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

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I've sat in on multiple church courts as both a member of the bishopric and also as a member of the high council.. Too many to count 

So have I.

Quote

I've long believed that these courts should be abandoned by the church and abolished. 

I've long come to exactly the opposite conclusion, namely, that membership councils are essential to the long-term viability of the Church.  I've explained my reasoning here:

Quote

Kate Kelly, John Dehlin, Denver Snuffer, and others who have left have demonstrated formidable talents and skills which they could have contributed to the Church through continued fellowship with the Saints and discipleship in the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The real question, I think, is whether the Church is engaging in misconduct or material error(s), or is it out of harmony with God's will, such that the Church is culpable for the departures of these people.

Generally and broadly and predominantly, I think the answer is "No."  I think these people, talented though they may be, engaged in conduct that made continued membership in the Church impossible.

I am saddened by their departures.  I am also saddened at the departures of people who leave the Church for other reasons.  We each of us have value and merit in the eyes of God.

I don't want them these people 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.

People who apostatize and fail to repent cannot remain in the community of faith.  On this we have a clear mandate:

• D&C 50:8-9 - "But the hypocrites shall be detected and shall be cut off, either in life or in death, even as I will; and wo unto them who are cut off from my church, for the same are overcome of the world. Wherefore, let every man beware lest he do that which is not in truth and righteousness before me."
• D&C 64:34-37 - "Behold, the Lord requireth the heart and a willing mind; and the willing and obedient shall eat the good of the land of Zion in these last days. And the rebellious shall be cut off out of the land of Zion, and shall be sent away, and shall not inherit the land. For, verily I say that the rebellious are not of the blood of Ephraim, wherefore they shall be plucked out. Behold, I, the Lord, have made my church in these last days like unto a judge sitting on a hill, or in a high place, to judge the nations."
• D&C 104:6-10 - "For I, the Lord, am not to be mocked in these things. And all this that the innocent among you may not be condemned with the unjust; and that the guilty among you may not escape; because I, the Lord, have promised unto you a crown of glory at my right hand. Therefore, inasmuch as you are found transgressors, you cannot escape my wrath in your lives. Inasmuch as ye are cut off for transgression, ye cannot escape the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption. And I now give unto you power from this very hour, that if any man among you, of the order, is found a transgressor and repenteth not of the evil, that ye shall deliver him over unto the buffetings of Satan; and he shall not have power to bring evil upon you."
• D&C 51:1-2 - "Hearken unto me, saith the Lord your God, and I will speak unto my servant Edward Partridge, and give unto him directions; for it must needs be that he receive directions how to organize this people. For it must needs be that they be organized according to my laws; if otherwise, they will be cut off."
• D&C 63:60-64 - "Behold, I am Alpha and Omega, even Jesus Christ. Wherefore, let all men beware how they take my name in their lips. For behold, verily I say, that many there be who are under this condemnation, who use the name of the Lord, and use it in vain, having not authority. Wherefore, let the church repent of their sins, and I, the Lord, will own them; otherwise they shall be cut off. Remember that that which cometh from above is sacred, and must be spoken with care, and by constraint of the Spirit; and in this there is no condemnation, and ye receive the Spirit through prayer; wherefore, without this there remaineth condemnation."
• D&C 133:63 - "And upon them that hearken not to the voice of the Lord shall be fulfilled that which was written by the prophet Moses, that they should be cut off from among the people."
• D&C 85:11 - "And they who are of the High Priesthood, whose names are not found written in the book of the law, or that are found to have apostatized, or to have been cut off from the church, as well as the lesser priesthood, or the members, in that day shall not find an inheritance among the saints of the Most High."
• D&C 1:14 - "And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people."
• D&C 134:10 - "We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship."
• Alma 1:24 - "The hearts of many were hardened, and their names were blotted out."
• 3 Ne. 18:31 - "If he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people."
• D&C 42:24 - "Adulterers who do not repent shall be cast out."
• D&C 42:28 - "He that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out."
• D&C 41:5 - "He that receiveth my law and doeth it, the same is my disciple; and he that saith he receiveth it and doeth it not, the same is not my disciple, and shall be cast out from among you."
• Helaman 12:25 - "And I would that all men might be saved. But we read that in the great and last day there are some who shall be cast out, yea, who shall be cast off from the presence of the Lord."
• 3 Nephi 14:15 - "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."

