Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Church discipline proceedings on a member who no longer lives in the stake boundaries?


Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, rongo said:

Do we even know for sure where her membership records are? I found this interesting in the handbook:

----

32.9.8

Determining Which Leader Holds a Council in Special Circumstances

Membership councils are almost always held in the geographic Church unit that has the person’s membership record . . . If the member moves outside the stake, the stake presidents of both stakes confer and decide where the council should take place. If they decide that it should be held in the former ward or stake, the membership record is retained in that ward until the council is complete. Otherwise, the record is transferred to the new ward. The bishop or stake president confidentially informs the member’s current bishop or stake president about why a council is needed.

---

Maybe this was decided among both stake presidents. 

Maybe her records are actually still in Kansas (I could be wrong about that). 

The records are in KS.  When she received the first notification of disciplinary actions being considered against her, she asked that her records be moved to Utah (and provided her new address) so she could deal with the issues locally.  She was refused and things moved forward.  Her reasons for not having moved them sooner on her own are credible, in my opinion, as they relate to a divorce, a sudden move, starting a new professional practice, etc.  She lives next door to her new bishop who she expresses liking very much and who has known she was in Utah from the beginning.  He didn't move her records either (which I know can be done having been a membership clerk).

Edited by ttribe
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

They are in KS.  When she received the first notification of disciplinary actions being considered against her, she asked that her records be moved to Utah (and provided her new address) so she could deal with the issues locally.  She was refused and things moved forward.  Her reasons for not having moved them sooner on her own are credible, in my opinion, as they relate to a divorce, a sudden move, starting a new professional practice, etc.  She lives nest door to her new bishop who she expresses liking very much and who has known she was in Utah from the beginning.  He didn't move her records either (which I know can be done having been a membership clerk).

Interesting. I was afraid they were sent back to KS for the council. 

It clearly wasn't a priority to her in moving to move her records (unless they were blocked from moving from the get-go). Even with a divorce, sudden move, starting a new practice, etc., a year and a half is a l-o-n-g time not to have your records in your ward, unless you are inactive. As you know, all it takes (on either end) is the birthdate and address. Phone and email are already attached. You don't even need unit numbers any more (and haven't for a long time). 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, rongo said:

Interesting. I was afraid they were sent back to KS for the council. 

It clearly wasn't a priority to her in moving to move her records (unless they were blocked from moving from the get-go). Even with a divorce, sudden move, starting a new practice, etc., a year and a half is a l-o-n-g time not to have your records in your ward, unless you are inactive. As you know, all it takes (on either end) is the birthdate and address. Phone and email are already attached. You don't even need unit numbers any more (and haven't for a long time). 

Well, I am a little more sympathetic given my experiences in the last few years of going through a divorce, moving twice, and dealing with issues with my kids.  Some things simply fall by the wayside.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

My heart breaks for those members who have been subjected to a church court. 

Same here.

But then, I also felt some real compassion for my friend who was required to appear in court to answer serious criminal charges, to admit in a public record that he had committed the crimes, and to then receive a sentence from the court to serve several years in prison, and to then be approached by armed deputies and - in front of his wife and extended family and friends - turned around and handcuffed and escorted out of the room and later to a bus to be transported to prison.

All that was very hard on him.  I have an acute memory of standing outside the courtroom with my arm around the shoulders of his wife, who was sobbing.  It was very hard on her.  She then had to go home and tell their children that their father had been sent to prison.  Our ward then spent the next several years rallying around this family.  The bishop gave clear and emphatic instructions to the ward council that there was to be no discussion or gossip about any of this, and that the ward leaders should step in and stop any such gossip if they hear about it.  The bishop met with the wife and kids, both formally and informally, many times to check on their well-being.  There were additional forms of assistance in terms of ward members inviting the family to activities, food orders, assistance with rent a few times, assistance with payment for counseling, and so on.  In time, the family stabilized.  Now, some years later, they are on a very solid footing.

So what is your thinking about this?  Did the State of Utah commit a monstrous act in sending this man to prison?  Did the judge who passed sentence commit a moral wrong?  Did County Attorney's Office, who prosecuted the crimes and negotiated the plea, commit a moral wrong?  Are you outraged by what I describe above?  If not, why not?

I note that you did not act, at all, with my previous post.  You did not address the various scriptural mandates I quoted.  You did not address the reasoning presnted by Don Bradley, which I quoted.  Why is that?

