- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Here is a very “pat on the back” article today about church discipline councils. I don’t doubt that most of it is true from the council’s point of view. However, it seemed a little too positive a spin on things. I do not know to profess any experience in discipline councils but some things have bothered me over the years. I don’t even know if it is true but it is my understanding that only priesthood holders actually have a disciplinary council. I have heard of women being called into the bishop and disfellowshipped or excommunicated without a council. If this is the case, how can a woman get a fair hearing? That woman that is in trouble for starting Ordain Women is going into a situation that she is fundamentally fighting against.
Is it true women don’t have a disciplinary council?
My only experience was in a Bishopric. We held disciplinary councils-holding woman. There were four of us there, the BP, his two councilors and the executive secretary. I am not aware of women being disciplined at a Stake Disciplinary Council. If you find a copy of the General Handbook of Instructions, the second part, you can get the current policy. Do a search, I’m sure someone posted it at one time. I read the second one that deals with councils when it was new a few years ago. I do agree the article is a bit too positive. I think there are times when a council can really jolt a person back to reality — such as in the case of sin they have lulled themself into thinking it’s OK, but which is actually extremely damaging to the person and their family. The council becomes a wake up call. I’ve heard of people say that it was good for them.
On the other hand, there is a risk of these councils being used to further church interests and squash dissent or critical thinking. Again, the theme is that the local leaders have a lot of discretion. I believe they have been used that way, such as in the case of the September 6.
here is one interesting story about councile. Helmut Hubener in the Nazi regime spread anti-Nazi propaganda. He was captured, put in prison and executed. His church leaders excommunicated him at the time. Then, after the Hitler fell from power,his excommunication was reversed. I believe the initial excommunication was meant to protect the church from the Nazis at the time by appearing compliant. And the peace of Helmut’s family, and Helmut’s afterlife spirit were the casualties. The fact that Salt Lake reversed the excommunication after Hitler fell from power shows that these councils often put the interests of the church ahead of what is right for individuals in the moment.
It is not true that women don’t have disciplinary councils. I have been on both ward and stake disciplinary councils. Disciplinary councils for women are usually held on the ward level, however they can appeal the decision to the stake presidency in which case a stake council would be convened. DCs for men can also be held at the ward level as long as the man is not an MP holder or if he is an MP holder, the expected outcome is not excommunication. If a possible outcome is an noncommunicable offense it must be at the stake level. Likewise, men can appeal. Appeals of stake DCs are also possible, they are appealed to the FP. Bishops or stake presidents do have the option of instituting informal probation without a disciplinary council. Sometimes this is done while awaiting a council and sometimes it is the discipline. This usually involves things like not taking the sacrament and not speaking in church, but can include other things at the discretion of the leader involved. While I agree that the article is very rosy, my experience has been that DCs are very spiritual experiences for all involved. I have never sat on one with someone openly hostile, though. IMO, only people who are already on the way out would be hurt by a DC, and then one must ask if they are really being hurt. I honestly think it’s sad that Sr. Kelly will not be at her DC – it’s always better when the person is there, in my experience. FWIW, I think she could be if she really wanted to be, and I think her attitude afterward would be much different if she were to be there. Also, the outcome of her council is not likely to be known immediately. The presiding authority actually writes a letter informing the individual of the outcome, even if they were there. I suppose she can call and ask, and I suppose he can email a copy of the letter, but there’s no requirement that he stay and write it immediately.
I’ve heard mixed reviews from participants in councils. Some say they are very spiritual experiences and that those involved feel a lot of love toward the defendant. Others state that they been in councils in which a leader sitting as judge exhibited poor judgment and even a personal vendetta at times (e.g. due to a history / conflict of interest / prior bad blood between them). Most councils are convened in relation to sexual sin, not a charge of apostasy. Unlike a criminal trial in the US which carries a presumption of innocence, these trials carry a presumption of guilt and are more like (if I am not mistaken – please feel free to correct me) a sentencing hearing than a trial. There is an interesting comparison to international judicial fairness on BCC this week:
hawkgrrrl wrote:Unlike a criminal trial in the US which carries a presumption of innocence, these trials carry a presumption of guilt and are more like (if I am not mistaken – please feel free to correct me) a sentencing hearing than a trial.
I would agree with this. Usually guilt has already been established, often by confession. As I think about it, what I have mostly looked for from the other side of the table is remorse, willingness to repent, etc. That’s why I think the ones where the person doesn’t come are more difficult – it’s harder to get that sense when they’re not there bearing whatever testimony they have (and they always do bear testimony to some extent – but again, I haven’t been in an openly hostile situation). Aside from that, I don’t like the word “trial.” It’s really not a trial, or even a hearing. I think the church has worked hard to set guidelines that make these as non-adversarial as possible, and I don’t think they’re meant to be “us against them.” My experiences may be different from others because i served with two very good, loving bishops and a very good, loving stake presidents, each of who really have the nest interests of the individual in mind IMO.
At first I misinterpreted the original question. I translated the question into whether a women could be seated on the council… you know, to make it a trial by peers. Of course the answer to that is no, but I think that should change. During my tenure as a bishop, the only “courts of love” that I ever had was bringing people back into the church (one re-baptism, and a few from disfellowship). I handled everything else with private informal probation. And when I say everything else, I mean everything (I will not go into details as it may betray the trust of those individuals.) I’ve taken part in 6 stake level hearings, and pulled the shortest lot twice and had to defend the accused. In most of the cases the verdict had really been decided before the proceedings, one of which was in absentia. The other outcome was greatly influenced to the side of leniency due to the status of the accused’s family. This is a personal request, not an administrative note: Please, everyone, let’s avoid use of the phrase “court of love”. It isn’t used by the Church at this time, and it carries sarcastic and pejorative connotations in pretty much every instance. This issue is emotionally charged enough without adding to it by using a phrase like that.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.