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

[Teancum]

12 hours ago, juliann said:

Well, CFR then. 

CFR for what specifically?  My opinion?

[Teancum]

On 4/19/2021 at 7:11 PM, bluebell said:

It seems like she only has contempt for church leaders, including apostles and prophets, and does not believe they hold any authority.   She also seems to disagree with many church doctrines, from sexual stuff to lgtbq stuff, to the sealing of families stuff.

I really don't understand why she wants to stay.

Do you need to understand?  You can go on her FB page and listen to her heartfelt comments on the day she received her summons and she talks about some of the reasons she valued her membership.  

[Teancum]

On 4/19/2021 at 7:15 PM, rongo said:

This really damages her "I represent science and progress, the Church represents knuckle-dragging, uni-browed Neanderthal thinking" stance. Who would want to go to her for sex therapy advice after her meltdown? And, if this is how the "masturbation and explicit pornography are healthy, and just good, clean fun" people are, well, maybe the conservative traditional religious people aren't so ridiculous after all. 

Hmmm.  I think you may misconstrue what she actually advocates regarding these topocs.

[Teancum]

On 4/19/2021 at 7:17 PM, rongo said:

I don't think she does. This is exit blowup theater. We've seen it before. 

Had they let her bring her phone in (and certainly record it for distribution), she would have dramatically quit before they could fire her.  As so many have done before. One thing these people won't do is give the Church the satisfaction of excommunicating them --- they want to make big theater out of resigning in the dramatic moment before the council gets started. 

Baloney.  She says she wants to retain her membership. She went to great lengths to prepare for the court.  She had witnesses who traveled only to be limits to a few minutes of testimony. Further your conclusion does not fit the history of "these people."  Dehlin, Sam Young, Bill Reel and many other did not resign a moment before the council was started.

Edited April 21, 2021 by Teancum

[Teancum]

On 4/19/2021 at 7:25 PM, bluebell said:

She sounded more to me like Julie Rowe than a professional therapist.

So judge her based on maybe one of her worst most emotionally stressful moments.  How charitable of you.  

[Teancum]

On 4/19/2021 at 8:02 PM, bluebell said:

SU already said this, but, while she might be revealing some of the issues she's really struggling with, I don't think our angriest selves are our true inner selves. 

Hurt bubbles out in unpleasant ways, and though I don't think her blame is rationally placed, I do think she's hurt right now.

Now that is more charitable.

[bluebell]

31 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So judge her based on maybe one of her worst most emotionally stressful moments.  How charitable of you.  

As I said before, she put this stuff up on her professional page, the page she uses to attract clients.  I don't think it's uncharitable to share my reaction to her, as a therapist, putting that kind of stuff up.

[Teancum]

On 4/19/2021 at 11:38 PM, Vellichor said:

For those who are wondering why Natasha would want to remain in a church she has utter contempt for: she has marketed herself to current and former Church members and leaders throughout her career. I would imagine this is going to be a hit to her pocketbook. Her public criticism of Church leaders will also be easier to ignore.

Another mind reading cynic....🤔

[california boy]

12 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

There's a somewhat big difference between one person claiming 40hours a week from his podcast related 9 board member 501c3 and a multinational 501c3 that has thousands of people in all kinds of areas.

When it comes to paying someone's air fare for a meeting they asked for, just what is the difference?

Quote

The fact that she ran to Dehlin and the media makes it seem like she wasn't actually interested in an amicable resolution.

I have this philosophy that I can not control the actions of others, but I can control how I treat them.  Showing kindness and compassion should not be based on how they treat me, but rather how I want to treat them. It is a fundamental lesson Christ taught and how He treated others when He had been wronged.

Edited April 21, 2021 by california boy

[Teancum]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand your comment here.

I was speaking of the general purpose of the policy of confidentiality, which is to protect both the individual and the Church. 

Now, there are times when an individual involved in a disciplinary proceeding may want to turn the meeting into a publicity stunt, either for self-aggrandizement, or to injure the reputation of the Church, or for a combination of reasons.  Such motivations are inappropriate, and are not grounds for creating an exception to the rule.  Again, the Church is convening the meeting.  Through its representatives.  On its private property.  And the terms of participation in that meeting are both clear and eminently reasonable.  

And no, I don't think maintaining confidentiality is "condescending" at all. 

First, the confidentiality is inherently appropriate for the circumstances. 

Second, the Church has both the legal and moral right, even duty, to conduct such proceedings with decorum and sanctity, and to not let the proceedings be distorted and converted into a publicity stunt at the preference of the individual.

Third, the Church has plenty of valid reasons for maintaining confidentiality, even if the individual does not.

Fourth, neither Natasha Helfer-Parker nor John Dehlin nor Sam Young nor Jeremy Runnells nor Kate Kelly nor anyone else gets to dictate the terms of a disciplinary proceeding.  It's not a matter of gender, and it is a bit absurd to insinuate that.

Fifth, there is no constraint placed on a person under discipline to speak about their experience.  For pete's sake, we've seen this dog-and-pony show many times over the years, with an individual who apparently cares more about getting 15 minutes of fame than their relationship with the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Church that houses it.

Sixth, it may well be that an individual may come to regret publicizing their disciplinary proceedings.  If so, any embarrassment will be solely their own fault, and not attributable to the Church.  Consider what has been said in this thread, about how membership councils are embarrassing/humiliating (one fellow even went so far as to absurdly characterize them as "barbaric").  Surely membership councils are difficult, but they are made considerably more so when turned into sordid cause célèbre (such as we have seen with Runnells, Snuffer, Reel, Kelly, Dehlin, Young, and so on).  So the Church is not being condescending by refusing to contribute to the individual's obnoxious - and possibly later to-be-regretted - behavior.