2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I recently ran into a former member of my stake in a local restaurant having lunch with his wife.  He like the the others I've had experience with, decided not to return to the church, as soon as our eyes met, I could see his entire demeaner change. It was if a dark cloud of humiliation and embarrassment hung over him.  The change was palpable.  I smiled and waved a hand of acknowledgement at him.  It was as if our minds had a Spock Mind Meld moment.  I literally felt the depth of his pain, embarrassment and humiliation that I had in part contributed to.  While I had not been one of those who had asked inappropriate personal questions of this man, I had certainly been in the room where he was asked these questions.  I didn't tie the rope around his neck but I held the coats of those who did. I was a party to his spiritual lynching.

What a load of nonsense.

Your remarks here are unserious and absurd.

2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

After this chance encounter, I wondered how this might have turned out differently for this man.  Why was it necessary for his sins to be shared with nearly 20 of his fellow neighbors?  What eternal purpose did it serve? What if he had been able to confess to his bishop and leave it there, might things have been different for this man.  I will never know.  But I do know that being subjected to this church court was not in his best interests.

No, you don't know that.

Again, from Don Bradley:

Quote
Quote

Look, I don't want them to leave the Church. I want them in it. I want everyone in it. But we are a community of faith. We cohere around faith. When we disregard apostasy we weaken our community.

Those who know my personal history and the tenor of my posting in the last few years will not be surprised to hear that I would like to see us make our LDS sub-culture more tolerant of doubt and disagreement. So, when I say how much I like what Smac says here and how important I think his insight is, I hope it's clear that it's decidedly not because I'm trigger happy to see people be labeled apostates and kicked out of the church. 
 
What Smac says above is simple realism. Abundant sociological research shows, unsurprisingly, that strong community boundary maintenance helps maintain strong communities: i.e., if communities want to thrive, they should set high standards and hold people to them.
...
When people knowingly flout the boundaries, and then refuse to take into account or even compromise with instructions on this from their church leaders, the church is not obligated to allow them to perpetually continue these actions as members in good standing. Nor would the church be wise to do so. To not take disciplinary action in such cases fails to reinforce the boundaries, sends the message that the actions taken are okay, and weakens the community. 
...
I think it's simply unrealistic when people expect the church to allow with impunity dissent in any and every form, no matter how at odds with the church's norms and doctrine the forms of dissent may take. Confronted with clear, and particularly with extreme, violations of its norms and boundaries the church is both right and wise to take steps to reassert and reinforce those norms and boundaries. This is part of how communities remain vital.

I get that you feel strongly about this, but your bombastic rhetoric renders your arguments unserious and inappropriate.  And your failure to interact with countervailing points of view suggests that perhaps you are speaking out of emotion, not reason.  I hope you reconsider how you are approaching these matters.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I agree, let's hope they exercise that right in a more loving and compassionate manner

But you're just piling on with Happy to condemn what the Church has full autonomy to dictate.  The NT is very clear that the Church has a sacred obligation to give the heave-ho to members that trouble the Church.  "Cut them off," using a double entendre relationg to castration.  The body of the saints is supposed to be of one mind, not agitating here and there with Bill Reel and John Dehlin.  

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

But you're just piling on with Happy to condemn what the Church has full autonomy to dictate.  The NT is very clear that the Church has a sacred obligation to give the heave-ho to members that trouble the Church.  "Cut them off," using a double entendre relationg to castration.  The body of the saints is supposed to be of one mind, not agitating here and there with Bill Reel and John Dehlin.  

Are you asserting that they can not carry out their duty in a loving compassionate manner?

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Calm said:

Covid threw everything off IMO, I don’t think we should judge what has been done the past year in terms of previous years.

That's a good point. A lot of baby blessings that didn't happen, too. 

I was fanatical about getting people's names, birthdates, and address when I learned that they were new. Under MIS (the predecessor to MLS), ordering records could take up to a week. MLS is almost instantaneous. 

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

But you're just piling on with Happy to condemn what the Church has full autonomy to dictate.  The NT is very clear that the Church has a sacred obligation to give the heave-ho to members that trouble the Church.  "Cut them off," using a double entendre relationg to castration.  The body of the saints is supposed to be of one mind, not agitating here and there with Bill Reel and John Dehlin.  

So they should ex all those student protesters at BYU and kick them out of school?

