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

[Robert F. Smith]

8 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'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.

Nearly all religions have trials, and they are particularly active where state law applies to them -- as in the State of Israel, where religious courts control family law and internal religious laws.  Thus, a Muslim is judged by Muslim judges (kadis), Roman Catholic by Roman Catholics, Jews by Jewish judges (dayanim), and Mormons by Mormons.  As long as a religious group wants to exercise boundary maintenance, there will be a need for such courts.  I just don't see them going away.

[Calm]

changed my mind about getting in the middle...

 

Edited April 27, 2021 by Calm

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

Quote

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.

Such a broad assumption that does no good in developing dialogue on such a matter. 

Oh, I dunno.  I've paid a lot of attention to "high profile" disciplinary matters over the last several years.  Kate Kelly.  John Dehlin.  Sam Young.  Jeremy Runnells.  The Calderwoods.  Bill Reel.  And now Natasha Helfer-Parker.  In several of theses there was an attempt to convert the disciplinary council to, well, something like "a dog-and-pony show, or a venue for someone in a state of rebellion to publicly 'show up' the Church."

Most recently, Natasha Helfer-Parker gave a number of indications that she was following this trend.  Publicizing/sensationalizing the council beforehand.  Coordinating vigils.  Extensive media coverage before, during and after.  Confrontational, disruptive tactics.  Assuming an "I'm taking on the Church / I'm a victim" posture so as to garner public sympathy/attention for her and acrimony against the Church.  Two for the price of one!

I'm not sure what "dialogue" will do here, but I think it is facilitated by us having a clear-eyed discussion of what Helfer-Parker and her predecessors are doing.

3 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

Let's play a little dialogue game...

Excommunicant: "I was excommunicated, and believe unjustly so, for the following reasons..."

Those who favor plausible deniability: "Well, we don't have the church's side of the story so we feel obligated to side with it."

Umm...there is a whole lot of crap involved with the response statement.

A few problems here.

First, who is the excommunicant talking to here?  The public?  Why?  

Second, what is this "plausible deniability" stuff?  What, in your view, is being denied?

Third, disciplinary councils are, or should be, a quiet, solemn, private matter.  The "dialogue" should be limited to the individual and his/her ecclesiastical leaders.  Everyone else is pretty much a rubbernecker.

Fourth, you are imputing motives here.  

Fifth, we well and truly don't "have the church's side of the story."  That matters.

Sixth, we are not idiots.  Nor are we invading Helfer-Parker's privacy.  She announced/publicized her membership council.  The council was about her public statements and actions pertaining to the Church.  She invited public inquiry into her behavior.  So I don't see anything wrong with reading what she has published to the world and commenting on it based on the facts at hand.

3 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

The claim of keeping quiet on sensitive matters is only beholden to the one being disciplined.

That is simply not so.  

3 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

If the person being disciplined has no probably airing the accusations and truthfulness being leveled at them then "confidential sensitivity" is absolutely absurd.

That is not so, either.  

3 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

With full transparency people are better able to defend themselves and their reputations more justly.

With respect, I disagree.  

Go ask a divorce lawyer who has experienced the fun of an acrimonious couple badmouthing each other on social media, to friends and family, etc.  "Full transparency?"  Sure!  The family's dirty laundry is being aired all over the place.  But the time, place and manner is pretty rotten.  It's no way to resolve disputes between the parties to a faltering marriage.  The couple aren't doing themselves any favors by such conduct.

3 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

The leadership knows/knew what they were doing all along is a double edge sword. 

I don't know what this means.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Damien the Leper]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Oh, I dunno.  I've paid a lot of attention to "high profile" disciplinary matters over the last several years.  Kate Kelly.  John Dehlin.  Sam Young.  Jeremy Runnells.  The Calderwoods.  Bill Reel.  And now Natasha Helfer-Parker.  In several of theses there was an attempt to convert the disciplinary council to, well, something like "a dog-and-pony show, or a venue for someone in a state of rebellion to publicly 'show up' the Church."

