Mormon excommunication was not designed to happen this way, say scholars

[Teancum]

I found this article by two guest scholars on Jana Reiss's blog i interesting.  And in particular I found it interesting because of the numerous church now called membership council that I have been involved in I always thought they never followed the mandate of the revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants.  It really did seem to me that half the HC was to speak in defense of the accused and half against sort of like a trial.  And the ultimately the SP would decide.  Of course I have never witnessed anything like that and my guess is others here haven't as well. As the article  points out that seems to be what Joseph Smith intended and how early church courts were administered.  Too bad the Church moved away from that.

 

 

Quote

 

A guest column by Isaac Barnes May and Samuel S. Wells

On Sunday, local Latter-day Saint leaders in Kansas held a disciplinary hearing to determine the fate of Natasha Helfer, a licensed sex-therapist, who was being tried for her views on pornography, same-sex relations and masturbation. Helfer has since been excommunicated from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

One of the striking things about the Helfer case is a debate over due process and transparency of church disciplinary councils. Since Helfer currently resides in Salt Lake City, Utah, there are jurisdictional questions about why her church court was convened in Kansas. Further, the hearing took place without Helfer because she would not turn off her cell phone, because it had notes that she intended to use during the proceedings. Latter-day Saint leaders seemed to fear she would use such technology to publicize the proceedings against her.

As scholars who specialize in religion and law, particularly regarding the history of church discipline and religious liberalism in the United States, we feel that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not honoring the spirit of the protections its founder provided for the accused.

In 1834, Joseph Smith, prophet of the newly formed Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, received a revelation pertaining to church disciplinary procedures. Excommunication was nothing new in nineteenth-century America, but Smith’s efforts to protect the procedural rights of the accused broke new ground within the hothouse of American Protestantism.

After the American Revolution, philosophies of freedom and individual rights took hold in the new nation, affecting religion as well as government. Persons placed on trial by their congregations expressed anger when they believed meetings denied them rights to call witnesses in church courts or to publicly plead their case before their accusers. For their own part, ministers increasingly sought to protect these procedural rights.

Smith took such calls seriously, canonizing protections in Latter-day Saint scripture known as the Doctrine and Covenants (D&C Section 102). As Smith formalized church disciplinary procedures, he organized a “High Council” to judge members who disobeyed church doctrine or conventions. The council, made up of high-ranking male church officials, was to present “evidence” on both sides of cases with both “equity and justice.” Indeed, in particularly difficult situations, members were assigned (by lot) to speak on behalf of the accused.

In all cases both the plaintiff and defendant were to enjoy the right to speak on their behalf “to prevent insult and injustice.” Though such councils were not often public in nature, early Latter-day Saint men—and women—often voted on disciplinary proceedings within their own church meetings.

LDS protections, in comparison to other religious groups, were robust. Quakers, who disowned approximately half of their membership throughout the nineteenth century, allowed aggrieved parties to appeal decisions to higher ecclesiastical authorities, but not to present evidence or speak in their own defense. Over a century before Gideon v. Wainwright, where the Supreme Court determined that all criminal defendants had the right to an attorney, Mormons had some notion that counsel was required in ecclesiastical trials.

Yet, by the middle of the twentieth century, a growing community of dissenters among Latter-day Saints discovered a disciplinary process that seemed to be rigged against them when they sought to address personal questions over issues of church history, gender and sexuality, and the racist treatment of African Americans in the church.

John W. Fitzgerald, who was excommunicated in 1973 for protesting the LDS priesthood/temple ban against Black members, protested that “no transcript” of the charges leveled against him was given him in his own church court. Further, Fitzgerald and others argued that the protections laid out in the D&C were not always heeded, and that trials that touched on political or religious controversy were conducted in private.

Some individuals resisted what they believed to be procedural abuse more actively. In 1977, Byron Marchant was put on trial and ultimately excommunicated for his vigorous efforts to advocate for racial equality within the church. Marchant, who worked as a janitor for the church, would contest much of the process of his disownment. He claimed that his stake president had been pressured by LDS general authorities in Salt Lake City to bring charges against him. He would later write that the charges of his apostasy were unclear.

