Church Disciplinary Councils Regarding Disputes Between Members

[Meadowchik]

Hey, I'm looking for a little more information on this topic.  On Sunday, our bishop pulled my husband and I aside to update us on our fellow ward member who is also our tenant and neighbor.  

I've previously mentioned the problems we had with them in a thread here last Spring--along with a comment here and there when my experience seem to inform another topic--and the problems with them have gotten progressively worse since.

The neighbor has requested a hearing from the Stake President about our dispute.  Our families have already been to voluntary mediation through the public courts and we've also met with the bishop more than once, we've also felt compelled to report (what we thought was) criminal activity on their part because it appeared they had entered a part of our property that they were not allowed to enter, which was locked, and when they had not been given a key.

Anyways, the bishop says that the Stake President leaves it up to the bishop about whether to hold a council with the neighbor us.  The bishop says he will talk to his counselors first before deciding, but he emphasized to us that if there was a council, he believes it will not go well at all for our neighbor.

The issue I have with this is that, if the Bishop believes that our neighbor's request is just another expression of his neurotic behavior, how could it be helpful to enable those thought processes?  How could it help to let the neighbor believe he'll be attending a council against us when the bishop clearly intends to expose the neighbor's narcissism?

I just cannot see this going well.  The man is sick and mentally unstable.

So, what are the policies and reasons for bishop councils intended to solve member disputes?

Thoughts, Advice?  Thanks!

Edited March 29, 2016 by Meadowchik

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Hey, I'm looking for a little more information on this topic.  On Sunday, our bishop pulled my husband and I aside to update us on our fellow ward member who is also our tenant and neighbor.  I mentioned the problems we had with them last Spring, and the problems with them have gotten progressively worse since.

The neighbor has requested a hearing from the Stake President about our dispute.  Our families have already been to voluntary mediation through the public courts and we've also met with the bishop more than once, we've also felt compelled to report (what we thought was) criminal activity on their part because it appeared they had entered a part of our property that they were not allowed to enter, which was locked, and when they had not been given a key.

Anyways, the bishop says that the Stake President leaves it up to the bishop about whether to hold a council with the neighbor us.  The bishop says he will talk to his counselors first before deciding, but he emphasized to us that if there was a council, he believes it will not go well at all for our neighbor.

The issue I have with this is that, if the Bishop believes that our neighbor's request is just another expression of his neurotic behavior, how could it be helpful to enable those thought processes?  How could it help to let the neighbor believe he'll be attending a council against us when the bishop clearly intends to expose the neighbor's narcissism?

I just cannot see this going well.  The man is sick and mentally unstable.

So, what are the policies and reasons for bishop councils intended to solve member disputes?

Thoughts, Advice?  Thanks!

I know that my Bishop would be willing to counsel with both sides of any dispute between 2 members of our ward, but unless one side has done something that makes it necessary to actually hold a disciplinary court, none would be held.

Did your Bishop actually state that your neighbor wanted a court to be held?  Or just that he will hold "a council" where he tries to help both sides work through the issue?  IMO, there's a difference.  

.

Edited March 29, 2016 by ALarson

[ksfisher]

I've never heard of anything like this.  This sounds like a civil disput to me and as far as I'm aware being involved in a civil dispute, even between church members, is not grounds for a disciplinary council.  I would have to go and read to appropriate section of handbook 1 to know for sure though.

[Meadowchik]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I know that my Bishop would be willing to counsel with both sides of any dispute between 2 members of our ward, but unless one side has done something that makes it necessary to actually hold a disciplinary court, none would be held.

Did you Bishop actually state that your neighbor wanted a court to be held?  Or just that he will hold "a council"?

The term in French he used is "commission," so I do not know. We've already had mediation with the Bishop, but this time, the Bishop said we would each be allowed one witness and his counsellors would attend.

The bishop also said the wives need not overstress themselves by attending, but I do not think I would agree to that. The majority of our exchanges have been through me so imo it is necessary that I am there.

Edited March 29, 2016 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

6 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I've never heard of anything like this.  This sounds like a civil disput to me and as far as I'm aware being involved in a civil dispute, even between church members, is not grounds for a disciplinary council.  I would have to go and read to appropriate section of handbook 1 to know for sure though.

I believe the neighbour will relaunch his accusations that we are being harmful, unkind, unChristlike,...as he has done so in the past when we disagreed about the heating.

[Duncan]

if the person is doing criminal activity like running a hoor house or drugs or funnymoney or illegal stuff then for sure the Police need to be involved. You aren't responsible for their behaviour or outcomes of their actions so don't feel guilty or anything. 

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The term in French he used is "commission," so I do not know. We've already had mediation with the Bishop, but this time, the Bishop said we would each be allowed one witness and his counsellors would attend.

The bishop also said the wives need to overstress themselves by attending, but I do not think I would agree to that. The majority of our exchanges have been through me so imo it is necessary that I am there.

That's odd (IMO).  Are there any "charges" that have been brought (against you or your neighbor) as a reason to hold this "commission" (which really sounds like a court procedural wise)?

