Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

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


Recommended Posts

6 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?

Yes.  

They are deeply personal questions and it would be detrimental to the defendant.   Often they are about an individual's sex life, if that is the issue.

Would you like to have that transcript "released"- whatever that means!?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Anyone in the council can ask questions of the person being counseled ...

For what it may be worth, our previous stake president didn't allow for this. He was happy for high council members to put questions to him, but he would then ask those questions or adjust them to make them more appropriate. Our new stake president hasn't presided over a membership council before, so I don't know yet what his approach might be.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

All of these men are in the "pool" and interviewed in detail by general authorities when a stake president is chosen.

Not always. My husband was a HC and never interviewed.  Unlikely to be a Bishop either, because of me. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment

Over the life of the restored gospel many changes have been made to alter how the church operates and I think "Courts of love" have served a purpose, but now it is probably time for them to go away. I've never participated in a court or been a member of the HC. I know many fine, upstanding  men who are on the HC but I also know many who should never sit in judgement of anyone, ever, at all. That's what bothers me. And yes, I understand God uses imperfect people to run his church, but sitting in judgement of someone and getting the verdict wrong because the spirit is absent in some of the council members doesn't make sense to me. I know of one man who has sat on probably dozens of courts over the past 35 or so years and is a vile human being, I  wouldn't let him judge my cat. When he passed away my first emotion was complete relief and joy, followed by boughts of crying and depression. 

    Soon these "courts of love" will be a thing of the past and shelved right beside polygamy, the priesthood ban, certain parts of the temple ceremony and many other things. And there's nothing wrong with that. Luckily, our church is flexible and our leaders look to the future and are willing to make sure we're not considered a fringe religion that won't change for the better.

Edited by AtlanticMike
Link to comment
50 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Over the life of the restored gospel many changes have been made to alter how the church operates and I think "Courts of love" have served a purpose, but now it is probably time for them to go away. I've never participated in a court or been a member of the HC. I know many fine, upstanding  men who are on the HC but I also know many who should never sit in judgement of anyone, ever, at all. That's what bothers me. And yes, I understand God uses imperfect people to run his church, but sitting in judgement of someone and getting the verdict wrong because the spirit is absent in some of the council members doesn't make sense to me. I know of one man who has sat on probably dozens of courts over the past 35 or so years and is a vile human being, I  wouldn't let him judge my cat. When he passed away my first emotion was complete relief and joy, followed by boughts of crying and depression. 

    Soon these "courts of love" will be a thing of the past and shelved right beside polygamy, the priesthood ban, certain parts of the temple ceremony and many other things. And there's nothing wrong with that. Luckily, our church is flexible and our leaders look to the future and are willing to make sure we're not considered a fringe religion that won't change for the better.

It’s the stake presidency that makes the final decision, not the High Council.

What do you think will take the place of Membership Councils? Or do you imagine a future Church where adulterers and armed robbers (for instance) will never have their membership status affected by any kind of serious transgression?

Edited by teddyaware
Link to comment
38 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

It’s the stake presidency that makes the final decision, not the High Council.

What do you think will take the place of Membership Councils? Or do you imagine a future Church where adulterers and armed robbers (for instance) will never have their membership status affected by any kind of serious transgression?

If I understand our doctrine correctly, isn't every mortal member of our church a sinner except for one?

38 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Its the stake presidency that makes the final decision, not the High Council

Exactly, in my opinion that's all it needs to be, the bishop and the stake president can handle it, no need for anyone else. Are they or are they not guided by the spirit?

 

38 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Or do you imagine a future Church where adulterers and armed robbers (for instance) will never have their membership status affected by any kind of serious transgression?

In my opinion any sin or action a person has committed that might be dangerous to the rest of the members should be considered by the stake presidency and if they pose a threat, trespass them from all church property until the situation is worked out.  As far as adulterers, you do realize there are adulterers sitting in the congregation when you go to church? Sin is all around us, it's part of our mortal experience.

Edited by AtlanticMike
Link to comment
11 hours 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.)

Perhaps. Do you think her description exhibits a fair treatment?  Even after Helfer was "disruptive" would it have been unreasonable for the SP to allow the witnesses to speak?