Most recently, Natasha Helfer-Parker gave a number of indications that she was following this trend.  Publicizing/sensationalizing the council beforehand.  Coordinating vigils.  Extensive media coverage before, during and after.  Confrontational, disruptive tactics.  Assuming an "I'm taking on the Church / I'm a victim" posture so as to garner public sympathy/attention for her and acrimony against the Church.  Two for the price of one!

I'm not sure what "dialogue" will do here, but I think it is facilitated by us having a clear-eyed discussion of what Helfer-Parker and her predecessors are doing.

A few problems here.

First, who is the excommunicant talking to here?  The public?  Why?  

Second, what is this "plausible deniability" stuff?  What, in your view, is being denied?

Third, disciplinary councils are, or should be, a quiet, solemn, private matter.  The "dialogue" should be limited to the individual and his/her ecclesiastical leaders.  Everyone else is pretty much a rubbernecker.

Fourth, you are imputing motives here.  

Fifth, we well and truly don't "have the church's side of the story."  That matters.

Sixth, we are not idiots.  Nor are we invading Helfer-Parker's privacy.  She announced/publicized her membership council.  The council was about her public statements and actions pertaining to the Church.  She invited public inquiry into her behavior.  So I don't see anything wrong with reading what she has published to the world and commenting on it based on the facts at hand.

That is simply not so.  

That is not so, either.  

With respect, I disagree.  

Go ask a divorce lawyer who has experienced the fun of an acrimonious couple badmouthing each other on social media, to friends and family, etc.  "Full transparency?"  Sure!  The family's dirty laundry is being aired all over the place.  But the time, place and manner is pretty rotten.  It's no way to resolve disputes between the parties to a faltering marriage.  The couple aren't doing themselves any favors by such conduct.

I don't know what this means.

Thanks,

-Smac

I deleted my post and gave my reasoning. Arguing this topic is rather fruitless. If anything, members of your church should just keep church leadership out of their personal lives and professions. Sort of a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" mandate that stops ecclesiastical overreach if there is any.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

I deleted my post and gave my reasoning.

Okey doke.

2 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

Arguing this topic is rather fruitless.

Oh, I dunno.  Discussion can be helpful in some ways.  It clarifies things, particularly when not everyone agrees with each other.

Helfer-Parker and her acolytes could do with a bit of introspection and reasoned discussion.  Instead, her FB page is one massive echo chamber.  Well, that's her choice. 

2 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

If anything, members of your church should just keep church leadership out of their personal lives and professions.

I don't know what this means.

2 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

Sort of a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" mandate that stops ecclesiastical overreach if there is any.

I don't think that works in a high-demand religion like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  We don't just preach what we believe, we are actually expected to live by those beliefs, too.

And c'mon.  Helfer-Parker wasn't disciplined because of her "personal life and profession," but because of what she said.  Publicly.  A lot.  A lot.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

53 minutes ago, rongo said:

That was an unreasonable and unnecessary demand/request. Providing a high council court is reasonable, but she doesn't need to know their names in advance. As you point out, only mischief lay behind that request. 

 

What sort of mischief?

[california boy]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

Interesting.  You state that the poster has a long history of railing against the church (thus establishing motive), you state that none of your experiences resemble his reported experience (thus establishing your 'normative' situation), and then you conclude by stating that you don't believe that the things he reports were said were ever actually said.  That leaves you with two possibilities: 1) CB's memory of an event in which he participated is faulty; or 2), he is lying.  You are walking a fine line, counselor.

I am pretty used to SMAC attacking everything I post and calling me a liar whenever my experience with the Church differs from his own.  There are some people on this board that no matter what they write, he always tries to figure the worse way to interrupt what the person writes and then attacks.  I am just one of many on his list.

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am pretty used to SMAC attacking everything I post and calling me a liar whenever my experience with the Church differs from his own.  