Thanks,

-Smac

Do you know if any other Church organization that does Church courts in this day and age like the LDS Church does?  Well Islam may exceed the LDS Church.  Apostatize and some may behead you.  Maybe ultra Orthodox Jews?  In a way I agree that they are  barbaric or at least a relic of a by gone age. I would guess if you look at the statistics very few who are given the boot ever return.  And sure perhaps barbaric is over the top;.  But they certainly are embarrassing and the yare meant to humiliate and punish. The believers here have pointed out one of the purposes of the court and action is to motivate the offender to repent. So it is intended to cause humility. I am glad that they hole HC does not attend anymore. On all I sat through I used o feel very bad for the offender facing off with 17 people in a room often by themselves.  Onn the other hand I have noted that Helfer, Dehlin, Young etc all know the nature the the LDS Church and how it views outspoken public criticism.  None of them should have been surprised by the ax dropping.

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

I don't plan to ignore you.  I think your argument is technically frivolous because (1) the church's actions don't contravene scripture, and indeed the NT suggests excommunication with zero process or fairness, (2) "fairness" is in the eyes of the holder, particularly given the autonomy doctrine, and (3) you really don't have standing.   As a lawyer I never simply ignore argument that is frivolous. 

Now, if you were to comment upon the work of the Mesoamerican theory for the Book of Mormon, or whether Joseph Smith really "translated" Egyptian or any legit language at all, or whether Margaret Barker is some kind of God, then I might agree with you. But those are not frivolous arguments.

 

Ok don't ignore me.  

1: I am still a member of the Church.  I High Priest, have the inactive office of Bishop, am endowed,  I just am not attending church currently.  I do not currently hold a temple recommend.

2:  Based on 1 I have as much standing as you to present and to argue what my views are on this topic.

3: I am not basing my argument on 2000 year old "scripture" or on Joseph Smith's alleged revelations.

4;  Yes fairness is in the eyes of the beholder. You opine the Church proceedings are fair. I opine I do not think they are. I believe they are the heavy handed and are a hallmark of an authoritarian organization that wants to control their members.  This and many other attributes and actions of the LDS Church fall right into a number of Steven Hassan's BITE model of authoritarian control.  If you are interested feel free to look them up. For this reason I oppose Church courts. 

In the end as I have said the Church can do whatever it pleases on such things. And individuals can decide if these types of actions as well as other things the church does to control its member create a healthy culture and endowment to thrive and be happy in. My conclusion is they do not.

[Bob Crockett]

Quote

Ok don't ignore me.  

1: I am still a member of the Church.  I High Priest, have the inactive office of Bishop, am endowed,  I just am not attending church currently.  I do not currently hold a temple recommend.

2:  Based on 1 I have as much standing as you to present and to argue what my views are on this topic.

3: I am not basing my argument on 2000 year old "scripture" or on Joseph Smith's alleged revelations.

4;  Yes fairness is in the eyes of the beholder. You opine the Church proceedings are fair. I opine I do not think they are. I believe they are the heavy handed and are a hallmark of an authoritarian organization that wants to control their members.  This and many other attributes and actions of the LDS Church fall right into a number of Steven Hassan's BITE model of authoritarian control.  If you are interested feel free to look them up. For this reason I oppose Church courts. 

In the end as I have said the Church can do whatever it pleases on such things. And individuals can decide if these types of actions as well as other things the church does to control its member create a healthy culture and endowment to thrive and be happy in. My conclusion is they do not.

 

I guess my argument is more along the lines of:  Fairness is an important concept in religion.  But when it comes to fairness in excommunication, it appears from the New Testament that one is shown the exit merely upon an authority's say-so.  

I represent multiple religions in my practice.  Some don't care if you are a member or not and don't keep records.  At least one holds a council of elders, where testimony is taken, and a decision is made.  The church doesn't really have an elder in charge except on an ad hoc rotating basis.  Another religion, which I don't represent, will excommunicate a member solely upon the bishop's fiat without any kind of hearing.  You can be ex'd simply for your political beliefs.  The evangelical religions vary widely from "we don't care" to "we'll hold a council."  One major denomination in my city will hold a hearing of deacons, but only for the pastor's misconduct.  

My point is that when it comes to entrances and exits, the courts say nothing at all.  I know that churches are sued for their exit practices and in every case with which I am familar, the courts employ the autonomy doctrine.  Because of that, I conclude, there are a lot of things one could criticize, but this is an subject where the only ones who care are those who can't influence it.

My heart really bleeds for Natasha.  I'm sorry to see her go.  I thought she was the greatest. 

Edited April 21, 2021 by Bob Crockett

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Do you know if any other Church organization that does Church courts in this day and age like the LDS Church does? 

There are not very many religious groups that have a heirarchical structure, such that there is a recognized authority that can mete out discipline.

That said, Judaism has its Beth din:

Quote

A beth din (Hebrew: בית דין‎ Bet Din, "house of judgment" [bet ˈdin], Ashkenazic: beis din) is a rabbinical court of Judaism. In ancient times, it was the building block of the legal system in the Biblical Land of Israel. Today, it is invested with legal powers in a number of religious matters (din Torah, "matter of litigation", plural dinei Torah) both in Israel and in Jewish communities in the Diaspora, where its judgments hold varying degrees of authority (depending upon the jurisdiction and subject matter) in matters specifically related to Jewish religious life.
...

