Stake disciplinary council

[sunstoned]

7 hours 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. 

At least one of the September Six courts was dictated by the Q15.  The Stake president of Abraham Gileadi was dictated to by Elder Jeppsen (area authroity) to hold a court of love on brother Gileadi.  The Stake was not inspired to do so.  In the words of Elder Jeppsen, "I prodded him two times and actually gave him a copy of a report from the correlation committee".  Later Jeppsen stated, "On his third visit to my office he thanked me for my counsel and was leaving when I put my arm around him and said “We’re short on counsel in this office but long on direction. I’m directing you to take action to correct or else excommunicate this man."  The Stake President refused to hold the court.  In Jeppsens words, " Still nothing happened, so he was released as a stake president. The new one called was a professor at BYU by the name of Leaun Otten. He was appraised of the problem and moved to correct it quickly."

https://www.mormonstories.org/podcast/christine-jeppsen-clark-daughter-of-general-authority-malcolm-jeppsen/

Michael Quinn claims that his Stake President was directed to hold a court on him by members of the Q155.

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/faithbased/2012/11/d_michael_quinn_and_mormon_excommunication_the_complicated_life_of_a_mormon.html

Bill Reel has stated right on this forum that his State President is being personally directed by members of the Q15 concerning is possible disciplinary council.

 

Even though the apostles have claimed otherwise, the facts show that they are at times actively involved, if not completely directing the affairs of local discipline councils.

Edited September 18, 2018 by sunstoned

[e-eye]

6 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

I’ve only been in one. I was the accused. I went in with humility, and did not contradict any accusations.  I fully accepted responsibilities for my mistakes.

I didn’t feel berated or abused, but I would not describe it as a court of love. It was justice and process.

My point is this - I disagree when people defend excommunications or disciplinary councils as courts of love.  They can be. Maybe they should be. But they are not all that way.

Very possible. I have sat in a bunch- i could never say how the person feels, but i know i had an increased love for the person.  I would say i enjoy reconvenings way more.  I can imagine being disciplined would be difficult even thou necessary. 

[Duncan]

9 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

At least one of the September Six courts was dictated by the Q15.  The Stake president of Abraham Gileadi was dictated to by Elder Jeppsen (area authroity) to hold a court of love on brother Gileadi.  The Stake was not inspired to do so.  In the words of Elder Jeppsen, "I prodded him two times and actually gave him a copy of a report from the correlation committee".  Later Jeppsen stated, "On his third visit to my office he thanked me for my counsel and was leaving when I put my arm around him and said “We’re short on counsel in this office but long on direction. I’m directing you to take action to correct or else excommunicate this man."  The Stake President refused to hold the court.  In Jeppsens words, " Still nothing happened, so he was released as a stake president. The new one called was a professor at BYU by the name of Leaun Otten. He was appraised of the problem and moved to correct it quickly."

https://www.mormonstories.org/podcast/christine-jeppsen-clark-daughter-of-general-authority-malcolm-jeppsen/

Michael Quinn claims that his Stake President was directed to hold a court on him by members of the Q155.

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/faithbased/2012/11/d_michael_quinn_and_mormon_excommunication_the_complicated_life_of_a_mormon.html

Bill Reel has stated right on this forum that his State President is being personally directed by members of the Q15 concerning is possible disciplinary council.

 

 

Even though the apostles have claimed otherwise, the facts show that they are at times actively involved, if not completely directing the affairs of local discipline councils.

 

When Gileadi came back I wonder if the Apostles brought it on? IIRC Elder Maxwell helped with his return. Quinn is a different kettle of fish. I believe Bill Reel believes that he's on the radar of the Apostles, I highly, highly doubt it and don't trust what he says but he has his belief

Edited September 18, 2018 by Duncan

[The Nehor]

Everyone seems to think the apostles are interested in them.

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Everyone seems to think the apostles are interested in them.

oh yeah! I had lunch with Suzanne Somers today and I will be on Kimmel next thursday🤨

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Honest question:  Have you  ever been in a court where the accused was fully acquitted? 

Acquitted as in found innocent? None that I have participated in. All were uncontested by the member and were seen as part of the repentance process that had been started some time before the DC. Not given any restriction on their membership? Yes, several times.

Edited September 18, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours 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. 

I don’t see why you would expect to feel “uplifted” after such an experience. It would be, it seems to me, a painful ordeal for all involved. 

