Having been a part of Church disciplinary councils, and given my other experience, here’s my take.

1.  Should the LDS Church retain the power to excommunicate and if so why, and if not why?

Absolutely.  For two reasons:  to disassociate itself from those that are harmful to others or to the Church in general; and to help those that are harming themselves spiritually make things right with God.

2.  Upon what criteria should Disciplinary Councils judge the appropriate response to a particular ‘sin’?

The criteria is very clear, is based upon priesthood keys and authority, and is outlined in the Church Handbook of Instructions given to appropriate Church leadership.  Authority and Keys pertaining to these things are discussed in the Doctrine and Covenants.

Ultimately the goal in any and every disciplinary council is repentance and full fellowship with Christ, regardless of the outcome or decision of the council.

Things that councils are instructed to consider include:  confession, honesty, true repentance, age and accountability of the individual, damage done to oneself and others, covenants made, and the individual’s desire to make things right with God (to name a few).

3.  Is Excommunication necessary for the repentance process?

Some times its required.  Sometimes not.

4.  What could be improved in the process or outcomes of Disciplinary Councils?

The process and it’s outcomes, as I have personally witnessed it, works pretty well.  As you mentioned, a Disciplinary Council can be a very sweet spiritual experience . . . or quite sad.  That depends more on the attitude of the individual being counseled than anything else.  Those present who are part of the council consistently are filled with genuine love and concern for the person called before them.  Every time.What could be “improved”, if you will, is for each of us to gain a stronger testimony of Christ and the Power of the Atonement in each of our lives.  That, and perhaps us being less rebellious against the commandments of God in the first place . . .Of course, if we were great at that as a whole we wouldn’t need Disciplinary Councils . . .My admonishment to anyone who in reading this has been hesitant to meet with their Bishop because they “fear the punishment” is to make the call and set the appointment right away.  Fear is one of Satan’s most powerful tools, and as the Scripture Mastery teaches, the longer we procrastinate the day of our repentance, the harder it will be to repent.Fear not the judgement of man, but the judgement of God.  We must all do all that we can, everyday, to be better than we were the day before.  Repentance is something we all must do, and do regularly.  And there are few feelings as wonderful as that which comes from the Love of Christ and setting things right.

If you’re not sure if you should talk to your Bishop, or Stake President, error on the safe side.  Make the call.  Right away.  You’ll be glad that you did.Repentance may not always be easy, but it’s always worth it.

Even though you may be fearful, or lonely, or frustrated, or bitter, everyone is worthy of and entitled to the Love of God.

Endure ’til the end!
- Bro Jo
“Dear Bro Jo”  http://www/dearbrojo.blogspot.comBro Jo’s books can be found at DeseretBook.com and Amazon.com

2. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam’s transgression.”

Along with supporting scripture:
Rom. 14: 12
12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

John M.’s view of this Article of Faith was in relation to the rights of all “mankind” to be accoutable to God for their own actions and not someone else’s. The context in which it was brought into this discussion was in support of individual rights and accountability. It relates to original sin as it reinforces the idea that men are responsible for and punished for their own sins.
It was meant to support the idea of individual accountability which is based on the idea of individual responsibility and therefore, assumed abilities or rights to make decisions and act on those decisions.

I tried to be careful and thoughtful and honest. You replied with sarcasm and insults. THAT is why I asked to let this drop between us; there is NO constructive discussion possible when you dismiss anything that doesn’t agree with you 100% – and you have done that to me at every turn here, even when I agreed initially with the basic premise of your concerns.

I’m not going to continue to respond, so you got your wish. I sincerely hope you can find a way to recognize your case for what it appears to have been – a combination of strong-willed people who refuesed to listen to each other, church leaders who did NOT dispcipline either you or your husband and your own inability to grant them even that small token of understanding.

It really is instructive when crazywomancreek, GBSmith and Ray agree completely about something. You have performeed a modern miracle, and the irony is that you appear not to realize why.

I am letting it drop. I absolutely will not insist it stop; that is not how we do things here, so I hope somehow there can be constructive discussion of multiple perspectives – not just from those who agree with you.

I just read your summary of what happened. I think the problem is that the GA will always support the lower level. There is no place to go to for help. I believe in time things will have to change. Most leaders are wonderful, yet when there is a bad apple, no one will intervene.

God Bless.

Plus I totally, without reservation, hate all the secrecy that surrounds the handbook. I have future plans, but I don’t want to reveal them now.

“Let’s let this drop” Translation: “Jo, shut up and go away, we’re bored with this topic.” Come over to Mormon Mentality, we let people argue till they die of exhaustion.