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Are you asserting that they can not carry out their duty in a loving compassionate manner?

Who is they?   If an apostate is in a plain state of apostasy, the duty is to excommunicate.  How "loving" and "compassionate" is that.  You see Jesus through a New Age lens.  

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

So they should ex all those student protesters at BYU and kick them out of school?

Protesting what?  The answer is yes, no and maybe depending upon policy and the circumstances.  I had a companion in the mission field who was kicked out of BYU for streaking through a women's dorm.  Should he have been kicked out or not?

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Metis_LDS said:

I knew one personally, the other I knew to look at.  They both came back after excommunication and if you believe it or not they both became Branch Presidents. I however do not recommend excommunication as a pathway to progress.

Excommunication is sometimes necessary, and even a good thing for some people (those sentenced to prison, for example).  However, one can simply work with the offender, maybe send him to LDS paid counseling, provided he is not a danger to the community.  Sometimes just disfellowshiping is adequate.  It can be a private matter between the bishop and the member.  I have seen members show surprising kindness to excommunicants, treating them just like true friends -- knowing that they would eventually come around and be rebaptized.  Such trust is not a small matter.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

That' s like saying:  I criticize the church for baptising children at eight, rather than nine, years of age.   Or, like saying, I don't think repentence is necessary at all, so it is a waste of time to subject people to an interview before baptism.

The Church has the right to specify terms for continued membership.

Other aspects of the Church are, perhaps, subject to legitimate gripe.  Gold plates, the role of bishops in persons' lives, etc . But certainly as a matter of law, complaining about how a church admits and denies membership is pissing in the wind.  The Church could easily say:  We don't have any process at all for unadmitting members; one day you're in, the next you're out.

I have not argued against the church's right to specify terms of membership. That doesn't mean I can't critique them.

I think you're reading things into my comments that I haven't said. Your crass comment about complaining has absolutely nothing to do with law.

I find your inclusion of "gold plates" as a legitimate gripe interesting.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, ttribe said:

I also think that the reason she gave for her lesser level of activity (related to an experience involving her non-binary child and a violation of trust by a local church leader) ought to be given some measure of compassion relative to judgments on her activity.

Yes.

Also, the measure of "activity" over the pandemic has been quite fluid, if not completely undefined.

 

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Protesting what?  The answer is yes, no and maybe depending upon policy and the circumstances.  I had a companion in the mission field who was kicked out of BYU for streaking through a women's dorm.  Should he have been kicked out or not?

Well, many policies at BYU have been changed and many of those changes have been driven by student unrest and bad press coverage. Sometimes, pointing out harmful policies may 'trouble the church' but it doesn't mean everyone is wrong. I am very grateful for policy changes that have occurred that last few years and I publicly/anonymously complained and advocated for many policies that have changed. Am I an apostate?

Policies that have changed

*BYU Honor Code enforcement procedures and amnesty clauses

*BYU title 9 procedures and relationship with BYU PD/Honor Code office

*Wait a year after a civil marriage to be sealed in the temple

*Inequities in the Primary Activites programs between boys and girls

*Bishop interview procedures with the youth.

I could find more...but would have to think about it. Often, I feel this board has been very effective in driving policy changes in the church. ;)

Edited by bsjkki
Link to comment

I've been thinking about this woman and a 29 year-old clinical psychologist several years ago. I got a phone call, and a woman told me that she had moved into my ward, but wasn't sure if she wanted to move her records in or not. She said that she had issues with the Church and the existence of God, and to be frank, it depended on whether or not I could help her with her concerns/issues. I told her that I am pretty good with these sorts of things, and said, "How about this? Let's talk about your questions, and if you don't like my answers, I don't have your info and I don't know who or where you are." We talked for several hours, and she liked what she heard and gave me her info. At church, she asked to meet with me and said that she wanted to get her life in order (she had been living with a man and had broken it off). She had served a mission, but had wandered astray. I explained the discipline process, and explained that I thought she should go through the discipline process and asked if she would be willing to meet with the stake president (one of the most amazing men ever, anywhere). I explained that he would decide what could be done, and she made an appointment to meet ASAP (both he and I weren't the most organized of people, but this was often an advantage, because we could schedule on our own without the executive secretary). He determined that we should hold a ward level council, and she wanted to do this as soon as possible. I figured out a good night with my counselors that worked for her, and one of them and I delivered the letter and we held it within a week. Outcome was formal probation (similar to disfellowshipment, but a disciplinary council would be necessary to lift it, and it wouldn't involved records in Salt Lake. It would be "in-house."). She continued to do really well, but moved to Denver a couple of months later. She struggled with whether to attend a YSA ward, because she didn't really consider herself part of that group, and was really close to "graduating" from that, age-wise. I don't remember if it was a YSA or family ward, but I notified her bishop and sent him the council notes. 