In Orthodox Judaism, the traditions state that a beth din consists of three observant Jewish men, at least one of whom is widely knowledgeable in halakha (Jewish law), to be capable of instructing the other members in any matters of halakha relevant to the case being heard.^[2] The rabbis on the beth din do not have to be expert in all aspects of Jewish law, rather only the area in question. For example, a beth din for conversion need only have expertise in conversion, not necessarily in all areas of Jewish law.^[3] There are also a number of opinions that permit women to serve on a beth din. One such opinion is Rabbi Ben Zion Uziel.^[4] Despite this, there are no Orthodox batei din currently with a woman as a member.

In progressive communities, as well as in other non-Orthodox streams of Judaism, women do serve on the beth din.^[5]

In practice, a permanent beth din will consist of three rabbis, while a beth din for an occasional matter (such as handling religious vows) need not consist of rabbis. A beth din which handles cases involving complex monetary issues or large community organizations requires "judges" (dayanim, singular: dayan), who require an additional semikhah (yadin yadin) which enables them to participate in such a beth din and adjudicate complex cases involving highly technical points of law.

A beth din is only required for conversions and gittin (divorce documents), although lay people are permitted to sit on the beth din for conversions.

In addition to this there are batei din around the world who supervise the following matters:

• Kosher certification of restaurants and food manufacturers (Hechsher).
• Examination of shochetim and the control of the shechita inspectors
• Supervising the building and maintenance of a mikvah.
• Determination of "personal status" (i. e., whether someone is a Jew according to halakha).
• The authorization and supervision of mohelim.
• Questions relating to burial practices and mourning.

A beth din is sometimes used within the Orthodox Jewish community to resolve civil disputes, with the Shulkhan Arukh calling for civil cases being resolved by religious, instead of secular, courts (arka'oth). Modern Western societies increasingly permit civil disputes to be resolved by private arbitration, enabling religious Jews to enter into agreements providing for arbitration by a particular beth din in the event of a dispute. By this device, the rules, procedures, and judgement of the beth din are accepted and can be enforced by secular courts in the same manner as those of a secular arbitration association. For example, in a 2018 decision, the Court of Appeal in Ontario, Canada, enforced an arbitration decision by the New York rabbinical court tribunal Beth Din (or Bais Din) of Mechon L'Hoyroa, in Brooklyn.^[7][8] However, the decisions of religious courts cannot be binding without the prior agreement of both parties, and will otherwise act only as mediation.

The Church does not involve itself in these things.  Gittin sort of comes close since the Church administers sealing ordinances, but the Church has no involvement in civil/legal divorce matters.

There is no corollary in the Church for oversight of stuff akin to Kosher certification, animal slaughter or inspection thereof, mohelim, burial practices and morning.

As regarding the resolution of civil disputes, the Church has no corollary for a Jewish beth din, and in fact specifically prohibits the use of disciplinary proceedings to address civl disputes.  See Section 32.6.4.3 of the Handbook ("Membership councils are not held to resolve civil disputes (see Doctrine and Covenants 134:11).").

So Jewish rabbinical courts have a far greater role to play in Jewish life.  See also here:

Quote

Herem is the highest ecclesiastical censure in Judaism. It is the total exclusion of a person from the Jewish community. Except for cases in the Charedi community, cherem stopped existing after The Enlightenment, when local Jewish communities lost their political autonomy, and Jews were integrated into the gentile nations in which they lived. A siruv order, equivalent to a contempt of court, issued by a Rabbinical court may also limit religious participation.

Rabbinical conferences of movements do expel members from time to time, but sometimes choose the lesser penalty of censuring the offending rabbi. Between 2010 and 2015, the Reform Jewish Central Conference of American Rabbis expelled six rabbis, the Orthodox Jewish Rabbinical Council of America expelled three, and the Conservative Jewish Rabbinical Assembly expelled one, suspended three, and caused one to resign without eligibility for reinstatement. While the CCAR and RCA were relatively shy about their reasons for expelling rabbis, the RA was more open about its reasons for kicking rabbis out. Reasons for expulsion from the three conferences include sexual misconduct, failure to comply with ethics investigations, setting up conversion groups without the conference's approval, stealing money from congregations, other financial misconduct, and getting arrested.

Judaism, like Unitarian Universalism, tends towards congregationalism, and so decisions to exclude from a community of worship often depend on the congregation.

Roman Catholicism allows for both jure (by law) or ab homine (by judicial act of man, i.e. by a judge) excommunication.  In the Eastern Catholic Churches, excommunication is imposed only by decree, never incurred automatically by latae sententiae excommunication.  In both traditions, excommunication for apostasy and other reasons is possible.

Lutherans have an excommunication process, though some denominations and congregations do not use it.

Some info about the Methodists:

Quote

The Allegheny Wesleyan Methodist Connection, in its 2014 Discipline, includes "homosexuality, lesbianism, bi-sexuality, bestiality, incest, fornication, adultery, and any attempt to alter one’s gender by surgery", as well as remarriage after divorce among its excommunicable offences.^[29]

The Evangelical Wesleyan Church, in its 2015 Discipline, states that "Any member of our church who is accused of neglect of the means of grace or other duties required by the Word of God, the indulgence of sinful tempers, words or actions, the sowing of dissension, or any other violation of the order and discipline of the church, may, after proper labor and admonition, be censured, placed on probation, or expelled by the official board of the circuit of which he is a member. If he request a trial, however, within thirty dates of the final action of the official board, it shall be granted."