I'd ask the Bishop where it states in the handbook that this type of procedure can be held (where there are witnesses, etc.) unless there is a specific charge or reason for discipline.  I think a process has to be followed when holding disciplinary actions and it looks to me, that those are not being followed here. 

I'd ask for more details.  (Sorry you're going through this!)

Edited March 29, 2016 by ALarson

[CA Steve]

If there is any chance mental illness is involved, I strongly advise against any sort of non-professional involvement.

[Boanerges]

I've not heard of such a thing either, although sitting down in a council together is different from a disciplinary council. From your description of what the bishop said, this doesn't really sound like sitting down in a council together.

That said, I would neither involve the church nor be involved with the church in the matter - and I would feel the same were I the bishop. This sounds much more like a civil matter, and apparently you have been that route. If there is illegal activity going on involve the police. If the other party wishes to meet with the bishop or SP, that's their prerogative.

[Meadowchik]

12 minutes ago, Duncan said:

if the person is doing criminal activity like running a hoor house or drugs or funnymoney or illegal stuff then for sure the Police need to be involved. You aren't responsible for their behaviour or outcomes of their actions so don't feel guilty or anything. 

The only ptentially criminal thing was him opening the locked door, but the police determined we could not press charges due to the (legally) unclear nature of who has rights to that part of the property.

[Meadowchik]

15 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That's odd (IMO).  Are there any "charges" that have been brought (against you or your neighbor) as a reason to hold this "commission" (which really sounds like a court procedural wise)?

I'd ask the Bishop where it states in the handbook that this type of procedure can be held (where there are witnesses, etc.) unless there is a specific charge or reason for discipline.  I think a process has to be followed when holding disciplinary actions and it looks to me, that those are not being followed here. 

I'd ask for more details.  (Sorry you're going through this!)

Thanks. His counsellors are older and more experienced (than both he and the stake pres) so maybe they'll help him understand the policy of there is a discrepancy.

I assume our neighbour is "charging " that we're bad people, essentially. Dishonest, selfish,... etc, if he repeats himself.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The only ptentially criminal thing was him opening the locked door, but the police determined we could not press charges due to the (legally) unclear nature of who has rights to that part of the property.

Have you tried to evict them? (Sorry, I don't know the history here.)  They just sound like trouble and also potentially dangerous.

[ttribe]

I'm aware of Church leadership being involved in addressing certain disputes between/among members.  In fact, I'm aware of an ongoing one involving a relatively high-profile family in my area in which two members of the Q12 have been very involved in trying to get a resolution running parallel to the ongoing civil battle.  That being said, the potential mental illness issue here is the real problem, in my opinion.  I believe this is all happening in Belgium or France, correct?  I'm unfamiliar with their social programs for mental illness and their dispute resolution processes both inside and outside of the court system.  The mental illness element creates a wildcard factor that I don't think local Church leadership is likely to be equipped to handle.

Edited March 29, 2016 by ttribe

[Guest]

55 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Hey, I'm looking for a little more information on this topic.  On Sunday, our bishop pulled my husband and I aside to update us on our fellow ward member who is also our tenant and neighbor.  I mentioned the problems we had with them last Spring, and the problems with them have gotten progressively worse since.

The neighbor has requested a hearing from the Stake President about our dispute.  Our families have already been to voluntary mediation through the public courts and we've also met with the bishop more than once, we've also felt compelled to report (what we thought was) criminal activity on their part because it appeared they had entered a part of our property that they were not allowed to enter, which was locked, and when they had not been given a key.

Anyways, the bishop says that the Stake President leaves it up to the bishop about whether to hold a council with the neighbor us.  The bishop says he will talk to his counselors first before deciding, but he emphasized to us that if there was a council, he believes it will not go well at all for our neighbor.

The issue I have with this is that, if the Bishop believes that our neighbor's request is just another expression of his neurotic behavior, how could it be helpful to enable those thought processes?  How could it help to let the neighbor believe he'll be attending a council against us when the bishop clearly intends to expose the neighbor's narcissism?

I just cannot see this going well.  The man is sick and mentally unstable.

So, what are the policies and reasons for bishop councils intended to solve member disputes?

Thoughts, Advice?  Thanks!

Never heard of such a thing, Bishops and Stake President are flawed men who deal with the struggles as any other men. Unless you are they are not being totally honest the worst that should happen is taken TempleRecommends for a time. Otherwise get a lawyer to settle this independent of the Church. As long as I served in the Bishopric I have never read or heard of such a thing. I have two friends who are going through the same thing and neither one is facing such a thing. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Hey, I'm looking for a little more information on this topic.  On Sunday, our bishop pulled my husband and I aside to update us on our fellow ward member who is also our tenant and neighbor.  I mentioned the problems we had with them last Spring, and the problems with them have gotten progressively worse since.

The neighbor has requested a hearing from the Stake President about our dispute.  Our families have already been to voluntary mediation through the public courts and we've also met with the bishop more than once, we've also felt compelled to report (what we thought was) criminal activity on their part because it appeared they had entered a part of our property that they were not allowed to enter, which was locked, and when they had not been given a key.