The closest thing I could think of a rights statement are the Articles of Faith. Examples:

2. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam’s transgression.

Interesting, to say the least. With all the wild speculation we have done in the past, I don’t see why we couldn’t at least discuss what those rights would be.

The closest thing I could think of a rights statement are the Articles of Faith. Examples:

2. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam’s transgression.

How would basing my temple recommend renewal contingent upon the behavior of my husband, and not on my own behavior, not be a violation of the article of faith “punished for their own sins and not for Adam’s transgression.
Except my DHs name is not Adam.

Let’s let this drop. There is nothing that can be done to change what happened, and this narrative makes it abundantly clear that there was ample “fault” from all parties involved. Honestly, after reading your summary, I can’t see any way it could have turned out differently. I mean that. Everyone involved seems to have had strong feelings about how things should have happened, and most seem not to have been interested in letting it happen any other way.

I am very glad you are able to attend when visiting family, and it is obvious that no formal disciplinary actions have occurred. I am deeply saddened that your situation escalated to where it did, but fortunately there was no official disciplinary action taken.

On a strictly personal level, I hope you can find a way to let go of this. It can’t be changed, and it absolutely is atypical – and, frankly, it happened as much because of your actions as it it did because of the Bishop’s and Stake President’s actions. There doesn’t appear to have been ANY “bad men (or women)” in this situation – just people who couldn’t communicate properly and acted defensively all around. This is exactly what I meant in my earlier comment that sometimes there simply are people who see things very differently and irreconcilably.

I’m not saying one party or the other was right or wrong. Based strictly on what you just shared, I’m saying I think the result was inevitable given the personalities involved – and if you can accept that, you might be able to find a way to let go and re-establish a degree of peace concerning the whole thing.

God bless you as you move forward to be able to stop looking backward.

Husband’s teaching schedule is changed and he is no longer assigned classes to teach in priesthood meetings. Wife continues to fulfil requests by RS, but now has sisters calling her to check to see if she has fulfilled her callings. RS sisters begin to ask questions about “the situation” then advise wife to ‘pretend it never happened.”
Call made to a GA for clarification of temple recommend process and GA refers wife to SP as they do not take calls for clarification from members, only Stake Presidents.
Stake president calls and leaves message requesting wife and husband to schedule a meeting with him. This never occurs as husband requests that wife let them fade out of the local ward/stake rather than deal with the church directly. Paricipation in church and church activities drops and husband and wife stop attending. Tithing settlement is received, showing all contributions in Husband’s name. Wife calls stake clerk and asks that tithing contributions be properly recorded under her name. Tithing settlement is received, showing husbands name crossed out with wife’s name scribbled in the margin. Wife’s accountant is amused by this but states that it will be no problem as the IRS is familiar with LDS practices and will allow the contributions under the wife’s name. Wife receives hilarious sympathy cards from her husbands family as the accountant is a relative of her husband.
Home teachers escalate their visits in frequency and length of visits, to husband and wife. Husband asks home teachers to call before visiting, and wife and husband do not pick up the call so home visitors begin “ambush visits” by stopping by later at night and without warning. Home visitor makes a request to wife that Husband and Wife attend Church. Wife explains that the ward has demonstrated sexist behavior and gives the situation where husband was required to schedule and attend the SP meeting as an example. Home visitor, who had not been involved in any of the meetings, tells wife, “It never happened.”
Wife asks for “a vacation” from home visits.
RS sisters call wife, to arrange assignments and home visits. Wife explains that husband and wife are now inactive due to a situation of unrighteous dominion. More calls from various sisters are made to wife and receive the same request to allow husband and wife to have “a vacation” from home visits.
Sister arrives at wife’s house late at night and in discussion states that husband and wife need to either move records to a new ward or remove their names from the Church. Wife states that they are inactive, as they were required to get permission to move records. Wife states that she wishes to remain on the Ward list as an inactive member, and have a ‘no home visits’ note by their name. RS sister states that that wife cannot do this. Wife assures her that husband and wife will physically move eventually and then resume participation in a new stake and new ward.
After about one year, it was observed that people in the ward, not involved in any of these contacts, were consistently shunning both the husband and the wife. For example, if passing in the local grocery market, they would not respond to a “Hello” and exibited behaviors that appeared either angry or embarrassed, such as strong avoidance behaviors, including moving to another register line that was longer, changing direction and walking away when the Husband or Wife were sighted. Facial expressions included recognition and panic. Odd behavior of people to whom we know only through prior church attendance. I found this amusing and interesting, while my DH was surprised and saddened by the situation as he had helped the guy frequently with moving and with the boy scout activities.
Wife’s brother, who has answered questions for her before as he has served in higher level roles in priesthood, explains to wife that some stakes allow women to attend the temple on their own and some require that women’s husbands be endowed first. He agrees that there is not a consistent policy as stake presidents have broad discretion in operating their stakes.
There has been little discussion regarding this situation as the Husband does not wish to discuss it and religion is generally a subject that is not discussed at work or in social situations. I have been asked by many educators, who heard about the phone call, trying to schedule the SP visit, from the other educator in the room. I have answered their questions in the best way that I can, but am embarrassed and tend to explain that this is not the way that the LDS church operates. I have been teased by some of the female educators, who laught and say, “What did you expect, after all, polygamy should have given you a clue.”
Educators have been very amused by this and I am avoiding discussing it with anyone in my life as it serves no purpose and could make me appear less professional. Luckily, there is not much discussion regarding religion in my social circles. My family has asked a time or two about the resolution of the situation. They are reassured as I attend church when visiting them or on vacation with them and support my daughter and her husband. My Husband and I attended my first grandson’s blessing and my husband was in the circle. We are supportive of their participation in the LDS Church, and they have not experienced unrighteous dominion. These on line forums are the only place that I have found to even discuss this situation, which occurred in 2007 – 2008, as the LDS Church did not offer a satisfactory process of clarification and resolution. I am truly grateful for having a group available to provide advice and clarification. Thank you for all that you do for those of us that have faced difficult situations. I’ll answer clarification questions for you, if you need that for face value.

