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

[rongo]

1) For the 99%+ of disciplinary councils that involve adultery, fornication, etc., I think that all parties involved by mutually agreement agree on confidentiality and don't want any details released or discussed with the public.

2) For the celebrity apostate circus-style ones, or even if there isn't a circus atmosphere, I think the best thing to do would be to assume that the subject will record and edit/release footage. I think going through the non-disclosure theater is a waste of time and makes the Church look bad. Plus, the recorders and publishers feel like they are in the right in violating the non-disclosure, and the Church isn't going to (or be able to) enforce consequences for violating it beyond what probably would have happened in the DC anyway (where the Church technically could sue, it isn't going to out of PR reasons). I would take that leverage away and simply assume they are going to record. The second time I was a bishop, I simply assumed anything could be recorded (it's the times we live in, and people are tech-saturated with their phones). Not necessarily disciplinary councils in my case, but I did have some angry death threat people. I especially assumed that the CES letter people I was asked to meet with **might** record (I don't believe they did). 

I think what leaders could do better is to disarm the drum banging. Dispense with non-disclosure docs, assume it will be recorded (and let that inform what is and isn't said), and allow people to defend themselves as they see fit. Even if that means you're subjected to a manifesto. I've had councils that last more than three hours from start to finish, and they weren't contentious. I think the short limits on testimony and witnesses are unforced errors. It's the person's membership that's at stake, don't give him/her ammo to claim it was a kangaroo court or that the fix was in. 

3) In this particular case, with Helfer requesting a full high council court, I think they should have done so. The handbook allows for it in rare cases where it seems apropos, but with the cross-country and short time frame nature of it, they were boxed in and it was logistically difficult. 

In short, there are some simple things that could be done to disarm the inevitable atrocity stories in cases like this. 

Edited April 27, 2021 by rongo

[mgy401]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Piffle. 

Welp.  I learned a new word today.  (And quite a delightful word, at that.)

On a tangential note:  in doing divorce cases over the past few decades, it is striking to me how dramatic the disconnect is between what the parties think should be dispositive, versus what the judge considers to actually be dispositive.  Judges can be very brusque indeed in rejecting what they consider to be irrelevant evidence or otherwise going down what they consider to be time-wasting lines of inquiry, and a big part of the lawyer’s work is helping the client understand why the judge is focusing on the issues she’s focusing on.

In Helfer’s case, she seems to have never understood that her work with her clients—for good or for ill—was not what her council was about.  I wonder whether this was due to a failure of outreach/preparation on her bishop’s/SP’s part, or a case of Helfer just not wanting to hear anything a man might have to say.  Based on her later behavior, it’s easy to assume the second scenario—but then, post hoc ergo proptor hoc, etc, etc.

Edited April 27, 2021 by mgy401

[smac97]

52 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

The defendant should be able to decide if the proceedings of these courts should be made public.

I disagree. 

First, it is the Church's meeting.  The Church gets to decide how it is run.

Second, the individual can say what he or she likes about the council after it happens.

Third, a person under discipline may be in a state of high rebellion during the disciplinary process.  The individual may later have a change of heart and appreciate that the proceedings were kept private. 

Fourth, your proposal seems to contravene the doctrines of the church:

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.)

Note that this verse anticipates a person who is in some state of rebellion or stubbornness ("if he or she confess not...").  This verse is designed to protect such a person's reputation and standing, even to some extent if the person is bent on injuring their own reputation/standing (as seems to be the case with Helfer-Parker).

Quote

Claims of sacredness or the need to protect the defendant from him/herself are hubris.

Nope.  Such claims are common sense.  And scriptural as well.  Consider these remarks by then-Elder Oaks:

Quote

The first principle in the gospel procedure for managing differences is to keep our personal differences private. In this we have worthy examples to follow. Every student of Church history knows that there have been differences of opinion among Church leaders since the Church was organized. Each of us has experienced such differences in our work in auxiliaries, quorums, wards, stakes, and missions of the Church. We know that such differences are discussed, but not in public. Counselors acquiesce in the decisions of their president. Teachers follow the direction of their presidency. Members are loyal to the counsel of their bishop. All of this is done quietly and loyally—even by members who would have done differently if they had been in the position of authority.

Why aren’t these differences discussed in public? Public debate—the means of resolving differences in a democratic government—is not appropriate in our Church government. We are all subject to the authority of the called and sustained servants of the Lord. They and we are all governed by the direction of the Spirit of the Lord, and that Spirit only functions in an atmosphere of unity. That is why personal differences about Church doctrine or procedure need to be worked out privately. There is nothing inappropriate about private communications concerning such differences, provided they are carried on in a spirit of love.