Link to comment
2 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Over the life of the restored gospel many changes have been made to alter how the church operates and I think "Courts of love" have served a purpose, but now it is probably time for them to go away.

I disagree.  I think they are as important now as they have ever been.  Perhaps even more so.

2 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

I've never participated in a court or been a member of the HC.

I would encourage you to listen to those who have participated in them.  And not just from the side of the person being disciplined.

2 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

I know many fine, upstanding  men who are on the HC but I also know many who should never sit in judgement of anyone, ever, at all.  That's what bothers me.

You are bothered by things that are not so.

First, the members of the High Council do not "sit in judgment."  They function in an advisory capacity only.  It is the stake presidency that renders the decision.

Second, the first presidency renders a unified decision.  So the "judgment" has a better chance of being sound and appropriate since there are three that must reach the same conclusion, rather than just one.

Third, the role of the High Council has, as of last year, been substantially reduced in disciplinary proceedings.

2 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

And yes, I understand God uses imperfect people to run his church,

I sense a "but" coming.

2 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

but

And there it is! ;) 

2 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

sitting in judgement of someone and getting the verdict wrong because the spirit is absent in some of the council members doesn't make sense to me.

How so?  

And there are safeguards in place against this sort of thing, right?

And yet even with those safeguards, errors in judgment can still happen.  Why?  Because as you said, God uses imperfect people to run His Church.

2 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

I know of one man who has sat on probably dozens of courts over the past 35 or so years and is a vile human being, I  wouldn't let him judge my cat. When he passed away my first emotion was complete relief and joy, followed by boughts of crying and depression. 

If he wasn't in the stake presidency, then he never sat in judgment.

And if you knew he was a "vile human being," did you let that be known to those in authority?  If not, why not?

2 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Soon these "courts of love" will be a thing of the past and shelved right beside polygamy, the priesthood ban, certain parts of the temple ceremony and many other things.

Could you elaborate?  What evidence do you see that the Church is headed in this direction?  It sounds more like wishful thinking than anything else.

2 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

And there's nothing wrong with that.

I think there's plenty wrong with that.  The Church has an extensive mandate regarding disciplinary matters in the Church.  The Church would be derelict in its responsibilities if it were to not discipline members for serious misconduct.  The Church nevertheless bends over backwards to accommodate wayward members.

Imagine the chorus of accusations of hypocrisy if the Church were to preach about fidelity in marriage, about honesty in one's dealings, about condemning child and spouse abuse, and so on, but then turn a blind eye when its members commit adultery, rip other people off, abuse their family members, and so on.  The reaction would be epic.

Look at what happened with McKenna Denson.  The Church was condemned for not disciplining Joseph Bishop.  

2 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Luckily, our church is flexible and our leaders look to the future and are willing to make sure we're not considered a fringe religion that won't change for the better.

By that reasoning we should abandon The Book of Mormon.  It's what makes us "a fringe religion" after all.

Oh, and claims about the priesthood too.  Those have gotta go.  And the temples.  Gotta shut them down.  And family history work.  And missionary work. 

Are you suggesting that we should abandon the Restored Gospel to conform to social trends?  To "make sure we're not considered a fringe religion?"

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
13 hours ago, Teancum said:

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?

Yes, the stake disciplinary councils had half the high council speakers (often not all 12 participated) stood up in behalf of the accused.

I did not read the article. I already understand that exceptions to the norm occur, usually legitimate but I suppose some not, and these should be addressed through appeal.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.  

Yea I am not surprised but your comment nor the rest of it.  Her comments are fairly well affirmed by others there and the account is a demonstrates a rather bizarre approach to the whole affair.  It seems to me reasonable to think  the SP and his councilors could have been more accommodating and friendly rather than apparently locked in a room and using someone else to be their messenger.  And their approach seems nothing near the realm of sacred, somber or bearing decorum.  Some kind and soft words likely could have diffused the situation. 

Link to comment
9 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

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

 

Good for you.  Others may feel differently.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Do you think her description exhibits a fair treatment? 

I think her description is exhibits quite an unfair treatment of the stake president and those unfortunate brothers who had to put up with Helfer-Parker's immature and unseemly behavior (and, it seems, from some of her supporters).