But that doesn’t mean it is not a necessary and divinely given part of the duties of priesthood leaders, if that’s what you are intending to imply. 

[Bernard Gui]

One night as I was locking up the bishopric office after interviews,  I heard a ruckus down the hall near the bishop's office of the ward with which we shared the building. Since we were the only ones in the building, I walked down to see what was going on. A man and his wife had just been excommunicated in that ward for apostasy. They were outside the bishop's office gesticulating and vociferously casting the Devil out of the bishop. He was leaning against the wall with his arms folded, nodding his head. The excommunication became a badge of honor on their resume....he even became the local leader of Ed Decker's Ex-Mormons for Jesus group. He claimed on their newspaper ad that he was a former Mormon priest. Think about that one for a minute. In the council, he had accused the Church of neglecting his aging and ailing parents and said this was just another evidence that the Church was of the Devil. I was the parents' bishop. We regularly paid their utility, medical, and other bills, and provided food from the BIshop's Storehouse. In all the times I visited them, I never saw the son there, nor heard from them that he had offered them any help. I didn't even recognize him as their son. Go figure.

Edited September 18, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t see why you would expect to feel “uplifted” after such an experience.

It has been my experiencee that any attempt to follow the Saviour leaves all involved feeling uplifted and edified, including correction. No doubt, humility would be a precursor to such an experience, regardless of whether one were being corrected or doing the correcting.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

It has been my experiencee that any attempt to follow the Saviour leaves all involved feeling uplifted and edified, including correction. No doubt, humility would be a precursor to such an experience, regardless of whether one were being corrected or doing the correcting.

I’ve not had this experience, but I’m confident what you say is true. 

I can imagine feeling good about having followed the Savior, while at the same time, being saddened and emotionally and physically drained by what is bound to be, in some cases at least, an unpleasant experience. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

48 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I can imagine feeling good about having followed the Savior, while at the same time, being saddened and emotionally and physically drained by what is bound to be, in some cases at least, an unpleasant experience. 

Except that it's not unpleasant. At least I've never seen it be. Typically, a disciplinary council ends with hugs and tears (not sad ones), former strangers in many cases having now become friends. As I mentioned in discussing our last stake disciplinary council, immediately afterwards both husband and wife sent me Facebook friend requests. I didn't even know them before; we're genuine friends now. Sincere repentance is beautiful and joyful -- and humbling for all involved. I've never left a council without a greater resolve to be more diligent in humbly seeking forgiveness for myself, following the brave example of those who are determined to put their mistakes behind them. At least, that's been my experience.

Edited September 18, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[mfbukowski]

12 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. 

Yep. That's it pretty much.

Bu I have never seen the deliberation run more than 45 minutes max

But that is probably because we don't usually start until 7 p.m. on a weeknight.

 

[mfbukowski]

11 hours 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.

 

Nope. Six members of the HC are randomly picked to defend the church. Six members defend the accused.

All express their opinions and definitely may not agree with the stake president.

Yet I have never seen the president's final decision not being sustained unanimously, though it is possible.

Still the final decision is his though regardless of how the votes come out.

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

I am pretty sure there was no straw vote at my excommunication.  It has been 20 years ago, but. I think I would have remembered that.

You would have been outside the room at that time, it is not done with the accused in the room.

[Stargazer]

14 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

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

Well, I have.  Both as the presiding officer and as an observer (ward clerk).  They have all been compassionate, loving and merciful.  In every case (not that I was in a huge number) the person involved was grateful for the care and concern shown, regardless of the outcome.  All of the ones I participated in had to do with law of chastity violations, FWIW, not apostasy.

[Stargazer]

8 hours ago, katherine the great said:

I've always wondered how it feels for the women who are tried in these courts. I've had a single conversation with one woman who went through this process (for adultery) and she described it to me in some detail. Maybe these courts are appropriate for men but frankly I was absolutely horrified at the thought of a single woman in a roomful of men discussing such intimate details. Would men be comfortable confessing sexual sins to a roomful of women? Would it be a healing experience? I sincerely just can't see it.

I was the clerk in such a DC.  The sister in question had done something inappropriate as something like revenge on her husband, who had also done something inappropriate.  He got a stake DC, since he could have been excommunicated (he wasn't) and her case was handled at the ward level.  I honestly don't remember any longer what the precise outcome of both DCs (probation? disfellowshipment?), but I definitely remember her reaction to the ward DC. Since she and her husband had both come to the bishop to confess their problems, so as to start the process of getting straight with the Lord, this wasn't the kind of thing where was an adversarial atmosphere.  There were tears, on all faces, but she seemed to be the happiest person in the room, and the fact that we were all men didn't seem to be a "thing" at all.  I should mention that their marriage survived this little hiccup, and they are still going strong.