Marchant tried to make his trial as public as possible. He sent out a press release inviting like-minded protestors to join him in the days before his trial in a silent march on Temple Square before General Conference. He also drew national media attention by refusing to sustain the governing authorities of the church at the gathering, casting a vote against first counselor N. Eldon Tanner because Tanner had signed a 1969 letter from the First Presidency that claimed that the prohibition on Black men holding the priesthood dated back to Joseph Smith.

For Marchant, as for many others, fairness came to include a commitment to radical transparency in church court proceedings. When the trial convened, Marchant insisted on tape recording the proceedings. This caused considerable controversy, as the official presiding over the trial maintained that allowing the accused to have access to minutes or a transcript of the trial was forbidden. Eventually he was barred from using the recorder, after which he refused to actively participate in the trial. Marchant was told of the verdict against him the next day, and subsequently fired from his janitorial position.

The issues of the rights of the accused in LDS church courts have not altered radically since the 1970s. Rather than tape recorders, there is now concern about recording on cell phones. Social media makes it easier for the accused to organize supporters than it was in 1977. Helfer’s case makes clear that a lack of transparency, and an inconsistent application of due process continues to make some church trials appear arbitrary.

It is lamentable that two centuries after Smith wrote it into scripture, local Latter-day Saint church courts have yet to live up to the procedural “equity and justice” their revelations originally seemed to promise.

 

Isaac Barnes May is an assistant professor of American Studies at the University of Virginia. He holds a PhD in Religious Studies from that institution, and a Master of Theological Studies degree from Harvard Divinity School. He studies religion, liberalism, and the law..

 

 

 

Samuel S. Wells completed a PhD in American history at William & Mary, where he wrote a dissertation on excommunication and freedom of conscience and association in early America. He is an independent scholar living in southern Utah.

 

https://religionnews.com/2021/04/24/mormon-excommunication-was-not-designed-to-happen-this-way-say-scholars/?fbclid=IwAR10kt131xtcw4RdqJhlHPrBOqpBW-NesksYtFrWw8GkAfK0s32WNsEk4LU

 

 

 

[rongo]

Stake-level ones I have been at have assiduously divided up the high council by lot to have those assigned to protect and assist the accused (and they have strived to do the best job possible of that). The statutory irregularity I've noticed is that high council input is supposed to be limited:

13 Whenever this council convenes to act upon any case, the twelve councilors shall consider whether it is a difficult one or not; if it is not, two only of the councilors shall speak upon it, according to the form above written.

14 But if it is thought to be difficult, four shall be appointed; and if more difficult, six; but in no case shall more than six be appointed to speak.

In all of the ones I have observed, all of the high councilors have an opportunity to speak, ask questions, respond, etc. I think this is actually much better, useful, and helpful than the above verses from D&C 102. 

Of course, this is all mostly moot with the changes basically eliminating the high council from all but very few DCs. 

[strappinglad]

Unless they do a pat-down and electronic sweep, it will be difficult to stop all recordings. Are the minutes kept by the clerk now in handwritten form? 

[The Nehor]

20 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Unless they do a pat-down and electronic sweep, it will be difficult to stop all recordings. Are the minutes kept by the clerk now in handwritten form? 

I have kept the notes for several disciplinary/membership councils. I take them electronically. I wouldn’t really call them minutes either. It is more abbreviated than that.

[california boy]

Can anyone explain why the Church is so adamant of not having transparency of these courts?  Do they not want anyone to have a transcript released?  It seems to me if the person being excommunicated wishes to release that information, there shouldn't be a problem unless the Church is somehow ashamed of the position it takes.  Am I missing something?

[rongo]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Can anyone explain why the Church is so adamant of not having transparency of these courts?  Do they not want anyone to have a transcript released?  It seems to me if the person being excommunicated wishes to release that information, there shouldn't be a problem unless the Church is somehow ashamed of the position it takes.  Am I missing something?

1) I don't think very many at all "wish to release that information." 

2) The Church is so adamant because of a) confidentiality and the sacred nature of the court, and b) these things would be used as a stick to embarrass and beat the Church with as much as possible. Selective editing and emphasis would need to be fought with full context, which would violate #1 above. 

