Stake disciplinary council

[Avatar4321]

I was wondering if those who have been involved in them can explain to those of us who haven’t what happens? What’s the procedure?

[rongo]

(Mileage may vary, based on the situation and circumstances)

Beforehand, the SP briefs the HC on background, and they draw lots to assign high councilors who are to see that the accused's rights or observed and preserved. 

The person(s) are invited in, and there are typical opening exercises (prayer, introductions, etc.). The stake president asks the person to explain why they are there (he may summarize things, and ask the person to fill in gaps or elaborate). Typically, then all 15 then ask questions, and this is a very essential and valuable thing. In my old stake, bishops were invited, and they also sometimes answered questions or could interject and add essential details or information (from having prepared the person and worked with him up to that point). The person may also ask question or add anything he feels necessary.

When this phase is over, the person is excused, and either waits in the lobby outside the high council room (closed off from the rest of the building), or goes home and awaits summoning via phone. As a bishop, I sat outside with them for what could be hours. The 15 then discuss the evidence, mitigating factors, potential effects, give views, ask and answer questions. At the end of this phase, a straw poll is taken as to what the outcome should be, and concerns and advantages/disadvantages are discussed. This can take a while.

The stake presidency withdraws and discusses further among themselves, and then prays for revelation. In my ward disciplinary councils, we each prayed in turn, sometimes not with an outcome in mind, sometimes for confirmation or guidance on an outcome. Sometimes we felt like we should discuss further. This is one of my fondest memories from being a bishop. My testimony is that God gives revelation in these in a manner I haven't felt in other venues. When the stake president has reached a decision (almost always unanimous, but I have witnessed < 100% unanimity but the decision is sustained), he presents the decision to the high council and asks for a sustaining vote. There is usually unanimity here as well, but if there isn't, the stake presidency would hopefully address concerns and reconfer if necessary.

The person is then invited back in, and the decision is announced. Counsel is given, and the terms of the action are explained and questions are answered. The person is told that a letter will be forthcoming spelling out these terms. The council is then closed with a prayer, and the ones I have seen have all had all 15 tearfully hugging and shaking hands with the persons involved. 

Edited September 17, 2018 by rongo

[Avatar4321]

So it doesn’t require unanimous support of the high council?

[ksfisher]

14 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

So it doesn’t require unanimous support of the high council?

"After the stake president reaches a decision and his counselors sustain it, he announces it to the high council and asks them as a group to sustain it. The high council cannot veto the decision; it is binding even if it is not sustained unanimously. However, if one or more high councilors object to the decision, the stake president makes every effort to resolve the concerns and achieve unanimity. He may recall witnesses for further questioning. If necessary, the disciplinary council may again review the evidence, but not in the presence of the member."

[CV75]

12 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

So it doesn’t require unanimous support of the high council?

No, it does not. But D&C 102 allows for reassessment and "re-hearing" at the stake president's discretion if there are one or more objections. His aim is to achieve unanimity, and is to make every effort to do so, but he may not attain it.

[HappyJackWagon]

49 minutes ago, CV75 said:

No, it does not. But D&C 102 allows for reassessment and "re-hearing" at the stake president's discretion if there are one or more objections. His aim is to achieve unanimity, and is to make every effort to do so, but he may not attain it.

Everything Rongo and KSfisher said is correct.

The council is called by the SP who makes the accusation against the sinner. The SP then prosecutes the evidence. The SP then judges. So one man accuses, prosecutes and then judges. HC members may ask questions (depending on the SP) but they have no vote. The decision is wholly up to the SP. I wonder how likely it would be for someone on the HC to oppose the decision of the SP when the SP has just judged a man for not sustaining his priesthood leaders and called that apostasy.

 

[cinepro]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Everything Rongo and KSfisher said is correct.

The council is called by the SP who makes the accusation against the sinner. The SP then prosecutes the evidence. The SP then judges. So one man accuses, prosecutes and then judges. HC members may ask questions (depending on the SP) but they have no vote. The decision is wholly up to the SP. I wonder how likely it would be for someone on the HC to oppose the decision of the SP when the SP has just judged a man for not sustaining his priesthood leaders and called that apostasy.

 

[ksfisher]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Everything Rongo and KSfisher said is correct.

