Stake disciplinary council

[Stargazer]

4 hours ago, katherine the great said:

Aren't there only three or four people present in a ward DC? (as opposed to the entire high council and Stake Presidency at the stake level)?

Yes, the bishopric and the clerk. 4.

Sisters wouldn't ordinarily be in a stake DC. Stake DC is only required if a member holding the Melchizedek priesthood might be excommunicated, because a bishop (Aaronic priesthood) cannot excommunicate a MP holder. I've never heard of a sister standing before a stake DC. I suppose it's possible but why?

[Stargazer]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

......an adult male in his late 30s uses his Aaronic priesthood office as a resume enhancer for his anti-Mormon creds......😏

Yep, I got that!

[Duncan]

9 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Yes, the bishopric and the clerk. 4.

Sisters wouldn't ordinarily be in a stake DC. Stake DC is only required if a member holding the Melchizedek priesthood might be excommunicated, because a bishop (Aaronic priesthood) cannot excommunicate a MP holder. I've never heard of a sister standing before a stake DC. I suppose it's possible but why?

I met a lady that was in one, Stake Pres. and High Council, but it wasn't suppose to happen like that as you say and the verdict was overturned by a GA and it all came out fine and dandy

[2BizE]

In some of the more high profile disciplinary councils held recently, it seems like the HC were not allowed by the SP to speak.  That doesn't seem to fit the guidelines defined.  thoughts?

[rongo]

24 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

In some of the more high profile disciplinary councils held recently, it seems like the HC were not allowed by the SP to speak.  That doesn't seem to fit the guidelines defined.  thoughts?

We don't have a tape or transcript of the whole thing for any of the councils in question (and won't). We're only getting selected excerpts. 

Edited September 18, 2018 by rongo

[CV75]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So what? Why so sensitive? Would it make you feel better, for example, if I used "judgement" instead of "verdict"? I'd have no problem changing that to help you feel better.

Having participated in many DC's I feel I have a decent understanding of the process and purpose of DC's so I'm not sure why you think I'd be asking you questions about what you think I don't understand. It's kind of funny that you tell me I'm wrong and then expect me to specifically ask you about things I'm wrong about because apparently you can't tell me how I'm wrong. So tell me what those weightier matters are instead of using such vagaries. Actually, never mind. You've stalled so long I no longer have interest. This has been a rather frustrating non-conversation.

I explained to you why / how you were wrong, so I won't keep repeating it. You don't have to change anything in your wording on my account, and I feel fine about that. You are evidently happy with your experience and understanding, but I interpreted from your remarks that you were content in lacking much of either, hence my willingness to field any resulting questions. But I would have critiqued your understanding as you described it anyway.

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I seem to agree with HJW to this extent - a person should not be subject to discipline for refusing to sustain a particular leader. The person may have very good reason for refusing to do so - like personal knowledge of some disqualifying sin committed by the appointee/leader the church needs to know about. The concept of priesthood authority then doesn't truly apply, but I have heard of situations where it is invoked. The concept of authority can be taken too far in absolutisms. I think the Church needs to also be cautious that authority is not abused as it occasionally is in the Church. Extreme loyalty to the point of Nazism bothers me.

Oops. Godwin’s Law. Nazis did really bad things.

Edited September 19, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 hours ago, 2BizE said:

In some of the more high profile disciplinary councils held recently, it seems like the HC were not allowed by the SP to speak.

Speak or ask questions?

Our current stake president has the high councillors submit all their questions through him so that he can protect the other person from unduly harsh, prying or otherwise inappropriate questions. I don't think anyone would be inclined to ask those, but this is a good safeguard, in my opinion.

Edited September 19, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I've never heard of a sister standing before a stake DC. I suppose it's possible but why?

What if the sister happens to be related to the Bishop (e.g., Spouse, Daughter)? That may be a scenario where it bumps up to the Stake President - though not sure if the entire HC would be needed. 

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Yes, the bishopric and the clerk. 4.