There are at least five different procedures a Church member can follow in addressing differences with Church leaders—general or local, male or female.
...
The third procedure, which should be familiar to every student of the Bible, is to take up our differences privately with the leader involved. The Savior taught: “If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.” (Matt. 18:15.)

This course of action may be pursued in a private meeting, if possible, or it may be done through a letter or other indirect communication. How many differences could be resolved if we would only communicate privately about them! Some would disappear as they were identified as mere misunderstandings. Others would be postponed with an agreement to disagree for the present. But in many instances, private communications about differences would remove obstacles to individual growth and correction.

A fourth option is to communicate with the Church officer who has the power to correct or release the person thought to be in error or transgression. The Bible calls this “tell[ing] it unto the church.” (Matt. 18:17.) Modern scripture, in the revelation we call “the law of the Church,” describes this procedure:

“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.)

Note the caution that this remedy is to be private—“not before the world.” This is not done in order to hide the facts, but rather to increase the chance that the correction will improve the life of a brother or sister.

The principle here is not founded on hubris, but on scripture.

Quote

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.

Not so.

Quote

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.

There are three principal reasons for discipline, none of which involves debating doctrine and policy. 

From Section 3.2 of the Handbook:

Quote

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

Three Purposes of Church Membership Restrictions or Withdrawal

1. Help protect others

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

3. Protect the integrity of the Church

That third one, "Protect{ing} the integrity of the Church," might be characterized somewhat as the Church "concerned with it's own appearance."  The Church's reputation is important to it, just as yours is to you.  And yet the other purposes are, I think, more front-and-center: helping the individual and protecting others.

None of this, however, implicates debating the Church's doctrines or policies.  That is not the purpose of a disciplinary council, and the Church is complely justified in not allowing someone like Natasha Helfer-Parker or her fellows (Sam Young springs most immediately to mind) turning a council into a raucous debate about the Church rather than the individual.

I am reminded here of "sovereign citizens" who try to frustrate and disrupt legal proceedings by rattling off endless irrelevant questions about standing, jurisdiction, admiralty law, fringe on the American flag, and so on.  Judges seldom put up with such antics for very long.  Here's an example:

And another:

And another (oh, this guy is a doozy) :

And another (not a Sovereign Citizen, but nevertheless fairly . . . interesting) :

Civil courts have to deal with this stuff.  There are legal requirements that compel them to interact with the individual yahoos shown above, and for the legal proceedings to continue even when the individual doesn't want them to.  But because that necessity is in place, the courts have armed law enforcement to make sure everyone behaves.  And yes, sometimes physical force comes into play (see the second-to-last video for an example).  And even incarceration in serious cases (see that last video for an example).

None of this applies in a church context, though.  The membership council is private, not public.  There is neither any force nor any threat of force. No ability to incarcerate.  The Church has very limited jurisdiction or control over the individual. 

So a bishop or stake president convening a membership council has essentially two options: A) proceed with the council at which the individual can be trusted to behave appropriately, or B) limit participation in the council where there is a reasonable concern that the individual or witnesses may behave inappropriately or disruptively.

Natasha Helfer-Parker essentially nuked Option A by her own misconduct.  Option B was therefore an appropriate course of action.

I suppose there could be further options.  The stake president could have given Helfer-Parker a few minutes to calm down.  The stake president could have given her time to print out her notes privately, or else transcribe them onto paper.  Sure.  But the option he did take was pretty reasonable under the circumstances, and apparently within his discretion.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 27, 2021 by smac97

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

In Helfer’s case, she seems to have never understood that her work with her clients—for good or for ill—was not what her council was about.  I wonder whether this was due to a failure of outreach/preparation on her bishop’s/SP’s part, or a case of Helfer just not wanting to hear anything a man might have to say.  Based on her later behavior, it’s easy to assume the second scenario—but then, post hoc ergo proptor hoc, etc, etc.

It seems like there are three options for her focus on it being her work as a sex therapist that caused the excommunication. 

1) She did not understand the outreach (failure of the bishop and SP to be clear).  2) She did understand the stated outreach and reasons for the counsel but she thinks they are lying.  3) She knows it's not because of her work as a sex therapist but she plays to that angle because she believes it will get her the most sympathy and supporters.

[CA Steve]

43 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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.

Which is why I qualified my statement with "these cases". In a mundane case the defendant should still be able to make the decision. It is the one sided nature of how these cases are run that makes the Church look defensive which they are not withstanding walls of text trying to explain otherwise.

