Another Podcaster Bites the Dust

[Peacefully]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

Language affects our reaction.  I am very glad the term “disfellowship” was dropped, that is the opposite of what we should be doing in most of those cases, imo.  Excommunicate has the same sort of issue, implying we no longer wish to communicate, to have someone as part of our social circle.  For some reason, I don’t feel it as bad as disfellowship, though I bet for some people they dislike it more.

So it may be the same result depending on how members and those disciplined react, but I hope the result is connections of love and caring stay intact.

We could switch to shunning, lol.

[Teancum]

20 hours ago, Stargazer said:

It seems that if a member who has committed a serious sin they should not be permitted to slide out of the church on a resignation, without a membership council, only to come back later asking for rebaptism as if nothing had happened. There are situations where First Presidency approval is required for readmittance into the church. If the Church doesn't officially know about unusual circumstances that may have surrounded a resignation, then First Presidency approval would not be sought, and a pedophile, for example, might be readmitted without anyone knowing there was a problem. If they had been permitted to simply resign without a membership council. So a membership council is required in certain cases, regardless of whether the member wishes to resign. Naturally, even if membership is resigned or withdrawn, the church still retains a record of this.

When I was a bishop there was a nice young family the joined the church. After a few years the wife went off the deep end and cheated on her husband multiple times. I inherited this from the previous bishop and we had a disciplinary council for the wife, who never showed up and the decision was to excommunicate her. About a few months after that her husband asked to see me. The poor fellow was devastated.  Wife wanted out of the marriage and he really did not want to save it after her multiple adulterous offenses. However, he wanted his name removed. His reason was he had no plans to ever marry again and he was not going to remain celibate.  He said I would end up excommunicating him anyway so he felt taking his name of the rolls was the better choice. I tried in a few sessions of council to persuade differently but he was set on his decision. So I processed his removal from the roles request.  It was really sad. They had been through the temple and had been quite active. It was a nice family.  Not sure what happened with the wife to have caused such behavior. She refused to meet with me.

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, supersc said:

They are now membership councils (vs. disciplinary councils or bishop's courts, etc.)

People are no longer excommunicated or disfellowshipped.  Their records are just removed, or they have some restrictions applied.

A person who asks to have their name removed from the Church records is accommodated.

If a person resigns their membership and they were scheduled for a membership council, the reasons are noted as the membership council goes forth or is documented, and if the person ever desires to be rebaptized, the membership council record is taken into consideration.

No announcements are made.

Meh.  Same thing under new names. Lipstick on a pig type of thing.

[Calm]

On 3/20/2025 at 12:21 PM, Peacefully said:

We could switch to shunning, lol.

Please definitely not.  We have enough issues as humans with instinctually distancing ourselves for not much reason, I am very grateful that officially we were never meant to do so (even if some interpreted “associate” as no interaction allowed…that was a poor word choice too imo) and I can’t think of one good reason we should shun in any case.

Well, I can think of one…someone is a danger to others, but even there primarily those likely to be targeted and their caregivers should distance themselves and if a predator, the person needs to be excluded from activities that provide opportunities to predate. Others not targeted need to be cautious still, of course.  I don’t see ostracizing completely as helpful in the long run as added stress and isolation might result in the predator focusing more on targeting victims rather than controlling themselves.

Edited March 26, 2025 by Calm

[Peacefully]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

Please definitely not.  We have enough issues as humans with instinctually distancing ourselves for not much reason, I am very grateful that officially we were never meant to do so (even if some interpreted “associate” as no interaction allowed…that was a poor word choice too imo) and I can’t think of one good reason we should shun in any case.

Well, I can’t think of one…someone is a danger to others, but even there primarily those likely to be targeted and their caregivers should distance themselves and if a predator, the person needs to be excluded from activities that provide opportunities to predate. Others not targeted need to be cautious still, of course.  I don’t see ostracizing completely as helpful in the long run as added stress and isolation might result in the predator focusing more on targeting victims rather than controlling themselves.

 

I had an ancestor who was a Quaker but was “disowned” because of marrying outside of the faith, however, it looks like they weren’t completely cut off from the community. 

In the context of Quaker faith and practice, "shunning" refers to a historical practice of disownment, where a member is removed from the fellowship for actions considered incompatible with Quaker principles, though not intended to be a social ostracization or denial of love. 

 

 

 

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, Peacefully said:

disownment, where a member is removed from the fellowship for actions considered incompatible with Quaker principles, though not intended to be a social ostracization or denial of love.

Humans take care of the denial of love all on their own.  Shame is contagious. 