Edited April 27, 2021 by rongo

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I found this article by two guest scholars on Jana Reiss's blog i interesting.  And in particular I found it interesting because of the numerous church now called membership council that I have been involved in I always thought they never followed the mandate of the revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants.  It really did seem to me that half the HC was to speak in defense of the accused and half against sort of like a trial.  And the ultimately the SP would decide.  Of course I have never witnessed anything like that and my guess is others here haven't as well. As the article  points out that seems to be what Joseph Smith intended and how early church courts were administered.  Too bad the Church moved away from that.

I have never been part of one that did not follow the Handbook / D&C "mandate" as you call it. You should have asked at the time about any discrepancies you observed / perceived.

What was Jana Reiss's first-hand experience?

[Teancum]

21 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I have never been part of one that did not follow the Handbook / D&C "mandate" as you call it. You should have asked at the time about any discrepancies you observed / perceived.

What was Jana Reiss's first-hand experience?

I should have asked.  So your councils had HC members defending the accused?  

The article was not by Riess. It was by two other historical scholars. Did you read  it?

[smac97]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Can anyone explain why the Church is so adamant of not having transparency of these courts?  

Because they are inherently private and sacred religious meetings.

Because very often the topics under discussion entail the disclosure of sensitive private information, often involving or implicating persons other than the person facing discipline.

Because they are not intended to be a dog-and-pony show, or a venue for someone in a state of rebellion to publicly "show up" the Church.

Because the doctrines of the Church call for privacy:

Quote

“And if he or she confess not thou shalt deliver him or her up unto the church, not to the members, but to the elders. And it shall be done in a meeting, and that not before the world.” (D&C 42:89.)

There are probably other reasons as well.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Do they not want anyone to have a transcript released?  It seems to me if the person being excommunicated wishes to release that information, there shouldn't be a problem unless the Church is somehow ashamed of the position it takes.  Am I missing something?

Yes.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Hamba Tuhan]

26 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So your councils had HC members defending the accused?  

I was chosen by lot to do so in the last two stake membership councils that I participated in.

[Teancum]

11 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I was chosen by lot to do so in the last two stake membership councils that I participated in.

But what did an HC member do to defend or represent the accused?

 

[Teancum]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Because they are inherently private and sacred religious meetings.

Because very often the topics under discussion entail the disclosure of sensitive private information, often involving or implicating persons other than the person facing discipline.

Because they are not intended to be a dog-and-pony show, or a venue for someone in a state of rebellion to publicly "show up" the Church.

Because the doctrines of the Church call for privacy:

There are probably other reasons as well.

Yes.

Thanks,

-Smac

So SMAC what to you think of this account of one of the active witnesses that was to present at the Helfer council. This is from an active believing Latter-day Saint. TR holder and all. How was the approach that was taken toward her and the other witnesses sacred and holding any decorum at all really. Even if it is conceded that Helfer was a total jerk why could not her witnesses still participate and have their full three minutes they were allotted? How is this in line with what Joseph Smith outlined or even in line with current policy?

 

Quote

 

Here Is My Witness

BY JODY ENGLAND HANSEN · APRIL 26, 2021

 

Here is my witness.

On April 11, Natasha asked to gather with several friends at my house in Salt Lake City, have prayer together, and receive a priesthood blessing from my husband, Mike. This was several days after she informed me of the summons to a disciplinary hearing in Wichita, sent to her by her former Stake President.

While we were gathering, I felt a clear prompting, and told Natasha I would be with her for the hearing. If she chose, I would witness her life and the way I had seen her save marriages, relationships, even lives.

Soon, Jana and I were making plans to fly together to Wichita. The cost was not comfortable, but it was possible. Especially when generous women donated to help us and others be able to travel and support Natasha. I witness them, and their amazing generosity and kindness.

We were among a number of people who were helping Natasha appeal this action. We followed every connection to inform any and every church leader or office about the conflict of interest, the denial of process, the failure to follow all the policy and order set in place in the handbook. The only response received was in support of Natasha’s former Stake President. Even when we directly asked for someone to please call Natasha, and tell her why her appeals were denied, maybe offer some kind of ministry and understanding – there was no response.