This is tough medicine.  There is a lot of pain when these things happen.  But the presence of rebellion/apostasy and the absence of repentance makes such things a necessary component of maintaining our community.

As I have said before, I don't want members 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. 

DonBradley (who left the Church and later returned to it) commented on this sentiment here:

Quote

In the thread about the excommunication of the Calderwoods, Smac made a comment that I think is important enough that it merits discussion on its own, apart from the details of their case.

Smac:

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.

 

My point isn't to comment on the Calderwoods' case: I don't know enough about it; and I'd prefer to leave discussion of it to the other thread. 

 

But I think it's worth pointing out how this principle might apply to the recent cases I know more about, particularly that of Kate Kelly. While there are definitely some gray areas regarding appropriate ways to express disagreement with church policy, and while I think we need more cultural "space" for such disagreement, there are also clear boundaries. For instance, no one (in their right mind) with an LDS background could seriously think that it's okay with the church to do protest-style actions and form national pressure groups to change church policy. 

 

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. 

 

While I personally, for several reasons, wish Kate Kelly's stake president had taken a lesser disciplinary action, such as disfellowshipping, 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 agree with this.  Getting rid of membership councils is simply unrealistic.

Quote

They rarely achieve the intended goals.

Which is often attributable to the individual, who has chosen to abandon the covenant path.

But there are also more than a few instances when they do achieve (or in some way facilitate) a person's reconcilation with the Lord and His Church.

Quote

They do nothing to aid the healing of the accused

This is a material overstatement.  I have personal experience with many who have spoken of disfellowshipment or excommunication being a difficult and painful, but necessary part of their "healing."

Quote

and are often nothing more than spiritual overreach and abuse. 

This is also a material overstatement.

I too have been in many, many disciplinary councils.  What you are saying here is profoundly at odds with what I have observed.

Quote

I've yet to see a single member whose membership was stripped of them return to the fold, not one.  Oh the stories I could tell.  

I have seen several.

Quote

I've often wondered why the church puts its members through these ordeals.

Generally the member engages in conduct that is a substantial violation of his or her covenants.  

The Church has an extensive mandate regarding disciplinary matters in the Church.

The Church nevertheless bends over backwards to accommodate wayward members.

Your characterization here is incorrect and unfair.

Quote

The humiliation alone is beyond the pale for these poor souls. 

Yes, that can be a tough thing.  Hence my appreciation for the Church's efforts to keep such matters confidential.

Quote

I've witnesses grown men (and women) reduced to such a depths of humiliation that I've had to worry about them taking their own lives after being put through their so called courts of love.

A few years back I attended a sentencing hearing of a friend who had pleaded guilty to serious criminal charges.  He had hoped for probation, but was given a sentence of several years and immediately taken into custody in front of his wife, family and friends.

And yet . . . the sentence was appropriate.  Because the wrong had been committed.  Because he had admitted to it.  Because there need to be consequences for misconduct.  Because no society can function where severe misconduct is deliberately ignored or left unaddressed.

The Church has no ability to incarcerate or fine or otherwise punish its members, except that it can put constraints on or terminate the membership of the individual.  When such measures are necessary, the Church goes to great lengths to keep such matters confidential and to encourage the individual to do all that he or she can to return to full fellowship and membership in the Church.

Quote

It's been terrible to witness fellow human beings being put through these spiritually abusive courts, no matter what you call them, they are shameful and barbaric.

Patently untrue.  They are pictures of decorum and kindness.  Your characterization is absurd and patently inaccurate.

Quote

There is nothing that a court can achieve that couldn't also be achieved by a private one on one consultation with a bishop through confession, nothing.