Piffle.  I have done no such thing.  And where I have exceeded the bounds of decorum, I have apologized.

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

There are some people on this board that no matter what they write, he always tries to figure the worse way to interrupt what the person writes and then attacks.  I am just one of many on his list.

I find it hard to believe that your stake president, having convened a disciplinary council and reached a decision to excommunicate you from the Church, told you that "the door" to the Church is forever and permanently closed to you, and that there will never be a place for you in the Church.

That is spectacularly at odds with the doctrines and practices of the Church.  

It is hugely at odds with my personal experience in disciplinary matters.

And the stake president is not here to admit or deny what you are attributing to him.

And you have spent many years writing hundreds of posts denigrating and running down the Church.

I just find it hard to believe that the stake president said the things you are attributing to him.  But rather than belabor that point, I'll say this: Your characterization of what the Church teaches is wrong.  The door is open to you.  There will always be a place for you in the Church.  The choice is yours.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Damien the Leper]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Oh, I dunno.  Discussion can be helpful in some ways.  It clarifies things, particularly when not everyone agrees with each other.

Helfer-Parker and her acolytes could do with a bit of introspection and reasoned discussion.  Instead, her FB page is one massive echo chamber.  Well, that's her choice. 

On a topic like this it just seems a more "Us vs. Them". It's exhausting. Ugh...any and all echo chambers are awful. The first Sunday of the month is a great example of that.

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't know what this means.

It means that the church stays at the church and only the faith comes into the home.

 

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think that works in a high-demand religion like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  We don't just preach what we believe, we are actually expected to live by those beliefs, too.

Your church isn't all that high demanding and the whole "raising the bar" nonsense of the early 2000s didn't change much. I was attending institute in 2002 to 2005 and it was business as usual.

 

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And c'mon.  Helfer-Parker wasn't disciplined because of her "personal life and profession," but because of what she said.  Publicly.  A lot.  A lot.

This I have not disagreed with. I will say that there are times when members try to create problems out everyday struggles and issues. At worst they are lessons in narcissism. If something about the church is a deal breaker then move on. The LDS church is not a "one size fits all and so you should fall in line and do exactly what we tell you" kinda church. It would never have survived.

I will admit that this probably isn't a discussion I should be having as I am no longer LDS and I have no dog in this ill conceived and ill promulgated topic. Having said this...I kindly bow out.

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

On a topic like this it just seems a more "Us vs. Them".

I'm not going to apologize for defending the Church.  

10 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

It's exhausting. Ugh...any and all echo chambers are awful.  The first Sunday of the month is a great example of that.

I don't agree with that.  There is a time and place for Fast & Testimony Meeting, and a time and place for, well, discussions like this.

10 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

Your church isn't all that high demanding

Funny.  It sure seems to be characterized that way by its critics.

But in the main, I agree with you.  My day-to-day obligations relative to the Church itself are . . . pretty light.  Instead, my daily life is taken up with work, exercise, time with family, and so on.  To be sure, the doctrines of the Church heavily influence what I do and why I do it.  But it's a voluntary thing.  Joseph Smith said “I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.”  And D&C 58 states: "27 Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness; 28 For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward."

Missionary work was "high demanding."  Being in the bishopric was "high demanding."  But most of my life has not been in those callilngs.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[AtlanticMike]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

I can understand why you feel this way. But church discipline has changed over time, back in the day they used to make church discipline public and make the person being disciplined give their confession in a church meeting, so it isn't like church discipline can't change. It's time to take an even softer approach, again. 

 

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

I agree I should listen to the men who participated in them. 

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

I agree that inside the room during the disciplinary council HC members are functioning in an advisory capacity. It's what happens after the court that has me concerned. When my cousin became pregnant and had to go in front of the bishop and his councilors her life changed. Apparently she was sleeping with a few guys and once the Bishop's 1st councilor found out, she lost her two best friends because he wouldn't allow his daughters to associate with my cousin. That was over 30 years ago and she is still very emotional about the whole situation.