I've never had anyone that "business-like" about it, but when she decided she wanted to square herself with the Church, she wanted to dive in and do it. It was the fastest "beginning to end" discipline process I've ever had anything to do with.

Part of her very long list of personal issues with the Church was her background in psychology (she also had the garden variety liberal social issues that trouble a lot of people vis a vis the Church). She was skeptical about whether we could really ever "burn through" the interference of self-delusion, wishful-thinking, conditioning, etc. and know (or strongly believe) fundamental things like the existence of God, reality of the atonement, etc. I can't remember what I said, but it really made her think and she said later that she was a lot closer to recovering much of her lost belief. 

She would sympathize with many of Natasha's views on many things, but their approach to them (and disciplinary councils) could not be more different. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I'm merely asking the question:

You are presenting outrageous misrepresentations and distortions about how the Church handles disciplinary matters.

Quote

Can we not find a more loving, private and compassionate process to help the one seeking help from the church instead of subjecting them to such a spiritually brutal and damaging process? 

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Are you still into skinning puppies and lighting them on fire?

Why do you hate black people and homosexuals?

I'll answer your loaded question as soon as you answer mine.  A simple yes or no will do.

{/sarcasm}

The Church's disciplinary process is about as "loving, private and compassionate" as can be. 

Let's take a look at the Church's explanation for disciplinary procedures.  From Section 32.2 of the Handbook:

Quote

32.2

Purposes of Church Membership Restrictions or Withdrawal

When a person is baptized, he or she becomes part of the “household of God” (Ephesians 2:19). The baptismal covenant includes a promise to strive to live according to Christ’s teachings and commandments. When a person falls short, he or she exercises faith in Jesus Christ and repents, relying on His mercy to strengthen and forgive.

If a member commits a serious sin, the bishop or stake president helps him or her repent. As part of this process, he may need to restrict some Church membership privileges for a time. In some situations, he may need to withdraw a person’s membership for a time.

Restricting or withdrawing a person’s membership is not intended to punish. Rather, these actions are sometimes necessary to help a person repent and experience a change of heart. They also give a person time to prepare spiritually to renew and keep his or her covenants again.

The bishop or stake president oversees membership restrictions or withdrawal as outlined in 32.5–32.14. These actions are accompanied by conditions of repentance. As a person sincerely repents, he or she may have the privileges of Church membership restored.

When membership restrictions or withdrawal is necessary, the bishop or stake president follows the guidance of the Holy Ghost and the instructions in this chapter. He acts in a spirit of love (see 32.3).

Church membership restrictions are ecclesiastical, not civil or criminal. They affect only a person’s standing in the Church. (See Doctrine and Covenants 134:10.)

The three purposes of membership restrictions or withdrawal are as follows.

Three Purposes of Church Membership Restrictions or Withdrawal

  1. Help protect others

  2. Help a person access the redeeming power of Jesus Christ through repentance

  3. Protect the integrity of the Church

What are your thoughts about this? 

Does the Church have a right and/or obligation to "help protect others" (one member injuring another)?

Surely the second one - helping a person repent - is part of the Church's mandate?

And the third - protecting the integrity of the Church - what are your thoughts about that?  Does the Church's integrity matter?  Are members of the Church free to descent to all levels of sin and deparavity?  Or are there circumstances in which serious misconduct becomes incompatible with continuing or unfettered membership in the Lord's Church?

Also, are you aware of the substantial overhaul of the Handbook from last year, particularly as pertaining to disciplinary matters?  It seems that you are not, as you are asking questions that indicate a lack of awareness.  I encourage you to give these changes some real attention.

For example, Section 32.5.1 of the Handbook lays out the parameters for the "settings" under which discipline can take place:

Quote

32.5.1

Overview of the Settings

The following table lists three settings for helping a person repent. It also summarizes some of the considerations for leaders when deciding which setting to use.

