the september six

[kawikadave]

From my perspective, the goal of a church court is to allow the person involved to humble himself, listen to feedback by those called to guide him, and repent where necessary.

This is not the Spanish Inquisition. The worst thing that can happen is that someone temporarily loses their church membership along with being shown the path to come back to full fellowship.

It can be tense, but the goal of everyone present is to understand the truth of the situation and to help the person involved.

It might even be considered the antithesis of an environment condusive to sharing (or listening). Protective walls would be the norm, I suspect.

Why would the person raise walls? What would they be trying to protect?

When it comes to innocence or guilt, I would say there is an idea that something has happened or they wouldn't be invited to a church court. At the same time, there is plenty of room to explain the details and circumstances of what happened. In other words, they wouldn't be considered guilty and have to prove that they're innocent.

[will2believe]

Is the presumption of innocence the norm for a church disciplinary council?

I think that in most disciplinary councils, the facts aren't in question. I have attended only one council in which the member denied one of the charges against him. In that case, the bishopric assumed that he hadn't done it.

[Bob Bennett]

It seems to me like a church disciplinary court would be a tense situation, one filled with presumptions and assumptions which may or may not be accurate, one in which openly sharing feelings and perceptions might not be considered a wise move by those on the receiving end of the discipline. Such a pressurized environment can be construed to be non-welcoming. It might even be considered the antithesis of an environment condusive to sharing (or listening). Protective walls would be the norm, I suspect. Communication takes a nosedive, behind those sorts of protective walls.

This does not describe my experiences at all. Openly shared feelings are the norm. Listening with great intensity is precisely what the High Councillors and Stake Presidency do. Listening with both ears and the Spirit. I have detected nothing but love towards the individuals involved, and a desire to see them in full fellowship in the Church. At the same time, there is a feeling of the need to hold the member accountable for actions contrary to the commandments and the covenants he has made. I really haven't seen much in the way of protective walls during a council. I have, however, seen members refuse to attend their disciplinary council. I suppose they can imagine any number of things happening in their absence.

[juliann]

USU, the next time you sit through a church disciplinary council, perhaps you could give a first-hand account. Until then, I'm just left with supposition and whatever family experiences I have access to.

I'm sure he is eager to break confidentiality to satisfy your curiosity. What is lacking in those "family experiences" that you need to hear more?

[Confidential Informant]

Is the presumption of innocence the norm for a church disciplinary council? Or is the presumption that the member is guilty? If the latter, is the presumption of guilt one reason why the accused may choose to not participate?

I suspect that in the vast majority of cases the members conduct is already well known. I'm unaware of a lot of disciplinary counsels being called on hearsay alone.

C.I.

[USU78]

USU, the next time you sit through a church disciplinary council, perhaps you could give a first-hand account. Until then, I'm just left with supposition and whatever family experiences I have access to.

Let me give you some procedural guidance here. In a High Council Court both where the facts are in dispute and those in which the facts are not in dispute folks are appointed advocates for the person concerning whom the Court was convened, "prosecutor" types appointed for the purpose of presenting the "case" against that person, and others to evaluate, with the Stake President presiding.

Nobody gets railroaded, in my experience, and the process is quite fair and, in my experience, all concerned are prayerfully motivated to get it right.

The problem with perceptions from outside is the only person likely to say anything about what went on is that person, as the Court is under seal. When you only have one side reporting what went on, you necessarily get a scewed perception, as in all human endeavors.

[Blink]

Is the presumption of innocence the norm for a church disciplinary council? Or is the presumption that the member is guilty? If the latter, is the presumption of guilt one reason why the accused may choose to not participate?

I suspect that in the vast majority of cases the members conduct is already well known. I'm unaware of a lot of disciplinary counsels being called on hearsay alone.

C.I.

The vast majority of who? the Sept Six? In their cases, it seems like the conduct in question was viewed by the different sides from decidedly different angles. Going from memory, it seems like one side felt the action was justified and the other didn't know why the other side felt that way, since they had no similiar feeling. The cut and dried easily determined conduct of a simple adultery, for example, wasn't the same as the questions of apostacy that surrounded the cases of the SS. The courts themselves were very stressful and tense, from the accounts I read. Only the individual involved can determine whether justice was served. From later accounts, it appears that 5 out of the 6 didn't agree that justice was served.

As a quelling action though, it worked. It was another 20 some odd yrs before anyone else published anything of like magnitude.

Keeping disciplinary courts on a low profile serves both agendas, except in high profile situations where the individual brings in the press. The secrecy allows the individual to hide the reason for their discipline, which some individuals may determine is a good thing and some individuals may determine is not a good thing. The secrecy also allows the church to hide numbers of disciplines done, the individuals' identity that bring the action, the process, and the issues under discussion. Interesting how the last two courts where the individuals brought out the press resulted in neither being excommunicated. Has the church sacrificed keeping the ranks untainted for favorable PR?

