- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
In my new calling I am going to have to sit in on church courts. Not sure how I am going to handle this. Some people deserve to be excommunicated, others less so. Any advice?
(Admin Note): Sheldon is right in his comment below, but it goes beyond me disliking the term. I changed the title of this post, because the term “Court of Love” is used almost exclusively now in a mocking, dismissive, derisive way.
I know Sam didn’t intend that usage, but most people reading it will automatically read it that way. They are disciplinary councils / courts, so I changed the title to reflect that. I hope you understand, Sam.) If you are a counselor, then you’ll get to ask questions, and the Bishop “should” ask you for your opinion. Just be honest, tell it like you see it. Ask good questions. Also, remind the bishop during deliberations that it is better to error on the side of compassion than the other way. It will go much better for him (The Bishop) at the judgment bar! If you are ward clerk, then you just take notes and generally don’t say anything, although I’ve seen Bishops that ask the clerk also his opinion.
(BTW, Ray does not like the name “Court of Love”!)
I don’t know the official name for them. I’ve never been near one. I don’t look forward to being in one. (Terminology has never been my thing in the church!) I spoke to a previous holder of the calling who said he had attended twenty! Wow! Bit shocked it was so high.
If someone’s ex’d for sexual harassment/molestation or stealing money, fair enough… not looking forward to youngsters who’ve slipped up, gays etc.
Does anyone ever get let off or acquitted?
Yes. I think there are options for excommunication, disfellowshiping, probation, and no action. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disciplinary_council#Possible_outcomes ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disciplinary_council#Possible_outcomes It is a shame that members would have to go to wikipedia to get information about their own church.
I think the purpose of the court is to 1. Verify the act on trial
2. Determine “spiritual standing” in conjunction with the sin comitted
3. Interpret the letter of the law.
For example, there are plenty of people who get falsely accused of sexual harassment, assault, etc. There is also a big difference (in the Church) between someone endowed who comitted adultry (having made higher convenants), and someone who was only baptized.
For a third example, I have a friend who’s mother comitted adultry. After being caught, she to the bishop, and with free-flowing tears confessed and “repented” of her sins. My friend’s dad felt he was betrayed, and could no longer trust her. He divorced her, and married another member outside the temple. The Bishop in turn had the father disfellowshipped for “adultry” for divorcing his wife and marrying another, because his ex-wife had fully repented, which invalidated his reason for divorcing her in the first place. As the scriptures state, if you put away your wife for any reason but adultry, you’ve comitted adultry yourself… and his wife’s slate had been wiped clean by the Church.
Sam, you’re going to have a blast. Your stake is lucky to have you on council.
For the record, in case anyone reading this thread doesn’t know, the Bishop in dande48’s comment was not following church policy when he initiated formal disciplinary action against the husband who divorced and remarried. The LDS Church does NOT demand or encourage that action. They are “councils” for a reason. (Not “courts” as I originally corrected it. I was rushing and made an important mistake.) They are supposed to be groups that really do consider both sides and multiple options and influence, collectively, the final decision. There is not supposed to be any pre-determined course of action, but, when the situation is understood clearly and includes a confession, the presiding authorities often go into the councils with a response in mind.
However, I have seen more cases than people might imagine where the presiding authority came into the council with one course of action in mind and changed their mind as a result of the council.
In councils at the Stake level, where negative consequences are being considered, half of the council participates initially by acting kind of as supporters of one side, while the other half participate initially as acting kind of as supporters of the other side (even if the only “sides” are disciplinary action vs. no such action).
I have had callings on four occasions that put me on disciplinary councils – and I have been asked to participate other times when someone who naturally would participate was unable to attend. I have been involved in some painful councils. I have been involved in some wonderful, deeply spiritual councils. I have been involved in some cut-and-dried councils, where the outcome was obvious to everyone. I have been involved in some difficult, complicated councils where people on the councils disagreed, individually, about what should be done. You might or might not experience all of those situations, but they all happen.
Quote:
For the record, in case anyone reading this thread doesn’t know, the Bishop in dande48’s comment was not following church policy when he initiated formal disciplinary action against the husband who divorced and remarried. The LDS Church does NOT demand or encourage that action.
The SP enforced it. According to the SP, he’s still disfellowshipped until he divorces his current wife and remarries his ex. It’s been that way for the past 7 years or so; he wasn’t allowed to baptize or bless his own children, take the sacrament, or serve in the Church. I really think he should just move, but on the local level the SP’s word is law. You can elevate it, but 99% of the time it’ll just get redirected to the local level. Somehow, the man still stays active in Church.
