No More 'Disciplinary' Councils; Excommunication

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure that's quite correct.  I've previously commented on this here:

The alteration of terminology does not seem to change the underlying doctrines.

As for the change in terms, I am fine with those.  "Excommunicate" was a borrowed term.  It approximates the intended meaning in the LDS paradigm, but does not fully capture it.  And it has connotations that are perhaps unnecessary.  Baggage, if you will.

Instead of "heresy," we generally say "false doctrine."

Instead of "disciplinary council" (and, before that, "church court"), we now say "membership council."

Instead of "excommunication," we now say "membership withdrawal."

Instead of "disfellowship" and/or "probation," we now say "formal membership restrictions."

"Apostasy" still has a harshness to it, but it's still in there (section 32.6.3.2).

Section 32.2 sets forth the "Three Purposes of Church Membership Restrictions or Withdrawal" as

Previously, these three purposes were characterized as

Skimming through it (section 32, pertaining to "Repentance and Church Membership Councils"), there seem to be quite a few changes.  Interesting stuff.

Thanks,

-Smac

There are and have been a number of borrowed terms in the Church. Offhand, I can think of a couple: 

Sunday School is a name and concept borrowed from Protestant congregations. As conceived originally conceived in the Church, it was strictly for children and was almost identical in form and purpose to Primary. That, of course, evolved over time. 

I could imagine a name change that better reflects what Sunday School has become: adult and youth gospel discussion, perhaps, or simply Gospel Discussion. I would never push for that, though. I very much like the name Sunday School. 

It is interesting that President Russell M. Nelson, when he was over Sunday School in the Church decades ago, suggested the term superintendent (another borrowed term) be changed to president. He also pressed to have the antiquated name Deseret Sunday School Union discontinued. 
 

Relief Society (originally Women’s Relief Society of Nauvoo) also seems to be, in a sense, borrowed. The name sounds very much like Ladies Aid Society, a custom that has been common in Protestant congregations. Of course, the form and function of Relief Society is so much more than a group to organize charitable work, although it certainly does that. Perhaps a name change might be contemplated here as well. 

[Scott Lloyd]

I don’t see that this has been mentioned yet. 
 

Normally, the high council will no longer be involved when the stake presidency holds membership councils. 

Edited February 19, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t see that this has been mentioned yet. 
 

Normally, the high council will no longer be involved when the stake presidency holds membership councils. 

so, they won't be now? if they don't do that what else would they do? 

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t see that this has been mentioned yet. 
 

Normally, the high council will no longer be involved when the stake presidency holds membership councils. 

So who would be there?  Just the stake presidency?

[Nofear]

32.9.2 High Council

Members of the high council do not normally participate in stake membership councils. However, the high council may participate in difficult situations (see Doctrine and Covenants 102:2). For example, the stake presidency may invite the high council to participate when:

• There are contested facts.

• They would add value and balance.

• The member requests their participation.

• A member of the stake presidency or his family is involved (see 32.9.7).

Edited February 19, 2020 by Nofear

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, Nofear said:

32.9.2 High Council

Members of the high council do not normally participate in stake membership councils. However, the high council may participate in difficult situations (see Doctrine and Covenants 102:2). For example, the stake presidency may invite the high council to participate when:

• There are contested facts.

• They would add value and balance.

• The member requests their participation.

• A member of the stake presidency or his family is involved (see 32.9.7).

well, how about that

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So who would be there?  Just the stake presidency?

And the stake clerk, I suppose. (He’s not a member of the stake presidency.)

[Rain]

59 minutes ago, Duncan said:

would that apply to inactive people coming back? because I don't see the Church going on witch hunts!!!

Duncan, you were saying you said you thought adultery was always bad and questioned why the policy would only apply sometimes if it was always bad.  I was giving 2 different scenarios of why it may be necessary for the SP, but may not be for the inactive even though adultery is always bad.  

I think we have some miscommunication going here, but I'm not sure how.  

[Ginger Snaps]

51 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So who would be there?  Just the stake presidency?

Ward RSPs and EQPs can be invited for support  

Also important to note that counsels for all endowed members are now held by the stake. Male or female. 