    I have a friend who moved so he could stop seeing the men in his stake that were in his disciplinary counsel. No matter how you word it or explain who actually does the disciplining, a lot of the time the person being disciplined feels like all the men in the room are judging them. 

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Awesome, almost there.

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

I sense a "but" coming

I like buts😁

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Agreed

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

He was the authority, he was my stake president. Why? Because my mom worshipped the ground he walked on. He was everything the church and a family should be in her eyes, everything she didn't have in her family, there was nothing I could say that would've changed her mind.

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

With today's technology, all it's going to take is one or two men or women video taping a disciplinary counsel in a professional/ high quality manner and sending it to a news outlet that puts it out for millions to see, and the Brethren will change disciplinary councils almost immediately. I hope they change how the council is conducted before that happens. It will happen, it's just a matter of time. 

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

They can still Counsel members and even discipline, it doesn't take over a dozen men in a room to do that. Are you seeing how rapidly society is changing? You might not want to believe the Brethren don't take societal change into consideration, but I'm pretty sure they do, and that's a positive, not a negative.

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

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?

First, ask yourself what the restored gospel actually is. The eternal gospel is really simple, love one another. If our church is true, in the end it will stripped down to the bare minimum to survive until Christ returns. There's really only a handful of core doctrines and principles we need to carry out our mission here on Earth. 

    Have you ever thought about that? Maybe that's how it was designed.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Piffle.  I have done no such thing.  And where I have exceeded the bounds of decorum, I have apologized.

I find it hard to believe that your stake president, having convened a disciplinary council and reached a decision to excommunicate you from the Church, told you that "the door" to the Church is forever and permanently closed to you, and that there will never be a place for you in the Church.

That is spectacularly at odds with the doctrines and practices of the Church.  

It is hugely at odds with my personal experience in disciplinary matters.

And the stake president is not here to admit or deny what you are attributing to him.

And you have spent many years writing hundreds of posts denigrating and running down the Church.

I just find it hard to believe that the stake president said the things you are attributing to him.  But rather than belabor that point, I'll say this: Your characterization of what the Church teaches is wrong.  The door is open to you.  There will always be a place for you in the Church.  The choice is yours.

Thanks,

-Smac

Except I NEVER wrote that the Stake President said the door was shut.  But you did quite clearly illustrated the point I made about interpreting everything I write in the worse possible light.  Your entire post is built on an accusation you made against me and not what I wrote at all.

To prove my point, I will call for a CFR.  Show me where I EVER said that the Stake President said the door was shut.  

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

What sort of mischief?

Doxxing and pressure. 

Literally no other subjects of a disciplinary council --- I would argue in history --- is or was given a "starting lineup" roster of the high council beforehand. That's a nutty demand/request. She requested a high council trial, but if she claims concern about their identities, she could always have . . . just gone with the default setting of the stake presidency. 

[rongo]

21 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

With today's technology, all it's going to take is one or two men or women video taping a disciplinary counsel in a professional/ high quality manner and sending it to a news outlet that puts it out for millions to see, and the Brethren will change disciplinary councils almost immediately. I hope they change how the council is conducted before that happens. It will happen, it's just a matter of time. 

I think that the vast majority of DCs, if leaked in a video, would paint the Church and the process in a very good light. Humiliating details about the subject would be released, but the Church and the process come off very well for the vast majority. 

Most of these high-profile ones (especially over the last several years) never get to the actual DC because of preemptive resignation, staged drama, etc. These videos (like with Helfer) tend to paint the people in a much worse light than they paint the Church. 

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, california boy said:

Except I NEVER wrote that the Stake President said the door was shut.  

Yeah, I figured as much (that the stake president never said what you seemed to be implying).

Quote

But you did quite clearly illustrated the point I made about interpreting everything I write in the worse possible light.  

So your references to "shutting a door that would never be able to open again" and "there would be no place for me in the Church ever again" are only statements of your perspective following your excommunication, and not reflective of what the stake president actually said.