And the Amish:

Quote

Jakob Ammann, founder of the Amish sect, believed that the shunning of those under the ban should be systematically practiced among the Swiss Anabaptists as it was in the north and as was outlined in the Dordrecht Confession. Ammann's uncompromising zeal regarding this practice was one of the main disputes that led to the schism between the Anabaptist groups that became the Amish and those that eventually would be called Mennonite. Recently more moderate Amish groups have become less strict in their application of excommunication as a discipline.
...
Excommunication among the Old Order Amish results in shunning or the Meidung, the severity of which depends on many factors, such as the family, the local community as well as the type of Amish. Some Amish communities cease shunning after one year if the person joins another church later on, especially if it is another Mennonite church. At the most severe, other members of the congregation are prohibited almost all contact with an excommunicated member including social and business ties between the excommunicant and the congregation, sometimes even marital contact between the excommunicant and spouse remaining in the congregation or family contact between adult children and parents.

And the Jehovah's Witnesses:

Quote

Jehovah's Witnesses practice a form of excommunication, using the term "disfellowshipping", in cases where a member is believed to have unrepentantly committed one or more of several documented "serious sins". The practice is based on their interpretation of 1 Corinthians 5:11-13 ("quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man....remove the wicked man from your midst") and 2 John 10 ("never receive him in your home or say a greeting to him"). They interpret these verses to mean that any baptized believer who engages in "gross sins" is to be expelled from the congregation and shunned.

When a member confesses to, or is accused of, a serious sin, a judicial committee of at least three elders is formed. This committee investigates the case and determines the magnitude of the sin committed. If the person is deemed guilty of a disfellowshipping offense, the committee then decides, on the basis of the person's attitude and "works befitting repentance" (Acts 26:20), whether the person is to be considered repentant. The "works" may include trying to correct the wrong, making apologies to any offended individuals, and compliance with earlier counsel. If deemed guilty but repentant, the person is not disfellowshipped but is formally reproved and has restrictions imposed, which preclude the individual from various activities such as presenting talks, offering public prayers or making comments at religious meetings. If the person is deemed guilty and unrepentant, he or she will be disfellowshipped. Unless an appeal is made within seven days, the disfellowshipping is made formal by an announcement at the congregation's next Service Meeting. Appeals are granted to determine if procedural errors are felt to have occurred that may have affected the outcome.

Disfellowshipping is a severing of friendly relationships between all Jehovah's Witnesses and the disfellowshipped person. Interaction with extended family is typically restricted to a minimum, such as presence at the reading of wills and providing essential care for the elderly.

And the Society of Friends (Quakers) :

Quote

Among many of the Society of Friends groups (Quakers) one is read out of meeting for behaviour inconsistent with the sense of the meeting. In Britain a meeting may record a minute of disunity. However it is the responsibility of each meeting, quarterly meeting, and yearly meeting, to act with respect to their own members.

In contrast, there is apparently no form of "excommunication" in Buddhism or Hinduism.  

Islam has Takfir:

Quote

Takfir or takfeer (Arabic: تكفير‎ takfīr) denotes excommunication from Islam of one Muslim by another, i.e. one Muslim declaring another a non-believer (kafir) or apostate. The act which precipitates takfir is termed mukaffir. A Muslim who takfirs another Muslim is sometimes called a takfiri.

Since the sharia punishment for apostacy is death, and potentially a cause of strife and violence in the Muslim community (ummah), an ill-founded takfir accusation was a major forbidden act (haram) in Islamic jurisprudence, with one hadith declaring that one who wrongly declare a Muslim an unbeliever is himself an apostate.

Traditionally Islamic scholars (the ulema) have held that only they were authorised to declare someone a kafir (unbeliever), that all the prescribed legal precautions should be taken before declaring takfir, and that those who profess the Islamic faith should be exempt.
...
According to Hussam S. Timani, both apostasy among Muslims and the number of Muslim groups "adopting the concept of takfir" have increased in recently (as of 2017). Timani states that Muslim scholars blame this on "the decline of Islamic values and the loss of solidarity among the people after centuries of colonialism and foreign domination".^[69]

Takfir has become "a central ideology of militant groups" such as those in Egypt, "which reflect the ideas" of Sayyid Qutb, Abul A'la Maududi and others, according to the Oxford Islamic Studies Online website. It is rejected by Islamic scholars and leaders such as Hasan al-Hudaybi (d. 1977) and Yusuf al-Qaradawi and by mainstream Muslims and Islamist groups.

This has essentially no corollary in the Church.  The Church expressly disclaims any civil authority.  The only "punishment" for apostasy in the Church is a restriction on or termination of membership (as opposes to sharia punishment, which is death).  There is no political dimension to the Church's discipline.  The Church has a clear heirarchy as to who can convene a membership council, and also a codified set of policies and procedures.  And an appeal process.  

Some religious groups practice shunning.  Some Amish sects.  Jehovah's Witnesses.  Some forms of Judaism.  Baha'i.  Scientology.  