We have no way of knowing who actually heard the appeals, or why they were denied.

During the following week those of us who were witnesses were asked to provide information demonstrating that we were active, temple recommend holding church members. This needed to be sent to Natasha’s former Stake President. He was requiring this before he would approve the witnesses. We were told we could only have 3 minutes to give a statement.

My husband told me that did not follow policy. We found the section in the handbook the stated there needed to be time for all the relevant information to be presented. There was nothing about the member being restricted to an hour.

We were told we needed to sign an agreement stating we would not record the hearing in any way. Natasha also made it clear that she did not intend, and did not want any of us, to record anything in the hearing. She did communicate to the Stake President that he could record the hearing. She made sure we all received copies of all communications about agreements, and conditions so that there would be nothing that would compromise her or us being able to represent at the hearing.

Even though the final approval from the Stake President was not sent until later in the week, four other women witness and I went ahead and bought airline tickets, canceled family plans, and made arrangements to travel to Wichita.

Much of what happened from the time we arrived on Saturday, until the hearing on Sunday, April 18, involved being with and supporting Natasha as she prepared. It is for her to share what she wishes of that time.

I did share a writing from Maxine Hanks with Natasha and the other women, before we left for the Stake Center. Maxine gives extraordinary lessons about the Holy Days from the various liturgical calendars. Here are parts from the longer quote…

“Today, third Sunday in Easter, is the day of female disciples, the anointers, the “myrrh-bearers” — a holy day devoted to the women disciples who followed and anointed Jesus before & after his crucifixion, who came to his tomb on Sunday morning, first to witness the risen Christ, and first to tell others.

Who were these “certain women” who followed Jesus? …A dozen women disciples are cited as Jesus’ closest female initiates. And “many other women” are mentioned, unnamed.

When male disciples fled, the women remained with Jesus, thro his trial (Magdalane tried to defend him), and at the cross, and at his tomb, bearing myrrh-oils to anoint His body.

These women witnessed the risen Christ, and were the “ones sent” (“apostolos”) to tell the male disciples that He lives. Yet the male disciples didn’t believe them.

The scriptures, cannonized and apocryphal, describe female disciples having an equal role, authority and spiritual power. When will female anointers, ministers, priestesses, healers, witnesses (apostolos) be believed, recognized, authorized in our churches today?

For our female anointers, healers, myrrh-bearers, ministers and witnesses of the divine today, who minister to the birthing, living, suffering, and dying of others, like the “certain women” who travelled with Jesus, Magadalene et al — Today is Your holy day.” – Maxine Hanks

I read this to Natasha, and the women gathered in her home to pray, to presence our heritage, our foremothers, our strength and hope.

There were 6 witnesses approved for the hearing who wanted to speak in support of her. Andy Parker is Natasha’s ex-husband, and 5 of us who are active, temple recommend holding women.

We arrived a bit early for the 7:30 hearing. There were people gathering on the far side of the parking lot under a bowery. This was a vigil planned in support of Natasha. There was also a police car near the entrance to the lot, with at least one officer in there. We went over to the vigil, said hello to a few people. Then the 6 of us gathered outside the west entrance where we had been told to meet. There were no chairs, so we were sitting on the curb, or standing nearby. Soon, Natasha arrived and joined us. 2 of the witnesses had tried to enter the foyer, but it was locked. A man opened the door and said we could not enter. These 2 women asked to enter to use the restroom, but they were denied entrance. This man only came out when John Dehlin approached us, filming Natasha when she joined us. He told John he could not video on the property, and to step away. John did this immediately, and returned to the vigil. The police car left.

Natasha was concerned to hear they had not allowed anyone into the building, not even to use the restroom.

When it was time, the same man opened the door and told Natasha she could enter, but would not allow anyone else to enter, even to use the restroom.

I have been in many meetings with legislative, business, education and church leaders. I can’t remember ever experiencing such a lack of feeling as I did from this man who was guarding the door. Through all the interactions, it seemed as though he did not see us as real people, no matter what we said or asked.