Well, okay then.

Quote

Your entire post is built on an accusation you made against me and not what I wrote at all.

You 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."

You said "It was more coming to grips that there would be no place for me in the Church ever again."

The context made it sound like you were imposing blame.  But now you are clarifying that nobody ever said these terrible things to you, and that you said/thought them to yourself.  Is that correct?

Quote

To prove my point, I will call for a CFR.  Show me where I EVER said that the Stake President said the door was shut.  

You said your excommunication was "like shutting a door that would never be able to open again."  That seemed like a shockingly inappropriate and wrong impression to come out of a disciplinary council.  And as it turns out, nobody gave you that impression but yourself.

Okay.  Glad we cleared that up.

The door is open.  There is always a place for you in the Church.

That is what the Church teaches.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 27, 2021 by smac97

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think that the vast majority of DCs, if leaked in a video, would paint the Church and the process in a very good light. Humiliating details about the subject would be released, but the Church and the process come off very well for the vast majority. 

Most of these high-profile ones (especially over the last several years) never get to the actual DC because of preemptive resignation, staged drama, etc. These videos (like with Helfer) tend to paint the people in a much worse light than they paint the Church. 

Which kinda makes you wonder if Helfer-Parker was going out of her way to sabotage the council.  The council proceeding would have deprived her of much of the "staged drama," whereas as things turned out, she was able to vilify the stake president and the Church, and paint herself a victim, and garner untold amounts of adulation and you-go-girl! support from her admirers.

I'm not inclined to think so little of her, but it would reconcile her shockingly immature behavior in the moment with her overall stature as an experienced, intelligent, educated person.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

58 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yeah, I figured as much (that the stake president never said what you seemed to be implying).

So your references to "shutting a door that would never be able to open again" and "there would be no place for me in the Church ever again" are only statements of your perspective following your excommunication, and not reflective of what the stake president actually said.

Well, okay then.

You 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."

You said "It was more coming to grips that there would be no place for me in the Church ever again."

The context made it sound like you were imposing blame.  But now you are clarifying that nobody ever said these terrible things to you, and that you said/thought them to yourself.  Is that correct?

You said your excommunication was "like shutting a door that would never be able to open again."  That seemed like a shockingly inappropriate and wrong impression to come out of a disciplinary council.  And as it turns out, nobody gave you that impression but yourself.

Okay.  Glad we cleared that up.

The door is open.  There is always a place for you in the Church.

That is what the Church teaches.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I also said this:

Quote

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. 

This explains exactly why I felt like the door towards the Church was shutting.  I knew the Church was not going to change it's stance on gay relationships.  I also knew that I wasn't going to either.  I can't change Church policy.  But I can move on and not try to hope that change will occur.  

YOU completely fabricated the whole idea that the Stake President shut the door on me coming back. Which is clearly false. After fabricating that false assumption, you went on to accuse me of teaching false doctrine. Which is also clearly false.

Have you ever though about apologizing for your false accusations especially when you were completely unable to back them up with what I actually said?  

The only reason I am pressing this issue is because this happens virtually every time you respond to my posts.  I might also add, you are about the only one who feels the need to make assumptions about me in the worse possible way and then attack me for something you totally ASSUMED.

And just to be crystal clear.  There is no room for me in the Church as long as current policies are in place because I am not willing to give up my relationship with my partner any more than the vast majority of other members of the Church are willing to give up their spouses just because some Church leader feels they should.

Edited April 27, 2021 by california boy

[Peacefully]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yeah, I figured as much (that the stake president never said what you seemed to be implying).

So your references to "shutting a door that would never be able to open again" and "there would be no place for me in the Church ever again" are only statements of your perspective following your excommunication, and not reflective of what the stake president actually said.

Well, okay then.

You 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."

You said "It was more coming to grips that there would be no place for me in the Church ever again."