Settings for Helping a Person Repent

Setting

Some Considerations (see also 32.7)

Stake Membership Council

  • For members who have received the temple endowment.

  • Is required if a man or woman who has been endowed will likely have his or her Church membership withdrawn for any of the serious sins or actions addressed in 32.6.1, 32.6.2, or 32.6.3.

Ward Membership Council

  • For any member.

  • Is required for the serious sins addressed in 32.6.1.

  • May be necessary for the serious sins and actions addressed in 32.6.2 and 32.6.3.

  • Is insufficient if a man or woman who has been endowed will likely have his or her Church membership withdrawn for any of the serious sins or actions addressed in 32.6.1, 32.6.2, or 32.6.3.

Personal Counseling (see 32.8)

  • For any member.

  • May include informal Church membership restrictions.

  • May be insufficient for serious sins or actions for which a membership council would be helpful in the repentance process (see 32.6.2 and 32.6.3).

  • Is insufficient for serious sins that require a membership council (see 32.6.1).

  • Is insufficient if a man or woman who has been endowed will likely have his or her Church membership withdrawn for any of the serious sins or actions addressed in 32.6.1, 32.6.2, or 32.6.3.

Did you notice the very limited circumstances under which "Stake Membership Councils" take place?  

Section 32.6 addresses "Severity of the Sin and Church Policy," and includes all sorts of serious misconduct.  But even then, some forms of serious misconduct will not necessarily trigger a council.   

Circumstances mandating a council are set forth in Section 32.6.1:

Quote

32.6.1

When a Membership Council Is Required

The bishop or stake president must hold a membership council when information indicates that a member may have committed any of the sins described in this section. For these sins, a council is required regardless of a member’s level of spiritual maturity and gospel understanding.

See 32.11 for potential outcomes of councils that are convened for the sins listed in this section. Informal membership restrictions are not an option for these councils.

Sins That Require Holding a Membership Council

  • Murder

  • Rape

  • Sexual assault conviction

  • Child or youth abuse

  • Abuse of a spouse or another adult (as outlined in 38.6.2.4)

  • Predatory behavior (violent, sexual, or financial)

  • Incest

  • Child pornography (as outlined in 38.6.6)

  • Plural marriage

  • Serious sin while holding a prominent Church position

  • Most felony convictions

Circumstances under which a council may be necessary are explained in Section 32.6.2:

Quote

32.6.2

When a Membership Council May Be Necessary

A membership council may be necessary in the following instances.

32.6.2.1

Violent Acts and Abuse

The Lord commanded, “Thou shalt not … kill, nor do anything like unto it” (Doctrine and Covenants 59:6; italics added). Violent acts and abuse for which a membership council may be necessary include (but are not limited to) those listed below.

Attempted Murder. Deliberately trying to kill someone.

Sexual Abuse, Including Assault and Harassment. Sexual abuse covers a broad range of actions (see 38.6.18). A membership council may be necessary for a person who has sexually assaulted or abused someone. See 38.6.18.3 for when a council is required.

Abuse of a Spouse or Another Adult. There is a spectrum of severity in abusive behavior (see 38.6.2.4). A membership council may be necessary for a person who has abused a spouse or another adult. See 38.6.2.4 for when a council is required.

32.6.2.2

Sexual Immorality

The Lord’s law of chastity is abstinence from sexual relations outside of a marriage between a man and a woman according to God’s law (see Exodus 20:14; Doctrine and Covenants 63:16). A membership council may be necessary for sexual immorality as described in 38.6.5. See 32.6.1.2 for when a council is required.

32.6.2.3

Fraudulent Acts

The Ten Commandments teach, “Thou shalt not steal” or “bear false witness” (Exodus 20:15–16). A membership council may be necessary for acts such as robbery, burglary, theft, embezzlement, perjury, and fraud. See 38.8.2 for affinity fraud. See 32.6.1.3 for when a council is required for fraudulent acts.

32.6.2.4

Violations of Trust

A membership council may be necessary if a member:

  • Commits a serious sin while holding a position of authority or trust in the Church or the community.

  • Commits a serious sin that is widely known.

See 32.6.1.4 for when a council is required.

32.6.2.5

Some Other Acts

King Benjamin taught, “I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them” (Mosiah 4:29). A council may be necessary if a person:

  • Shows a pattern of committing serious sins (see Doctrine and Covenants 82:7).

