by the Feds. One might conjecture that sending missionaries out who are quite possibly not in the country legally, might be a questionable practice. But surely we wouldn't excommunicate all of the Bishops, Stake Presidents, mission Presidents , and General Authorities involved. So the question is the crimes these two are accused of like that, or do they involve moral transgression?

That's interesting about illegal alien missionaries, that's something I had never thought of.

I agree wih Oakes that some legal actions are not morally appropriate, it also looks like the church believes that some illegal actions are morally appropriate.

For that reason I'm leaning more towards the idea that church discipline should act independent of the legal system, except in the instance where the church reputation is at stake.

[thesometimesaint]

I was under the impression that the policy was to avoid litigation between members regardless of the merit of the claim? Was the policy of legal avoidance only ever meant to apply to frivolous issues?

 

Personally I prefer to let the insurance companies fight it out. That gets to the heart of the problem, frivolousness like beauty is often in eye of the beholder.