[Stargazer]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

One night as I was locking up the bishopric office after interviews,  I heard a ruckus down the hall near the bishop's office of the ward with which we shared the building. Since we were the only ones in the building, I walked down to see what was going on. A man and his wife had just been excommunicated in that ward for apostasy. They were outside the bishop's office gesticulating and vociferously casting the Devil out of the bishop. He was leaning against the wall with his arms folded, nodding his head. The excommunication became a badge of honor on their resume....he even became the local leader of Ed Decker's Ex-Mormons for Jesus group. He claimed on their newspaper ad that he was a former Mormon priest. Think about that one for a minute. In the council, he had accused the Church of neglecting his aging and ailing parents and said this was just another evidence that the Church was of the Devil. I was the parents' bishop. We regularly paid their utility, medical, and other bills, and provided food from the BIshop's Storehouse. In all the times I visited them, I never saw the son there, nor heard from them that he had offered them any help. I didn't even recognize him as their son. Go figure.

Since it wouldn't be correct for a bishop to excommunicate a holder of the Melchizedek priesthood, he might have been completely accurate in claiming he was a priest.  Unless he was a deacon or a teacher.

 

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

One night as I was locking up the bishopric office after interviews,  I heard a ruckus down the hall near the bishop's office of the ward with which we shared the building. Since we were the only ones in the building, I walked down to see what was going on. A man and his wife had just been excommunicated in that ward for apostasy. They were outside the bishop's office gesticulating and vociferously casting the Devil out of the bishop. He was leaning against the wall with his arms folded, nodding his head. The excommunication became a badge of honor on their resume....he even became the local leader of Ed Decker's Ex-Mormons for Jesus group. He claimed on their newspaper ad that he was a former Mormon priest. Think about that one for a minute. In the council, he had accused the Church of neglecting his aging and ailing parents and said this was just another evidence that the Church was of the Devil. I was the parents' bishop. We regularly paid their utility, medical, and other bills, and provided food from the BIshop's Storehouse. In all the times I visited them, I never saw the son there, nor heard from them that he had offered them any help. I didn't even recognize him as their son. Go figure.

Another weird Mormon story to add.

[hope_for_things]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t see why you would expect to feel “uplifted” after such an experience. It would be, it seems to me, a painful ordeal for all involved. 

But that doesn’t mean it is not a necessary and divinely given part of the duties of priesthood leaders, if that’s what you are intending to imply. 

Since others expressed feeling differently I thought I would express my experience. 

Whether these councils are divinely given, or of any import is a different question and discussion.  

[rongo]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yep. That's it pretty much.

Bu I have never seen the deliberation run more than 45 minutes max

But that is probably because we don't usually start until 7 p.m. on a weeknight.

Timing can be tricky. At the ward level, we always tried to have it at a time and day with as few people in the building as possible (and best for the person, too, of course). This was usually on a Saturday afternoon or evening, or a Sunday night. The stake typically had theirs Sunday mornings (during church blocks), but the high council room is sealed off from the rest of the building, and there is a separate entrance and foyer for the stake offices. They would bless and pass the sacrament among themselves in that case. 

Our five hour one started at 7:00 and ended around midnight. 

We also did the letter deliveries in coordination with the person. That is, we had already decided on the day and time, and then it was always a counselor and I who gave it to the person (usually, they came to us to get the letter, so we weren't even going to their home). It used to be that the summons letter had to be signed by the two witnesses and submitted with the paperwork, but that has been done away with with the digitizing of the paperwork. You also are very limited in your character count now in explaining what happened. This is unfortunate, because the most helpful minutes are from an older era, and I strove to emulate them in mine (pre-digitizing). The best one was out of a BYU stake, and the stake presidency and high council was a who's who list (Richard L. Anderson, Eugene England, etc.). It was like a Supreme Court transcript, carrying the give and take of all questions and answers. Extremely helpful. My clerk similarly filled a legal pad and provided a reconstituted transcript, which I think is helpful for leaders working with that person later. 

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, CV75 said:

LOL nice spin! I believe the post above mine actually quotes the Handbook so how would you spin that?