  • Deliberately abandons family responsibilities, including nonpayment of child support and alimony.

  • Sells illegal drugs.

  • Commits other serious criminal acts.

A membership council may be necessary if a member submits to, performs, arranges for, pays for, or encourages an abortion. See 38.6.1 for guidelines.

When a Membership Council Is Required or May Be Necessary

Type of Sin

Membership Council Is Required (see 32.6.1)

Membership Council May Be Necessary (see 32.6.2)

Violent Acts and Abuse

  • Murder

  • Rape

  • Sexual assault conviction

  • Child or youth abuse

  • Violent predatory behavior

  • Attempted murder

  • Sexual abuse, including assault and harassment (see 38.6.18 for when a council is required)

  • Abuse of a spouse or another adult (see 38.6.2.4 for when a council is required)

Sexual Immorality

  • Incest

  • Child pornography

  • Plural marriage

  • Sexual predatory behavior

  • Adultery, fornication, and same-sex relations

  • Cohabitation, civil unions and partnerships, and same-sex marriage

  • Intensive or compulsive use of pornography that has caused significant harm to a member’s marriage or family

Fraudulent Acts

  • Financial predatory behavior, such as fraud and similar activities

  • Robbery, burglary, theft, or embezzlement

  • Perjury

Violations of Trust

  • Serious sin while holding a prominent Church position

  • Serious sin while holding a position of authority or trust in the Church or the community

  • Serious sin that is widely known

Some Other Acts

  • Most felony convictions

  • Abortion

  • Pattern of serious sins

  • Deliberate abandonment of family responsibilities, including nonpayment of child support and alimony

  • Sale of illegal drugs

  • Other serious criminal acts

 

Does this affect your posture regarding disciplinary councils at all?

Moving on, Section 32.9.1 outlines when a stake president is involved in the council:

Quote

32.9.1

Stake President

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.

The parameters here are quite narrow, that is, the stake president only convenes a council if A) the man or woman has been endowed, and B) the misconduct is such that the withdrawal of the individual's membership is "likely."  That's a very significant change.  I participated in dozens of stake-level disciplinary councils, not a one of which resulted in an excommunication (though a few of them could have).  Under this new policy, most of these stake-level proceedings would, if held today, be convened by the bishop, not the stake president.

Another big change is who participates in the stake-level councils.  That is, the high council is, in most instances, not involved.  See Section 32.9.2:

Quote

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).

So two very big changes.  Not only are stake-level disciplinary proceedings now a lot more rare (most having been shifted to the ward level), they are also much more limited in terms of participants (just the stake presidency and the stake clerk, with the High Council only being involved in the limited circumstances identified above).

Does this affect your outlook at all?

Section 32.9.3 outlines when a bishop convenes the council:

Quote

32.9.3

Bishop (or Branch President in a Stake)

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.

Let's take a look at who is involved in which councils (from Section 32.9) :

Quote

32.9

Participation and Responsibility

The following table shows who normally participates in membership councils.

 

Participants in Membership Councils

Ward Membership Council

  • The person for whom the council is being held

  • Bishop and his counselors

  • Ward clerk

  • Elders quorum or Relief Society president (optional; see 32.10.1)

Stake Membership Council

  • 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)

 

In sum:

  • A) The vast majority of discipline in the Church is informal, involving only the bishop and the individual.
  • B) There are circumstances in which even serious misconduct will not necessarily require a council.
  • C) Where a council is to be convened, the vast majority of them will now be held at the ward level, in which only four or five people are involved (the bishop, two counselors, ward clerk, and mayby the EQP or RSP).
  • D) Stake-level councils only take place where 1) the man or woman has been endowed, and 2) the misconduct is such that the withdrawal of the individual's membership is "likely." 
  • E) Where a council is to be convened at the stake level, most will involve only 4-6 people (the stake president, two counselors, stake clerk, and maybe the individual's bishop or EQP and/or RSP).

It seems like you weren't even aware of these changes.  Is that a fair surmise?  If so, do these changes affect your perspective at all?  If not, why not?

Quote

We could if the church put the sinners needs ahead of their own self interests.

Please stop with the loaded questions.  They do not help.

Quote

Did Jesus hold a court for the woman caught in adulty?  No he turned to her accusers and said Let him who is without sin cast the first stone...the crowd slowly dispersed and each had to reflect on their own sinfulness. He then told her to go and sin no more.