Interesting to me is the way the secrecy has become more apparent as the church ages; early excommunications were much more public and became part of the fabric of church history.

[Confidential Informant]

The vast majority of who? the Sept Six?

The vast majority of all cases, including the September Six. You seem to think that their behavior was vague and ambiguous. To my mind, it was not. It was quite clear.

In their cases, it seems like the conduct in question was viewed by the different sides from decidedly different angles.

How many ways can you view it? If you publish and article agitating for heaven mother worship, your gonna get dinged. That is apostasy. (I'm just using that as an example, not a specific case).

Going from memory, it seems like one side felt the action was justified and the other didn't know why the other side felt that way, since they had no similiar feeling.

Huh? I got lost between all those sides somehow.

The cut and dried easily determined conduct of a simple adultery, for example, wasn't the same as the questions of apostacy that surrounded the cases of the SS.

In your opinion. I think it was much plainer than you give it credit for.

The courts themselves were very stressful and tense, from the accounts I read.

Disciplinary counsels take on the tenor of the person accused. If he/she is humble and peaceful -- even while maintaining their innocence -- then they can be very spiritual. If the accused is haughty, combative etc., then I'm sure they are very tense.

Only the individual involved can determine whether justice was served.

That's a load. I've put hundreds of people in jail who obviously broke the law but who still think it wasn't just.

From later accounts, it appears that 5 out of the 6 didn't agree that justice was served.

I'm sure they didn't. Then again, their fame has risen far beyond anything they could have hoped for due to their excommunication. Had they stayed in the Church, they'd have toiled away and nameless, faceless drones....

As a quelling action though, it worked. It was another 20 some odd yrs before anyone else published anything of like magnitude.

You assume that there were a whole bunch of LDS scholars just lined up to publish similar materials. I see no evidence of that. Moreover, if itis the case, then all I can say is that the critics are bunch of lousy cowards. If you really beliee these things, as Grant Palmer apparently does, then you're simply a dishonest theif (as opposed to an honest theif I suppose) to stay on the Church payroll. If you are such a fabulous scholar, then publish your work, face the music, and then go find a job at some other place. Otherwise, you taking money from the believers who supported you and then secretly spitting on them.

Keeping disciplinary courts on a low profile serves both agendas,

It serves a purpose, that's for sure, but not the ones you forward.

The secrecy allows the individual to hide the reason for their discipline, which some individuals may determine is a good thing and some individuals may determine is not a good thing.

In which case the person has the option of going public. On the other hand, this puts the Church at a considerable disadvantage because it cannot defend itself against unfair charges.

The secrecy also allows the church to hide numbers of disciplines done, the individuals' identity that bring the action, the process, and the issues under discussion.

And this is bad, how?

Interesting how the last two courts where the individuals brought out the press resulted in neither being excommunicated. Has the church sacrificed keeping the ranks untainted for favorable PR?

You'd have to ask the individual Stake Presidents. I personally thought they both should have been excommunicated. Then again, doing that creates a martyr. Instead, the two men in question have simply faded into the relative obscurity that bad scholarship brings.

Interesting to me is the way the secrecy has become more apparent as the church ages; early excommunications were much more public and became part of the fabric of church history.

Yes, I'm sure that the wives and children of the man accused of adultery would like all the lurid details of their family life made public. Perhaps we should publish a transcript of the proceedings in the Ensign for all to read? You comment also show an amazing ignorance of excommunication in the early Church. They used to excommunicate for any reason, and sometimes it wouldn't last longer than the weekend.

As I see it, the Church can't win with folks like you. If it makes the event private and closed, someone whines. If it makes the event public and open. Someone else whines. Some people just like to whine.

C.I.

[Blink]

The vast majority of who? the Sept Six?

The vast majority of all cases, including the September Six. You seem to think that their behavior was vague and ambiguous. To my mind, it was not. It was quite clear.

We aren't talking about what's clear to you or to me, CI. I thought we were discussing what was clear to the SS.

In their cases, it seems like the conduct in question was viewed by the different sides from decidedly different angles.

How many ways can you view it? If you publish and article agitating for heaven mother worship, your gonna get dinged. That is apostasy. (I'm just using that as an example, not a specific case).

People publish every day, without threat of being excommunicated, CI. They give speeches, participate in Sunstone symposiums, talk to their neighbors all the time, without threat of excommunication. Is the climate in the heirarchy of the church different now than it was for the SS? Or were they simply too high profile to be allowed to publish what they did and still remain members? Several of them were church employees, weren't they?

Going from memory, it seems like one side felt the action was justified and the other didn't know why the other side felt that way, since they had no similiar feeling.

Huh? I got lost between all those sides somehow.

One side [the church] felt the action was justified, and the other [some members of the Sept Six] didn't know why the other side [the church] felt that way, since they had no similiar feeling. Did that help?

The cut and dried easily determined conduct of a simple adultery, for example, wasn't the same as the questions of apostacy that surrounded the cases of the SS.