Sisters wouldn't ordinarily be in a stake DC. Stake DC is only required if a member holding the Melchizedek priesthood might be excommunicated, because a bishop (Aaronic priesthood) cannot excommunicate a MP holder. I've never heard of a sister standing before a stake DC. I suppose it's possible but why?

Yep. The only people who appear before the stake leaders would be MP holders.

[mfbukowski]

Just now, Amulek said:

What if the sister happens to be related to the Bishop (e.g., Spouse, Daughter)? That may be a scenario where it bumps up to the Stake President - though not sure if the entire HC would be needed. 

 

I would like a quote on that. Never heard anything like that.

[JAHS]

33 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yep. The only people who appear before the stake leaders would be MP holders.

There is one exception that I know of regarding ward discplinary councils:
"If the bishop is unable to participate, he refers the case to the stake president, who convenes a stake disciplinary council." (CHI)

 

[ksfisher]

52 minutes ago, JAHS said:

There is one exception that I know of regarding ward discplinary councils:
"If the bishop is unable to participate, he refers the case to the stake president, who convenes a stake disciplinary council." (CHI)

 

If the participant objects to the participation of the bishop in a disciplinary council the matter is refered to the stake as well.

Edited September 19, 2018 by ksfisher

[Glenn101]

On 9/17/2018 at 5:15 PM, SouthernMo said:

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

Yes.

[RevTestament]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Oops. Godwin’s Law. Nazis did really bad things.

I guess that is where the now defunct Gui's law came from, hey? Of course I am not comparing the Church leadership to Nazis, but just trying to make a point that absolute authority on earth seems to corrupt. I believe that is why the Church members were given the right to vote. I don't have too much problem with the present system, but I have heard of situations like the ones I brought up, where a sister got the royal treatment for abstaining from sustaining a bishop because of what she knew about him.  That should not happen in the Church, but the attitude of authority trumping all else made it possible. Instead of the sister getting chewed out, maybe the appropriate response was to hear the sister in a disciplinary council for the bishop.

The Lord has never promised that priesthood holders won't go astray. Instead He told us:

D&C 121:39 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.

40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—

Threatening those who abstain is contrary to scripture. That is my only point. The fact that I have heard about it in the Church makes me cringe.

[HappyJackWagon]

5 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I guess that is where the now defunct Gui's law came from, hey? Of course I am not comparing the Church leadership to Nazis, but just trying to make a point that absolute authority on earth seems to corrupt. I believe that is why the Church members were given the right to vote. I don't have too much problem with the present system, but I have heard of situations like the ones I brought up, where a sister got the royal treatment for abstaining from sustaining a bishop because of what she knew about him.  That should not happen in the Church, but the attitude of authority trumping all else made it possible. Instead of the sister getting chewed out, maybe the appropriate response was to hear the sister in a disciplinary council for the bishop.

The Lord has never promised that priesthood holders won't go astray. Instead He told us:

D&C 121:39 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.

40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—

Threatening those who abstain is contrary to scripture. That is my only point. The fact that I have heard about it in the Church makes me cringe.

But doesn't that negate the power of priesthood keys

 

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I guess that is where the now defunct Gui's law came from, hey? 

Indeed. But both are quite alive and well. 

 

6 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Threatening those who abstain is contrary to scripture. That is my only point. The fact that I have heard about it in the Church makes me cringe.

I would never disagree with that, but associating Church leaders with Nazis is not productive. I reckon such abuse is the exception rather than the rule. Any leader who oversteps his/her authority should be called to repentance. We all must guard against misuse.

 

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But doesn't that negate the power of priesthood keys 

 

Please explain.

Not necessarily. There’s also the next part about reproving when moved upon by the Holy Ghost and then increasing love. That would certainly describe what should happen in disciplinary situations when needed.