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Even after Helfer was "disruptive" would it have been unreasonable for the SP to allow the witnesses to speak?

It was a judgment call.  A few points:

1. Helfer-Parker had publicized and sensationalized the council.  She lined up her supporters for a "vigil" outside the building.  She had a prior history of aligning herself with disruptive and obnoxious people who had turned their disciplinary councils into media spectacles (John Dehlin, Sam Young). 

2. It was quite reasonable for the stake president to be concerned that she and her supporters would misbehave in some way, as her buddy Sam Young did at his council.  So he put in place a requirement that she sign an agreement to not record the council. 

3. Helfer-Parker then shows up with a device in her hand that everyone in the world knows can be used to record the council.  And she refuses to leave it outside. 

4. A logistical solution was offered and rejected (emailing her notes to be printed out).  I'm sure something could have been worked out.  The stake clerk could have accompanied her to the clerk's office and let her log on to her private email and print out her notes.  Or she could have taken 15 minutes to run down to the nearest Kinko's and printed out her notes.  Or she could have spent 15 minutes transcribing her notes onto a piece of paper.  There were all sorts of things they could have done. 

5. Instead, she started yelling.  Loudly.  Disruptively.  At the doorway.  And she did this after she had already gone to great lengths to publicize and sensationalize what should have been a somber, quiet, private religious meeting.

6. I think Helfer-Parker sought to undermine the council from the get, and then went a few steps too far by behaving in a patently inappropriate, immature, disruptive, obnoxious way at the stake center, immediately prior to what should have been a somber, quiet, private religious meeting.  I think the stake president was well within his discretion to ask her to leave.

If a mentally ill person walks into a church building and starts shouting in anger during religious meetings on Sunday, the bishop would be fully justified in asking him to leave.  Such behavior is patently inappropriate.  In legal parlance, it exceeds the scope of the license granted by the Church to invitees.  Would you suggest that Helfer-Parker should have been held to a behavioral standard lower than what would be expected of a mentally ill person?

7. The stake president had no way of vetting Helfer-Parker's supporters, including the witnesses.  Would they too behave in a patently inappropriate, disruptive, unseemly way?  Could they be trusted to behave appropriately just minutes after the person they were there to support had just given a master class on what not to do at a disciplinary council?  

I could very easily see the stake president thinking something like "Hmm.  So Natasha Helfer-Parker, she of the 'the-leaders-of-the-Church-are-patriachal-pricks' fame, has not only gone way out of her way beforehand to publicize and sensationalize this council, she has also staged a 'vigil' of her supporters just outside, and then she insisted on bringing a recording device into the council despite having signed an agreement not to record, and then she starts yelling and being disruptive at the doorway of the stake center.  Kinda hard to trust that she will behave in the actual council itself, and also kinda hard to trust that her supporters would behave where she had not.  Things seem to be getting out of hand.  So I'll just take the written statements from the witnesses and proceed."

Given the circumstances, I can understand why the stake president took the course of action he did.  It was reasonable under the circumstances.  

8. I suppose the stake president could have taken an alternative course.  He could have treated Helfer-Parker like a petulant, whiny child throwing a temper tantrum.  He could have patronized her by pretending that she had not behaved in a patently uncivil, boorish, obnoxious, disruptive way.  Or he could have just gone along with it, saying something like "Well, she's a woman, after all.  We can hardly expect her to maintain control of her emotions in a difficult and stressful context.  It's unreasonable to hold her to the same standard as would apply to any other rational and experienced adult member of the Church."

But he didn't do that.  He expected her to behave in a reasonable way.  She didn't.  He expected her to maintain her dignity and composure, to exercise some restraint on her emotions.  She didn't.  He expected her to behave as one would expect of any other intelligent, mature, well-educated adult.  She didn't.

9. Helfer-Parker undermined the council, or sought to.  She behaved well beneath her dignity.  She set a pretty bad example.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, Teancum said:
Quote

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.  

Yea I am not surprised but your comment nor the rest of it. 

And I'm not surprised at your lack of surprise.  But then why did you ask me for my opinion?

Quote

Her comments are fairly well affirmed by others there

The self-selected supporters of Helfer-Parker, you mean?

