Lds church courts

[poptart]

Seen them being discussed here, just how big of a deal are they?  How common are they?  Religious things aside what temporal consequences do they have?  As of late I'm seeing US Bishops get quite political and of course what's happening in Germany.  We never hear about Latter Day Saints.  Considering the Money and influence some members of the LDS church have i'd think we would hear more about things like this.  

[rpn]

We stopped calling them church courts several years ago, and last year started calling them something like membership status meetings. 

And I'd say that no matter the change of name they are inevitably a really big deal to those who have experienced the process.  The D&C sets up the procedure, but they don't always follow that:  and it is not uncommon that High Councilors who are involve frequently perceive that they are obligated to do what the SP wants them to do whether they feel that appropriate or not).  [Nowadays the High Council hears all matters which are expected to consider excommunication.]   The handbook gives a list of actions that must result in a membership review meeting (I forget the current name): (they are the big crimes, and stealing church funds and child abuse and porn), and other things that may.   The whole point is that for some people to get their lives back in order, they need to relieved for a time of their obligations of membership, and rebaptized.  (Sometimes because that is tangible enough to actually feel like one is clean?)

It is true that people who are (formerly excommunicated, now have membership withdrawn) cannot pay tithing when they aren't members.   It is also true that excommunications that involve conduct that may affect other members are announced in Elder's Quorum and RS meetings.   Otherwise they are not, except to those who might have a need to know.

When a member is rebaptized, their church records reflect their original baptism date and information.   So others have no way of knowing they were ever thrown out (and no that isn't the way the church would describe it, no matter how on point those who've experienced would see it), unless the offense is one for which their church membership records are permanently flagged to assure they never work with youth, or never having anything to do with church funds, or sometimes church membership lists, if they've abused those.

I think the majority of those who've ever been involved would tell you they are quite draining and stressful, and sometimes the meeting to determine whether someone can be rebaptized can be joyful.

I imagine they occur several times a year in every Stake of Zion, mostly for sexual misconduct.

 

 

 

Edited May 16, 2021 by rpn

[The Nehor]

Depends on the people involved how big a deal it is. Not super common, maybe once or twice a year in most wards I have been in and known when they are going on. For temporal consequences probably restriction from the temple, possibly not wearing garments, and usually not taking the sacrament for a time. There is no real way for money to be involved. They aren’t conducted like a trial in a courtroom and they aren’t public. Ideally almost no one knows it happened.

They are called membership councils now.

rpn, you might be pleased to know that most stake membership councils no longer involve the High Council. It is available as an option but is not typically done anymore. Now it is normally just the Stake Presidency.

[rongo]

The new changes are geared towards making them less frequent (the handbook even says this), and normally only with the bishopric or stake presidency present now. 

I've been out of the direct loop for a couple of years, but they happened pretty frequently in my jurisdiction. A lot of people felt like coming clean with me (several told me that they had carried this through several wards, but felt like resolving things now), and the stake president jokingly called me his "hanging judge" (I had far more excommunications and disfellowshipments, but also far more rebaptisms and reinstatements. They also require church courts). My approach, when people had serious things to repent of, was to say, "Let's go and resolve this properly so that you know everything was on the table and that you resolved everything properly." It was always a good experience, with full support, and participation. 

I have no problem with the term "court." The Church changes its terminology from time to time in an Orwellian way to try to soften people's associations with them. 

My sense is that in the coming years, with the recent changes, there will be few formal ones --- with most things, even serious sins, being taken care of with what used to be called "formal" or "informal" probation. All this means is that no record is made that is attached to the membership record; the discipline begins and ends with the issuing authority, and knowledge of it is "in house" (sometimes passed on if people move to different places). 

In my experience, it's a positive experience for most. I never had to deal in my own wards with apostates or malcontents, although I have been asked to meet with people with problems with the Church.

 

[poptart]

20 minutes ago, rpn said:

We stopped calling them church courts several years ago, and last year started calling them something like membership status meetings. 