[bluebell]

Does the church have a legal liability to keep these kinds of proceedings confidential?  Could someone sue the church, for example, if the church published a membership counsel?

[Bernard Gui]

11 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Yeah. There is an exercise in humility. 

Why the constant shots panning the temple?

 

[Bernard Gui]

11 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

Anyone in the council can ask questions of the person being counseled- and that is the aim and purpose of the gathering in the first place.  They should be based in love, with the obective of helping the individual getting back on the "covenant path".   

Random numbers are drawn by all Council membbers and the "odds" and "evens" have different assignments-  half are to make   sure the interests of the defendent are protected  and the other half are to protect the interests of the church, that those teaching false doctrine, for example are not allowed to continue doing so.

It is not clear to me how historians are supposed to know what happens in councils if they have never been a member of one, or been trained in the objectives.

No, half of the council is not the "prosecution" and half the "defense"

All may ask questions and all in the room have experience in handling delicate conversations with members diclosing the deepest facts of their lives.  Most are former bishops- the others will probably be bishops in the future.   All of these men are in the "pool" and interviewed in detail by general authorities when a stake president is chosen.

All have a deep committment to helping members return to the church.

This is NOT a "trial" in any judicial sense whatsoever.   The objective is either to return the member to what the church considers the "right path" or to make sure that the member does not damage other members of the church.

The defendant is removed from the room and the discussion between the council members begin.

Eventually a vote is taken by the councCIL on a couple of alternatives to counSEL the Stake president on the opinions of the council.   The Stake President then asks each member - depending on the random numbers drawn at the beginning, if they think the member's best interests have been represented, and asks the others if the church's best interests have been represented.

The Stake presidency then retires to another room where they discuss the alternatives and pray for revelation.

The Stake President then makes a decision- I have seen them follow sometimes the council's opinions and I have seen sometimes the president decide something entirely different.  He discusses his decision and explains it to the council.  The council is then asked to sustain- or not sustain the SP's decision.

Then the defendant is brought back into the room and the decision is announced, and what steps he (she) should take in his life to follow the SP's decision- or not.

A member of the council is selected to follow up often with the defendent as a kind of "ministering brother"/ "home teacher"  on a regular basis

Unless the "scholars" have actually been members of the council and received the training necessary as well as been faithful members in leadership positions, they could not possibly understand the process and the spiritual significance it has.

 

Excellent summary. Precisely my experience, too.

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

Welp.  I learned a new word today.  (And quite a delightful word, at that.)

I think I first heard it in one of the Pirates of the Caribbean movie.

28 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

On a tangential note:  in doing divorce cases over the past few decades, it is striking to me how dramatic the disconnect is between what the parties think should be dispositive, versus what the judge considers to actually be dispositive.  Judges can be very brusque indeed in rejecting what they consider to be irrelevant evidence or otherwise going down what they consider to be time-wasting lines of inquiry, and a big part of the lawyer’s work is helping the client understand why the judge is focusing on the issues she’s focusing on.

Yes, client management is a big part of the job.

28 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

In Helfer’s case, she seems to have never understood that her work with her clients—for good or for ill—was not what her council was about.  

I can't quite agree with you here.  I think she knew perfectly well that her clinical work was not relevant to the council.  I think she brought it up in order to deflect attention from her public statements about the Church and its leaders.  

28 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

I wonder whether this was due to a failure of outreach/preparation on her bishop’s/SP’s part, or a case of Helfer just not wanting to hear anything a man might have to say.  Based on her later behavior, it’s easy to assume the second scenario—but then, post hoc ergo proptor hoc, etc, etc.

Back during 2010 to 2013 or so I worked on literally hundreds of foreclosure lawsuits brought by defaulting homeowners against the banks.  I represented the banks.  At the time there were websites and law firms advertising themselves as having instructional materials that tell you how to sue the bank and get your house for free.  A shockingly large number of people actually paid good money to buy this drivel.  One of the core elements of these materials is the legal argument that securitization ("the financial practice of pooling various types of contractual debt such as residential mortgages, commercial mortgages, auto loans or credit card debt obligations (or other non-debt assets which generate receivables) and selling their related cash flows to third party investors as securities, which may be described as bonds, pass-through securities, or collateralized debt obligations") is illegal.

Reality Check: Securitization of a residential mortgage is totally legal.  And it's something that the homeowners agreed to when they signed the deed of trust, which specifically allows for securitization of the loan.