I think Elder Aston’s talk is meant to be more humors then serious. While there are many who fall out of activity in the church because they want to pursue a different lifestyle and were never actually “converted”. There are a growing number of members who at one point in their lives were about as far “in” as one can be. I’m talking missions, temple marriage, years and years of activity and leadership calling only to discover that they had been deceived. And while I would agree that the church is becoming more open about its history, the fact remains that many of these “disaffected “ sorts didn’t fall out of bed because they weren’t far enough in. Usually, just the opposite-They were the ones most adamantly following the principles and defending the faith. Just saying…

I remember when I first read Jo’s account there it just didn’t make sense. I’ve been involved in councils and a clerk, ward and stake, and a bishop’s counselor and the procedure was black and white in terms of the notification before and after, specifics about what the outcome entails and procedure for appeals. I need a few more facts before accepting this at face value.

If procedures are followed properly, it is impossible to be disfellowshipped or excommunicated without knowing about it unless the person ignores the hearing, changes address and avoids the leadership – or is unable to be located. In the latter case, those steps are taken only in cases of extreme need and seriousness – and overwhelming evidence.

Iow, it is required that a member who is disfellowshipped or excommunicated be notified of the hearing and be told of the outcome at the end of the hearing, whenever possible. It’s not something that is done in steps (the hearing then the decision) and kept secret. If that doesn’t happen, it is a serious breach of protocol.

So, if someone is unsure of whether or not they have been formally disciplined, chances are extremely high that they haven’t been.

Frankly, I hope the Church never publishes a separate, specific list of rights statements – and, no, I’m not going to articulate why I feel that way. I just believe it would be a nightmare.

Fwiw, I have been involved in multiple disciplinary courts – at the ward and stake level. Every one was conducted carefully and prayerfully – one taking multiple hours and ending past midnight because of the complexity of the situation. I know there are too many where the ideal is not followed, but I believe the large majority are as close to ideal as is humanly possible to be. However, even in many of those cases, there are those who aren’t satisfied – no matter what the official decision is. After all, many courts involve members who disagree with each other – and who go into the meetings having already decided what they believe the outcome should be. In many cases, no decision will be seen as correct by everyone involved – and in those cases, those who disagree are going to feel violated in some way. There simply is no way around that, unfortunately, even when the decision is “right” in every important way.

Flaming letters are totally inapporpriate. Calling names are equally inappropriate. That is not part of the process. At some point, though, more important than what others say or do or don’t say or fail to do, most importantly the individual has to humbly seek the Lord for forgiveness and determine if “getting back in” is the right choice for them.

My experience has been leaders want nothing more than that return. Of course, my experience is admittedly small.

Certainly revelation in disciplinary courts is screened through the leaders background, temperament, and spiritual philosophy. Otherwise, those 100 leaders would arrive at the same conclusion every time. A difficult question is – why does God allow men and women in positions of authority do such boneheaded things? Why didn’t he force Brigham Young to see beyond his cultural/historical biases? Why doesn’t he force the Relief Society President to hold her tongue rather than give offense? Why did he allow me to make the mistakes I have made when in leadership positions?