Edited February 19, 2020 by Ginger Snaps

[Duncan]

12 minutes ago, Rain said:

Duncan, you were saying you said you thought adultery was always bad and questioned why the policy would only apply sometimes if it was always bad.  I was giving 2 different scenarios of why it may be necessary for the SP, but may not be for the inactive even though adultery is always bad.  

I think we have some miscommunication going here, but I'm not sure how.  

to me and I think all of us would say adultery is bad, you shouldn't cheat on your spouse. I am surprised that the Church would take a different route and say well, not always. I am like, how not always?! how would adultery ever be justified. I don't think we would go to the inactive and have a membership council for them, why would they care what we did? they don't attend church anymore so if their membership was removed, what good would it do?

I would love to know what scenario attempted murder could put someone in the good graces of the Church, as it too a membership council isn't mandatory🤔

Edited February 19, 2020 by Duncan

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

to me and I think all of us would say adultery is bad, you shouldn't cheat on your spouse.

Unequivocally, yes.

5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I am surprised that the Church would take a different route and say well, not always.

This is simply not so.  The Church is not taking "a different route."  The Church is not saying that adultery is "not always" wrong.

5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I am like, how not always?!

You are attributing to the Church things that are not so.

5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

how would adultery ever be justified.

The Church is not saying adultery is justifiable.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rain]

7 minutes ago, Duncan said:

to me and I think all of us would say adultery is bad, you shouldn't cheat on your spouse. I am surprised that the Church would take a different route and say well, not always.

The church is not saying that it isn't always bad. It always is. The church is saying there are just different consequences depending on the situation 

7 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I am like, how not always?! how would adultery ever be justified.

It is not justified by the church here.  The policy is only talking about the consequence. 

7 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I don't think we would go to the inactive and have a membership council for them, why would they care what we did? they don't attend church anymore so if their membership was removed, what good would it do?

 

[bluebell]

26 minutes ago, Ginger Snaps said:

Ward RSPs and EQPs can be invited for support  

Also important to note that counsels for all endowed members are now held by the stake. Male or female. 

So people can be there for support but the only people who 'vote' are the stake presidency?  

Also, I personally know of a situation (I personally know both spouses involved and was a confident of the wife during this whole process) where the husband committed adultery but was not excommunicated, only disfellowshipped (largely at the request of his wife and the fact that he was all in when it came to the repentance process), so the whole process stayed at the ward level and never went to the stake high council (the stake president was the one who allowed it to remain at the ward level, of course).

With the new guidelines, does that mean that there would have been no option to stay at the ward level but it would have had to go to the stake?

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, Duncan said:

to me and I think all of us would say adultery is bad, you shouldn't cheat on your spouse. I am surprised that the Church would take a different route and say well, not always. I am like, how not always?! how would adultery ever be justified. I don't think we would go to the inactive and have a membership council for them, why would they care what we did? they don't attend church anymore so if their membership was removed, what good would it do?

I would love to know what scenario attempted murder could put someone in the good graces of the Church, as it too a membership council isn't mandatory🤔

I don't think the church ever would say that adultery isn't always bad.  I'm not sure how you are coming to that conclusion.  Did the new handbook say that sometimes no church discipline would be necessary, or did it just say that sometimes excommunication wouldn't be necessary?  

[rockpond]

28 minutes ago, Duncan said:

to me and I think all of us would say adultery is bad, you shouldn't cheat on your spouse. I am surprised that the Church would take a different route and say well, not always. I am like, how not always?! how would adultery ever be justified. I don't think we would go to the inactive and have a membership council for them, why would they care what we did? they don't attend church anymore so if their membership was removed, what good would it do?

I would love to know what scenario attempted murder could put someone in the good graces of the Church, as it too a membership council isn't mandatory🤔

Here's how I see it, Duncan...

The lists the differentiate between "required" and "may be necessary" aren't going to be perfectly black and white.  I don't think that's realistic.  But, it seems to me that, for the most part, the sins requiring a membership council are those that jeopardize the well being of others (victims) or the good name of the church.  That said, I agree with you that if a person were convicted of attempted murder (as opposed to just being accused) and I were their bishop or SP, I would probably feel that a membership council was required.