In your opinion. I think it was much plainer than you give it credit for.

But how would you know, CI? As has pointed out several times, we only have one side of the story, so how would anyone know how plain it all was, if you won't take the word of the participants themselves?

The courts themselves were very stressful and tense, from the accounts I read.

Disciplinary counsels take on the tenor of the person accused. If he/she is humble and peaceful -- even while maintaining their innocence -- then they can be very spiritual. If the accused is haughty, combative etc., then I'm sure they are very tense.

Perhaps it would be as appropriate to say that disciplinary counsels take on the tenor of person making the accusation too, CI. I suspect some accusers are more confrontational than others, a point of view expressed by some of the SS also, IIRC.

Only the individual involved can determine whether justice was served.

That's a load. I've put hundreds of people in jail who obviously broke the law but who still think it wasn't just.

Courts of love are not courts of law, CI. Unless you're arguing for infallibility on the part of the church authorities, there is always the chance that the accuser is wrong (as is also borne out in courts of law, based on the number of wrongfully jailed individuals at any time). Justice is not always served; men have been known to be blinded by their own authority and it is a phenomena readily acknowledged in the church... it's called unrighteous dominion, and at least some of the SS felt justice was not done.

From later accounts, it appears that 5 out of the 6 didn't agree that justice was served.

I'm sure they didn't. Then again, their fame has risen far beyond anything they could have hoped for due to their excommunication. Had they stayed in the Church, they'd have toiled away and nameless, faceless drones....

Sarcasm, CI?

As a quelling action though, it worked. It was another 20 some odd yrs before anyone else published anything of like magnitude.

You assume that there were a whole bunch of LDS scholars just lined up to publish similar materials. I see no evidence of that. Moreover, if itis the case, then all I can say is that the critics are bunch of lousy cowards. If you really beliee these things, as Grant Palmer apparently does, then you're simply a dishonest theif (as opposed to an honest theif I suppose) to stay on the Church payroll. If you are such a fabulous scholar, then publish your work, face the music, and then go find a job at some other place. Otherwise, you taking money from the believers who supported you and then secretly spitting on them.

I assume nothing of the sort. I'd be very surprised if even a handful of LDS scholars (definition to be decided on another thread) wrote anything similiar. The lesson of the SS was clearly understood and obviously well-learned. Publish and perish, period. Discuss whatever you want; commit it to paper and distribute it anywhere and you're liable to be brought before a church disciplinary counsel. Only within the last couple of years has anyone successfully challenged that dictum, and only a couple of them succeeded.

Keeping disciplinary courts on a low profile serves both agendas,

It serves a purpose, that's for sure, but not the ones you forward.

And what do you think that purpose is?

The secrecy allows the individual to hide the reason for their discipline, which some individuals may determine is a good thing and some individuals may determine is not a good thing.

In which case the person has the option of going public. On the other hand, this puts the Church at a considerable disadvantage because it cannot defend itself against unfair charges.

Why would the church need to defend itself, if it's absolutely certain it's right? A church disciplinary counsel is no small thing, CI. The person's eternal salvation is at stake. And yet, the church cannot say with impunity that they are completely convinced that they are right? Infallibility again. Take away someone's salvation and then find out later that you're wrong? I'm not sure I could live with that. Perhaps you could. You are a lawyer after all. How do you feel if you find you've taken away a person's life, and you were wrong?

The secrecy also allows the church to hide numbers of disciplines done, the individuals' identity that bring the action, the process, and the issues under discussion.

And this is bad, how?

I made no value statement, CI. Why did you? I'm in favor of open disclosure as long as the member being charged is in favor of open disclosure. Surely you agree that the church has nothing to hide.

Interesting how the last two courts where the individuals brought out the press resulted in neither being excommunicated. Has the church sacrificed keeping the ranks untainted for favorable PR?

You'd have to ask the individual Stake Presidents. I personally thought they both should have been excommunicated. Then again, doing that creates a martyr. Instead, the two men in question have simply faded into the relative obscurity that bad scholarship brings.

That's part of my point, CI. Who are the individual stake presidents? Only those members who have gone public have disclosed those names. And do you consider them to have faded away? Somehow, I thought their names were still in circulation, and the book, at least, still in print.

Interesting to me is the way the secrecy has become more apparent as the church ages; early excommunications were much more public and became part of the fabric of church history.

Yes, I'm sure that the wives and children of the man accused of adultery would like all the lurid details of their family life made public. Perhaps we should publish a transcript of the proceedings in the Ensign for all to read? You comment also show an amazing ignorance of excommunication in the early Church. They used to excommunicate for any reason, and sometimes it wouldn't last longer than the weekend.

The man himself should be the one to determine if the information is kept secret or not, not the church. If he has nothing to hide, the information should not be hidden. Why would the church need to hide its action?

As I see it, the Church can't win with folks like you.  If it makes the event private and closed, someone whines.  If it makes the event public and open.  Someone else whines.  Some people just like to whine.