I do think they circumvented the courts in his instance, but it is one of the biggest reasons why we should have and use the council.
What percentage of the accused turn up to their own hearings would you say? I’m glad to hear some people end up getting let off, this at least allays any “kangaroo court” fears I have. We have a former bishop here who was subjected to terrible false accusations by a couple of members who have since left. So unfair! He is a lovely man and largely inactive and practically atheist as a consequence of this. (I got to know him a bit by playing soccer with him.)
Any such case is sad – whether false or true. Some do need to be dealt with.
dande48, that story sounds insane. There must be more to it? Regardless, I’ve got to hope that it would take an AA less than 2 seconds to see how wrong that is.
nibbler wrote:
dande48, that story sounds insane. There must be more to it?Regardless, I’ve got to hope that it would take an AA less than 2 seconds to see how wrong that is.
It’s possible. I got most of the story from the man’s daughter, who really struggled with the SPs decision. On a happier note, all his children banded together to ensure he got full custody of those who were still under-aged. In our misandrist courts, that almost never happens.
My father’s the SP in a different stake, and he once told me how suprised he was at how hands off the AA really are. When a Bishop has questions or trouble, they can go to the SP. When the SP has questions or trouble, the AA generally tells them to go pray about it. He’s also had numerous complaints about him sent to the AA (as most SPs do), and they always get redirected back to him. Have you ever heard of the GAs ever overturning a disfellowship or excommunication against the SP’s judgements? I’m curious.
dande48 wrote:The SP enforced it.
And that’s what makes a lot of people question/leave the Church.
As one put it, “Mormons follow a book of imaginary fairy tales that even the Church itself obviously doesn’t believe in. I don’t know about the Book of Mormon; I’m talking about that work of fiction they call the handbook.”
NightSG wrote:
dande48 wrote:The SP enforced it.
And that’s what makes a lot of people question/leave the Church.
As one put it, “Mormons follow a book of imaginary fairy tales that even the Church itself obviously doesn’t believe in. I don’t know about the Book of Mormon; I’m talking about that work of fiction they call the handbook.”
The handbook is far more dangerous!
SamBee wrote:
NightSG wrote:
dande48 wrote:The SP enforced it.
And that’s what makes a lot of people question/leave the Church.
As one put it, “Mormons follow a book of imaginary fairy tales that even the Church itself obviously doesn’t believe in. I don’t know about the Book of Mormon; I’m talking about that work of fiction they call the handbook.”
The handbook is far more dangerous!
But the handbook is very clear on how disciplinary councils are supposed to work. Unfortunately, most (but not all ) of that is included in Handbook 1 and is unavailable to most.
I have been in callings where I have had to participate in disciplinary councils. They seem to be quite rare in this part of the world. Generally speaking I can say they have been positive experiences for me – I have always felt what I consider to the be “the Spirit” in the meetings. I have never been in one where the outcome is “no action” although that is one of the four listed in the handbook with the others being formal discipline, disfellowshipping, and excommunication. I have seen all three of the others, with disfellowshipping being most common. I have also been involved with the ending of discipline councils, which work pretty much the same way.
That said, I do fear having to be part of one where the accused is a married gay person. I think our SP is content in letting sleeping dogs lie as I am aware that there are such members in our stake but they have not had disciplinary councils (and are also not active). Likewise, I am aware of members living unmarried in heterosexual relationships who have also not had disciplinary councils (some of who are ‘active”). There are some offenses for which the handbook says excommunication is a must (embezzlement from the church and certain sexual sins are examples).
To Dande’s case, I’m not disbelieving you but I agree that there’s likely more to the story than you’re being told. However, if it really were as you stated there is an appeal process all the way up to the FP, which judging by a comment I heard from Elder Oaks apparently includes the Q12. DHO made a fairly recent comment that sometimes the action of a council is overturned at that level. Generally speaking, holders of the MP must have their council at the stake level but I think that’s a more recent change (it used to be only if excommunication were a likely outcome). All others can be done at the ward level.
Thankfully since I started this thread I have not had to attend one of these. I would have no hesistancy in supporting discipline over the following matters:
* Child sex abuse
* Rape
* Embezzlement
* Murder (planned)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.