Regarding adultery (which I agree is always bad), here's a scenario in which church leaders probably would not want to force a membership council as a matter of written policy:  let's say you have a couple that is permanently separated but not divorced and the husband who is not active in the church moves in with his new girlfriend (with the separated wife aware of what is happening).  In this case, the husband is not pretending to be a member in good standing (or even an active member) and the wife is not in danger because they are separated.  There doesn't seem to be value in a membership council in this situation.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

 but would the church ex someone who isn't active? 

There were a few cases in the News with the 2015 policy that had councils called on inactives iirc.  Perhaps it is meant to allow the choice of not going after someone who has more or less withdrawn themselves from the Church already rather than place the leaders in a position of obligation if they find out.

[stemelbow]

Is the Church ready to accept gay couples into full membership status?  I don't see any direction for leaders on that.  Or am I missing it?

[JAHS]

Got the notification in my email today. Looks like updates will continue through next year.

[JAHS]

Here's a video about the new handbook on Facebook

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, longview said:

as the GH is translated to all 51 languages! 

It makes sense to simplify words to make translation easier, especially removing specialized words that may not have exact correlations in all the languages.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

So who would be there?  Just the stake presidency?

Per section 32.9, participants are:

Quote

• The person for whom the council is being held
• Stake president and his counselors
• Stake clerk
• High councilors (in limited situations as explained in 32.9.2)
• Bishop of the person for whom the council is being held (optional; see 32.9.3)
• Elders quorum or Relief Society president (optional; see 32.10.1)

So stake-level membership councils no longer include the high council in most circumstances.  The exceptions (from section 32.9.2):

Quote

Members of the high council do not normally participate in stake membership councils. However, the high council may participate in difficult situations (see Doctrine and Covenants 102:2). For example, the stake presidency may invite the high council to participate when:

• There are contested facts.
• They would add value and balance.
• The member requests their participation.
• A member of the stake presidency or his family is involved (see 32.9.7).

I think these circumstances will be very rare.

Most membership councils will be at the ward level.  Here the the guidelines for stake presidents re: membership council matters (from Section 32.9.1):

Quote

The stake president:

• Has authority over membership councils in the stake; however, most of these councils are held by bishops.
• Must give approval before a bishop may hold a membership council.
• Holds a stake membership council if a man or woman who has received the temple endowment will likely have his or her Church membership withdrawn.
• May hold a council if a member appeals the decision of a ward membership council.
• Must give approval before a ward membership council’s recommendation to withdraw an unendowed person’s membership is final.

So off-hand, the changes appear to be:

Stake-level membership councils will not involve the high council (except in very limited circumstances, see below).

Stake-level membership councils will not be based on jurisdiction over priesthood quorums.  Previously, Melchizedek priesthood holders were usually disciplined at the stake level, but women who have received their endowments were disciplined at the ward level.  Now, the determinative factor for both men and women is whether they have been through the temple and if their membership withdrawal is "likely."  If so, the membership council will be at the stake level.

Ward-level membership councils have changed a bit, too (from Section 32.9.3):

Quote

The bishop:

• Has authority over ward membership councils.
• Confers with the stake president and obtains his approval before holding a council.
• May not hold a council if a man or woman who has received the temple endowment will likely have his or her Church membership withdrawn. A stake membership council must be held in those situations.
• May be invited to attend a stake membership council for a ward member whose membership is being reviewed. His attendance must be approved by the stake president and the person.

A ward or branch membership council may recommend withdrawing a person’s Church membership if he or she has not been endowed. However, the stake president’s approval is required before the decision is final.

Sometimes a ward membership council is held for an endowed member and the proceedings reveal that the member will likely have his or her membership withdrawn. In these situations, the bishop refers the matter to the stake president.

As I see it, an endowed person, whether man or woman, can have a membership council at the stake level or, at the direction of the stake president, at the ward level.  This was possible before these changes, so the change isn't that significant.

