Disciplinary Councils

Public forum for those seeking support for their experience in the LDS Church.
User avatar
dande48
Posts: 962
Joined: 24 Jan 2016, 16:35
Location: Wherever there is danger

Re: Disciplinary Councils

Post by dande48 » 06 Oct 2017, 07:35

nibbler wrote:
05 Oct 2017, 16:56
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.
"The whole world is a comedy to those that think, a tragedy to those that feel." - Horace Walpole

"Even though there are no ways of knowing for sure, there are ways of knowing for pretty sure."
-Lemony Snicket

NightSG
Posts: 330
Joined: 09 Feb 2015, 09:35

Re: Disciplinary Councils

Post by NightSG » 07 Oct 2017, 00:01

dande48 wrote:
05 Oct 2017, 14:27
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."

User avatar
SamBee
Posts: 4896
Joined: 14 Mar 2010, 04:55

Re: Disciplinary Councils

Post by SamBee » 07 Oct 2017, 02:39

NightSG wrote:
07 Oct 2017, 00:01
dande48 wrote:
05 Oct 2017, 14:27
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!
DASH1730 "An Area Authority...[was] asked...who...would go to the Telestial kingdom. His answer: "murderers, adulterers and a lot of surprised Mormons!"'
1ST PRES 1978 "[LDS] believe...there is truth in many religions and philosophies...good and great religious leaders... have raised the spiritual, moral, and ethical awareness of their people. When we speak of The [LDS] as the only true church...it is...authorized to administer the ordinances...by Jesus Christ... we do not mean... it is the only teacher of truth."

User avatar
DarkJedi
Posts: 5918
Joined: 24 Aug 2013, 20:53

Re: Disciplinary Councils

Post by DarkJedi » 07 Oct 2017, 05:12

SamBee wrote:
07 Oct 2017, 02:39
NightSG wrote:
07 Oct 2017, 00:01
dande48 wrote:
05 Oct 2017, 14:27
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.
In the absence of knowledge or faith there is always hope.

Once there was a gentile...who came before Hillel. He said "Convert me on the condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot." Hillel converted him, saying: That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it."

My Introduction

User avatar
SamBee
Posts: 4896
Joined: 14 Mar 2010, 04:55

Re: Disciplinary Councils

Post by SamBee » 07 Mar 2018, 19:11

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)
DASH1730 "An Area Authority...[was] asked...who...would go to the Telestial kingdom. His answer: "murderers, adulterers and a lot of surprised Mormons!"'
1ST PRES 1978 "[LDS] believe...there is truth in many religions and philosophies...good and great religious leaders... have raised the spiritual, moral, and ethical awareness of their people. When we speak of The [LDS] as the only true church...it is...authorized to administer the ordinances...by Jesus Christ... we do not mean... it is the only teacher of truth."

NightSG
Posts: 330
Joined: 09 Feb 2015, 09:35

Re: Disciplinary Councils

Post by NightSG » 08 Mar 2018, 17:36

DarkJedi wrote:
07 Oct 2017, 05:12
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.
Not unavailable, but somewhat inconvenient for some; my former bishop was quite open about handing over CHI1 and letting you read for yourself what the exact text was. In visiting other wards, I've occasionally pulled bishops aside for a question and gotten the same about 30-50% of the time when there was something in 1 that was relevant to my question, so as long as you have other wards in visiting range it's highly likely that asking around will get you a look at the text reasonably easily.

Cnsl1
Posts: 210
Joined: 05 Jan 2009, 01:33

Re: Disciplinary Councils

Post by Cnsl1 » 16 Mar 2018, 02:09

I've had a little experience in disciplinary councils, and it was probably my least enjoyable part of the calling.

I agree that the example Dandee related seems expressly against what's in the handbook, or what was in three of the handbook 1's that I've had (based on my memory, at least). The bishop and SP requirement for the guy sounds like something from the OT and D&C, but not the handbook. They're basically taking away his agency, and holding his membership hostage until he marries the woman they want him to marry, rather than let him marry who he wants. By their logic (presuming this is all true), they better start making disciplinary appointments for all those who divorced anyone who wasn't disfellowshipped or ex'd, then married someone else, cuz man, once you've made those commitments, you can't change your mind! Something sounds fishy...

I have a somewhat similar story, however. I watched an apparent vengeful ex keep her ex from getting sealed to his new wife, or even getting a temple recommend, because she insisted he wasn't current on alimony even though he insisted he was. She called his Bishop frequently to make sure he knew. So the bishop felt he had no choice but to deny the man a temple recommend, even though he was reportedly worthy in all other areas. The man eventually got tired of trying to prove his financial obligations were met, and tired of fighting it, and eventually went inactive.

User avatar
dande48
Posts: 962
Joined: 24 Jan 2016, 16:35
Location: Wherever there is danger

Re: Disciplinary Councils

Post by dande48 » 16 Mar 2018, 05:56

Cnsl1 wrote:
16 Mar 2018, 02:09
I agree that the example Dandee related seems expressly against what's in the handbook, or what was in three of the handbook 1's that I've had (based on my memory, at least). The bishop and SP requirement for the guy sounds like something from the OT and D&C, but not the handbook. They're basically taking away his agency, and holding his membership hostage until he marries the woman they want him to marry, rather than let him marry who he wants. By their logic (presuming this is all true), they better start making disciplinary appointments for all those who divorced anyone who wasn't disfellowshipped or ex'd, then married someone else, cuz man, once you've made those commitments, you can't change your mind! Something sounds fishy...
Well, I think most Bishops and many of us would agree, it's wrong to turn your back on marriage covenants without a good reason. "There's no such thing as no-fault divorce", I once heard. Not to mention, "whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." In the SP's mind, since the wife "repented", she was free of the sin of adultery, which means her husband was wrong to divorce her. I'm pretty sure that was his line of thinking.

On top of that, from the MOMENT Christianity first begun, there were major disagreements over doctrine, policy, etc. We like to say the Church is exactly the same Church, no matter where you go, but that is absolutely not the case. ESPECIALLY when you have Church leaders governing by the "Spirit", which is apparently telling all sorts of different things to different people.
"The whole world is a comedy to those that think, a tragedy to those that feel." - Horace Walpole

"Even though there are no ways of knowing for sure, there are ways of knowing for pretty sure."
-Lemony Snicket

NightSG
Posts: 330
Joined: 09 Feb 2015, 09:35

Re: Disciplinary Councils

Post by NightSG » 16 Mar 2018, 22:11

dande48 wrote:
16 Mar 2018, 05:56
In the SP's mind, since the wife "repented", she was free of the sin of adultery, which means her husband was wrong to divorce her.
I wonder if said SP would so quickly welcome someone who had violated his most sacred trust back into his own life just because they claimed to repent. (And did so only after being caught.)

Post Reply