To sum up:

1. The Church is far from alone in having a mechanism in place for imposing discipline on its members.

2. The Church's forms of discipline are, objectively and comparatively speaking, quite mild.  The Church exercises no jurisdiction over the individual's life, liberty or property, and cannot impose any form of physical punishment.  The Church neither authorizes nor encourages shunning.  Quite the opposite, in fact. 

3. The Church prohibits its disciplinary proceedings to be used to resolve civil disputes. 

4. The Church has no role to play in civil divorces.  

Quote

Well Islam may exceed the LDS Church.  Apostatize and some may behead you.  Maybe ultra Orthodox Jews?  

I invite you to spend a bit more time on this topic, if it really interests you.

You are becoming unserious in your comments.  The Church's discipline of a member results in, at most, restrictions on or termination of that person's membership in the Church.  In some forms of Islam, apostasy is a death penalty offense.  And yet you suggest that Islam only "may exceed" the Church in its discipline?

And what about shunning?

And what about addressing civil disputes in religious courts?

Quote

In a way I agree that they are  barbaric or at least a relic of a by gone age.

I'm treating your posts with decorum and respect, but your comment here is unserious, facile and unduly provocative.

Quote

I would guess if you look at the statistics very few who are given the boot ever return.

I would guess that you would be surprised at how many do, in fact, return.

And if they don't, how is that a problem?  In the end, membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints carries with it, or should, a lot of meaning.  It's more than just a social club.  So if an individual doesn't want to live the life and keep the covenants that are expected of a Latter-day Saint, then they should go their way and pursue a course in life that is congruent to their hopes and desires.  We wish them well, and hope they return.  But while they are out of the Church they are not under covenant, and hence are not transgressing against those covenants.

Quote

And sure perhaps barbaric is over the top;. 

"Perhaps."

My days of taking your comments seriously are certainly coming to a middle.

Quote

But they certainly are embarrassing

That's understandable.

Every other month I get in the mail a copy of the Utah Bar Journal.  Here is a link to the most recent edition.  One of the sections in the Journal is called "Attorney Discipline," which announces the serious discipline of attorneys and names the attorneys and explains why they are being disciplined.  Is this "embarrassing" for the individuals so named?  I would certainly think so.  And yet the Utah State Bar not only disciplines its members, but goes out of its way to announce and publicize the more serious forms of discipline, and to identify those so disciplined.  

Is this, in your view, "barbaric or at least a relic of a by gone age?"

Quote

and the yare meant to humiliate

Manifestly false.  Patently untrue.  You are bearing false witness here.

Quote

and punish.

Well, obviously.  But again, the Church's punishment is pretty darn milquetoast, both objectively and subjectively.

Quote

The believers here have pointed out one of the purposes of the court and action is to motivate the offender to repent.

That is one of the purposes of a membership council.  See 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

Do you think the Church can or ought to take steps to "protect others" from predatory or dangerous persons who claim membership in the Church?

Do you think the Church can or ought to take steps to limit or terminate the membership of an individual who poses a threat to the integrity of the Church?

Quote

So it is intended to cause humility.

Surely you understand the difference between humility and humiliation in this context?  The Church's disciplinary measures are not intended to humiliate, as evidenced by the concerted efforts by the Church to keep the proceedings confidential (and, more recently, to limit the number of people involved in them).

True humility is a godly attribute (see here).  We should strive to obtain it voluntarily, rather than be compelled into it by circumstance or correction.  See, e.g., Alma 32:

Quote

12 I say unto you, it is well that ye are cast out of your synagogues, that ye may be humble, and that ye may learn wisdom; for it is necessary that ye should learn wisdom; for it is because that ye are cast out, that ye are despised of your brethren because of your exceeding poverty, that ye are brought to a lowliness of heart; for ye are necessarily brought to be humble.

13 And now, because ye are compelled to be humble blessed are ye; for a man sometimes, if he is compelled to be humble, seeketh repentance; and now surely, whosoever repenteth shall find mercy; and he that findeth mercy and endureth to the end the same shall be saved.

14 And now, as I said unto you, that because ye were compelled to be humble ye were blessed, do ye not suppose that they are more blessed who truly humble themselves because of the word?

15 Yea, he that truly humbleth himself, and repenteth of his sins, and endureth to the end, the same shall be blessed—yea, much more blessed than they who are compelled to be humble because of their exceeding poverty.

16 Therefore, blessed are they who humble themselves without being compelled to be humble; or rather, in other words, blessed is he that believeth in the word of God, and is baptized without stubbornness of heart, yea, without being brought to know the word, or even compelled to know, before they will believe.

The Church's disciplinary proceedings are, as noted above, designed to "{h}elp a person access the redeeming power of Jesus Christ through repentance."  That sort of thing is generally hindered, not helped, by the Church publicizing disciplinary matters.  So it doesn't (with some very few justified exceptions).  Where, as here, Natasha Helfer-Parker announces to the world that she is being subjected to a membership council, such publicity - and any attendant embarrassment or humiliation that goes with it - cannot be said to have been caused by the Church.

Quote

I am glad that they hole HC does not attend anymore.

And yet here you are, resorting to absurd and offensive hyperbole, despite the Church having altered its practices to make disciplinary proceedings more, shall we say, improved.

Even when the Church changes and improves itself, its critics will just move the goalposts and continue to bash it.  Such is the noxious fruit of faultfinding.  You'll always succeed at it.

Quote

On all I sat through I used o feel very bad for the offender facing off with 17 people in a room often by themselves. 