The council is called by the SP who makes the accusation against the sinner. The SP then prosecutes the evidence. The SP then judges. So one man accuses, prosecutes and then judges. HC members may ask questions (depending on the SP) but they have no vote. The decision is wholly up to the SP. I wonder how likely it would be for someone on the HC to oppose the decision of the SP when the SP has just judged a man for not sustaining his priesthood leaders and called that apostasy.

 

Your words completely fail to convey the spirit in which disciplinary councils are held.  You make it sound like some petty government or board room decision rather than a decision reached by trying to determine the will of God. 

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, cinepro said:

This is a vicious stereotype. It is a well known fact that we have the problem reasonably under control and currently less then 20% of Stake disciplinary councils involve any lightsaber combat.

[SouthernMo]

3 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Your words completely fail to convey the spirit in which disciplinary councils are held.  You make it sound like some petty government or board room decision rather than a decision reached by trying to determine the will of God. 

Have you seen these firsthand?  Have you been in disciplinary councils?

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

I was wondering if those who have been involved in them can explain to those of us who haven’t what happens? What’s the procedure?

Rongo's description of the proceedings is very similar to how things worked when I was involved as well.  

On a personal note for disciplinary councils from my perspective.  They were the absolutely worst part of my calling in the HC.  I didn't have one disciplinary council where I felt uplifted after it was all said and done.  I always felt exhausted spiritually and emotionally.  There is something about sitting in judgment of others that I just never felt comfortable with. 

Edited September 17, 2018 by hope_for_things

[hope_for_things]

23 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Everything Rongo and KSfisher said is correct.

The council is called by the SP who makes the accusation against the sinner. The SP then prosecutes the evidence. The SP then judges. So one man accuses, prosecutes and then judges. HC members may ask questions (depending on the SP) but they have no vote. The decision is wholly up to the SP. I wonder how likely it would be for someone on the HC to oppose the decision of the SP when the SP has just judged a man for not sustaining his priesthood leaders and called that apostasy.

I agree with this, the SP always had the final say.  I don't recall the final decision ever being up for debate in the councils that I was a part of.  

[ksfisher]

6 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Have you seen these firsthand?  Have you been in disciplinary councils?

Yes.

[The Nehor]

Five hours? How can it take that long? I am now glad I am not on a High Council. After five hours I think my impatient response to the situation would be:

”I will see you HANG FOR THIS!”

[SouthernMo]

7 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Yes.

Perhaps others have had different experiences than yours.

I think it’s fair to say that disciplinary councils are held at the local level and the church HQ does not interfere.  So perhaps some stake presidents chose a more confrontational approach to these meetings than others?

[ksfisher]

Just now, SouthernMo said:

So perhaps some stake presidents chose a more confrontational approach to these meetings than others?

I can only speak to my own experience and to how the handbook reads.

It would also be fair to say that the member in whose behalf the council is being held helps to set the tone as well.

[rongo]

16 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Rongo's description of the proceedings is very similar to how things worked when I was involved as well.  

On a personal note for disciplinary councils from my perspective.  They were the absolutely worst part of my calling in the HC.  I didn't have one disciplinary council where I felt uplifted after it was all said and done.  I always felt exhausted spiritually and emotionally.  There is something about sitting in judgment of others that I just never felt comfortable with. 

Not one? Wow. All of ours were, but we didn't have any rancorous apostasy ones. They were all voluntary and involved people trying to get back on the covenant path, as President Nelson would say. Sad, lots of difficulties and trials ahead, yes. 

We had high councilors who said in DCs that they had been excommunicated and gone through that, and they really empathized with people. Some of them continued to follow up with people after on their own volition to see how they were. One of them asked me if it would be all right if his family invited an excommunicatee to dinner, and I said I thought that would be very well-received. 

I think those who have a very bad feeling about them are those who hate them (disciplinary councils). In other words, those who don't believe that God wants us to have them, and that they are harmful to people. I guess if I felt that way, I could relate to that, but for believing members of the Church? 

[Calm]

It could have to do with personality types as well, someone more introverted or empathic might have a more difficult time processing the experience and therefore come away from it feeling poorly.  Hard to be uplifted when you feel like you have been hit by a truck (speaking from experience)

[california boy]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

(Mileage may vary, based on the situation and circumstances)

Beforehand, the SP briefs the HC on background, and they draw lots to assign high councilors who are to see that the accused's rights or observed and preserved. 

