WHY is Jeremy Runnels Facing Church Discipline?

[rongo]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

You got me wondering how common disciplinary councils are.  I had imagined them to be very rare, but thinking on it maybe they are more common than I thought.  On average, would someone say, how often do they conduct disciplinary councils?  Anyone know or anyone with experience care to share?

It depends entirely on the disposition of the local leadership. Some areas have "hanging judges," and others don't do much church discipline, even with egregious transgressions. 

I held a lot and had several go to the stake level when I was a bishop the first time. Most of this had to do with people coming to me with things, whereas they hadn't with their previous bishop. I've been a bishop in another ward since May, and we've only had one. We have a lot of people who are currently excommunicated or disfellowshipped, though, from before my time, whom we are working with to rebaptize or reinstate. Maybe all of our fuel is burned up already . . .

I know that my, and my stake president's approach, is very much "Let's get you square with God the right way, so you know everything was on the table and you don't have to worry later about where you stand." In other words, we approach formal church discipline as a good thing, and as the starting point for lasting, complete repentance through priesthood keys.

[Gray]

33 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

You got me wondering how common disciplinary councils are.  I had imagined them to be very rare, but thinking on it maybe they are more common than I thought.  On average, would someone say, how often do they conduct disciplinary councils?  Anyone know or anyone with experience care to share?

We had about 9 in a year in my stake when I was in a position to know about them. But one or two of those were to determine restoration of membership. 

Edited February 12, 2016 by Gray

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

It depends entirely on the disposition of the local leadership. Some areas have "hanging judges," and others don't do much church discipline, even with egregious transgressions. 

I held a lot and had several go to the stake level when I was a bishop the first time. Most of this had to do with people coming to me with things, whereas they hadn't with their previous bishop. I've been a bishop in another ward since May, and we've only had one. We have a lot of people who are currently excommunicated or disfellowshipped, though, from before my time, whom we are working with to rebaptize or reinstate. Maybe all of our fuel is burned up already . . .

I know that my, and my stake president's approach, is very much "Let's get you square with God the right way, so you know everything was on the table and you don't have to worry later about where you stand." In other words, we approach formal church discipline as a good thing, and as the starting point for lasting, complete repentance through priesthood keys.

Thanks.  This reminded me, a couple of years ago I went to a stake meeting with my son, for youth (probably just young men).  I remember the Stake President telling the kids that he has held many disciplinary councils for many men in our stake for chastity failures.  I didn't know anyone, but his language alarmed me. 

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

We had about 9 in a year in my stake when I was in a position to know about them. 

Seems like a lot.  Almost one a month. 

[Tacenda]

http://cesletter.com/lds-church-postpones-court-of-love-against-jeremy-runnells.html

This explains the details for the postponement.  Originally it was to be in March but the SP moved it to the Feb date.  

 

[california boy]

33 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

As an attorney and from a legal prospective, the Church would be absolutely insane to ever record or allow others to record these meetings. Opening itself up to a lot of liability.

What goes on in a church court would be grounds for a lawsuit is a bit disturbing.  If there was such a lawsuit, wouldn't a recording of the meeting be valuable in a court of law to determine what actually happened?  The only reason for not wanting a recording is if something illegal took place and the church did not want any proof of that.  Your response sounds pretty strange

Often times in a disciplinary court, important counsel is given to the person.  I think there would be an upside for the person having such a recording to remind him of the counsel that was given him.  Members who seemed opposed to such a recording gives me great concern on what might be said that would be harmful to the church or the person.  I do agree that both parties should have a recording of the event.  Other than that, I don't see what the problem is.  

[Gray]

56 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Seems like a lot.  Almost one a month. 

Yes, I thought it was a lot too, but I had no context to compare it with. 

Edited February 12, 2016 by Gray

[bluebell]

35 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

In a digital age, there should be no problem with keeping and maintaining such records.

We have a huge hole in a mountain devoted to storing a lot of records, if I recall. 

True, but we all know that digital records are probably just as easy (if not more so) to access illegally than physical records.  Regardless though, the question isn't whether or not it can be done, but whether or not the extra risk and work involved is worth the payout.  It seems reasonable if the church has decided it's not.

Quote

 

In my opinion, the only person with a "right to confidentiality" in the council is the person being disciplined.

Nobody else who participates has any "right to confidentiality."

In fact, making a record of the proceedings would tend to curb unwarranted excesses from any such others.

 

If someone is a part of a discussion or conversation that is itself confidential, then all parties should have the same expectation of keeping everything that is said confidential.  It's not fair to expect people not to talk about what you said or what has been said about you, for example, while freely sharing everything they said.   It creates a double standard.

 

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

What goes on in a church court would be grounds for a lawsuit is a bit disturbing.    

I'm guessing any attempt to sue (that MM was talking about in regards to recordings be kept) would be on grounds of libel or slander should confidentiality be broken in a way the person didn't want or later regretted.

Not because something illegal took place during the disciplinary council.

But hopefully MM will clarify.

[ALarson]

29 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

http://cesletter.com/lds-church-postpones-court-of-love-against-jeremy-runnells.html

This explains the details for the postponement.  Originally it was to be in March but the SP moved it to the Feb date.  

 

Thanks for the addition information.  Here's a copy of his statement:

 

Quote

 

Disciplinary Court Update - 2.11.16 @ 2:45pm

 

I received an email this morning from my Stake President, Mark Ivins, indicating that the disciplinary council has been postponed until March 2016 - it will not take place on Valentine's Day. I'm pleased that I and everyone else involved, including the high council, will be able to spend time with our loved ones on a day set aside for commemorating love.

I'm somewhat confused and surprised by this news, however, because President Ivins and I had originally agreed upon a March date to accommodate my situation with a family member in hospice care. He contradicted this agreement by moving the date up, with a simple explanation that there was "additional information" that required it.

