Balancing Individual Needs with Organizational Needs

I have a problem I’d like to pose for discussion. It gets to the heart of balancing individual needs with the needs of the larger organization. I would like to see what your thoughts are.

Assume you are a Stake President in an area of the world where a totalitarian government has risen to power. Dictatorial, cruel, and intolerant of dissenters, it engages regularly in witch-hunts for citizens who espouse ideals that run counter to the social engineering and general political philosophies of the government. It tolerates religion, but only to the extent that these religions “behave themselves”. If the religion is at odds with the government, then its members are labelled traitors, tried in court, and either killed or imprisoned indefinitely. The organization itself is stripped of its assets and right to assemble and associate.

Precedents have been set. Although an organization may well have kept itself in good standing with the totalitarian government, there have been instances where individual members of the organization have spoken out in a non-religious capacity, against the government. This has led to invasive investigations of the person’s associations, friends, acquaintances, and subsequently, harsh actions against anyone associated with the outspoken person. In fact, their behavior has thrown suspiscion on even benign organizations to which they belong, leading to further witch-hunts within these organizations, suffering for its members, and in some cases, extinguishing these organizations altogether — all due to their remote association with members of their organization who spoke out against the evil, totalitarian government. Organizations who have survived such ordeals have done so by open affirmations of the totalitarian government, public repudiation of the “treasonous” actions of their members, including stripping them of their membership (not mere disfellowshipment), and launching communications to their remaining members about supporting the totalitarian government.

So far, the Church has managed a peaceable but uneasy relationship with the totalitarian government. The Article of Faith indicating “We believe in the obeying the laws of the land” helps, as we are perceived as supportive of the government’s legislation, although the members and leaders unanimously find the government evil.

Now, the problem. A prominent Elder/member of the Church has been engaging in organizing a quiet newspaper campaign against the government on humanitarian grounds, which are perfectly consistent with the gospel. He has sent literature to foreign newspapers and magazines describing atrocities enacted by these governments in hopes of swaying international opinion, and inspiring action. He has enlisted other members of the Ward in his efforts, outside of any Church auxiliary. Never, at any time, did he try to connect the Church to his actions, or implicate the Church in any way. He simply happens to be a member of the Church who is also a political activist, driven privately by his gospel-oriented conscience.

The member has been caught by the totalitarian government, as has his group of member cohorts in the Ward. He has been executed and labelled a traitor. It is a foregone conclusion that investigations of members of the Ward will occur next. Ward membership lists will have to be given up to the totalitarian government, interviews will be conducted, and the Church will face the same demise as other organizations who have members that have defied the government.

If you were the Stake President, how would you proceed with respect to the prominent member’s Church membership? Would you hold a Church disciplinary council? After hearing the evidence that he had in fact defied the government, and is therefore considered a traitor, would you excommunicate? Knowing full well the prominent member was actually acting for the forces of good given the atrocities and evil orientation of the totalitarian government, and was in compliance with all aspects of the temple recoommend questions?

How would you resolve this conflict between the needs of this individual to be treated fairly by the Church, and the widespread harm that will likely come to the Church in that area, and perhaps in the nation, if this brother is NOT excommunicated?