The big changes are

A) the high council is no longer involved (in almost all instances);

B) women can be disciplined at the stake level (where withdrawal of membership (f/k/a "excommunication") for an endowed member is anticipated, the stake must convene the council); and

C) bishops can withdraw membership, but only with stake president's approval (or was this always the case?).

Any others?

-Smac

Edited February 19, 2020 by smac97

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

. I don't think we would go to the inactive and have a membership council for them, why would they care what we did? they don't attend church anymore so if their membership was removed, what good would it do?

This has happened according to reports online and iirc there were a few occasions of calling councils on inactives who participated in a gay marriage published in the news.  The previous wording may have led some leaders to believe it was their obligation to hold a council whether or not the person was attending.

As far as what good would it do, they would no longer be breaking covenants, it might be a wake up call in a few cases, it may ensure they are not identified as "Mormon" in the press.

Quote

would love to know what scenario attempted murder could put someone in the good graces of the Church, as it too a membership council isn't mandatory🤔

I think you have an off assumption going here based on your belief church leaders don't hold councils for inactives when they did.  Not holding a council in no way implies what status a person has with the Church.  It only means the leadership has decided no council is a better approach.  Since the individual must be contacted for councils, a desire not to contact might be the reason...say for an inactive whose family would be additionally burdened by that measure being taken at that time...or even if it might draw the attention of a known violent offender.

PPS:  I can think of another case where members won't feel obligated to bring inactives' behaviours to the notice of church leaders because they understood an obligation to hold a council and another case for members can't call out a leader for not doing their duty if they choose not to hold one to avoid alienation of the member's family or for another reason.

Edited February 19, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

Removed as nonapplicable.

Edited February 19, 2020 by Calm

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So people can be there for support but the only people who 'vote' are the stake presidency?  

The only "people {who}  can be there for support" in a ward membership council are the RS President and/or EQ President.

The only "people {who}  can be there for support" in a stake membership council are the RS President and/or EQ President.  The bishop of the individual may also attend with the approval of the stake president and the individual.

29 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Also, I personally know of a situation (I personally know both spouses involved and was a confident of the wife during this whole process) where the husband committed adultery but was not excommunicated, only disfellowshipped (largely at the request of his wife and the fact that he was all in when it came to the repentance process), so the whole process stayed at the ward level and never went to the stake high council (the stake president was the one who allowed it to remain at the ward level, of course).

I've been involved in situations like that also (disciplinary councils that would normally have been held at the stake level, but were delegated to the bishop and his counselors).

29 minutes ago, bluebell said:

With the new guidelines, does that mean that there would have been no option to stay at the ward level but it would have had to go to the stake?

I think the option to stay at the ward level is still there.  Having a stake-level council is only mandatory if membership withdrawal is "likely."  What qualifies as "likely" seems like a discretionary, case-by-case sort of thing to be decided by the stake president.  By way of illustration, I could see a stake president and bishop conferring about a deeply remorseful and penitent person who voluntarily confesses to the misconduct (like your scenario set forth above), such that the stake president could determine that membership withdrawal as being unlikely, and hence the disciplinary council could be held at the ward level.  

On the other hand, an in-open-rebellion/apostasy kind of person (Kate Kelly, Jeremy Runnells and Sam Young come rather quickly to mind) would likely qualify as "likely" to have their membership withdrawn.  Murderers are necessarily in this category, since murder requires membership removal (the only mandatory basis for membership renewal, I think).  The Handbook also lists other mandatory grounds for a council (rape, sexual assault conviction, child/youth abuse, spousal abuse, predatory behavior (violent, sexual, or financial), incest, child pornography, plural marriage, serious sin while holding a prominent church position, and felony conviction).  I would think most situations involving these forms of misconduct would trigger a stake-level membership council.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Now, the determinative factor for both men and women is whether they have been through the temple.  If so, the membership council will presumptively be at the stake level, and heard by the stake president and his counselors.

Isn't this more for when membership withdrawal is at stake, otherwise held at ward level?

Quote

•  most of these councils are held by bishops....
• Holds a stake membership council if a man or woman who has received the temple endowment will likely have his or her Church membership withdrawn.

 

Edited February 19, 2020 by Calm