A few minutes after Natasha entered, she was escorted back out. She walked past us and over to the lawn across the parking lot. We saw 2 friends join her. One soon came back to us and told us she had not been allowed in the room because she would not give up her phone. I knew all of her notes were on her phone. Her laptop was broken, and she had not been able to print anything from it. She had signed the agreement to not record. And there had been nothing in all the communication about her needing to give up her phone. They said she could email her notes to them, but she refused because there was confidential information in the notes. So she was told she had to leave. She was not even told this directly, but only through this unfeeling guard, since she was not allowed in the room with the stake leaders.

I was really concerned this had happened. We continued to wait outside the door, which remained closed and locked. After a while, a woman stepped out to leave. We asked if she was the Stake RS president Natasha had requested to be there. She was, and she said she was told she was no longer needed, so she could go home. Jana and I asked if she could please remain for us. We told her we wanted to have another woman in the room when we were in there to witness. She hesitated and seemed unsure.

Then the doorman stood at the door and said we needed to leave the property. The RS president heard us as we asked if the hearing was cancelled, and when were we to offer witness? He would not give a clear answer about the hearing, but just kept saying we needed to leave the property. After asking several times, we were told we would not be allowed to enter, or to witness. He would not answer questions, he just insisted we leave. At one moment, he said he was just conveying a message.

We pled with him to ask to let us do what we came to do. We told him about getting flights, and canceling plans, and feeling led to be there to offer witness. Jana told him about getting a blessing from her Stake President before she came, and her desire to express her love of this church, and to seek ministry care for her sister.

One sister was sobbing, and crying that this action was not what her church was about. I tried to console her, recognizing the trauma she was experiencing of seeing unrighteous action from leadership for the first time. Another witness helped her, took her away.

The door guard stepped back in a few times as we continued to ask him to find out why we were not allowed in, or why the stake president would not come and speak with us. But the guard only came back each time and insisted we leave the property. When he returned at one point, there were two men behind him, listening to what we were asking. They seemed a little more concerned with what was happening. The guard again said we couldn’t come in and we had to leave, this time adding it was because we hadn’t kept our agreement. We insisted we had kept every agreement and met every condition asked of us. He actually asked for proof of that. I looked at him and said, “So what I am hearing is that the Stake President is not keeping his agreement to allow us to witness at this hearing?” I realized this decision to deny Natasha her witness was not based on any agreement, but solely on the bias of the Stake President, and the willingness of these men to enforce it.

The men behind him were listening and showing concern. I asked if we could please, at least give them our printed statements, since they were not allowing us in. The two men behind doorman hurried back in (I assume to check with the SP). The guard insisted we couldn’t and we had to leave. The two men returned and said they would take our printed statements. Only 3 of the 6 of us had printed our statements. The others were using notecards and had nothing to hand over. I quickly gathered the printed statements from the 2 other witnesses that had them. Then I had to reach over the guard to hand the statements to the men behind him. The guard would not move from the doorway, or allow me to come near the entrance.

We stepped back from the door, and saw 3 police cars enter the parking lot.

Another witness began to have an anxiety attack. I held her and went through some restorative breathing with her until she could move into some recovery.

I have rarely experienced anything that so completely minimized the value of membership, or seen such a clear denial of the qualities required for priesthood authority.

Jana and I began calling anyone we could think of to try to give our account to other church leaders. This was so clearly against policy, procedure, and more importantly, everything the gospel is about. We wanted to make sure church leaders were hearing about it. Both Jana and I are trained in and practice mindfulness, and we were doing that to stay calm, intentional, and powerful in the face of such absence of compassion. We realized that whatever account the men in the building were going to give, it would not reflect what we were experiencing.

We were offering a different witness than what we had expected.

We paced near the entrance and around our car as we called and messaged and communicated what was happening to others over the phone. I was not aware of what those at the vigil had heard, but didn’t feel any need to tell them. I was aware of the police speaking to them.