Quote

and the account is a demonstrates a rather bizarre approach to the whole affair. 

I agree.  It is indeed bizarre to publicize and sensationalize a private religious meeting. 

It is bizarre to publicly disparage the leaders of one's religion as "patriarchal pricks" and then thereafter maintain that position and even publicly brag about it further. 

It is bizarre to publicly align one's self with apostates and then be shocked - shocked! - that the stake president might suspect that you will behave in the ways they did at their councils.

It is bizarre to appear at a serious and somber, and private, religious meeting and then start yelling in anger at the doorway.

It is bizarre to be shocked - shocked! - that behaving in a patently immature, obnoxious and disruptive way while on church property would have an effect on the proceedings.

It is bizarre to characterize this obnoxious conduct as "very Latina" (I'm still flummoxed by that).

It is bizarre to expect to be held to a lower behavioral standard than what would be expected of a mentally ill person.

It is bizarre that Helfer-Parker's supporters were advertising themselves as "active, temple-recommend holders" as they go on a podcast hosted by one of the most virulently anti-Mormon websites on the Internet.

And so on.

Pretty much everything "bizarre" about the council was added to the mix by Natasha Helfer-Parker.

Quote

It seems to me reasonable to think  the SP and his councilors could have been more accommodating and friendly rather than apparently locked in a room and using someone else to be their messenger. 

"Could have been more accommodating" by . . . putting up with Helfer-Parker's immature, obnoxious, disruptive behavior?  By pandering to her?  By treating her the way they would treat a small child throwing a tantrum?  Mentally ill person shouting in the hallway of a church building during Sacrament Meeting?

Yeah, I suppose they could have done that.  Instead, they treated her like she was an adult.  Instead, they took her obnoxious behavior at the doorway as a serious indicator that she could not be trusted to behave with decorum and sobriety during the council.

Quote

And their approach seems nothing near the realm of sacred, somber or bearing decorum. 

Their approach was to preserve the sacred, somber nature of the council against Helfer-Parker's efforts to sensationalize and disrupt it.

Quote

Some kind and soft words likely could have diffused the situation. 

I'm not sure that "some kind and soft words" weren't offered.  We weren't there.

Helfer-Parker behaved in a patently immature and disruptive way.  The stake president could reasonably surmise that her obnoxious behavior at the doorway would have continued during the council itself, and perhaps even gotten worse.

Helfer-Parker escalated the situation.  The stake president de-escalated it.  

Thanks,

-Smac 

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Perhaps. Do you think her description exhibits a fair treatment?  Even after Helfer was "disruptive" would it have been unreasonable for the SP to allow the witnesses to speak?

I have already said I think the SP should have met with her.  At that point, whether it was appropriate for the witnesses to speak could have been discussed.

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think her description is exhibits quite an unfair treatment of the stake president and those unfortunate brothers who had to put up with Helfer-Parker's immature and unseemly behavior (and, it seems, from some of her supporters).

Well the difference between us is I can see what Helfer did to contribute to the mess and acknowledge that.  But you give not one inch on the behavior of the Church leader and continue to double down. And you certainly embellish your points beyond what seem to be the reality of the event. I recall a verse in the Bible that says a soft answer turns away wrath.  The SP behaved boorishly.  To have a guard at the door and not let people in to use the bathroom was ludicrous. To not at least speak to the people there was obnoxious. He certainly did not act at all like this event was sacred. 

Link to comment

The defendant should be able to decide if the proceedings of these courts should be made public. Claims of sacredness or the need to protect the defendant from him/herself are hubris. Keeping the proceedings secret is the Church being more concerned with itself than the rights of the defendant, which is a principal reason why the trails are taking place in the first place, to defend the Church. If the  Church wasn't concerned with it's own appearance in these cases, public disobedience to authority would not be defined as apostacy, but the last thing the Church wants is local trails conducted by leaders in which doctrine and policy might be debated.

Edited by CA Steve
Link to comment
10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Anyone who is in a High Council position has probably been in a few of these councils.  I have particiated in perhaps 7 or 8 over the maybe 11 total years in the High Councl - over two periods with the calling.  As a former bishop I have also participated in several Bishop's councils

I learned a lot from this.

Link to comment
16 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?