I'm disappointed that so many here support the status quo.  The process is in great need of reform.

It seems like you are not aware of last year's substantial reforms.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Protesting what?  The answer is yes, no and maybe depending upon policy and the circumstances.  I had a companion in the mission field who was kicked out of BYU for streaking through a women's dorm.  Should he have been kicked out or not?

Kicked out of the church for streaking? Or kicked out of BYU. While BYU and the church are synonymous to many of us, many others prefer to maintain the important distinction of bureaucracy .

It's just my opinion but I'd say no.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Duncan said:

Correct me if I am wrong but a woman isn't brought before the Stake Presidency, High Council and a clerk or two anymore-I thought that was just for MP holders? Isn't a woman just brought before her Bishopric? or are "high profile" people brought before the Stake people?

A stake-level council can be held if A) the person is endowed and B) the loss of membership is "likely."

This suggests that the charge against her is for some sort of apostasy.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I'm merely asking the question: Can we not find a more loving, private and compassionate process to help the one seeking help from the church instead of subjecting them to such a spiritually brutal and damaging process?  We could if the church put the sinners needs ahead of their own self interests.

I don't understand this characterization of the process, and I have never seen that in all my years.  Just the opposite.

2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Did Jesus hold a court for the woman caught in adulty?  No he turned to her accusers and said Let him who is without sin cast the first stone...the crowd slowly dispersed and each had to reflect on their own sinfulness. He then told her to go and sin no more.

You might want to ask where was the male offender in that adultery.  Jesus was not the judge, but merely a rabbinic bystander who posed a very discomfiting question.  Such a situation is classic in rabbinic Judaism;  Authority figures are brought up short.  If you will see Jesus as a rabbi, that will help you immensely in understanding the Gospels.

2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I'm disappointed that so many here support the status quo.  The process is in great need of reform.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.  I do not agree with your assessment at all.  Bishops most often deal with problems privately already, and sometimes that means paying for private family counseling.  I have seen that work quite well.  I can think of only a couple of cases of miscarriage of justice in excommunications -- that of Lavina Fielding Anderson, and another in New Zealand, in which everyone including the excommunicant knew that there was no way to escape finding an innocent man guilty.  He dutifully went to prison for a crime he did not commit -- kind of like the story of Jesus' self-sacrifice for the greater good.  I was told of it by a member of that high council, and have no idea what I would have done as a high councilman or the accused.  Sometimes things just go south.  :pirate:

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, rongo said:

I've been thinking about this woman and a 29 year-old clinical psychologist several years ago. I got a phone call, and a woman told me that she had moved into my ward, but wasn't sure if she wanted to move her records in or not. She said that she had issues with the Church and the existence of God, and to be frank, it depended on whether or not I could help her with her concerns/issues. I told her that I am pretty good with these sorts of things, and said, "How about this? Let's talk about your questions, and if you don't like my answers, I don't have your info and I don't know who or where you are." We talked for several hours, and she liked what she heard and gave me her info. At church, she asked to meet with me and said that she wanted to get her life in order (she had been living with a man and had broken it off). She had served a mission, but had wandered astray. I explained the discipline process, and explained that I thought she should go through the discipline process and asked if she would be willing to meet with the stake president (one of the most amazing men ever, anywhere). I explained that he would decide what could be done, and she made an appointment to meet ASAP (both he and I weren't the most organized of people, but this was often an advantage, because we could schedule on our own without the executive secretary). He determined that we should hold a ward level council, and she wanted to do this as soon as possible. I figured out a good night with my counselors that worked for her, and one of them and I delivered the letter and we held it within a week. Outcome was formal probation (similar to disfellowshipment, but a disciplinary council would be necessary to lift it, and it wouldn't involved records in Salt Lake. It would be "in-house."). She continued to do really well, but moved to Denver a couple of months later. She struggled with whether to attend a YSA ward, because she didn't really consider herself part of that group, and was really close to "graduating" from that, age-wise. I don't remember if it was a YSA or family ward, but I notified her bishop and sent him the council notes. 

I've never had anyone that "business-like" about it, but when she decided she wanted to square herself with the Church, she wanted to dive in and do it. It was the fastest "beginning to end" discipline process I've ever had anything to do with.