[Doctrine 612]

When my older son was going to be interviewed by the bishop he asked me if I wanted to be there. I said yes of course.

he laughed and said really?

i said point blank “I don’t trust you”

the meeting went by and I baptized my son then a few days later I was talking to the stake president and he asked why I don’t trust my bishop? I said because i don’t know him, and would you let a stranger talk to your child alone? He said no then all was good.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

23 minutes ago, Doctrine 612 said:

When my older son was going to be interviewed by the bishop he asked me if I wanted to be there. I said yes of course.

he laughed and said really?

i said point blank “I don’t trust you”

the meeting went by and I baptized my son then a few days later I was talking to the stake president and he asked why I don’t trust my bishop? I said because i don’t know him, and would you let a stranger talk to your child alone? He said no then all was good.

 

Trust is earned. It's not bestowed with the calling. Or at least it shouldn't be.

[RevTestament]

40 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Trust is earned. It's not bestowed with the calling. Or at least it shouldn't be.

I do have respect toward those in priesthood callings. I assume that they  have earned a certain degree of trust or wouldn't have been called. I don't believe I have ever had a bad bishop. I think the vast majority have volunteered because they truly want to help their wards. However, I don't assume they are perfect, and have heard a few horror stories, which shows they are fallible men and can go astray. So like all people although I meet them with the respect their calling calls for, I keep my eyes and ears open. I basically give people a certain level of trust until I have reason not to. But I agree that Church leaders should have the attitude that they should earn trust rather than expect it by virtue of their callings - whether they be male or female.

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But doesn't that negate the power of priesthood keys

 

Of course it doesn't. Can't tell if you are being a little facetious here. The power of priesthood keys is not exercised by force or intimidation, which is a common way men lead. To be a priesthood holder  they may have to unlearn the way the world teaches to lead. I believe that is one of the important points that scripture is making. Leadership is not about self and looking good in front of one's congregation, etc. Priesthood keys promise authority for revelation, etc. Our scriptures recognize that authority may be abused.

D&C 121:35 Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—

36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

In the particular situations I am thinking of priesthood was attempted to be used to cover up the sin of sexual abuse. We have a member of this board who still hasn't recovered from that, and has left the church. My wife is familiar with a similar situation growing up. Another well known case was a high authority who made up fictionalized stories which he presented to the Church. The attitude that one's position of authority trumps all else is what can promote that kind of thing, and I deign to say that is what turns off certain people about the Church.

Again I believe church leaders have to be sustained because that is a final key of authority to lead the Church. It comes from the Church members on up to the president of the Church. Church members should not be discouraged from using that key wisely, and disciplining Church members for using their conscience in exercising that key should never happen. It should not be seen as diminishing the authority of the priesthood.

[mfbukowski]

On 9/18/2018 at 5:44 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

Speak or ask questions?

Our current stake president has the high councillors submit all their questions through him so that he can protect the other person from unduly harsh, prying or otherwise inappropriate questions. I don't think anyone would be inclined to ask those, but this is a good safeguard, in my opinion.

They sometimes get pretty... strange.

I remember one where the accused was a quite "loose" on sexual morality, had confessed to being with prostitutes, and was not horribly repentant.  He was definitely on the Excom. trail, knew it, and didn't especially care.

In trying to gauge the depth of his habits, the HC asked what he thought was a relevant question- "Do you have a masturbation problem?"

Answer:

"No, I don't have a  problem with masturbation".

I have never seen so many choked guffaws and red faced "coughing" in my whole life. 

I think that is a good demonstration of why yours is a good approach....

Yes, he got his wish yet some wanted disfellowshipment....