You are mostly, but surely not entirely, correct.  Again, look at the mandates above.  

D&C 50:8-9 - "But the hypocrites shall be detected and shall be cut off, either in life or in death..."

D&C 64:34-37 - "Behold, the Lord requireth the heart and a willing mind; and the willing and obedient shall eat the good of the land of Zion in these last days. And the rebellious shall be cut off out of the land of Zion, and shall be sent away, and shall not inherit the land. For, verily I say that the rebellious are not of the blood of Ephraim, wherefore they shall be plucked out. Behold, I, the Lord, have made my church in these last days like unto a judge sitting on a hill, or in a high place, to judge the nations."

D&C 104:6-10 - "For I, the Lord, am not to be mocked in these things. And all this that the innocent among you may not be condemned with the unjust; and that the guilty among you may not escape; because I, the Lord, have promised unto you a crown of glory at my right hand. Therefore, inasmuch as you are found transgressors, you cannot escape my wrath in your lives. Inasmuch as ye are cut off for transgression, ye cannot escape the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption. And I now give unto you power from this very hour, that if any man among you, of the order, is found a transgressor and repenteth not of the evil, that ye shall deliver him over unto the buffetings of Satan; and he shall not have power to bring evil upon you."

D&C 133:63 - "And upon them that hearken not to the voice of the Lord shall be fulfilled that which was written by the prophet Moses, that they should be cut off from among the people."

D&C 1:14 - "And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people."

3 Ne. 18:31 - "If he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people."

D&C 42:24 - "Adulterers who do not repent shall be cast out."

D&C 42:28 - "He that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out."

D&C 41:5 - "He that receiveth my law and doeth it, the same is my disciple; and he that saith he receiveth it and doeth it not, the same is not my disciple, and shall be cast out from among you."

How do you account for these?

Quote

The church puts its own hubris and self interests above those of its own members.

Utterly untrue.

The Church takes seriously the mandates given to it by Jesus Christ.  Disciplinary proceedings are an unpleasant, but plainly necessary, component of the Kingdom of God.

As for Natasha Helfer, I'll leave the matter to those with stewardship.  If there is an error or mistake by those in authority, then that's on them.  We as bystanders don't have the whole story, nor the standing.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 15, 2021 by smac97

[bsjkki]

She is a mental health professional and personally, I find it very troublesome that this is happening. Here is a letter from mental health professionals in support of her.     https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jNYb0i2ksVQ_Zb-uoCRWNlusd5WspvvM0c-tVgVBFGs/edit

Are they going to excommunicate all the LDS therapists that signed this letter?

[JustAnAustralian]

7 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Are they going to excommunicate all the LDS therapists that signed this letter?

They aren't even necessarily going to remove her membership. Not everyone that has a membership council called for them loses their membership.

[bsjkki]

7 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

She is a mental health professional and personally, I find it very troublesome that this is happening. Here is a letter from mental health professionals in support of her.     https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jNYb0i2ksVQ_Zb-uoCRWNlusd5WspvvM0c-tVgVBFGs/edit

Are they going to excommunicate all the LDS therapists that signed this letter?

"Bishops are not good therapists and therapists are not good Bishops." I agree with this. https://www.facebook.com/mormonsexinfo/videos/1374218266273436

[Bob Crockett]

3 hours ago, ttribe said:

 

Ahhh, I had forgotten that.  So, yes, there's precedent.  Not sure as to the fairness, but that's a different discussion.

It is fair.  The priesthood leader with intimate detailed knowledge is the best to handle it. Public figures often want to frustrate or delay.  Once a person is in the discipline process it takes hold. You can't move away.  It's like being a lawyer.  If I'm being disciplined by the state bar I can't simply resign and pick up in a different state. 

The NT clearly requires a discipline procedure.  Paul writes about it with a wordplay for castration.  It must be completed.

[Amulek]

23 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

"Bishops are not good therapists and therapists are not good Bishops." I agree with this.