Fundamentally the same reason the therapist did not reveal the names of any of her clients that might have been participating in the council.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

The defendant should be able to decide if the proceedings of these courts should be made public. Claims of sacredness or the need to protect the defendant from him/herself are hubris. Keeping the proceedings secret is the Church being more concerned with itself than the rights of the defendant, which is a principal reason why the trails are taking place in the first place, to defend the Church. If the  Church wasn't concerned with it's own appearance in these cases, public disobedience to authority would not be defined as apostacy, but the last thing the Church wants is local trails conducted by leaders in which doctrine and policy might be debated.

Except that confidentiality is maintained even with the most mundane cases, and those where the Church would shine quite brightly for the decision to excommunicate.

Link to comment
46 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Well the difference between us is I can see what Helfer did to contribute to the mess and acknowledge that. 

With respect, I think the difference between us is that you are pretty much infantilizing Helfer-Parker, and I am not.

46 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But you give not one inch on the behavior of the Church leader and continue to double down.

Not so.  I acknowledge that the stake president could have done things differently.  I just decline to extend that to saying that he should have done things differently.  What he did was reasonable.  It was within the bounds of his reasonably-exercised discretionary authority.  

I wasn't there.  Neither were you. 

46 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And you certainly embellish your points beyond what seem to be the reality of the event. 

Not really.

46 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I recall a verse in the Bible that says a soft answer turns away wrath. 

And perhaps that is what the stake president chose.  The "soft answer" of not facilitating Helfer-Parker in launching into a tirade during the council.  The "soft answer" of de-escalating the situation that Helfer-Parker had worked so very hard to escalate, to add tension and stress and melodrama to a situation that should have been quiet, somber and reverent.

46 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The SP behaved boorishly. 

Piffle.  There is nothing boorish about expecting a person of Helfer-Parker's age, experience, education and intelligence to behave appropriately.  She didn't.  To the contrary, she acted very inappropriately.  Disruptively.  Obnoxiously.  And she did all that before the council had even begun.  It was reasonable to surmise that her inappropriate conduct would continue in the council.  It was also appropriate to ask her to leave.

Again, he could have pandered to her.  He could have ignored her temper tantrum, as he would if encountering a three-year-old screaming in Sacrament Meeting or a mentally ill person shouting conspiracy theories in the hallway.  He could have excused her from behaving in a mature and civilized manner.  He could have ignored every apparent indicator that she would behave in a disruptive, obstreperous manner during the council.  He could have closed his eyes to the reality of her behavior and hoped that she would, at the last moment, have a radical change of heart and assume a demeanor of a calm, reasoned, mature adult, and proceeded with the council.

Yes, he could have done those things.  Those were within his discretion as well.  But the difference between us is that you are faulting him for choosing one course of action over another.  I am not.  If a person has discretionary authority, and if he acts reasonably and within the bounds of that authority, then it makes little sense to carp about it.  This is particularly so in a church setting, and even more so given the obnoxious behavior of Helfer-Parker.

46 minutes ago, Teancum said:

To have a guard at the door and not let people in to use the bathroom was ludicrous.

Broadly speaking, I agree.  But turning it into a confrontational thing, which one of Helfer-Parker's supporters did, was also pretty ludicrous.

And again, the tension of the situation was dialed up to eleven.  By Natasha Helfer-Parker.  Deliberately.  Provocatively.  She went out of her way to add tension and stress and adversarialness to the situation.

46 minutes ago, Teancum said:

To not at least speak to the people there was obnoxious.

I quite disagree.  Again, the stake president had no way of vetting Helfer-Parker's supporters, including the witnesses.  Would they too behave in a patently inappropriate, disruptive, unseemly way?  Could they be trusted to behave appropriately just minutes after the person they were there to support had just given a master class on what not to do at a disciplinary council?

Maybe.  Maybe not.  I'll not second-guess the stake president on that point.  I wasn't there.  Neither were you.

46 minutes ago, Teancum said:

He certainly did not act at all like this event was sacred. 

He certainly did.  Helfer-Parker was behaving obnoxiously and disruptively.  He sought to maintain decorum and order by not allowing her to disrupt the council with her continuing inappropriate behavior.

Thanks,

-Smac

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

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