Everyone else gradually left. No one left the building. I saw the guard look through the glass every once in a while to see if we were gone. Jana and I kept calling, conferring, pacing, praying. One of the other witnesses was in the car. Then there were 2 police cars left, and 2 officers approached us and told us we needed to leave.

Jana and I each explained we were members of this church, and we were there to offer witness, and were trying to get answers about being denied that. They were clearly uncomfortable. Probably since we were white women in Sunday dress, they were not going to assume any threat – and we were very aware of what that privilege afforded us.

They approached us every few minutes insisting we leave. They said the owner asked them to have us leave. We told them we were the owners. They then said the person in charge asked us to leave. I was very tempted to say the phrase I had lettered on a shirt years ago – “Do you want to talk to the man in charge, or the woman who knows what’s going on?” But I decided that would not be effective.

We said we heard them, and we intended to leave, and we needed to finish some calls and prayers before we left. We acknowledged this must be uncomfortable for them, and we were going to do what we needed to do until we were done.

Then another officer left, and the last officer stood between Jana and I, watching us. He then said he couldn’t leave until we left. We said we understood, and we would do what we needed to do until we were done. In that moment, I felt no need to put the comfort of this man before our own needs.

As I leaned my head against the car, I asked God for guidance. I thought of how this day is the Holy Day on the liturgical calendar, in honor of the women witnesses, the women who anointed Christ, the women who remained when all had left. I wondered what I was to do. I had not been allowed to do what I came such a long way to do. But I felt there was something I was there to do.

For some reason, I thought of the verses that talk about what needs to happen before Christ can return to the earth. I have long thought that the second coming is not some future event. It is what occurs each time we invite and presence God in the world. The scriptures that describe what will happen before God comes again are mostly about disasters that we have no control over. But there is one task we are given. We are to overcome evil with good.

I realized what I needed to witness. We had just seen a building of our church, one dedicated for gathering and worship of the gospel of Jesus Christ, where all are to feel welcome to meet with others seeking to bring the love of and for God into the world, and to practice following Christ – we had just seen this building become a locked fortress denying existence and compassion in a very un-Christlike way. We had pleaded for some kind of ministry, of pastoral care – and had been turned away. We could do nothing to change that. We could only overcome it with good. We could only overwhelm it with the presence of God. I recalled how, in my darkest moments, I could ask and listen for God. And God is there. Heavenly Parents sat with me, mourned with me, loved me.

I let go of the noise, the heartbreak, the pain of past trauma welling up, the desecration of this faith community building – and turned to the presence of God. They sat with me, wept with me, mourned with me.

There, in the parking lot, where 3 women witnesses still gathered and prayed, I asked for the presence of God to create sacred space again in this place of our faith community. I witness the power of goodness to overcome everything.

Soon after that, we left. Just as we were pulling out, I took a picture looking into the foyer where we were forbidden entrance. I saw that someone was sitting under one of the paintings of Christ’s life. I felt sorrow for him.

My faith community is where I have learned to seek and experience expansive love, and the inexpressible call to create salvation that is only complete in radical inclusion. It is where I first learned of an unconditionally loving God. They are intimately aware and present with us. It was sad to think of those who see this community as one where they have to barricade themselves away, unwilling to hear witness that might challenge their view, and so afraid of the power of women witnesses that they called three police units to remove us before they could leave.

Then we did leave, to share our witness with those who would listen.

Please be a witness for how and where God is.

Please be a witness for what and who calls you to be where you are, to be what and who you are.

Please be a witness to bring God into the world, even in the face of denial.

 

There is a more extensive discussion concerning this on the Latter Day Faith podcast… https://www.latterdayfaith.org/2021/04/090-091-witnessing-even-when-things-hurt-so-badly/

This is the excellent article by Jana Riess… https://religionnews.com/2021/04/22/mormon-excommunication-need-not-be-present-to-win/?fbclid=IwAR1Vn-_f8S93Aar0XWDF6660BD1uef1LA5ZJFAlh14h1MW7-HPHcluf05m8

 

https://www.the-exponent.com/here-is-my-witness/?fbclid=IwAR3Yyf_ZZV9AyXj6faytazvOpnT_kZzJVT42eDdWz1mkOL07ThQ9C3vxpL4

Edited April 27, 2021 by Teancum

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

Unless they do a pat-down and electronic sweep, it will be difficult to stop all recordings. Are the minutes kept by the clerk now in handwritten form? 