Anyways, the bishop says that the Stake President leaves it up to the bishop about whether to hold a council with the neighbor us.  The bishop says he will talk to his counselors first before deciding, but he emphasized to us that if there was a council, he believes it will not go well at all for our neighbor.

The issue I have with this is that, if the Bishop believes that our neighbor's request is just another expression of his neurotic behavior, how could it be helpful to enable those thought processes?  How could it help to let the neighbor believe he'll be attending a council against us when the bishop clearly intends to expose the neighbor's narcissism?

I just cannot see this going well.  The man is sick and mentally unstable.

So, what are the policies and reasons for bishop councils intended to solve member disputes?

Thoughts, Advice?  Thanks!

I had thought the holding of Church councils for such things was a practice that faded prior to the dawn of the 20th century.

[Meadowchik]

45 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

If there is any chance mental illness is involved, I strongly advise against any sort of non-professional involvement.

The bishop says that at minimum his addiction to doctor-prescribed morphine is inducing mental illness.

I agree with you. I don't think that creating unnecessary confrontation with him will help. In fact last December when I sought guidance my answer which I believed to be from the Spirit was to diffuse contention by limiting communication to letters.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

The term in French he used is "commission," so I do not know. We've already had mediation with the Bishop, but this time, the Bishop said we would each be allowed one witness and his counsellors would attend.

The bishop also said the wives need not overstress themselves by attending, but I do not think I would agree to that. The majority of our exchanges have been through me so imo it is necessary that I am there.

The church shouldn't be involved in this kind of thing at all. There were a few times when members asked me to mediate or hold another member accountable for a business deal gone bad and I refused to get involved. There's no way it ends well. Someone will be upset and blame the church for butting in where it has no business.

[halconero]

If there are legal considerations going on I would suggest anyone but the involved parties and legal counsel butt out.

While this situation is slightly murkier, the Church Handbook is clear with regards to investigations and court decisions that any disciplinary councils should not be held until after a decision has been rendered by legal courts.

I've been involved in a situation before where there were attempts to begin a process in the midst of legal going-ons and it was an utter mess.

Edited March 29, 2016 by halconero

[Calm]

59 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Have you tried to evict them? (Sorry, I don't know the history here.)  They just sound like trouble and also potentially dangerous.

Meadowchik said elsewhere if I recall correctly that that law heavily favours the tenant in France and currently they are unable to evict even though rent is unpaid, etc.

Here:  

 

Edited March 29, 2016 by Calm

[rpn]

I would tell the SP that while I appreciate his interest, I see no value in meeting with any witness to talk about this.  You've already done mediation without resolving the problem.   No reason to believe this will resolve the problem, but potentially makes additional targets of all others who participate.  It feeds the mental illness by giving the delusions substance.   And it allows the man to smear more.  

But I'd pray and fast about it because maybe the Lord has suggested this to the SP (as bizarre as it seems: historically bishops did resolve civil matters, and they are the ultimate judge in Israel (not the SP).  But I think recent counsel is that there are sufficient other resources to address this sort of thing without church leaders getting in the middle.)

[halconero]

I'm going to add on to this, because I feel compelled to.

If a council is held, and involves both you and the other party, anything said or decided there could possibly be taken into account if it goes to court. The people present at the council become potential witnesses.

This is why the church handbooks generally takes a very handsoff approach with regards to legal matters, and only involves leadership after-the-fact and only in extreme circumstances.

[Duncan]

I've heard of this before or something similar. In my stake in the mid 90's this lawyer member guy here set up a lumber business and got other members to invest. Well, the business went sour and the investors lost everything they invested. Apparently they held a Church court on him to see if he deliberately tried to cheat the members but no evidence was found so he wasn't disciplined. I know this because someone who was there told me and I was in the ward with the investors when all that hit the fan

[ALarson]

47 minutes ago, Calm said:

Meadowchik said elsewhere if I recall correctly that that law heavily favours the tenant in France and currently they are unable to evict even though rent is unpaid, etc.

Here:  

 

That's unfortunate.  Thanks for the additional information!

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

The bishop says that at minimum his addiction to doctor-prescribed morphine is inducing mental illness.

I agree with you. I don't think that creating unnecessary confrontation with him will help. In fact last December when I sought guidance my answer which I believed to be from the Spirit was to diffuse contention by limiting communication to letters.

 

Who ever "The Bishop" you are referring too should stick to spiritual matters. 

[halconero]

45 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I've heard of this before or something similar. In my stake in the mid 90's this lawyer member guy here set up a lumber business and got other members to invest. Well, the business went sour and the investors lost everything they invested. Apparently they held a Church court on him to see if he deliberately tried to cheat the members but no evidence was found so he wasn't disciplined. I know this because someone who was there told me and I was in the ward with the investors when all that hit the fan

Now a days the counsel from the Church HQ (and I think it's wise counsel) would be to let the courts (civil or criminal) render a decision regarding the matter for fraud or damages, and then base disciplinary counsels off of the information rendered there.