Edited September 20, 2018 by mfbukowski

[HappyJackWagon]

@Bernard Gui

Quote

D&C 121:41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

I said -

Quote

But doesn't that negate the power of priesthood keys

Rongo had been making the argument that if a SP doesn't have unilateral decision making authority then the power of priesthood keys are negated. I disagree because in my view power of the priesthood is intended to be wielded by persuasion, long suffering, gentleness, meekness and love. Absolute power doesn't play into it. In my view a SP should work towards consensus through persuasion, not by virtue of his calling. If people agree simply because he is the SP, then power of the priesthood is being wielded simply by virtue of the priesthood office. There are procedural controls and a sharing of decision making authority that could be implemented that would support the proper usage of priesthood while discouraging improper usage. My previous posts describe how some changes could be made, and IMO they do not negate priesthood keys.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

@Bernard Gui

I said -

Rongo had been making the argument that if a SP doesn't have unilateral decision making authority then the power of priesthood keys are negated. I disagree because in my view power of the priesthood is intended to be wielded by persuasion, long suffering, gentleness, meekness and love. Absolute power doesn't play into it. In my view a SP should work towards consensus through persuasion, not by virtue of his calling. If people agree simply because he is the SP, then power of the priesthood is being wielded simply by virtue of the priesthood office. There are procedural controls and a sharing of decision making authority that could be implemented that would support the proper usage of priesthood while discouraging improper usage. My previous posts describe how some changes could be made, and IMO they do not negate priesthood keys.

The Stake President does have the ultimate decision-making authority by virtue of the keys of presidency. The buck stops there.

Now power in the priesthood, or in exercising the priesthood keys, is another matter from D&C 121, and the various attributes of power extend from faith “(persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, […charity]; kindness, pure knowledge, … [sincerity, pure intent, honesty]”). This power is manifest in the president’s faithful influence and in the high council’s sustaining his proposals in faith.

The Stake President who seeks unanimity and yet may not obtain it is exercising both righteous power and righteous authority in the priesthood. He is using persuasion, long suffering, gentleness, meekness and love, etc. to seek unity, and he uses his authority to make the decision.

The council process (there are two working as one in a stake disciplinary process: the presidency is a council, and the high council is a council) is not designed to replace his decision-making authority but to bring the participants with their informational value into agreement and oneness of mind and heart. The procedures in D&C 102 and the Handbook, which cannot ensure the president’s righteousness (“power” in the priesthood), serve to maximize the sharing and exchange of information and offer value for his decision-making. They also facilitate an environment conducive the Spirit for all involved in making proposals and sustaining them. The keys of presidency and judgement, which cannot be shared, allow a decision to be made whether any of that occurs or not, but they cannot be properly used without the process taking place.

So sharing decision making is not a proper use of priesthood presidency keys or authority, and procedural controls is not a proper substitute for the president’s priesthood  power; these kinds of recommendations are irrelevant.

And as you can see, none of this has much to do with domestic or civil judicial constructs.

[CV75]

@HappyJackWagon @DispensatorMysteriorumI also think there is a distinction between sharing authority and delegating it. God delegates His priesthood to those serving in the current priesthood office structure in the Church, but actually shares it only later in the Church of the Firstborn. On the other hand, a priesthood order is shared between husband and wife, and even in some sense related to the sealing, with their children. As members we also share priesthood power through our faith in it (faith is power) by sustaining (by much prayer and faith) those who serve in their offices and callings (by much prayer and faith). For this reason, the presidencies cannot share certain key-related responsibilities with other individuals (e.g. Stake President with High Council in the disciplinary actions), and they can delegate only those responsibilities the Lord allows within the parameters of their offices and keys (e.g. Stake President issues callings).

The disciplinary council is not a setting where the president's keys of decision-making can be shared with the high council, but the power of the priesthood as manifest in their sustaining his proposal is a shared power. That spiritual power however, whether strong or weak, does not drive his ordained office authority and responsibility to make the decision whether the proposal is ultimately sustained or not.

[Bane]

On 9/17/2018 at 3:46 PM, rongo said:

We had high councilors who said in DCs that they had been excommunicated and gone through that, and they really empathized with people.

This intrigues me.  Do I understand you correctly that there were high councilors who had been excommunicated at some point in their lives?  I didn't think that such a thing was possible.  I didn't think that anyone who had been excommunicated before could ever become a high councilor.