No spin. Broken down into it's most basic functions, my description is how it works. The post that quoted the handbook on page 1 of this thread doesn't dispute that.

There is a HUGE difference between a voluntary DC in which the priesthood leader and the sinner essentially work together to schedule the DC to aid in the repentance process and one in which the SP accuses a sinner which involves no confession and no agreement about guilt. In my experience, when the sin has been confessed and the sinner views the council as a step towards repentance the DC's have had a sweet and loving tone. Guilt isn't being contested. It's all about next steps.

 But it's quite a different story when an accusation is made and the accused doesn't agree with the charges. I've been involved in multiple DC's of each kind, some even for the accusation of apostasy which were always the most contentious, and for good reason. That kind of DC is a totally different animal and as I stated earlier, the SP or Bishop acts as the accuser, the prosecutor, and the judge. It is naturally contentious because much of what is being judged is subjective. It's not just about beliefs and behaviors, it's about the judge's interpretation of the accused person's beliefs and behaviors. Enough judgement is made before the DC that the accusation is made. The SP then lays out his reasons for why the person is guilty and then finalizes the decision of guilt.

Example- I presided over a DC for polygamy. There was a two prong approach. 1) accusation of 3 people living in plural marriage. They lied and contested the charge, though it was quite obvious. Because they contested that claim we also accused them of 2) sxual misconduct. Either they were living in plural marriage or they were having sxual relations outside of the bounds of marriage. To make a long story short, it turned into a very contentious ordeal in which the husband threatened to shoot me between the eyes. It was great. Lots of love all around  Fortunately in this case, it was fairly cut and dried. They lived together, finally admitted to sxual relationships, taught their children about the importance of plural marriage and ended up defending their right to live in plural marriage. Though there was a good deal of evidence beforehand, all of this came out through an adversarial DC. It wasn't a court of love. It was boundary maintenance to protect the good name of the church. They had no interest in stopping or repenting so it really had very little to do with saving the soul of the transgressor, though there obviously was hope that would happen eventually.

I suspect Sam Young's DC was also adversarial. He was accused of things he didn't agree with. He was accused of things for which he feels no need to repent. He was accused by the SP. The SP then laid out the case to himself because he was the judge. Apparently he did a great job with the prosecution because he believed the accusation he made and prosecuted. It's a bad system. To have 1 man responsible for the accusation, prosecution, and judgement really is an unfair process. There are others involved but are mostly superfluous. Depending on the SP, he may or may not listen to opposing viewpoints but in a case like this, where the accusation is apostasy and failure to sustain leaders, there is a very clear message sent that the SP feels that people who do not sustain leaders are in apostasy. It's kind of unreasonable to expect meaningful discussion or disagreement in that kind of a system.

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I suspect Sam Young's DC was also adversarial. He was accused of things he didn't agree with. He was accused of things for which he feels no need to repent. He was accused by the SP. The SP then laid out the case to himself because he was the judge. Apparently he did a great job with the prosecution because he believed the accusation he made and prosecuted. It's a bad system. To have 1 man responsible for the accusation, prosecution, and judgement really is an unfair process. There are others involved but are mostly superfluous. Depending on the SP, he may or may not listen to opposing viewpoints but in a case like this, where the accusation is apostasy and failure to sustain leaders, there is a very clear message sent that the SP feels that people who do not sustain leaders are in apostasy. It's kind of unreasonable to expect meaningful discussion or disagreement in that kind of a system.

Can you think of a system that would be both fair to Sam Young, and fair to the Church? One that conceivably could still have resulted in Sam's excommunication, but have been fair?  

[ksfisher]

11 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Honest question:  Have you  ever been in a court where the accused was fully acquitted? 

Acquitted sounds like a very legal term, and a disciplinary council is not a legal proceeding.

But, to answer your question, I have never been in a disciplinary council where no action was taken.  I imagine most situations where that would be a possibility never make it out of the bishops office.

[Avatar4321]

This thread has been surprisingly uplifting. Thank you

[HappyJackWagon]

31 minutes ago, rongo said:

Can you think of a system that would be both fair to Sam Young, and fair to the Church? One that conceivably could still have resulted in Sam's excommunication, but have been fair?  

Yes, it would be extraordinarily simply to create a system that is more fair than having one man as the accuser, prosecutor, and judge.

That system wouldn't/shouldn't be accepted anywhere. Simply including more people in the process and judgement would be more fair.