There was initially a temptation to indulge in a bit of schadenfreude when, at oral argument, I decimated the securitization argument.  But I grew up pretty quickly.  That temptation quickly went away when I realized the plight of these folks.  Their shock and dismay were palpable.  There were even tears shed on a number of occasions.  They had been deluded, or had deluded themselves, into thinking that they could buy a house, default on their payments (often deliberately), and then file a lawsuit and come away with a free house.  Sometimes they had bought into this absurd idea because of desperation (they were losing their house to foreclosure, and so went online and got hooked into a scam marketed as a way to stop the foreclosure, but only ended up soaking up their last few thousands of dollars).  Sometimes they had bought into it because of ill-advised financial decisions (many of the foreclosures were on second homes, often purchased - often based on false claims of inflated income - as speculative investments, but which became worthless when the market soured).  Sometimes they had bought into it because of simple greed (Free house!).  Sometimes there was a combination of these.

These folks were in a mess, often of their own making to some extent.  But they were also human beings, and I generally felt quite a bit of sympathy for them.  However, that sympathy did not extend to me going along with their absurd file-a-lawsuit-and-get-your-house-for-free! nonsense.  That's just unworkable.  I try to be empathetic, but empathy doesn't mean going along with something that is patently wrong or unfair or absurd.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ksfisher]

10 hours ago, CA Steve said:

The defendant should be able to decide if the proceedings of these courts should be made public.

Does this include the disclosure of the names of innocent parties that may be involved?  Would the accused or the church be responsible for deciding?

 

10 hours ago, CA Steve said:

which is a principal reason why the trails are taking place in the first place, to defend the Church.

From personal experience I would say that the purpose of such councils is to help the sinner return to the covenant path.

 

10 hours ago, CA Steve said:

If the  Church wasn't concerned with it's own appearance in these cases, public disobedience to authority would not be defined as apostacy,

The church, as with any organization, needs to be concerned with it's reputation.  However, the church also is concerned with what the effect of public teaching by church members, which is contrary to church teaching, has on other members of the church.  As the saying goes a house divided against itself doesn't stand too long.

Edited April 28, 2021 by ksfisher

[mfbukowski]

5 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. 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

You missed the point

It is the SP who makes the decision  not the HC

 Read it again 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour 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.

The above description is not true. I have participated in these proceedings numerous times on the ward, mission, and stake levels. They are neither trials nor debates. In every one the member has been treated with great humility and compassion. Efforts are made to protect their dignity. Some uninformed folks may scoff at the term, but they were truly courts of love.

Edited April 27, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[CA Steve]

6 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Does this include the disclosure of the names of innocent parties that may be involved?  Would the accused or the church be responsible for deciding?

Your question seems to assume the defendant is guilty.

[ksfisher]

15 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Your question seems to assume the defendant is guilty.

It doesn't.  Innocent parties could be embarrassed regardless of the guilt or innocence of the person accused. 

[smac97]

39 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Quote

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.

Which is why I qualified my statement with "these cases". In a mundane case the defendant should still be able to make the decision.

I really don't get this.  It's the Church's meeting.  The Church gets to decide how it is run.  The Church has a near-total rule regarding confidentiality.  

Are you suggesting that the individual somehow has the right to compel the Church to change its doctrines and policies?  To force the Church publicize a disciplinary council?  Why?

And what is stopping the individual from publicizing his experiences at the council after it is over?  Nothing.  At all.  So what's the problem?

39 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

It is the one sided nature of how these cases are run that makes the Church look defensive which they are not withstanding walls of text trying to explain otherwise.

Next up: Individual members get to dictate to the Church how to run Sacrament Meetings.  And endowment sessions.  And baptismal services.

Or . . . not.  Again, it's the Church's meeting.  Convened by a representative of the Church.  In a building owned by the Church.  Under the auspices of the Church's doctrines and policies.  

The only "one sided"ness going on is when the individual - Natasha Helfer-Parker, John Dehlin, Sam Young, Bill Reel, Jeremy Runnels - chooses to publicize and sensationalize their membership council.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Quote

Does this include the disclosure of the names of innocent parties that may be involved?  Would the accused or the church be responsible for deciding?

Your question seems to assume the defendant is guilty.

Broadly speaking, that's usually a pretty safe assumption.  I have been involved in dozens of membership councils, and in each and every instance the misconduct was not in dispute.  The Church has no meaningful investigative authority or infrastructure.  Disciplinary councils are pretty much always based on A) confessed-to misconduct by the individual, B) allegations of misconduct by an accuser, to which the accused later admits, and/or C) public statements/actions that are not in reasonable dispute.