The church is not the one who should be making that decision, CI. The accused is the one who should determine if the action is open to the public or not.

[Bob Bennett]

A comment on just one statement of Blink's

Take away someone's salvation and then find out later that you're wrong?

Do you seriously think that if fallible humans were to make a grevious mistake in a disciplinary counsel and a person unjustly had his membership removed that they would lose their salvation? God, being perfectly just, will see that mistakes of this manner are corrected.

[Blink]

A comment on just one statement of Blink's

Take away someone's salvation and then find out later that you're wrong?

Do you seriously think that if fallible humans were to make a grevious mistake in a disciplinary counsel and a person unjustly had his membership removed that they would lose their salvation? God, being perfectly just, will see that mistakes of this manner are corrected.

So are you saying the church representatives aren't representing God at the disciplinary counsel, they're just men who're trying their best? I'm sure that's a comfort to the accused. Are you saying it's okay for a man to make that kind of mistake, because God will correct it later? And is the victim supposed to just sit back and let that happen, in secret, without ever protesting or whining (as CI says)?

[Bob Bennett]

So are you saying the church representatives aren't representing God at the disciplinary counsel, they're just men who're trying their best? I'm sure that's a comfort to the accused. Are you saying it's okay for a man to make that kind of mistake, because God will correct it later? And is the victim supposed to just sit back and let that happen, in secret, without ever protesting or whining (as CI says)?

You are putting words into my mouth. Men can represent God without being infallible. I reject your either/or choice. I never said it was ok. You've read much into my words that I never said or intended. Your assumptions about disciplinary councils seem to be far from what I have actually experienced. More later - gotta go.

[Pahoran]

Blink,

please don't call them the SS. That is too common an abbreviation, in and out of an LDS context.

You blunk:

Only the individual involved can determine whether justice was served. From later accounts, it appears that 5 out of the 6 didn't agree that justice was served.

Let's see. Two sides to a disputed question, and you arbitrarily declare that only thsoe on one side of it can possibly have a valid opinion on the subject.

Very unbiased, I don't think.

If "only the individual involved can determine whether justice was served," then let's forget about disciplinary councils altogether. Let's just ask "the individual involved" what would be just in their case, and apply that.

Oh, wait a minute. That's probably what you would like to see.

But in any event, I can tell you this free of charge: if we took that approach, the unrepentant would arrogantly and adamantly insist that they were in the right and shouldn't be disciplined in any way, and only the repentant would see any fault in their actions.

You subsequently wrote:

Courts of love are not courts of law, CI. Unless you're arguing for infallibility on the part of the church authorities, there is always the chance that the accuser is wrong (as is also borne out in courts of law, based on the number of wrongfully jailed individuals at any time).

Yes, and there is likewise always the chance that the accused is dishonestly denying the charges; or that the facts are not in dispute but that their significance is, and so the accused cannot see that they've done anything wrong in (for example) agitating for "goddess worship" in the Church.

Justice is not always served; men have been known to be blinded by their own authority and it is a phenomena readily acknowledged in the church... it's called unrighteous dominion, and at least some of the SS felt justice was not done.

And sometimes--even usually--when justice is served, the one at the sharp end still thinks herself hard done by, and it is a phenomenon readily acknowledged throughout the world. It's called human nature, and at least some of the S6 are afflicted by it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[kawikadave]

This is why you lose credibility. You argue both sides of the argument and are unhappy with both of them:

Men act and God CAN'T reverse their decision

"Take away someone's salvation and then find out later that you're wrong?"

Men act and God CAN reverse their decision

"So are you saying the church representatives aren't representing God at the disciplinary counsel, they're just men who're trying their best?"

What you really object to is the idea that the councils exist at all and that men are asked to judge someone else.

So answer the question - does an organization have the right to determine if members meet a stated criteria for continued membership, and if not, remove them as members?

Everyone willingly admits that people are fallible and that mistakes may be made in how decisions are made. Do you then get rid of this process? You want to make proceedings public, is that really the answer? Doesn't the organization have the right to decide how this process will happen?

[juliann]

A comment on just one statement of Blink's

She is building up to a crescendo. The idea is to splatter the board with enough goading questions (notice there is little to none response to anything offered...just machine gun style accusatory blurts of questions). I think that we have another problem poster from Z masquerading again.

I asked you , Blink, why those family members didn't give you satisfactory answers to your questions. Or do you not believe them?

[Blink]

You are putting words into my mouth.  Men can represent God without being infallible.  I reject your either/or choice.  I never said it was ok.  You've read much into my words that I never said or intended.  Your assumptions about disciplinary councils seem to be far from what I have actually experienced.  More later - gotta go.

If men are indeed fallible, and I readily agree that they are, then how can they claim to act with the absolute authority of God and still reserve the right to be wrong? It has to be either/or, in the case of a disciplinary council. We aren't talking about a bit of doctrinal interpretation or changes in policy. We're talking about someone's eternal salvation. "God can fix it" isn't much solace, I suspect, to the individual who lost their church membership and with it, their eternal salvation, over what could very well turn out to be a mistake, or because an overly strict leader overstepped their authority, or because the accused published an idea instead of just talking about it.