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Humans take care of the denial of love all on their own.  Shame is contagious. 

And shame thrives in isolation.

[Peacefully]

45 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Humans take care of the denial of love all on their own.  Shame is contagious. 

Maybe I just have a Pollyanna view of the Quakers as being a bit kinder than most religious groups:) I would probably be very disillusioned if I did some research. 

[sunstoned]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am aware of a few.

I assume the emphasis is on "few"

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I assume the emphasis is on "few"

I am not personally familiar with many of them. 20-30% maybe.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Peacefully said:

Maybe I just have a Pollyanna view of the Quakers as being a bit kinder than most religious groups:) I would probably be very disillusioned if I did some research. 

Probably, they were a breakoff from the Puritans with all the bad (and some of the good) that comes with that.

Then again the Quaker faith also includes Benjamin Lay (1682-1759) who was one of the greatest people in American history.

He is credited to a great extent with bringing abolitionism into the Quaker faith (which originally was pretty okay with slavery). He would stage protests at Quaker churches. He once sprayed a congregation with fake blood to show that the blood of the enslaved was on them and did all kinds of theatrical protests to get his point across. This and other protests led him to be kicked out of at least four congregations though all of them later repudiated this expulsion. He was also a radical animal right’s activist and was almost a vegan in not wanting to harm animals or exploit them. He was also virulently anti-racist when that was an incredibly rare thing.

He was a friend of Benjamin Franklin and was instrumental in convincing Franklin to free his slaves in his will.

He wrote a lot:

“All slave-keepers that keep the innocent in bondage : apostates pretending to lay claim to the pure & holy Christian religion, of what congregation so ever, but especially in their ministers, by whose example the filthy leprosy and apostacy is spread far and near : it is a notorious sin which many of the true Friends of Christ and his pure truth, called Quakers, has been for many years and still are concern'd to write and bear testimony against as a practice so gross & hurtful to religion, and destructive to government beyond what words can set forth, or can be declared of by men or angels, and yet lived in by ministers and magistrates in America“

[Peacefully]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Probably, they were a breakoff from the Puritans with all the bad (and some of the good) that comes with that.

Then again the Quaker faith also includes Benjamin Lay (1682-1759) who was one of the greatest people in American history.

He is credited to a great extent with bringing abolitionism into the Quaker faith (which originally was pretty okay with slavery). He would stage protests at Quaker churches. He once sprayed a congregation with fake blood to show that the blood of the enslaved was on them and did all kinds of theatrical protests to get his point across. This and other protests led him to be kicked out of at least four congregations though all of them later repudiated this expulsion. He was also a radical animal right’s activist and was almost a vegan in not wanting to harm animals or exploit them. He was also virulently anti-racist when that was an incredibly rare thing.

He was a friend of Benjamin Franklin and was instrumental in convincing Franklin to free his slaves in his will.

He wrote a lot:

“All slave-keepers that keep the innocent in bondage : apostates pretending to lay claim to the pure & holy Christian religion, of what congregation so ever, but especially in their ministers, by whose example the filthy leprosy and apostacy is spread far and near : it is a notorious sin which many of the true Friends of Christ and his pure truth, called Quakers, has been for many years and still are concern'd to write and bear testimony against as a practice so gross & hurtful to religion, and destructive to government beyond what words can set forth, or can be declared of by men or angels, and yet lived in by ministers and magistrates in America“

Thank you for this. We could use a Benjamin Lay today:) 

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Peacefully said:

Thank you for this. We could use a Benjamin Lay today:) 

A good video about his life:

 

[Mark Beesley]

On 3/19/2025 at 11:15 PM, sunstoned said:

In my fifty years as a member, I am unaware of any courts that did not end in either excommunication or disfellowship.  I would be happy to be proven wrong about this. 

I know of at least two. One ended in probation and one ended in no action being taken.

[MustardSeed]

I learned of one last year. Short probation. 

[Stargazer]

On 3/19/2025 at 11:57 PM, JAHS said:

"A request to resign membership should be acted on even if priesthood leaders have information about a serious sin. Any information about unresolved sins is noted when the request is submitted through LCR. This allows priesthood leaders to resolve such matters in the future if the person applies for readmission into the Church.

I'd guess this is a recent twig in the process. I seem to remember that the policy formerly stated that a membership council trumped a resignation request. This new policy makes better sense.

[Stargazer]

On 3/20/2025 at 12:06 AM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

How do you withdraw membership from someone who isn’t a member of your church???

The resignation isn't a checkbox that takes effect as soon as the member unchecks the box, so to speak. A request for a removal of name does not immediately revoke membership. It must be acted upon before it is a fait accompli.