The context made it sound like you were imposing blame.  But now you are clarifying that nobody ever said these terrible things to you, and that you said/thought them to yourself.  Is that correct?

You said your excommunication was "like shutting a door that would never be able to open again."  That seemed like a shockingly inappropriate and wrong impression to come out of a disciplinary council.  And as it turns out, nobody gave you that impression but yourself.

Okay.  Glad we cleared that up.

The door is open.  There is always a place for you in the Church.

That is what the Church teaches.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I didn’t understand CB’s comments the way you did, SMAC. He explained that he wanted to share his life with someone of the same sex and he knew that was incompatible with church teachings and therefore the door was figuratively closed to him. I sensed some bittersweet feelings, not animosity. Maybe you should read his comment again with “ears to hear.”

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

I didn’t understand CB’s comments the way you did, SMAC.

Yes, it appears I misunderstood what he was saying.

10 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

He explained that he wanted to share his life with someone of the same sex and he knew that was incompatible with church teachings and therefore the door was figuratively closed to him. I sensed some bittersweet feelings, not animosity. Maybe you should read his comment again with “ears to hear.”

Perhaps so.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rodheadlee]

13 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

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

🙄

[Damien the Leper]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not going to apologize for defending the Church.  

Didn't ask you too nor said you should. Ultimately the "Us vs Them" wins out and zero humility or reconciliation on either side is achieved. 

 

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't agree with that.  There is a time and place for Fast & Testimony Meeting, and a time and place for, well, discussions like this.

Ok. Lots of unnecessary repetition. It's like, "We get it. You believe. You probably wouldn't be there if you didn't." I mean no disrespect. I honestly don't. Don't just tell me what you claim to know. Don't give us a story time confession. Explain and reason out your faith. Discussions like this definitely not meant for church meetings. 

[Damien the Leper]

5 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

🙄

It is a game of "I know you are but what am I?"

Edited April 28, 2021 by Damien the Leper

[AtlanticMike]

12 hours ago, rongo said:

I think that the vast majority of DCs, if leaked in a video, would paint the Church and the process in a very good light. Humiliating details about the subject would be released, but the Church and the process come off very well for the vast majority. 

Most of these high-profile ones (especially over the last several years) never get to the actual DC because of preemptive resignation, staged drama, etc. These videos (like with Helfer) tend to paint the people in a much worse light than they paint the Church. 

Society is changing fast and I don't see a situation where 1 woman being in a room with over a dozen men judging her "sin" as benefitting the church in the future. We live in a world where words, if used wrong, are considered violent. A court is a no win situation for the church. How bout this, relinquish some authority to the relief society presidency and let the sisters discipline Relief Society members and young women? I don't remember if it was this thread or another but a couple days ago I had talked about letting the relief of society play a more prominent role. 

[AtlanticMike]

18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You missed the point

It is the SP who makes the decision  not the HC

 Read it again 

What about the SP relying on guidance from the holy spirit only? I personally would never go into a disciplinary counsel, there would to great of a chance I would end up in the back of a squad car.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

Society is changing fast and I don't see a situation where 1 woman being in a room with over a dozen men judging her "sin" as benefitting the church in the future. We live in a world where words, if used wrong, are considered violent. A court is a no win situation for the church. How bout this, relinquish some authority to the relief society presidency and let the sisters discipline Relief Society members and young women? I don't remember if it was this thread or another but a couple days ago I had talked about letting the relief of society play a more prominent role. 

This is because the keys of judgement are involved, the delegation of which fall along the lines of priesthood office. The keys of presidency are broader and can be delegated irrespective of priesthood office (e.g., Relief Society, Primary, Young Women, Sunday School).

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

What about the SP relying on guidance from the holy spirit only? I personally would never go into a disciplinary counsel, there would to great of a chance I would end up in the back of a squad car.

Councils are designed for the revelatory process in a unique and particularly effective way: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/church-councils?lang=eng

A similar process makes quorums effective for decision-making (See D&C 107: 27-31).