The person(s) are invited in, and there are typical opening exercises (prayer, introductions, etc.). The stake president asks the person to explain why they are there (he may summarize things, and ask the person to fill in gaps or elaborate). Typically, then all 15 then ask questions, and this is a very essential and valuable thing. In my old stake, bishops were invited, and they also sometimes answered questions or could interject and add essential details or information (from having prepared the person and worked with him up to that point). The person may also ask question or add anything he feels necessary.

When this phase is over, the person is excused, and either waits in the lobby outside the high council room (closed off from the rest of the building), or goes home and awaits summoning via phone. As a bishop, I sat outside with them for what could be hours. The 15 then discuss the evidence, mitigating factors, potential effects, give views, ask and answer questions. At the end of this phase, a straw poll is taken as to what the outcome should be, and concerns and advantages/disadvantages are discussed. This can take a while.

The stake presidency withdraws and discusses further among themselves, and then prays for revelation. In my ward disciplinary councils, we each prayed in turn, sometimes not with an outcome in mind, sometimes for confirmation or guidance on an outcome. Sometimes we felt like we should discuss further. This is one of my fondest memories from being a bishop. My testimony is that God gives revelation in these in a manner I haven't felt in other venues. When the stake president has reached a decision (almost always unanimous, but I have witnessed < 100% unanimity but the decision is sustained), he presents the decision to the high council and asks for a sustaining vote. There is usually unanimity here as well, but if there isn't, the stake presidency would hopefully address concerns and reconfer if necessary.

The person is then invited back in, and the decision is announced. Counsel is given, and the terms of the action are explained and questions are answered. The person is told that a letter will be forthcoming spelling out these terms. The council is then closed with a prayer, and the ones I have seen have all had all 15 tearfully hugging and shaking hands with the persons involved. 

I never sat on a disciplinary council when I was on the high council, but this was very similar to my own excommunication court.  It personally was a very positive experience.  I didn't feel any animosity towards me.  Nor did I have any animosity towards the church for the actions taken towards me. Of course, I felt sorrow for having to leave the church.  But I knew it was the right thing for both me and the church given its current position on gays.   I already knew that what I needed to do was not in alignment with church policy.  In the end, when the decision was announced, each person on the high council stood up, gave me a hug as I went around the room and wished me the best.  Of course almost all of them knew me well and had served with me.  

I would hope that every person who is excommunicated receives such a positive experience.  I wondered if Sam felt he had been treated fairly given the whole 45/15 minute thing.  

[rongo]

26 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Five hours? How can it take that long? I am now glad I am not on a High Council. After five hours I think my impatient response to the situation would be:

”I will see you HANG FOR THIS!”

No, the five hour one was at the ward level. It was emotionally exhausting for all of us, but had a good outcome. The "interrogation" phase took a long time (questions and answers), and then deliberating about the appropriate course of action, and seeking revelation on it took a long time as well (disfellowshipment or excommunication). 

I've never heard of one that had an outcome of "no action," although that is a possibility. 

It seems to me that it would be tricky in the Joseph Bishop case if he denies that anything happened, and it appears that his prior statements are clouded with confusion and agendas. I think it would be important to ask him in the DC how he explains the statements attributed to him or on the recording, and a lot would depend on how that goes. But as it stands, if it's his word against McKenna Denson's, and that's the only evidence there is . . . It would be hard to just excommunicate or even disfellowship him, barring other factors or things that come out in the DC.  I could conceive of a "no action" there, but boy, would that enrage the critics! And you can't (or shouldn't) let consideration of the critics color your decision. If, as it appears, the home stake is unaware of the claims and the hulabaloo, I could see them not pursuing it based solely on the Denson/Norton circus. That whole thing would have looked completely cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs. She didn't come off well. And that's even without the partying video before. 

[Calm]

Quote

But as it stands, if it's his word against McKenna Denson's, and that's the only evidence there is . .

The Church apparently has at least one other woman's complaint from 2010.  We have no clue what it entailed though.  I don't know if that would be made accessible to his local leaders, I would think so....

Edited September 17, 2018 by Calm

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

Not one? Wow. All of ours were, but we didn't have any rancorous apostasy ones. They were all voluntary and involved people trying to get back on the covenant path, as President Nelson would say. Sad, lots of difficulties and trials ahead, yes. 