Same here.  I've also felt quite bad for people who lose their house to foreclosure.  But foreclosures are an essential component of the housing market.  Few people can afford to front the cost of a house, and so need to borrow money, often large quantities of it.  Lenders can accommodate "unsecured" loans, such as credit card debt, by factoring defaults into their interest rates, screening procedures, credit limits, and so on.  But for a sizable home loan, lenders need to be able to make themselves whole (or something close to it) by securing the loan with collateral (the house).  But for the collateralization of the house, the loan would not be commercially feasible.  There is also something to be said about the basic inequity of a buyer borrowing huge sums of money to buy a house, only to later default on the loan, but still be able to keep the house he has not paid for.  Hence, we have the foreclosure process.  It's a highly regulated sector of the law.  Nobody of my acquaintance enjoys the prospect of conducting a foreclosure.  We lawyers recognize that the process is painful, humiliating and disruptive.  But it's a necessary process.  

I think it's a bit unreasonable to characterize membership councils as only being meritorious if the people involved in administering or receiving it enjoy the process.  What sort of nonsense is that?  Membership councils are not conducted because they are enjoyable, but because they are a necessary process.

Quote

On the other hand I have noted that Helfer, Dehlin, Young etc all know the nature the the LDS Church and how it views outspoken public criticism.  None of them should have been surprised by the ax dropping.

"Barbaric."

"Relic of a bygone age."

"The ax dropping."

"Heavy handed."

"A hallmark of an authoritarian organization that wants to control their members."

This is you characterizing a membership council of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which consists of a quiet meeting that commences with a prayer, is conducted with solemnity and seriousness and confidentiality, and concludes with, at worst, some constraints on or a termination of the individual's voluntary membership in the Church.

This meeting and its aftermath, in your view, may or may not be worse than actually beheading a person ("Islam may exceed the LDS Church.  Apostatize and some may behead you.")

Kinda hard to take you seriously when you are saying such unserious things.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 21, 2021 by smac97

[Bob Crockett]

Smac:

I really don't go along with your mechanistic white man's compassionless view of things, including this one thing.

Bob

Do not racialize posts.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Smac:

I really don't go along with your mechanistic white man's compassionless view of things, including this one thing.

Bob

I don't go along with your characterization of my view of things.

My skin color is no more relevant than my height or eye color to these things.

I am not compassionless.  I seldom wear my heart on my sleeve in this forum.  I'm not particularly inclined to share emotions.  That doesn't mean I don't have them, though.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 21, 2021 by smac97

[smac97]

20 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

I guess my argument is more along the lines of:  Fairness is an important concept in religion.  But when it comes to fairness in excommunication, it appears from the New Testament that one is shown the exit merely upon an authority's say-so.  

I represent multiple religions in my practice.  Some don't care if you are a member or not and don't keep records.  At least one holds a council of elders, where testimony is taken, and a decision is made.  The church doesn't really have an elder in charge except on an ad hoc rotating basis.  Another religion, which I don't represent, will excommunicate a member solely upon the bishop's fiat without any kind of hearing.  You can be ex'd simply for your political beliefs.  The evangelical religions vary widely from "we don't care" to "we'll hold a council."  One major denomination in my city will hold a hearing of deacons, but only for the pastor's misconduct.  

My point is that when it comes to entrances and exits, the courts say nothing at all.  I know that churches are sued for their exit practices and in every case with which I am familar, the courts employ the autonomy doctrine.  Because of that, I conclude, there are a lot of things one could criticize, but this is an subject where the only ones who care are those who can't influence it.

My heart really bleeds for Natasha.  I'm sorry to see her go.  I thought she was the greatest. 

Solid points, these.

I have a good friend who was excommunicated several years ago, and was then baptized back into the Church.  A major sticking point for him has been the excommunication, which he felt was manifestly unjust.  He and I have had many discussions about it.  He having asked for my input, I shared with him a few thoughts.

My sense is that there is always a heads-I-win-tails-I-win way forward for the individual.  One's relationship with Jesus Christ is, in its most ultimate sense, between the individual and Jesus Christ.  The Church is certainly an intermediary.  It houses the doctrines of Christ, and the saving ordinances and authority by which to administer them.  It is led by a prophet chosen by God.  It is an overwhelmingly good and decent institution, but it nevertheless has its flaws and weaknesses.  One of those is that a particular local leader can fail to properly administer discipline.  But if and when that happens, the wrongful act will not be ratified by the Holy Spirit, and hence will not affect one's salvation.  Conversely, if the discipline was fairly and appropriately meted out, then the individual has the opportunity to repent and return to membership in the Church.  Heads, I win.  Tails, I win.

My friend continued to struggle with the perceived wrongfulness of his excommunication.  He again asked me for my input.  My two bits were: If your excommunication was wrong, then forgive the stake president who excommunicated you and move on with your life.  That will be a process.  It will likely take time and real effort.  But in the end, the Lord has said: "I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men."  (D&C 64:10.)  There is no exception to this commandment that allows us to perennially hold a grudge against a bishop or a stake president who erred in the administration of discipline.

I can't speak as to the merits of the withdrawal of membership for Natasha Helfer-Parker.  I wasn't there.  I don't know what they discussed.  I have no stewardship or authority or involvement in the matter.  If the disciplinary process was inappropriate or wrong, I hope she appeals and succeeds.  If that doesn't work, I hope she returns to us after the necessary interval.  Heads, she wins.  Tails, she wins.  

"Therefore, cheer up your hearts, and remember that ye are free to act for yourselves—to choose the way of everlasting death or the way of eternal life."  (2 Nephi 10:23.)