Similarly, consider what might happen if I decide to resign my US citizenship. I have to submit the necessary form with the required fee, and then the Department of State must then process it before it takes effect. After I send off the form I can say that I am no longer a US citizen, but until the State Department acts to "make it so," during that interval I remain a citizen. And theoretically I could be charged and tried for treason against the US if I were to commit a treasonable offense in the meantime.

But as has been pointed out above, under the current church policy a resignation is no longer trumped by a membership council. The resignation is acted upon as soon as it has been determined that the resignation is genuine, but if there is a serious sin associated with it, that is noted on the document that goes to church headquarters. So if and when the ex-member wants to come back, that issue would be brought forward for consideration.

It also happens that after a member's resignation has taken effect, say a year later, the member robs a bank and this becomes known to leadership at some point, then that bit of information can find its way to the resignation record. So if the ex-member wants to come back, the robbery issue would be raised.  You might not like that, but ... that's the way it is in law and justice outside the church, too.

One of my sons committed a felony. He lost his voting and 2nd amendment rights. After he "paid his debt to society" he eventually petitioned to get his rights back. The petition was granted. His criminal record was expunged, too. BUT, expunged or not, the record of his conviction still exists in the system, but is not available for criminal records checks for non-government entities. Expungement hides your record from the public, but it does not mean destroying it. Job applications and firearm background checks should not be affected by expungement. However, returning to court may still involve disclosure of expunged records.

Edited May 6, 2025 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

On 3/20/2025 at 6:15 AM, sunstoned said:

In my fifty years as a member, I am unaware of any courts that did not end in either excommunication or disfellowship.  I would be happy to be proven wrong about this. 

In my 50+ years as a member I participated in three courts, one as the presiding officer. In none of them was the member disfellowshipped or excommunicated. All three ended in either formal or informal probation. In every case, too, the behavior under examination was one degree or another of sexual misconduct. It helped that in all three cases the member came forward freely to confess and was truly repentant. If it had been otherwise, the result might have been different. The only case I knew about where an excommunication resulted was due to a member committing murder. That's one of the cases where withdrawal of membership is required, by the way, with no tolerance.

There you go.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Job applications and firearm background checks should not be affected by expungement.

If it’s hidden from the public, why would a potential employer be able to see it (I don’t know the job hiring process)?

Edited March 26, 2025 by Calm

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

I'd guess this is a recent twig in the process. I seem to remember that the policy formerly stated that a membership council trumped a resignation request. This new policy makes better sense.

That's the way I remember it too. This new way, the outcome is still the same by them not being a member anymore and requiring repentance of the individual before they can come back.
 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

That's the way I remember it too. This new way, the outcome is still the same by them not being a member anymore and requiring repentance of the individual before they can come back.
 

Mostly I suspect this is due to the rise of digital records. It is much easier to put a few notes on a file and trust it will be found if someone applies for rebaptism when the record can be pulled up digitally. In the past you had to send for the records of a previous council and hope they were all kept together and sent to the right place. If they requested name withdrawal there generally wasn’t a record beyond a note that the name was removed.

[Calm]

56 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Mostly I suspect this is due to the rise of digital records. It is much easier to put a few notes on a file and trust it will be found if someone applies for rebaptism when the record can be pulled up digitally. In the past you had to send for the records of a previous council and hope they were all kept together and sent to the right place. If they requested name withdrawal there generally wasn’t a record beyond a note that the name was removed.

Being able to email records, not have to worry about it getting mislaid, not wait for overseas post, being able to be confident most records were up to date if someone was active, so much easier to deal with, so why make it hard for the reluctant member.

[Stargazer]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

If it’s hidden from the public, why would a potential employer be able to see it (I don’t know the job hiring process)?

They wouldn't be able to see it. That sentence is a verbatim quote from a law firm's website, by the way. The "should" is probably put there out of an abundance of caution, because there are probably circumstances where a potential employer might be able to see. One circumstance in which I can imagine there might be an exception is a government security clearance. They might need to know that a potential FBI or CIA agent had once done something that could be disqualifying. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

They wouldn't be able to see it. That sentence is a verbatim quote from a law firm's website, by the way. The "should" is probably put there out of an abundance of caution, because there are probably circumstances where a potential employer might be able to see. One circumstance in which I can imagine there might be an exception is a government security clearance. They might need to know that a potential FBI or CIA agent had once done something that could be disqualifying. 

Thank you.  

[JustAnAustralian]

They've now done an interview with the SLTrib as part of the MormonLand thing.

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2025/04/28/latter-day-struggles-podcasters/