And I'd say that no matter the change of name they are inevitably a really big deal to those who have experienced the process.  The D&C sets up the procedure, but they don't always follow that:  and it is not uncommon that High Councilors who are involve frequently perceive that they are obligated to do what the SP wants them to do whether they feel that appropriate or not).  [Nowadays the High Council hears all matters which are expected to consider excommunication.]   The handbook gives a list of actions that must result in a membership review meeting (I forget the current name): (they are the big crimes, and stealing church funds and child abuse and porn), and other things that may.   The whole point is that for some people to get their lives back in order, they need to relieved for a time of their obligations of membership, and rebaptized.  (Sometimes because that is tangible enough to actually feel like one is clean?)

It is true that people who are (formerly excommunicated, now have membership withdrawn) cannot pay tithing when they aren't members.   It is also true that excommunications that involve conduct that may affect other members are announced in Elder's Quorum and RS meetings.   Otherwise they are not, except to those who might have a need to know.

When a member is rebaptized, their church records reflect their original baptism date and information.   So others have no way of knowing they were ever thrown out (and no that isn't the way the church would describe it, no matter how on point those who've experienced would see it), unless the offense is one for which their church membership records are permanently flagged to assure they never work with youth, or never having anything to do with church funds, or sometimes church membership lists, if they've abused those.

I think the majority of those who've ever been involved would tell you they are quite draining and stressful, and sometimes the meeting to determine whether someone can be rebaptized can be joyful.

I imagine they occur several times a year in every Stake of Zion, mostly for sexual misconduct.

 

 

 

Interesting.  From the sounds of it they do serve a purpose.  So if it's bad enough it is discussed in the Elder's Quorum and RS meetings?  Hmm.  Rebaptism?  So they have to go through the whole process again?  On the other side of the Christian religious divide sometimes you'll see conditional baptisms when you join say, the Catholic Church.  That's mostly a just in case the former baptism wasn't done following the trinitine/liturgical formula but once you're dunked that's it.  

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Depends on the people involved how big a deal it is. Not super common, maybe once or twice a year in most wards I have been in and known when they are going on. For temporal consequences probably restriction from the temple, possibly not wearing garments, and usually not taking the sacrament for a time. There is no real way for money to be involved. They aren’t conducted like a trial in a courtroom and they aren’t public. Ideally almost no one knows it happened.

They are called membership councils now.

rpn, you might be pleased to know that most stake membership councils no longer involve the High Council. It is available as an option but is not typically done anymore. Now it is normally just the Stake Presidency.

So they've toned down on it?  Think that'll continue as the church changes directions a bit with regards to LGBTQ politics and racial justice/civil rights issues being in the discussion a lot more nowadays?

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

The new changes are geared towards making them less frequent (the handbook even says this), and normally only with the bishopric or stake presidency present now. 

I've been out of the direct loop for a couple of years, but they happened pretty frequently in my jurisdiction. A lot of people felt like coming clean with me (several told me that they had carried this through several wards, but felt like resolving things now), and the stake president jokingly called me his "hanging judge" (I had far more excommunications and disfellowshipments, but also far more rebaptisms and reinstatements. They also require church courts). My approach, when people had serious things to repent of, was to say, "Let's go and resolve this properly so that you know everything was on the table and that you resolved everything properly." It was always a good experience, with full support, and participation. 

I have no problem with the term "court." The Church changes its terminology from time to time in an Orwellian way to try to soften people's associations with them. 

My sense is that in the coming years, with the recent changes, there will be few formal ones --- with most things, even serious sins, being taken care of with what used to be called "formal" or "informal" probation. All this means is that no record is made that is attached to the membership record; the discipline begins and ends with the issuing authority, and knowledge of it is "in house" (sometimes passed on if people move to different places). 

In my experience, it's a positive experience for most. I never had to deal in my own wards with apostates or malcontents, although I have been asked to meet with people with problems with the Church.

 

Just an observation, interesting to note just how common these are.  On the outside people marvel at Mormons and many do wonder what is it that keeps them in line.  Most just say it's cultish influence, etc.  I figured it had to be something like courts.  I agree, courts wouldn't offend me at all.  A lot of orgs, religious and secular are having accountability issues nowadays,  you have to have rules and order to survive.  Carrots are nice but sometimes you need the stick.

[rongo]

9 minutes ago, poptart said:

Interesting.  From the sounds of it they do serve a purpose.  So if it's bad enough it is discussed in the Elder's Quorum and RS meetings? 