One of the best Bishops I have ever known was a psychiatrist. He grew up in Idaho and had an Ivy League education.

He wore a fine beard and a pair of Birkenstocks to church every Sunday. He was intelligent, observant, jovial, kind, and just an honest to goodness all-around good person. 

I don't think there was anyone in the ward who didn't think he was (at minimum) a "good Bishop." YMMV.

 

[bsjkki]

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

One of the best Bishops I have ever known was a psychiatrist. He grew up in Idaho and had an Ivy League education.

He wore a fine beard and a pair of Birkenstocks to church every Sunday. He was intelligent, observant, jovial, kind, and just an honest to goodness all-around good person. 

I don't think there was anyone in the ward who didn't think he was (at minimum) a "good Bishop." YMMV.

 

I am not saying a Bishop  trained as therapist can not be a good Bishop. She went on to explain that Bishops should basically deal with Bishop things and  therapists should deal with therapy things. Each should stay 'in their lane' in those moments. I wish all Bishops were trained therapist. I think they would do their jobs a lot better if that was the case.

Edited April 16, 2021 by bsjkki

[ttribe]

58 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

It is fair.  The priesthood leader with intimate detailed knowledge is the best to handle it. Public figures often want to frustrate or delay.  Once a person is in the discipline process it takes hold. You can't move away.  It's like being a lawyer.  If I'm being disciplined by the state bar I can't simply resign and pick up in a different state. 

The NT clearly requires a discipline procedure.  Paul writes about it with a wordplay for castration.  It must be completed.

Well, in this case, she moved before the disciplinary process began.  It's puzzling what prompted the KS SP to become intimately familiar with her work because, to hear her tell it, no one had said anything before this and she'd been actively and publicly taking the now "apostate" positions for a number of years.

Edited April 16, 2021 by ttribe

[katherine the great]

13 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Well, in this case, she moved before the disciplinary process began.  It's puzzling what prompted the KS SP to become intimately familiar with her work because, to hear tell it, no one had said anything before this and she'd been actively and publicly taking the now "apostate" positions for a number of years.

I listened to parts of her interview. I don’t think she’s doing her self a favor by going public with John Dehlin but I admit it was interesting to listen to her story. I feel for her, being a woman The thought of sitting in a room to face possible discipline from a group of men (even righteous and well meaning men) is kind of terrifying. I was surprised that she was offered the opportunity to bring a Relief Society president with her although in her case that’s not possible.  I think that only giving her a week to prepare is completely unreasonable. She works full-time and lives in another state. How could she possibly make arrangements to get back there in time and have witnesses approved and transported in just a week? I would think a month would be the minimum in those circumstances.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

7 hours ago, Harry T. Clark said:

Isn't she connected to Dehlin?  I think it would be better for the church to bend a little on this one, if it is a common practice, and have the Utah stake president take jurisdiction.  I know the church leaders don't want to give the impression that SLC has any say in these matters.  However, why give Mr. Dehlin any more ammunition?

 

7 hours ago, ttribe said:

She has been on Mormon Stories this week, but I don't know that I would consider her "connected" to Dehlin (of whom I am not a fan) in any meaningful way.

She is very connected with the open stories foundation: 

https://www.openstoriesfoundation.org/our-team/

[MustardSeed]

How terribly sad.  I am one who believes the process can be done with a bishopric, or even just one leader, and accomplish the repentance process without the shame.  Keep the guilt, lose the shame.  And anyone who thinks that every church court is the squeaky clean process that smac is claiming they are is sorely mistaken.  Human beings can be pretty brutal. 

[bsjkki]

53 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

She is very connected with the open stories foundation: 

https://www.openstoriesfoundation.org/our-team/

That would do her in. 

[3DOP]

10 hours ago, ttribe said:

Nevermind.

Edited April 16, 2021 by 3DOP
These "advocacy policies" are only NOW "being called apostasy"? Since 1830, until NOW, these " advocacy policies" were okay?