I believe that one can purchase an electronic device which will prevent any recording in such a situation.  https://www.spygadgets.com/acoustic-noise-generators/

[Hamba Tuhan]

24 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But what did an HC member do to defend or represent the accused?

In the most recent case, the member confessed to adultery and begged for an opportunity to repent. As verses 15 and 17 of the relevant section make clear, it was my responsibility to 'prevent insult and injustice':

Quote

15 The accused, in all cases, has a right to one-half of the council, to prevent insult or injustice.

17 Those councilors who draw even numbers, that is, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12, are the individuals who are to stand up in behalf of the accused, and prevent insult and injustice.

There was no insult to prevent, and so my job was to prevent injustice: to call for mercy and to support the specific pleadings of the accused. I did so when given my opportunity to speak:

Quote

12 Whenever a high council of the church of Christ is regularly organized, according to the foregoing pattern, it shall be the duty of the twelve councilors to cast lots by numbers, and thereby ascertain who of the twelve shall speak first, commencing with number one and so in succession to number twelve.

The previous case was a matter of a married couple who had both committed adultery, with both of them having had their membership restricted. The council was convened specifically to consider lifting the restrictions on the husband as per the heartfelt desires of the couple. My role was similar: to advocate for what they wanted -- which was super easy because it was what the entire council wanted. They were sealed in the temple two weeks later, and a few months later, he was called to serve in his ward's bishopric. So sweet!

Edited April 27, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[Teancum]

10 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

In the most recent case, the member confessed to adultery and begged for an opportunity to repent. As verses 15 and 17 of the relevant section make clear, it was my responsibility to 'prevent insult and injustice':

There was no insult to prevent, and so my job was to prevent injustice: to call for mercy and to support the specific pleadings of the accused. I did so when given my opportunity to speak:

The previous case was a matter of a married couple who had both committed adultery, with both of them having had their membership restricted. The council was convened specifically to consider lifting the restrictions on the husband as per the heartfelt desires of the couple. My role was similar: to advocate for what they wanted -- which was super easy because it was what the entire council wanted. They were sealed in the temple two weeks later, and a few months later, he was called to serve in his ward's bishopric. So sweet!

Interesting.  Thanks!

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

My husband told me that did not follow policy. We found the section in the handbook the stated there needed to be time for all the relevant information to be presented. There was nothing about the member being restricted to an hour

Pure speculation, but maybe the SP didn’t see witness statements about how helpful Parker was to people as relevant to apostasy as demonstrated by her public comments contradicting church policy and doctrine and only granted the witnesses to be cooperative.   And then decided that it would not be helpful for whatever reason. (Not saying if that was the reason, that was appropriate or not as I am not familiar with policy or instructions.)

Edited April 27, 2021 by Calm

[california boy]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

1) I don't think very many at all "wish to release that information." 

2) The Church is so adamant because of a) confidentiality and the sacred nature of the court, and b) these things would be used as a stick to embarrass and beat the Church with as much as possible. Selective editing and emphasis would need to be fought with full context, which would violate #1 above. 

Thanks for the insight.  I don't think excommunicating someone is a sacred thing.  But I can see how people could selectively edit what transpired.  

[ttribe]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

Pure speculation, but maybe the SP didn’t see witness statements about how helpful Parker was to people as relevant to apostasy as demonstrated by her public comments contradicting church policy and doctrine and only granted the witnesses to be cooperative.   And then decided that it would not be helpful for whatever reason. (Not saying if that was the reason, that was appropriate or not as I am not familiar with policy or instructions.)

But, how can you know what a witness will actually say until they say it?  Especially, if they are asked questions.  Obviously, statements could have projected what was to be said, but things change once a witness starts to testify.

ETA: As an expert witness, various disclosures are made regarding the topics and even some of the substance of what I will be offering in my testimony, but the process of actually asking a live witness questions often brings out additional information.