No, these things are very confidential. The fact of someone being disciplined (under restrictions) can come up in a presidency meeting, but not in a general class or other general meeting. 

10 minutes ago, poptart said:

Rebaptism?  So they have to go through the whole process again? 

Yes, these councils are reconvened to consider reinstatement/rebaptism. These are usually joyous, because the fact that they've made it to that point is a very good sign that the outcome will be what everyone wants it to be. Some rebaptisms/reinstatements require First Presidency approval, and their answer can be "no" even when the local decision is "yes."

 

12 minutes ago, poptart said:

So they've toned down on it?  Think that'll continue as the church changes directions a bit with regards to LGBTQ politics and racial justice/civil rights issues being in the discussion a lot more nowadays?

I think the intent is to have fewer of them all around, not just for hot button issues. I have mixed feelings about this. I think some will not get a full sense of the gravity of their situation without the formal process. 

13 minutes ago, poptart said:

On the outside people marvel at Mormons and many do wonder what is it that keeps them in line. 

It's not really the thought of courts that keep people in line. Most keep themselves in line because of their desires and belief, and the very inactive are almost never subject to church discipline. 

[Chum]

1 hour ago, poptart said:

US Bishops get quite political

My bishop is quite political.

[Kenngo1969]

Most people in their day-to-day interactions with the Church of Jesus Christ and with its leaders and members, if their behavior is not such that a Membership Council should be called, probably don't give such things much thought.  When I was a membership clerk, I saw notations on a handful of records (if that: that's probably overstating the case) that action regarding a certain person's membership had been taken, but didn't give it much thought except in one case, when I saw that the action had been taken and then, later, that the person had had blessings restored (that is, had returned to full fellowship). 

I always had a good deal of respect for the person, and it never waned even after I saw that action had been taken against his membership [we all have problems, and we all need help from time to time: the only shame is in not getting the help one needs and in not addressing problems]; and when I saw that his blessings had been restored, I silently said to myself, "Atta boy.  Welcome back!"  The high profile cases occupy a good deal of media time and attention, bandwidth, publicity, and so on, but they are the exception rather than the rule.  And whether excommunication (if it occurs: it is rare even when Membership Councils are held) is the person's last step out of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or is the first step back into the Church of Jesus Christ is completely within that person's control.

[poptart]

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

No, these things are very confidential. The fact of someone being disciplined (under restrictions) can come up in a presidency meeting, but not in a general class or other general meeting. 

Yes, these councils are reconvened to consider reinstatement/rebaptism. These are usually joyous, because the fact that they've made it to that point is a very good sign that the outcome will be what everyone wants it to be. Some rebaptisms/reinstatements require First Presidency approval, and their answer can be "no" even when the local decision is "yes."

 

I think the intent is to have fewer of them all around, not just for hot button issues. I have mixed feelings about this. I think some will not get a full sense of the gravity of their situation without the formal process. 

It's not really the thought of courts that keep people in line. Most keep themselves in line because of their desires and belief, and the very inactive are almost never subject to church discipline. 

Thanks for clearing that up, that's a pretty neat way to handle things.  Religious politics are usually unpleasant, whenever you see someone denied communion there's always hard feelings.  The whole baptism thing on your end is strange, then again I come from the one and done camp, confession clears that up, usually. 

True, I never thought of that.  Same thing with those who go to Mass/church during Christmas and Easter, they almost never show up on peoples radar.  Makes sense the same would apply to the inactive on your end.

5 minutes ago, Chum said:

My bishop is quite political.

Yeah, for me that's such a turnoff.  Think that's why you see so many millenials, esp. single ones just leaving organized religion, politics.  Then again, if it's in an area with a certain demographic you can be as political as you want till you get a bunch of transplants and different political opinions moving in.

[Chum]

34 minutes ago, rongo said:

(I had far more excommunications and disfellowshipments, but also far more rebaptisms and reinstatements). My approach, when people had serious things to repent of, was to say, "Let's go and resolve this properly so that you know everything was on the table and that you resolved everything properly."

I view this approach positively. Rebooting of a Church relationship may allow that member to better isolate his counterproductive behaviors.