Part of her very long list of personal issues with the Church was her background in psychology (she also had the garden variety liberal social issues that trouble a lot of people vis a vis the Church). She was skeptical about whether we could really ever "burn through" the interference of self-delusion, wishful-thinking, conditioning, etc. and know (or strongly believe) fundamental things like the existence of God, reality of the atonement, etc. I can't remember what I said, but it really made her think and she said later that she was a lot closer to recovering much of her lost belief. 

She would sympathize with many of Natasha's views on many things, but their approach to them (and disciplinary councils) could not be more different. 

From your story it sounds like your approach to this woman was far different than the SP approach to Natasha. That can play a large role in how someone approaches being called to a DC. It doesn't sound like you were out to punish or rid the church of this woman, which is a very good thing :)

Link to comment
3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Seems like the "fox" is already out of the Kansas henhouse and has been for quite a while. The SP is calling her back to the henhouse to then kick her out. Seems like a solid plan. If the Utah SP is concerned about her being in his henhouse, then he should convene the DC and save her from traveling across multiple states to a DC.

Sometimes, as in blatant sex abuse, the fox must be gotten out of the henhouse post haste.  If not, as a practical matter, the Church will be sued for a substantial sum.  The key phrase is "due diligence," which was lacking for many years, and cost the Church a lot of tithing money.

I wasn't speaking in that context of Natasha Helfer, but only to the silly notion that excommunication is not ever needed at all.  Often excommunication and incarceration are needed.

The Natasha Helfer case is very different, and the witnesses in Kansas may be key.  They understand the situation best.  Certainly her friend John Dehlin could pay her way back there, and perhaps outfit her with a recording device so that she could make a record he could play on his show.  As non-LDS scholar Jan Shipps many times made clear, this is merely a matter of boundary maintenance.  Surely the Church has a right to decide who may be a member.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, rongo said:

**This** is what looks bad to me, and it isn't the first time. I think that she (and others) should have been dealt with when there are problems. 

Yep.  I am aware of a number of instances where discipline was appropriate or necessary, but the local leadership was reluctant to do their job for one reason or another. 

In most instances, I'd like to think that the foot-dragging is attributable to the kindness of the local leaders, who are not keen on conducting an unpleasant, but necessary, disciplinary council.  That rather militates against the nasty characterizations of the Church by Fair Dinkum and others, who portray the Church as nearly bloodthirsty in its zeal to hound sinners from our midst.  That just ain't so.  We want people in the Church, perhaps sometimes even when their conduct is incompatible with membership and/or damaging to others.

This is, I think, why have have such a clear scriptural mandate regarding disciplinary matters (which, I note, Fair Dinkum and others vigorously ignore in all their harrumphs against the dastardly Church).

2 hours ago, rongo said:

I'm sure a large part of her problem with this is that she has been told by her stake president to "cease and desist" certain things, and she has refused, so it's triggering a disciplinary council.

Well, we don't really know much.  And I think it may be better for us to not speculate too fill in the gaps.

2 hours ago, rongo said:

Rather than perceiving her Utah stake president as a "weak link," I think he has just had nothing to do with it, and so they aren't having him go through all the stuff with it. She's clearly functionally inactive, to me. She self-identifies as "semi-active" (what active Mormon describes himself as that?),

If she attends church, but doesn't have a TR (and/or has declined callings).  Or she attends church meetings, but only on rare occasions.  Plenty of room for "semi-active" participation in the Church.

This could mean lots of things.

2 hours ago, rongo said:

and said she's never met her stake president in a year and a half.

Plenty of people don't interact with their stake president.

2 hours ago, rongo said:

Even with Covid, I had contact with my stake presidents in two different stakes, and I have no prominent calling to speak of. Her airs of "I have no idea who he even is" shows me that she doesn't so much care for her membership from the standpoint of an active member. 

Again, this seems speculative.  

2 hours ago, rongo said:

There may be evidence known to local leaders that isn't in her online writings and videos.

Yes.  And there may be witnesses in Kansas.

Lots of room for "there may be" in this story.

2 hours ago, rongo said:

I'm thinking personally bashing to Church or encouraging people to leave within her Kansas ward and stake. I agree, though, that if her Kansas stake president was bothered with this stuff years ago, it should have been acted on before she moved to Utah. 

Yep.  Perhaps that's a lesson for soft-hearted bishops and stake presidents, who may let their general inclinations toward kindness and patience improperly supersede their less pleasant obligations as Judges in Israel.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...