Edited April 27, 2021 by ttribe

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, ttribe said:

But, how can you know what a witness will actually say until they say it? 

If they had said we want to witness about how Parker is helping people with her advocacy, he might have assumed that they wouldn’t have any additional info that would change his position on apostasy.

What could they say that would contradict her own words as to her statements? (Serious question, trying to imagine what difference witness statements would make)

[ttribe]

Just now, Calm said:

If they had said we want to witness about how Parker is helping people with her advocacy, he might have assumed that they wouldn’t have any additional info that would change his position on apostasy.

What could they say that would contradict her own words as to her statements? (Serious question, trying to imagine what difference witness statements would make)

For one, they might be able to provide some context and/or perspective in a non-adversarial manner.

Also, I did an edit to my comment.

[Hamba Tuhan]

49 minutes ago, california boy said:

I don't think excommunicating someone is a sacred thing.

The elders quorum president who helped me prepare for my mission spoke of his excommunication in the most reverential of terms. For him, it has been the beginning of his conversion to Christ and everything else that had been good in his life. He considered it an essential 'wake-up' moment -- one that had altered his fundamental nature -- and he was deeply grateful for the good men who, out of both love and a sense of sacred duty, had helped make that happen in his life.

Edited April 27, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

So SMAC what to you think of this account of one of the active witnesses that was to present at the Helfer council.

Honestly, I don't think much of it.  The terminology seems a bit forced, awkward and belabored.  And the tone is bitter, and too emotional and agenda-driven.  

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

This is from an active believing Latter-day Saint. TR holder and all.

And yet here she is, publicly impugning the honesty and honor of the stake president and all those nasty men.

Do you automatically defer to my opinions since I am also "an active believing Latter-day Saint ... TR holder and all?"

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

How was the approach that was taken toward her and the other witnesses sacred and holding any decorum at all really.

Hard to say.  I have some reservations about the overall accuracy and fairness of her narrative.

And boy, some of their behavior was pretty boorish.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Even if it is conceded that Helfer was a total jerk

I think it would also need to be conceded that Helfer is the principal author of most of this mess.  She is the one that publicized and sensationalized it.  She is the one that ratcheted the tension up to 11 before, during and after the council.  She is the one that behaved in a manner so ill-suited a somber religious meeting that she had to be asked to leave.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

why could not her witnesses still participate and have their full three minutes they were allotted?

I don't know.  The situation was pretty tense and difficult, thanks almost entirely to Helfer-Parker.  

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

How is this in line with what Joseph Smith outlined or even in line with current policy?

https://www.the-exponent.com/here-is-my-witness/?fbclid=IwAR3Yyf_ZZV9AyXj6faytazvOpnT_kZzJVT42eDdWz1mkOL07ThQ9C3vxpL4

I'm not persuaded that the narrative here is reliable.  Or complete.  Or fair.  

It is, instead, sanctimonious, conclusory, and permeated with misandry (imagine if a stake president publicly declared that he "felt no need to put the comfort of this woman before his own needs").

Thanks,

-Smac

[rodheadlee]

I would be totally embarrassed if I had to face a disciplinary court. I wouldn't want anyone to blab about it. I find this whole situation with this particular person and those of you attacking the Church to be nothing but an exercise in pride. I find no humility involved, at all. These are the words of Christ.

3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little ^achildren, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child the same is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven

 

[Robert F. Smith]

 

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

Can anyone explain why the Church is so adamant of not having transparency of these courts?  Do they not want anyone to have a transcript released?  It seems to me if the person being excommunicated wishes to release that information, there shouldn't be a problem unless the Church is somehow ashamed of the position it takes.  Am I missing something?

It is likely that the LDS Church does not have a policy welcoming interminable disputes about what actually happened at a religious trial, with constant back and forth, misconstruing and misinterpreting what took place.  The RLDS church took a very different approach, having a certified court reporter take a verbatim transcript -- which could later be purchased same as for secular civil and criminal court trials.  A religious organization can make its own rules on how trials will be held.  As to membership, someone who doesn't want to be an LDS member can simply have their name withdrawn and leave quietly without a trial.