The policies of the Church have a framework for addressing contested allegations of misconduct as to what has happened.  But that's not really relevant to Natasha Helfer-Parker.  She doesn't deny the "facts."  She really has written and said the things that precipitated the council. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

55 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Which is why I qualified my statement with "these cases". In a mundane case the defendant should still be able to make the decision. It is the one sided nature of how these cases are run that makes the Church look defensive which they are not withstanding walls of text trying to explain otherwise.

By qualifying it, you are claiming there is an exception where there is none. The Church is concerned with confidentiality, due process, decorum and of course the weightier matters . The defendants can share what they will after the “trails” [sic]. “Public disobedience” is not an accurate representation of the various Handbook references to “apostasy”.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

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.

I didn't find anything about my excommunication as being sacred.  It was more like shutting a door that would never be able to open again.  There wasn't any animosity.  It was more coming to grips that there would be no place for me in the Church ever again.  

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Accusing others of pride is in itself an expression of pride.

That seems like a prideful tenet. I am glad in my unquestionable humility I was able to point this out.

[smac97]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

I didn't find anything about my excommunication as being sacred.  It was more like shutting a door that would never be able to open again.  

Frankly, I find that hard to believe.  Every disciplinary council in which I have participated has ended with words of kindness, warmth, and an invitation to repent and return to fellowship in the Church.

Quote

There wasn't any animosity.  It was more coming to grips that there would be no place for me in the Church ever again.  

Again, I have a hard time believing that.  It is just too far removed from my experience in the Church, and from the doctrines and policies and practices of the Church.  

In virtually every circumstance, the door is always "open" to the individual.  There is always a place for you in the Church.  I have a hard time believing that you were told otherwise.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 27, 2021 by smac97

[jkwilliams]

Just now, The Nehor said:

That seems like a prideful tenet. I am glad in my unquestionable humility I was able to point this out.

My pride is not in dispute.

[mgy401]

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

I didn't find anything about my excommunication as being sacred.  It was more like shutting a door that would never be able to open again.  There wasn't any animosity.  It was more coming to grips that there would be no place for me in the Church ever again.  

The difference, of course, being that in one case the excommunicant was willing to close the door on and walk away from certain behaviors; whereas in the other—he wasn’t.

Church membership is fundamentally about a desire to live core Church values, even if one isn’t doing it perfectly.  If one has that desire, a membership council can be a good experience regardless of the administrative outcome.  If one doesn’t . . . the experience is unlikely to be pleasant for anyone involved.

It does not follow, however, that people who plan to continue (and encourage others to participate in) behavior the church seems “sinful”, ought to be permitted to retain their church membership in perpetuity.

Edited April 27, 2021 by mgy401

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

Quote

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

Yet your are making a monster out of her.  Excessively.  and disparaging her witnesses.  After all they can't be objective correct?  Yet the SP?  Wonderful dude.

Quote

I wasn't there.  Neither were you

For not being there you sure are making a lot of negative conclusions about Helfer and her witnesses.  Again, excessively.

[california boy]

9 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

The difference, of course, being that in one case the excommunicant was willing to close the door on and walk away from certain behaviors; whereas in the other—he wasn’t.

Church membership is fundamentally about a desire to live core Church values, even if one isn’t doing it perfectly.  If one has that desire, a membership council can be a good experience regardless of the administrative outcome.  If one doesn’t . . . the experience is unlikely to be pleasant for anyone involved.

It does not follow, however, that people who plan to continue (and encourage others to participate in) behavior the church seems “sinful”, ought to be permitted to retain their church membership in perpetuity.

The options were clear to me.  Give up on the possibility to go through life with someone you love and support you or live a celibate life alone, without that connection that is so much a part of the human condition.   I also believe it is a core part of why we are here on earth.   I did not believe the opinion of Church leaders are from God, nor is there any claimed revelation on this issue.  What I did feel is a deep love from God that this path away from the Church was the correct one for me.  I don't find anything sacred about what happened.  It was just the Church defining and defending the wall that it has built around this issue.  

Of course the Church can kick out anyone it wants.  I recognized that right.  

[california boy]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Frankly, I find that hard to belief.  Every disciplinary council in which I have participated has ended with words of kindness, warmth, and an invitation to repent and return to fellowship in the Church.

Again, I have a hard time believing that.  It is just too far removed from my experience in the Church, and from the doctrines and policies and practices of the Church.  

In virtually every circumstance, the door is always "open" to the individual.  There is always a place for you in the Church.  I have a hard time believing that you were told otherwise.

Thanks,

-Smac

Of course you know more about my excommunication than I do.  You always do.