Some things that are excommunicatable offenses are clear cut: you murder someone and you're toast; you marry more than one wife, and you're out of here. The charge of Apostacy isn't like that. Apostacy is a judgment call, or else everyone would be excommunicated for our failure to abide by our baptismal covenants. Heck, Pres Benson said the whole church was in apostacy! So is it a particular untouchable doctrine that becomes our apostacy, or maybe the medium in which we discuss our apostacy, or maybe the geographic area we live in, that matters?

Judging someone else's apostacy looks so much like the pot calling the kettle black that it's uncanny. "Your apostacy is worse than mine because you wrote an essay about an idea that everyone agrees is doctrine, but no one has developed yet, so you're out and I'm in, even though I agree with your basic premise..." Is that right? Because from what I've been able to learn, the doctrine of Heavenly Mother, as an example, is as true as the idea that we have an actual Heavenly Father. We sing about her in our hymns, we learn about her in the temple, we promise that our women can become goddesses, just like her. That someone would have their eternal salvation jerked out from under them for writing about her just doesn't seem fair to me.

I can see how the S6 (thank you, Pahoran) could feel confused and upset at the proceedings against them. It appears that it's no longer considered an excommunicatable offense to publish books contrary to church doctrine. It appears that it's no longer an excommunicatable offense to say the Book of Mormon is not historical. But it is still an excommunicatable offense to publish something as comforting as gaining a relationship with Heavenly Mother as well as Heavenly Father.

All is well in Zion.

[Blink]

Blink,

please don't call them the SS. That is too common an abbreviation, in and out of an LDS context.

Pahoran,

Okay, I won't use SS. I like your S6 better. Thank you.

Only the individual involved can determine whether justice was served. From later accounts, it appears that 5 out of the 6 didn't agree that justice was served.

Let's see. Two sides to a disputed question, and you arbitrarily declare that only thsoe on one side of it can possibly have a valid opinion on the subject.

Very unbiased, I don't think.

I'm not the one who made that determination, Pahoran. The church is the one that does, since they're the ones who declared the proceedings closed, even if the accused wants them open. The opportunity for an open proceeding should be an option available to the accused, and isn't a decision the church should make for them.

If "only the individual involved can determine whether justice was served," then let's forget about disciplinary councils altogether.  Let's just ask "the individual involved" what would be just in their case, and apply that.

Oh, wait a minute.  That's probably what you would like to see.

That might not be such a bad idea, Pahoran. People are often harder on themselves than others are likely to be. However, that's not how it works. The church can determine who it will allow to be members, set the standards, and boot out anyone they choose. Accepting the idea that what the leaders of the church want is what God wants is where we differ, I suspect. I'm all to familiar with the fallibility of men. They've been wrong before, even while proclaiming their rightness before each other. To put mere men in charge of determining who is eligible to receive eternal salvation and who isn't seems a bit like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. The temptation to yield to unrighteous dominion is just too easily attained. Better to err on the side of caution.

But in any event, I can tell you this free of charge: if we took that approach, the unrepentant would arrogantly and adamantly insist that they were in the right and shouldn't be disciplined in any way, and only the repentant would see any fault in their actions.

And this changes things how? The unrepentant are already unrepentent; the repentent already see their faults.

Courts of love are not courts of law, CI. Unless you're arguing for infallibility on the part of the church authorities, there is always the chance that the accuser is wrong (as is also borne out in courts of law, based on the number of wrongfully jailed individuals at any time).

Yes, and there is likewise always the chance that the accused is dishonestly denying the charges; or that the facts are not in dispute but that their significance is, and so the accused cannot see that they've done anything wrong in (for example) agitating for "goddess worship" in the Church.

And you are willing to gamble another person's eternal salvation on church leaders being right? And what if those church leaders are wrong, Pahoran? What if they deny that person the blessings of living as a fully endowed church member, attending the temple, blessing their children, being a part of the body of the church, and they are wrong? What can make up for that mistake?

(We already worship our Heavenly Mother, Pahoran. All endowed women in the church seek to be just like her. She is the epitome of what LDS women can hope to attain.)

Justice is not always served; men have been known to be blinded by their own authority and it is a phenomena readily acknowledged in the church... it's called unrighteous dominion, and at least some of the SS felt justice was not done.

And sometimes--even usually--when justice is served, the one at the sharp end still thinks herself hard done by, and it is a phenomenon readily acknowledged throughout the world. It's called human nature, and at least some of the S6 are afflicted by it.

And it's human nature to not admit when you've done someone a terrible injury, Pahoran. Hiding behind God's authority won't save those whose judgment was wrong. You are so certain that members of the S6 have done something so heinious as to be forfeit of God's eternal salvation and you're willing to withdraw their eternal blessings based on that. I am not. But then, I am uncomfortable in the jury box too.