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 22, 2021 by smac97

[ttribe]

13 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I don't know any more than what this woman has made public and has been quoted in this thread.  In a prior post you paraphrased some of the things that she said:

What she describes above is completely in line with what is stated in the general handbook in determining which leader should hold the council.  In an earlier post (here), rongo quoted this portion of the general handbook:

Further down, in 32.14.7 it talks about move restrictions on membership records:

In your account of what she said (and I'm only going by your account) she stated she had never met her new Stake President.  That would obviously be one big reason that the stake president in Kansas would have more knowledge of the woman's situation.  You state that I'm making assumptions based on my bias, and perhaps that is true as long as my only biased assumption is that the bishops and stake presidents in both locations are going by the general handbook.  Obviously there was some reason that the woman's membership records were not transferred.  I can think of several reasons, most of which have nothing to do with a membership council.  But one reason could be that "membership action or other serious concerns [were] pending" (as stated in 32.14.7).  For whatever the reason her records were not transferred, and according to her own account (as paraphrased by you), the two stake presidents decided the membership council should be held in Kansas.  This is completely in line with the general handbook.

You also said that I assume the woman is lying.  What is it that I think she's lying about?   Did the woman actually say all the charges are based on social media and podcasts?  I could be missing something because everything I know about this case comes from this thread.

 

First, simply because something is in line with the Handbook it doesn't necessarily follow that it's the right thing to do relative to the circumstances.

Second, my impression that you believe she is lying is based on the continued assertion of the likelihood that there were other charges.  If I am wrong, I am more than willing to be corrected.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Ok don't ignore me.  

1: I am still a member of the Church.  I High Priest, have the inactive office of Bishop, am endowed,  I just am not attending church currently.  I do not currently hold a temple recommend.

2:  Based on 1 I have as much standing as you to present and to argue what my views are on this topic.

3: I am not basing my argument on 2000 year old "scripture" or on Joseph Smith's alleged revelations.

4;  Yes fairness is in the eyes of the beholder. You opine the Church proceedings are fair. I opine I do not think they are. I believe they are the heavy handed and are a hallmark of an authoritarian organization that wants to control their members.  This and many other attributes and actions of the LDS Church fall right into a number of Steven Hassan's BITE model of authoritarian control.  If you are interested feel free to look them up. For this reason I oppose Church courts. 

In the end as I have said the Church can do whatever it pleases on such things. And individuals can decide if these types of actions as well as other things the church does to control its member create a healthy culture and endowment to thrive and be happy in. My conclusion is they do not.

Looking back on my excommunication, I have never held any ill will towards those men in that court.  They were just doing what, as you say, the heavy handed authoritarian Church wanted them to do.  I kinda felt bad for some of them who I felt like they were doing something they really didn't feel comfortable in doing.  I had served with most of them on the high council.  They knew me.  They knew I was not some evil person who needed to be expelled from their presence.  

But maybe for me it was a good thing.  It made it crystal clear that I should not have any association with the Church if I was going to live a life that included being with someone I loved. Without the excommunication, maybe I would have tried to keep those ties with the Church stronger.  I know that being with my partner who I love so very much is the right thing for me.  That obviously can't happen within the confines of the Church.  So I guess the purpose of excommunicating me was effective, clear and final.  

What the excommunication didn't do is sever my relationship with Christ.  I many ways it made that relationship stronger.  I know Christ loves me even if I am gay and have found a companion to travel with through this world.  Christ continues to do what the Church can not.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Teancum said:

This is a discussion for another thread.

If so, then why did you begin that poorly informed discussion?

[Robert F. Smith]

22 hours ago, california boy said:

You have been going on page after page about what Dehlin makes.  The question is why do you care?  You aren't donating to his income.  

For a day laborer, yea $200.000 is a lot of money.  But if you are a podcaster that has thousands of followers, $200,000 is not unreasonable.  

Do you still think Dehlin is making a fortune?  Do you think he should not accept donations once he has made a figure that you consider to be a fortune?  Should the Church start not accepting donations once others consider the Church has a fortune?  You are blowing this issue up way too much imo.

Lots of people make good money online, and I have no objection to that at all.  I have no objection to Dr Dehlin making lots of money through his OSF, just as I never had a problem with the Tanners making good money on their crusade against the LDS Church ( I even went to their church with them, and was always on friendly terms with Sandra Tanner).  What surprises me is your suggestion that Dehlin is almost poverty stricken compared to other podcasters.  That's a silly defense at best, an overreach at worst.

22 hours ago, california boy said:

And the Church has literally hundred plus billion dollars.

Why are you so angry that the LDS Church has managed its money so well, in accordance with the Parable of the Talents?  What would you say if the Church (any church) had mismanaged its money?  How do you feel about the corruption at the Vatican Bank, for example?  Why do you immediately insert a non sequitur in this conversation?

22 hours ago, california boy said:

 Why didn't the Church pay for her travel to a location that THEY picked.  It would have been a kind and compassionate gesture to offer to pay for her travel expenses and may have dulled the edge off of the animosity that has occurred.  That little amount would have shown compassion and a willingness to help resolve the issue amicably.

The LDS Church doesn't pay for my travel, and I don't expect it to do so.  That is a dodge.  The real issue remains:  What sort of apostasy was she accused of?  What did she actually do or say?  Was she actually guilty of apostasy?  Is she being judged fairly by the local LDS leaders in Kansas?  Those are the issues which you pointedly ignore.