[Latter Day Witness]

4 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I've sat in on multiple church courts as both a member of the bishopric and also as a member of the high council.. Too many to count  I've long believed that these courts should be abandoned by the church and abolished.  They rarely achieve the intended goals. They do nothing to aid the healing of the accused and are often nothing more than spiritual overreach and abuse.  I've yet to see a single member whose membership was stripped of them return to the fold, not one.  Oh the stories I could tell.  

I've often wondered why the church puts its members through these ordeals. The humiliation alone is beyond the pale for these poor souls.  I've witnesses grown men (and women) reduced to such a depths of humiliation that I've had to worry about them taking their own lives after being put through their so called courts of love.  It's been terrible to witness fellow human beings being put through these spiritually abusive courts, no matter what you call them, they are shameful and barbaric.

There is nothing that a court can achieve that couldn't also be achieved by a private one on one consultation with a bishop through confession, nothing.

The church puts its own hubris and self interests above those of its own members.

From what I can ascertain with this particular case, it seems like a witch hunt.  Why is the church after this poor woman.  She did nothing to the church and should be left alone in peace.  It's situation like this that I sincerely wonder who is in charge and why are they abusing these poor people. Its truly embarrassing and so unnecessary and only serves the interests of the church. 

This is my first post on this forum, and I’m unlikely to post again. I feel so strongly, however, about what has been said here that I feel compelled to add my witness. 
 

I have witnessed horrific spiritual abuse in disciplinary councils.  I have seen behavior by church leaders so shameful that I couldn’t believe it was happening.
 

I have been a part of a disciplinary council of a public figure. The order to excommunicate the individual was given well in advance by the Committee for Strengthening Church Members. The actual disciplinary council was a formality and resembled a kangaroo court.  The evidence against the individual was all compiled by the COB and local leaders simply carried out orders.  The accused was not given any meaningful chance for a defense or to influence the outcome.

My experience with non-public figures has been mixed. Some good results but the majority have been filled with shaming and humiliation. 
 

I’m not here to argue these issues. I just want to add my witness to what the previous poster has described.It saddens me to see it happen all too often.

[3DOP]

9 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

 

 I am sorry tttribett. I should mind my own business. I don't know how I quoted you saying what you did not say. Sorry. I would make it go away if I knew how. 

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

 I am sorry tttribett. I should mind my own business. I don't know how I quoted you saying what you did not say. Sorry. I would make it go away if I knew how. 

No worries. Stuff happens. 

[Harry T. Clark]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If she is supposed to have violated some set of rules in Kansas, this would likely be best known to those in Kansas, and the most important witnesses there.  Moving it to a new jurisdiction (where no one knows her) might merely complicate matters.  Dehlin's connection is irrelevant, unless this is part of a conspiracy.  What would be done if this were a sexual abuse matter?  How would transferring it make it better?

Ms. Helfer-Parker is part of Dehlin's thrive circle and so he might want to make more out of this than is warranted for publicity sake, you know, giving the church a black eye.  She's been away from Kansas for more than 1 1/2 years, so, perhaps she should be tried where she now lives?  Does apostasy occur in a specific place or does it reside with the individual?  You obviously are assuming that she did something of a sexual nature because she is a sex therapist and so of course that has to be what it is about.  But what if it is for apostasy?  Apostasy follows the person and so she should be tried where she is.

[Vellichor]

Natasha Helfer has written a number of blog posts criticizing President Nelson, including this one: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/mormontherapist/2019/04/plea-to-president-nelson-about-families.html

In it she accuses him of causing harm by stating that some families will not be together in the eternities. She says: "You have so much power and are wielding it irresponsibly. Wielding it in ways that have significant consequences. Stop causing the type of wreckage I, and my many concerned colleagues, have to sew up in the cardiac surgical room of the therapy chair." A version of the post was published in the Salt Lake Tribune.

She and John Dehlin also host retreats for people leaving the Church.