[Blink]

This is why you lose credibility. You argue both sides of the argument and are unhappy with both of them:

Men act and God CAN'T reverse their decision

"Take away someone's salvation and then find out later that you're wrong?"

Men act and God CAN reverse their decision

"So are you saying the church representatives aren't representing God at the disciplinary counsel, they're just men who're trying their best?"

I can argue both sides of most questions, Dave. This is not a new phenomena; most attorneys can do the same (and get paid quite handsomely to do so).

What you really object to is the idea that the councils exist at all and that men are asked to judge someone else.

Not at all, Dave. My objections start with closed proceedings, proceed through the very real temptation on the part of church leaders to exercise unrighteous dominion, and end at the scary possibility that the council could be wrongly condemning someone to an unblessed life (even if God restores all their wrongly taken blessings, they've still endured that which was unjustly put on their heads).

So answer the question - does an organization have the right to determine if members meet a stated criteria for continued membership, and if not, remove them as members?

Of course. And said organization also has the right to be wrong. However, invoking God in that equation puts a whole different light on things. Membership for someone who does something as clear cut as murder is easily decided. Deciding what constitutes apostacy (especially in the light of an unclear doctrine) comes dangerously close to unrighteous dominion.

Everyone willingly admits that people are fallible and that mistakes may be made in how decisions are made. Do you then get rid of this process?

No, you change the process so that mistakes aren't made. You make every effort, even to the point of lesser sanctions for subjective offenses like apostacy, to keep people's eternal salvation intact. You excommunicate only in the face of clear-cut, uncontestable offenses like murder or child abuse.

You want to make proceedings public, is that really the answer? Doesn't the organization have the right to decide how this process will happen?

Don't the accused have the right to decide how "their" process happens? If the accused want the process open, why would the church object? Surely the church has nothing to hide. They have no need to play "big brother" for the accused. Let the accused decide for themselves.

[StBalthasar]

Don't the accused have the right to decide how "their" process happens? If the accused want the process open, why would the church object? Surely the church has nothing to hide. They have no need to play "big brother" for the accused. Let the accused decide for themselves.

No, the accused to not have the right to decide how the process happens; it is not "their" process. The kingdom of God is not a democracy (republican or otherwise). People can choose to exercise their agency and leave, yes (of course) - or to conform to the requirements of the kingdom and stay. But no, the "accused" have no "rights" in the Church system to decide the process.

The fear of temptation of "unrighteous dominion" is, I think, overstated. Have you personally been involved in the process as a leader? I have. There are checks and balances on the system. It would be very difficult for there to be tyranny in my opinion; the atmosphere simply doesn't lend itself to such things. I could see it if it was only one person in the room to make the decision.

Also, in our (American) legal system, the accused don't have any rights not afforded by the Constitution or the laws or Rules of Procedure set forth thereunder; in other words, the rights flow from the system, and do not independently exist.

[Bob Bennett]

Blink, your last response to me was just more of the same. You seem to insist that God cannot reverse the decree of a council of fallible men. That's poppycock. I don't grant that church disciplinary councils have a history of making mistakes, however, I do allow for the possibility, and declare without hesitation that God (Christ) will judge in the end, and everyone will be justly treated.

Your continued diatribe that people should be excommunicated for crimes (I agree) but not apostacy (I disagree) is, in my opinion, misguided. It is not the right of each Church member to declare doctrine for the Church and still remain in full fellowship. It is not their right to attempt to convert others to their way of thinking by publishing and lecturing that Church leadership has it all wrong and they have it right, and still remain in full fellowship. They are certainly free to do so, but the Church is under no obligation to simply sit back and let it happen, with not consequence to the members who have taken it upon themselves to 'steady the ark'.

The statements that you make regarding Church disciplinary councils suggest that you have no experience with them. They are nothing like you represent them to be (in my personal experience).

[kawikadave]

I can argue both sides of most questions, Dave. This is not a new phenomena; most attorneys can do the same (and get paid quite handsomely to do so).

The way you're doing it, arguing both sides is disingenuous. It's a no-win proposition for the opposing viewpoint -- you either have the person responsible commanding God as to the outcome of a church court, or, on the other hand, the church court is a joke because we allow for God to correct errors that the person in authority might make.

The idea of these forums, I believe, is to exchange beliefs in a way that helps us understand each other - possibly to the point of changing our opinion or outlook.

You have first-hand accounts of how the process works. They have clearly stated that your concerns have little merit, but even if you're right, that God will correct human error. You don't like the idea of human error, so you want to remove all possibility of it occuring -- impossible.

To do that, you better make sure that Bishops stop talking to members behind closed doors because they might make a mistake. They're called to be a "judge in Israel" and they have the mantle and blessing to judge. It's their job and calling. Someone has to do it.

You have no first-hand experience, but continue to tell others how things should work based on your bias, false logic, and anger about something.