[poptart]

2 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Most people in their day-to-day interactions with the Church of Jesus Christ and with its leaders and members, if their behavior is not such that a Membership Council should be called, probably don't give such things much thought.  When I was a membership clerk, I saw notations on a handful of records (if that: that's probably overstating the case) that action regarding a certain person's membership had been taken, but didn't give it much thought except in one case, when I saw that the action had been taken and then, later, that the person had had blessings restored (that is, had returned to full fellowship). 

I always had a good deal of respect for the person, and it never waned even after I saw that action had been taken against his membership [we all have problems, and we all need help from time to time: the only shame is in not getting the help one needs and in not addressing problems]; and when I saw that his blessings had been restored, I silently said to myself, "Atta boy.  Welcome back!"  The high profile cases occupy a good deal of media time and attention, bandwidth, publicity, and so on, but they are the exception rather than the rule.  And whether excommunication (if it occurs: it is rare even when Membership Councils are held) is the person's last step out of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or is the first step back into the Church of Jesus Christ is completely within that person's control.

That's why I asked.  As an outsider looking in I had to wonder, especially after a few threads I'd seen.  Nice to know that's how things like that work out.  Think that's one reason why you're not losing people as fast as everyone else in this country, you don't treat things like this like a witch hunt.  I've seen my share of religious drama, it makes me sick.  Thanks for sharing.

[Kenngo1969]

28 minutes ago, poptart said:

... Just an observation, interesting to note just how common these are.  ...

Common for leaders who are required to participate in them because of the role they are required to play in the process, as opposed to being common Brother Jack and Sister Jill Rank-and-File Member?  Maybe.  But common for Brother Jack and Sister Jill?  No.  I wouldn't say that.  Most people whose participation is not required don't pay much attention to them.

[Kenngo1969]

2 minutes ago, poptart said:

...  Thanks for sharing.

No problem.  All the best.

-Ken

[poptart]

1 minute ago, Chum said:

I view this approach positively. Rebooting of a Church relationship may allow that member to better isolate his counterproductive behaviors.

Something I was told when I was confirmed, if you do chose to sin and you don't repent/go to confession when you do end up in hell you'll be able to see the sign of your confirmation (The chrism they do on your forehead) as you fry.  One way or another you glorify God, choice is yours if it will be in Heaven with the saints or in hell, God wins either way.  Anyway, yeah like I said earlier after baptism you're one and done, you chose to sin (depending on the sin) it's auto excommunication of sorts.  Sacrament of confession/reconciliation fixes all that, it's the equivalent of a reboot on my end.  Dunno, guess it's similar, the idea of being rebaptised just sounds strange.  Then again, well over half the things I spout probably make the people here scratch their heads.

[poptart]

6 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Common for leaders who are required to participate in them because of the role they are required to play in the process, as opposed to being common Brother Jack and Sister Jill Rank-and-File Member?  Maybe.  But common for Brother Jack and Sister Jill?  No.  I wouldn't say that.  Most people whose participation is not required don't pay much attention to them.

 

4 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

No problem.  All the best.

-Ken

Which is why I'm asking vs. what I 've done in the past, just pass judgement and assume the worst.  Thanks, I'm learning.

Edited May 16, 2021 by poptart

[Chum]

4 minutes ago, poptart said:

Then again, if it's in an area with a certain demographic you can be as political as you want till you get a bunch of transplants and different political opinions moving in.

This was my hope for a long time. However, I think recent shifts toward maintaining political doctrines at any expense are steamrolling that hope - as is intended.

[poptart]

1 minute ago, Chum said:

This was my hope for a long time. However, I think recent shifts toward maintaining political doctrines at any expense are steamrolling that hope - as is intended.

How so?  You're referring to recent political events in GA/FL?  We'll see how long that lasts.  What would worry me, the economic impact that will have.  Not sure if you're following the tariff war's we've had, so far the ones China has imposed have really harmed states like Mississippi who depend on the feds for aid.  If they keep it up, they're going to have a lot of powerful financial entities mad at them.  Plus a lot more regional politics and dislike.  None of that stuff ends well and it's the children who suffer.  

 

[Chum]

4 minutes ago, poptart said:

Something I was told when I was confirmed, if you do chose to sin and you don't repent/go to confession when you do end up in hell you'll be able to see the sign of your confirmation (The chrism they do on your forehead) as you fry.