 

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

44 minutes ago, Latter Day Witness said:

I have witnessed horrific spiritual abuse in disciplinary councils.  I have seen behavior by church leaders so shameful that I couldn’t believe it was happening.

I have been a part of a disciplinary council of a public figure. The order to excommunicate the individual was given well in advance by the Committee for Strengthening Church Members. The actual disciplinary council was a formality and resembled a kangaroo court.  The evidence against the individual was all compiled by the COB and local leaders simply carried out orders.  The accused was not given any meaningful chance for a defense or to influence the outcome.

I have witnessed no such things, and therefore I disbelieve what you have written.

[bsjkki]

25 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I have witnessed no such things, and therefore I disbelieve what you have written.

I don't think we all have the same experiences. Just because yours have all been good experiences does not mean others have not experienced something else. We have a large church, across many countries, with varied Stake Presidents who do things very differently from each other. A blanket discounting of someone else's experience is very narrow minded. I had all good experiences with the church until I did not. It was quite a shock.

[bsjkki]

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

 I am sorry tttribett. I should mind my own business. I don't know how I quoted you saying what you did not say. Sorry. I would make it go away if I knew how. 

This happens when you quote someone who is quoting someone. Sometimes, I will forget to scroll backward to the original quote too.

Edited April 16, 2021 by bsjkki

[Hamba Tuhan]

36 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I don't think we all have the same experiences. Just because yours have all been good experiences does not mean others have not experienced something else.

Oh, I get that. And some of my experiences in the Church haven't been too great, to be honest.

But a drive-by post from someone who has never posted before and won't post again formulaically reciting apostate talking points as his own personal experiences should be immediately suspect.

I was a member of a stake presidency when a high-profile apostate (whose name would be known to many on this forum) was excommunicated. I've read the online discussions by people who are certain that the entire thing was orchestrated by some secretive Church committee in SLC, that the outcome was pre-determined, that the actual council was a kangaroo court, that the person was granted no opportunity to defend himself, that we were all just scared of the truth and needed to silence the person, etc. None of this is true.

And it's almost certainly not true in anyone's personal experience.

Edited April 16, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[bsjkki]

6 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Oh, I get that. But a drive-by post from someone who has never posted before and won't post again formulaically reciting apostate talking points as his own personal experiences should be immediately suspect.

I was a member of a stake presidency when a high-profile apostate (whose name would be known to many on this forum) was excommunicated. I've read the online discussions by people who are certain that the entire thing was orchestrated by some secretive Church committee in SLC, that the outcome was pre-determined, that the actual council was a kangaroo court, that the person was granted no opportunity to defend himself, that we were all just scared of the truth and needed to silence the person, etc. None of this is true.

And it's almost certainly not true in anyone's personal experience.

I know someone who said their disciplinary counsel was the worst thing they have ever gone through and not because it was 'hard' but because it was an awful experience due to the format and how he was treated.  (He was not allowed to go to the restroom by himself but had to be escorted...I remember this really bothering him among other things) He's still active. So, I'm sure some are run in different ways. Maybe he is a troll but dismissing someone else's experience based on not having experienced something yourself (which is what you said) is not a logical conclusion to make. You're statement basically calling him a troll, has a bit more reason.

[Meadowchik]

4 hours ago, katherine the great said:

I listened to parts of her interview. I don’t think she’s doing her self a favor by going public with John Dehlin but I admit it was interesting to listen to her story. I feel for her, being a woman The thought of sitting in a room to face possible discipline from a group of men (even righteous and well meaning men) is kind of terrifying. I was surprised that she was offered the opportunity to bring a Relief Society president with her although in her case that’s not possible.  I think that only giving her a week to prepare is completely unreasonable. She works full-time and lives in another state. How could she possibly make arrangements to get back there in time and have witnesses approved and transported in just a week? I would think a month would be the minimum in those circumstances.

My take is that the way it is being done is a signal to her that it's already decided. 

 

[Tacenda]

What harm is she doing? And why aren't those that commit worse sins get ex'd? I don't think the church should even ex people anymore.