[Blink]

Don't the accused have the right to decide how "their" process happens? If the accused want the process open, why would the church object? Surely the church has nothing to hide. They have no need to play "big brother" for the accused. Let the accused decide for themselves.

No, the accused to not have the right to decide how the process happens; it is not "their" process. The kingdom of God is not a democracy (republican or otherwise). People can choose to exercise their agency and leave, yes (of course) - or to conform to the requirements of the kingdom and stay.

Perhaps the reason why some people choose to not attend a disciplinary council called about them is because they feel, as you state, it's not "theirs". If it's not theirs, it becomes a one-sided kangaroo court with no justice.

But no, the "accused" have no "rights" in the Church system to decide the process.

Then why have a disciplinary council at all? Why not just tell the person "you're gone"? To show that person who has the clout, the authority, the hammer? To show them exactly how little they matter to God and to the church? To break them? From the accounts I read, some of the S6 responded with arrogance, some of them responded with bewilderment, and some of them responded with humility. It didn't matter how they responded; they all had their eternal salvation taken away.

The fear of temptation of "unrighteous dominion" is, I think, overstated. 

It appears to me that you have a hard time putting yourself in the shoes of someone sitting on the accused's chair. If you cannot visualize how authority can be misused, you have no way to understand Joseph's experience with unrighteous dominion. He makes no caveat for men in the church as being exempt either. He's very plain: "We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. (D&C 121:39)" That covers a pretty wide-reaching net. I have no problem imagining church disciplinary councils overstepping their authority and exercising unrighteous dominion, in the light of our canon.

Have you personally been involved in the process as a leader?  I have.

I prefer to keep this discussion centered around the S6, thank you. I will not answer personal questions on this thread.

There are checks and balances on the system.  It would be very difficult for there to be tyranny in my opinion; the atmosphere simply doesn't lend itself to such things.  I could see it if it was only one person in the room to make the decision.

How can you know what the atmosphere to the S6 felt like to them, unless you were there sitting in the accused's chair as they were? Even if you were there, you wouldn't be the one under the spotlight, so how can you know what the atmosphere felt like to them? You may know what the atmosphere felt like to those in charge, but not to the accused. Judging the presence of the spirit is difficult enough, even in sacrament meeting. (Surely you've heard your ward members rave about a meeting where they felt the spirit quite strongly but you yourself felt nothing out of the ordinary.) Judging what the atmosphere feels like to someone on the opposing side is a stretch I'm not inclined to take.

To the accused, the checks and balances you tout so highly may appear as a panel of men determined to take their eternal salvation by whatever means necessary. What checks? What balances? One person, appointed by the opposition to represent the accused, doesn't sound like a check and it certainly doesn't sound anything like a balance. The accused don't get to determine when, where, who, or how open the process is, they don't even get to bring their own defense counsel or their friends, family, or even their own observers to witness the process.

It doesn't sound like a friendly atmosphere, it doesn't sound like a balanced system, and it doesn't sound like anything remotely fair to me.

Also, in our (American) legal system, the accused don't have any rights not afforded by the Constitution or the laws or Rules of Procedure set forth thereunder; in other words, the rights flow from the system, and do not independently exist.

Surely the church's system, God-given, is a fair one, a just one, not comparable to one built by men. Oh wait. It involves men, so the church immediately has the caveat that they reserve the right to be wrong, simply because men are fallible. And I agree. Men are indeed fallible. They've been wrong more times than they choose to admit, and in the case of church courts that mistakenly take members' eternal salvation, they leave their mistakes up to God to correct. Small comfort to those so wronged.

[Blink]

Blink, your last response to me was just more of the same.

Of course it is more of the same. I have a point of view. I hold to that point of view. You have a point of view too. I expect "more of the same" from you; why would you expect me to change?

You seem to insist that God cannot reverse the decree of a council of fallible men.  That's poppycock.  I don't grant that church disciplinary councils have a history of making mistakes, however, I do allow for the possibility, and declare without hesitation that God (Christ) will judge in the end, and everyone will be justly treated. 

I never said God cannot reverse a mortal decree. I said he shouldn't have to. I wonder if you think it's fair for someone to have their eternal salvation stripped by a panel of men, whether they're innocently misled, reached the wrong conclusion, or determined to exercise unrighteous dominion, and the accused then having to go through life without the blessings of the temple or fellowship with the Saints, to have their life tainted by an injustice... but you say it's okay for all that to happen, because God will make it right? Their life was stolen! How can that be okay?

Your continued diatribe that people should be excommunicated for crimes (I agree) but not apostacy (I disagree) is, in my opinion, misguided. 

Well, I wouldn't call it a diatribe at all. I try to avoid diatribe-mode on this board.

How can a person be excommunicated for publishing something as inconclusive as Mother in Heaven, and yet a person not be excommunicated for declaring the Book of Mormon is not historical? Book of Mormon historicity is bedrock doctrine; Heavenly Mother is a nice little doctrine we don't know much about.