We had high councilors who said in DCs that they had been excommunicated and gone through that, and they really empathized with people. Some of them continued to follow up with people after on their own volition to see how they were. One of them asked me if it would be all right if his family invited an excommunicatee to dinner, and I said I thought that would be very well-received. 

I think those who have a very bad feeling about them are those who hate them (disciplinary councils). In other words, those who don't believe that God wants us to have them, and that they are harmful to people. I guess if I felt that way, I could relate to that, but for believing members of the Church? 

I didn't have any apostasy ones during my tenure either.  They were typically ones where someone had done something wrong and were working their way though the repentance process as well.  Still made me very uncomfortable.  I think its a personality thing, I can't explain it.  I was very orthodox, to a fault, and took each council very seriously.  They were just hard on me, hard on my heart.  I would come home and just want to curl up in a ball and not talk to anyone when I was done with them.  I even started to try and find excuses not to go to them after a while.  It was seriously the most distressing thing for me.  

This is a self diagnosis, but I've come to realize I have strong hyper-empathetic tendencies. Perhaps not quite to this extreme, but there is a spectrum of how people experience things, and I'm definitely further down the spectrum than most others that I talk to about these things.

https://www.livescience.com/1628-study-people-literally-feel-pain.html

 

[e-eye]

41 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Have you seen these firsthand?  Have you been in disciplinary councils?

I have sat on a bunch.  They really are courts of love and although there is protocol to follow, all of the ones I have been on I have felt the spirit of unity and love.

I also have never been on one where the person didn't agree with the accusation.  All mine were confessions and the repentance process had started with the results of the council being a necessary part to repenting.  

[JAHS]

Most stake disciplinary councils are held for Melchizedek priesthood holders that are likely to be excommunicated and all others are held at the ward level.
There are some circumstances where there might be deviations from this. If at the ward level the Bishop has to get permission from the stake president to hold a disciplinary counsel.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

(Mileage may vary, based on the situation and circumstances)

Beforehand, the SP briefs the HC on background, and they draw lots to assign high councilors who are to see that the accused's rights or observed and preserved. 

The person(s) are invited in, and there are typical opening exercises (prayer, introductions, etc.). The stake president asks the person to explain why they are there (he may summarize things, and ask the person to fill in gaps or elaborate). Typically, then all 15 then ask questions, and this is a very essential and valuable thing. In my old stake, bishops were invited, and they also sometimes answered questions or could interject and add essential details or information (from having prepared the person and worked with him up to that point). The person may also ask question or add anything he feels necessary.

When this phase is over, the person is excused, and either waits in the lobby outside the high council room (closed off from the rest of the building), or goes home and awaits summoning via phone. As a bishop, I sat outside with them for what could be hours. The 15 then discuss the evidence, mitigating factors, potential effects, give views, ask and answer questions. At the end of this phase, a straw poll is taken as to what the outcome should be, and concerns and advantages/disadvantages are discussed. This can take a while.

The stake presidency withdraws and discusses further among themselves, and then prays for revelation. In my ward disciplinary councils, we each prayed in turn, sometimes not with an outcome in mind, sometimes for confirmation or guidance on an outcome. Sometimes we felt like we should discuss further. This is one of my fondest memories from being a bishop. My testimony is that God gives revelation in these in a manner I haven't felt in other venues. When the stake president has reached a decision (almost always unanimous, but I have witnessed < 100% unanimity but the decision is sustained), he presents the decision to the high council and asks for a sustaining vote. There is usually unanimity here as well, but if there isn't, the stake presidency would hopefully address concerns and reconfer if necessary.

The person is then invited back in, and the decision is announced. Counsel is given, and the terms of the action are explained and questions are answered. The person is told that a letter will be forthcoming spelling out these terms. The council is then closed with a prayer, and the ones I have seen have all had all 15 tearfully hugging and shaking hands with the persons involved. 

This matches my memories of participating in both HC and bishopric councils, except I don't remember the straw poll before the presidency retired from the room. I do remember the SP asking the HC for comments, though. Maybe that's what you meant by straw poll. One side of the table spoke to defend the member, the other side spoke to defend the Church. There was never contention, judgement, recrimination, shaming. It was always done with the greatest respect, decorum, love, and concern. The member could request a spouse or bishop to sit with him/her during the council.