I refused my confirmation (was converting to evangelicalism) but had to go thru all the instruction anyway. I don't think they told us that.

[poptart]

2 minutes ago, Chum said:

I refused my confirmation (was converting to evangelicalism) but had to go thru all the instruction anyway. I don't think they told us that.

Mine was Catholic.  Didn't know evangelicals did confirmation, not a lot of people do anymore I think.  Also, the parish was super traditional i.e pre Vatican II.  It was actually a nun who told me that.  Idea was it is Christ, grace and what not that save us, we send ourselves to hell.  Mainline Christianity places that heavy emphasis on personal responsibility that's kinda lost on people nowadays.

[Chum]

1 minute ago, poptart said:

How so?  You're referring to recent political events in GA/FL?  We'll see how long that lasts.  What would worry me, the economic impact that will have.  Not sure if you're following the tariff war's we've had, so far the ones China has imposed have really harmed states like Mississippi who depend on the feds for aid.  If they keep it up, they're going to have a lot of powerful financial entities mad at them.  Plus a lot more regional politics and dislike.  None of that stuff ends well and it's the children who suffer.  

 

By recent I mean last half decade and not at all limited to the SE - tho that sort of animosity is well-nurtured here.

As far as economics goes, I've never found any sort of theory I found to be reliably predictive (where was Carter's war economy?) My conclusion is I do not understand economics well and am not convinced anyone else does.

[AtlanticMike]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

you might be pleased to know that most stake membership councils no longer involve the High Council. It is available as an option but is not typically done anymore. Now it is normally just the Stake Presidency.

I didn't know this, so thank you for bringing it up, I think it is a good thing they changed it. Also, another change I think can be found in Elder Cooks talk from the Saturday session. He said the bishop should delegate more authority to the elders quorum and relief society presidencies. Kinda what I said a while back on here on a different thread, don't remember which one, but I was talking about the relief society presidency interviewing woman. I think we're getting close to that point. Man!! I didn't know the quorum of the 12 read this forum😁. You think they'll give me credit? Just kidding,just kidding,just kidding.

 

[Chum]

2 minutes ago, poptart said:

Mine was Catholic.  Didn't know evangelicals did confirmation

While in Catholic school, I was converting to evangelicalism.  The nuns were confused but did their best to be understanding and did not push back in any way. It is one reason I hold the Catholic church in high regard. 

[poptart]

6 minutes ago, Chum said:

By recent I mean last half decade and not at all limited to the SE - tho that sort of animosity is well-nurtured here.

As far as economics goes, I've never found any sort of theory I found to be reliably predictive (where was Carter's war economy?) My conclusion is I do not understand economics well and am not convinced anyone else does.

Think that animosity is about to become worse, we'll see.

What I'm looking at, how places like silicone valley are so powerful countries have diplomats just for them.  My understanding is post civil war a lot of the things the Union did ruined the Souths economy, I could see something like that happening again.  Look at oxycontin, they knew how bad it was and I think purposely target the SE because the political enviroment would make it easy to just blame the poor addicts instead of the higher ups.

Pharma Owners Accused of Lying About OxyContin (webmd.com)

Who knows what'll happen, either way it will be educational and interesting.

[poptart]

3 minutes ago, Chum said:

While in Catholic school, I was converting to evangelicalism.  The nuns were confused but did their best to be understanding and did not push back in any way. It is one reason I hold the Catholic church in high regard. 

Grandma was Catholic on moms side, I don't regret going through what I did as an adult.  TBH, i've very much considered just going back.  I've washed my hands of a lot of things demitted out of a few orgs I belonged to and anymore look at the church in a much better light than I did.  Not the churches fault that there are some people in it I don't really like, that would be like blaming Jesus for the bad choices some people in the church have made.  

[Chum]

3 minutes ago, poptart said:

Think that animosity is about to become worse, we'll see.

I believe and fear this is true but my predictions are frequently wrong. I hope this is one of those times.

I can reliably predict that I am not the sort of bulwark that can operate, unaffected, in politically charged environments. I will avoid them.

Today I exited 2nd hour Zoom when the teacher was compelled to wedge abortion into a discussion that had zero relevance. Knowing the man for 30 years I can say that (in this case) Church policy was (poorly) leveraged to create a soft landing space for his politics.