It is not the right of each Church member to declare doctrine for the Church and still remain in full fellowship.

Heavenly Mother is doctrine, Bob. Exploring that should not be forbidden. We write pages and pages about the nature of Heavenly Father, yet we are forbidden to even mention Heavenly Mother in print, lest we be banned and damned?

  It is not their right to attempt to convert others to their way of thinking by publishing and lecturing that Church leadership has it all wrong and they have it right, and still remain in full fellowship.  They are certainly free to do so, but the Church is under no obligation to simply sit back and let it happen, with not consequence to the members who have taken it upon themselves to 'steady the ark'.

Unless, of course, the leadership is indeed wrong. Fallibility again. Especially in light of what we know is doctrinal, taught in the temple, and sung about in our meetings.

The statements that you make regarding Church disciplinary councils suggest that you have no experience with them.  They are nothing like you represent them to be (in my personal experience).

Again, I will not answer personal comments on this thread. We are discussing the Sept Six, not me.

[StBalthasar]

Perhaps the reason why some people choose to not attend a disciplinary council called about them is because they feel, as you state, it's not "theirs". If it's not theirs, it becomes a one-sided kangaroo court with no justice.

Your conclusion (one-sided kangaroo court) does not follow. Just because the process is not chosen by the accused does not mean it is not fair. For (simple) example, all the time in Court the accused is a foreigner (in these parts, mostly Mexican) who cannot (legally) be a part of choosing our laws or procedures; nevertheless they are afforded every right required under our system in order to adjudicate their guilt or innocence (in criminal matters) or in order to get a fair shake (in civil matters).

Then why have a disciplinary council at all? Why not just tell the person "you're gone"? To show that person who has the clout, the authority, the hammer? To show them exactly how little they matter to God and to the church? To break them? From the accounts I read, some of the S6 responded with arrogance, some of them responded with bewilderment, and some of them responded with humility. It didn't matter how they responded; they all had their eternal salvation taken away.

Where are you coming from? Certainly not from the perspective of most who have been through such councils, in my experience. The first answer to "why" is, simply: integrity; The accused has taken upon himself/herself certain covenants and possibly has now violated those covenants. Another answer, which I see played out often, is: faith. Rarely do the accused have such a lack of faith in the "system" as you seem to inject with your inquiry.

And no, NONE of S6 had their "eternal salvation taken away." They can all repent - and one has returned to the Church. With or without a Church disciplinary counsel, sin keeps us out of the Kingdom of God (here and in eternity).

[Blink]

I can argue both sides of most questions, Dave. This is not a new phenomena; most attorneys can do the same (and get paid quite handsomely to do so).

The way you're doing it, arguing both sides is disingenuous.

I said I "could" argue both sides of the question, I didn't say I was. If you reread that question, you'll see I was asking Bob for clarification. I'm sorry my mode of communication wasn't clear.

It's a no-win proposition for the opposing viewpoint  -- you either have the person responsible commanding God as to the outcome of a church court, or, on the other hand, the church court is a joke because we allow for God to correct errors that the person in authority might make.

The opposing viewpoint in a church disciplinary council is always a no-win proposition. The verdict is predetermined; the outcome predecided. And I'm not convinced God has much influence at all, so that he can correct the mistakes men make seems more than fair to me. I think the system is flawed, and I think that lives can be totally screwed up because of those mistakes, and that is why I think the system should be changed (not dimantled; changed).

The idea of these forums, I believe, is to exchange beliefs in a way that helps us understand each other - possibly to the point of changing our opinion or outlook.

I am not so naive as to think that anyone will change their opinion or outlook based on something I write on these forums (or any other forums). You want me to change my opinion and outlook, but I doubt you afford yourself the same option.

You have first-hand accounts of how the process works. They have clearly stated that your concerns have little merit, but even if you're right, that God will correct human error. You don't like the idea of human error, so you want to remove all possibility of it occuring -- impossible.

I place little confidence in men in any capacity, Dave. They are so often wrong that to place them in a position to be able to determine a person's eternal salvation in any but the most obviously cut and dried circumstances is beyond my trusting nature. That God can fix those men's mistakes is small comfort to those who have been wronged. Assurances that the verdicts are seldom wrong just don't carry much weight, when I know how often men have been wrong before.

To do that, you better make sure that Bishops stop talking to members behind closed doors because they might make a mistake. They're called to be a "judge in Israel" and they have the mantle and blessing to judge. It's their job and calling. Someone has to do it.

Some bishops can be trusted behind closed doors. Some cannot. We've all seen the news articles about the bishops and stake presidents who commit lurid crimes, while sitting in judgment of others, even others whose supposed crimes are subjective at best. That sort of information instills an even deeper distrust of men in leadership positions for those who have reason to doubt the infallibility of men.

You have no first-hand experience, but continue to tell others how things should work based on your bias, false logic, and anger about something.

Again, this thread is about the Sept Six. I see no need to disclose personal information or experience.