But now, after the press release, press conference, media interviews and tremendous reaction/response on social media, he is willing to move it back to the original date. I don't want to suggest that this is all his fault - I realize that the source of this "additional information" may be instructing him on what to do.

Regardless, I wish to express gratitude to President Ivins for his offer to hold an informal meeting in March before any disciplinary court to explain to me exactly what the charges are and why disciplinary action is being taken against me. I still do not know what the charges are or why any disciplinary action is needed or necessary.

Keep calm and carry on,
Jeremy

 

 

[bluebell]

It's hard to believe that he doesn't know why action is needed or is being taken. 

[california boy]

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm guessing any attempt to sue (that MM was talking about in regards to recordings be kept) would be on grounds of libel or slander should confidentiality be broken in a way the person didn't want or later regretted.

Not because something illegal took place during the disciplinary council.

But hopefully MM will clarify.

 

Well as you know, anyone can sue for anything they want.  If there was a recording, there would be a facutal record of what actually occured rather than a he said, she said situation.  Wouldn't the truth be the main concern of the church if such a court case arise?  A recording would leave little doubt of what actually happened.  

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's hard to believe that he doesn't know why action is needed or is being taken. 

It's weird, though, if he hasn't been told what the charges are.  I'd expect the charges to be said when he was notified of the intent of a court. 

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

 

Well as you know, anyone can sue for anything they want.  If there was a recording, there would be a facutal record of what actually occured rather than a he said, she said situation.  Wouldn't the truth be the main concern of the church if such a court case arise?  A recording would leave little doubt of what actually happened.  

If a person sues because of libel or slander, it would likely be the existence of the recording that would cause the case. 

Besides that, there probably isn't much he said/she said in a DC because there are so many witnesses who can testify to what occurred. 

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It's weird, though, if he hasn't been told what the charges are.  I'd expect the charges to be said when he was notified of the intent of a court. 

I thought I read that the charge was "apostasy".  Maybe he just wants more specifics, but I honestly can't believe that he doesn't understand why he'd be charged with this.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It's weird, though, if he hasn't been told what the charges are.  I'd expect the charges to be said when he was notified of the intent of a court. 

Yes I would assume the letter spoke of apostasy or something like that. 

Did Runnels not release the letter itself?

[stemelbow]

Just now, ALarson said:

I thought I read that the charge was "apostasy".  Maybe he just wants more specifics, but I honestly can't believe that he doesn't understand why he'd be charged with this.

In that message above dated yesterday he said he didn't know what the charges are.  I'm sure you're right about what the intent is.  Maybe they just expect him to assume the charge. 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Yes I would assume the letter spoke of apostasy or something like that. 

Did Runnels not release the letter itself?

Don't know and with that I have already lost interest.  If he's been told then I dont' know why he's telling us or whoever he's messaging above that he doesn't know. 

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Besides that, there probably isn't much he said/she said in a DC because there are so many witnesses who can testify to what occurred. 

And, 99%+ of disciplinary councils are based on the voluntary confession and cooperation of the member, with no further witnesses.

[stemelbow]

Just now, rongo said:

And, 99%+ of disciplinary councils are based on the voluntary confession and cooperation of the member, with no further witnesses.

CFR or rather how do you know? 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

And, 99%+ of disciplinary councils are based on the voluntary confession and cooperation of the member, with no further witnesses.

True. I was speaking about the witnesses of the people present at the council though. 

The nature of councils is that when it comes down to what happens during the actual disciplinary council, it's never one person's word against another because there are always more than two people present.

 

[rongo]

Anecdotal experience. 100% of mine have been voluntary confession without witnesses. None of the facts in dispute.

I know some will say that you can't extrapolate a general trend from my own experience, but I guarantee that this is the experience of other priesthood leaders. Cases with requested witnesses to refute claims are very rare (but it would be interesting if it happened. And they do happen, I'm sure, but it would make it so that the leaders would need to tread lightly and make extra sure in a "he said-he said-she said" scenario). 

Can I answer your CFR with statistical studies? Of course not.

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, rongo said:

Anecdotal experience. 100% of mine have been voluntary confession without witnesses. None of the facts in dispute.

Same here (I have participated in, I'd say, around 35 disciplinary councils).

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If a person sues because of libel or slander, it would likely be the existence of the recording that would cause the case. 

Besides that, there probably isn't much he said/she said in a DC because there are so many witnesses who can testify to what occurred. 

Also, a defamation claim would require a showing that the published statement was false.  Disciplinary councils generally do not involve accusations by the Church that are "defamatory" in the legal sense.

And then there's the whole "Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine" that would, I suspect, eliminate any such legal claim even before it got out of the starting gate.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

49 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well as you know, anyone can sue for anything they want.  If there was a recording, there would be a facutal record of what actually occured rather than a he said, she said situation.  Wouldn't the truth be the main concern of the church if such a court case arise?  A recording would leave little doubt of what actually happened.  

I think many people would be very reluctant to have disciplinary councils recorded.  Very reluctant.  I don't blame them for that at all.  These are very private, very sacred matters.  

A written record is kept, which is sufficient for the Church's purposes.  And if the purpose of such a suggestion is to prepare for anticipated litigation, that seems rather farfetched.  Such lawsuits are extraordinarily rare.  And to my knowledge, none has ever succeeded against the LDS Church.  LDS disciplinary councils are ill-suited to give rise to the prima facie elements of a defamation claim.  And then there are the First Amendment and Ecclesiastical Abstention issues to address.

There really is no legitimate need to record a disciplinary council.  And since it is a meeting convened by the Church, the Church gets to decide what does and does not happen there.

Thanks,

-Smac