[california boy]

17 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Lots of people make good money online, and I have no objection to that at all.  I have no objection to Dr Dehlin making lots of money through his OSF, just as I never had a problem with the Tanners making good money on their crusade against the LDS Church ( I even went to their church with them, and was always on friendly terms with Sandra Tanner).  What surprises me is your suggestion that Dehlin is almost poverty stricken compared to other podcasters.  That's a silly defense at best, an overreach at worst.

Why are you so angry that the LDS Church has managed its money so well, in accordance with the Parable of the Talents?  What would you say if the Church (any church) had mismanaged its money?  How do you feel about the corruption at the Vatican Bank, for example?  Why do you immediately insert a non sequitur in this conversation?

I couldn't care less how much money the Church has.  I have never made any objection about the wealth of the  Church.  I am just pointing out that BOTH sides had plenty of money if they wanted to pay her airfare.  It is you that is going on page after page about Dehlin's pay check.  

Quote

The LDS Church doesn't pay for my travel, and I don't expect it to do so.  That is a dodge. 

Robert, sometimes I am absolutely positive you either don't read my posts, or are so eager to lash back and projecting my emotional status about the Church.  Did you miss this part of what I said?

Quote

And the Church has literally hundred plus billion dollars.  Why didn't the Church pay for her travel to a location that THEY picked.  It would have been a kind and compassionate gesture to offer to pay for her travel expenses and may have dulled the edge off of the animosity that has occurred.  That little amount would have shown compassion and a willingness to help resolve the issue amicably.

 

 

Quote

 

The real issue remains:  What sort of apostasy was she accused of?  What did she actually do or say?  Was she actually guilty of apostasy?  Is she being judged fairly by the local LDS leaders in Kansas?  Those are the issues which you pointedly ignore.

I have not made a single comment about any of those issues.  I honestly don't know much about this person nor what she is actually. accused of doing to make any kind of judgement.  

[InCognitus]

4 hours ago, ttribe said:

First, simply because something is in line with the Handbook it doesn't necessarily follow that it's the right thing to do relative to the circumstances.

I don't think any of us know all of the circumstances in this case.  It has been said earlier in this folder that this is like hearing one spouse's side of a divorce situation, and there are always two sides to every story.  My position is that we don't know everything, but what we do know is that the general handbook does spell out that a person can be asked to return to their original ward and stake for a membership council.  Whether that is "the right thing to do" or not isn't up to me, but it is in line with church guidelines, and maybe (just maybe) the leaders in Kansas have a good reason for doing it this way and they are not just doing it to be "unfair" or to put hardships on the woman.

4 hours ago, ttribe said:

Second, my impression that you believe she is lying is based on the continued assertion of the likelihood that there were other charges.  If I am wrong, I am more than willing to be corrected.

I can't make any judgement on whether she is lying or not.   I have no idea. The only charge that I've heard about is apostasy, and I'm not saying there are any "other" charges than apostasy.  I have only questioned the basis for that charge.  You have continually assumed that these charges are based only on her social media and podcast activity.  I keep asking you, how do you know that?  I'm questioning your assertion.  Obviously if the apostasy charges are based only on her social media and podcast activity I can see how it would be possible for the membership council to be conducted in a different state.  But what if there is some local (Kansas) reason other than social media and podcasts for the apostasy charges?  Only the church leadership in Kansas would know that.  How does any of this amount to me thinking that the woman is lying?  I'm just trying to be fair to both sides since we don't know all the circumstances. 

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I don't think any of us know all of the circumstances in this case.  It has been said earlier in this folder that this is like hearing one spouse's side of a divorce situation, and there are always two sides to every story.  My position is that we don't know everything, but what we do know is that the general handbook does spell out that a person can be asked to return to their original ward and stake for a membership council.  Whether that is "the right thing to do" or not isn't up to me, but it is in line with church guidelines, and maybe (just maybe) the leaders in Kansas have a good reason for doing it this way and they are not just doing it to be "unfair" or to put hardships on the woman.

I can't make any judgement on whether she is lying or not.   I have no idea. The only charge that I've heard about is apostasy, and I'm not saying there are any "other" charges than apostasy.  I have only questioned the basis for that charge.  You have continually assumed that these charges are based only on her social media and podcast activity.  I keep asking you, how do you know that?  I'm questioning your assertion.  Obviously if the apostasy charges are based only on her social media and podcast activity I can see how it would be possible for the membership council to be conducted in a different state.  But what if there is some local (Kansas) reason other than social media and podcasts for the apostasy charges?  Only the church leadership in Kansas would know that.  How does any of this amount to me thinking that the woman is lying?  I'm just trying to be fair to both sides since we don't know all the circumstances. 

Again, based solely on what she has said.  I listened to the podcast and I've read what she wrote.  I don't know how to be any more clear than that.

[InCognitus]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

Again, based solely on what she has said.  I listened to the podcast and I've read what she wrote.  I don't know how to be any more clear than that.

Did she say the apostasy charges are based solely on her podcasts and social media or not?

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Did she say the apostasy charges are based solely on her podcasts and social media or not?

Oh. My. You are a persistent one on this.  She read off the charges and answered each one as part of the podcast.  She stated where each of the statements had been said or published.  She provided a fair amount of detail.  Go listen to it for yourself, if you're so concerned.  I'm not responsible for educating you on this.  I've been about as patient as I can be.