BOWbutton

Sunday, July 26, 2015

On Courts of Love



The disciplinary councils that many friends have recently been subjected to are often referred to in the LDS church as "courts of love".  For me, this term brings an image of a group of men who get together to try and help persuade someone who has lost their way to come back.  The Love part would be in kindly helping the person see the error of their ways so they could make a course correction and repent.  An attempt at mutual understanding and reconciliation would be attempted.

Some may say, if it has come to a disciplinary council, then it is already past the point of reconciliation.  It is believed that disciplinary councils are only called after the leaders meet privately with the person to help them understand the error of their ways and offer them a way back but the person simply refuses to comply.

What a positive and wonderful thing it would be if these "courts of love" were something like this.  However, those who have been a part of these courts in the last year have experienced something quite different.

The Kangaroo Court:




kangaroo court is a judicial tribunal or assembly that blatantly disregards recognized standards of law or justice. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_court)

For the LDS church, are there recognized standards for disciplinary councils?  Yes.  The procedures to be followed detailing how the courts should function are laid out in the Doctrine and Covenants Section 102.

Some of the salient points include the following:


  • There should be an accuser.  This person is not part of the council itself.
  • The accused and the accuser shall have the right to speak for themselves.
  • To prevent injury and injustice, the accused should have access to half of the council.  In other words, half of the council should be seeking to defend the accused.  The other half of the council is for the accuser.
  • Two, four, or six of the councilors (depending on the difficulty of the case) shall be appointed to speak - half for the prosecution, half for the defense.
  • After hearing the accuser, the accused, and the councilors, the president shall give a decision and present it to be sustained.
  • If any on the council detect any error in the decision, they can bring it forth and a re-hearing is scheduled.
  • If either party is dissatisfied, an appeal for a re-hearing may be made to the traveling high council.
The official LDS website describes councils here.

The procedures set out in D&C 102 are no longer considered the standard to be followed.  Instead, the instructions in handbook 1 are now considered the standard by which councils should be conducted.

As of the time of writing this blog entry, there are two handbooks.  One which is made generally available to the members (Handbook 2) and one which is not (Handbook 1).  The instructions for church discipline are in handbook 1.  In theory, this means that the accused would not have access to the procedures to be followed so that they would be able to determine if the disciplinary council is being conducted in a just manner.

In reality, however, even though the LDS church seeks to keep handbook 1 hidden, it is available on the internet.  The chapter regarding church discipline can be reviewed here.

Some of the primary changes from D&C 102 include the following:

  • The stake president or councilors appointed by the stake president conduct a background investigation. 
  • The presiding leader decides the procedures and decides what evidence can be presented.
  • The presiding officer (or someone he appoints) presents the evidence against the accused.
  • Witnesses are only allowed one at a time and are told not to discuss the matter with each other while waiting outside.
  • After all the evidence has been presented, the appointed high councilors present their views of the matter. They are not prosecutors or defenders.
  • The decision of the presiding officer is binding, even if any of the counselors disagree. 

Under the procedures of D&C 102, the presiding officer (ie. Stake President) primarily assumes the role of judge.  He was not responsible for gathering evidence, he was not responsible for determining what the procedures would be or what evidence would be presented.  He did not present the evidence.  He would present his decision only after having heard the evidence and after having both sides presented in a fair and equitable manner.

Under the guidelines of the handbook, the presiding office becomes the investigator, the accuser, the judge, and the jury.  There is no longer any real accuser outside the council, the council no longer has a role to defend the accused or to try and determine an error in the proceedings.  The whole thing has been turned into a one man show.  And that is what it appears to have become - simply a show of power, authority, and control.

This type of system lends itself to abuse.  Putting all the power and all the roles in the hands of single individual is reminiscent of what happened during the period of the inquisitions:

"Early Medieval courts generally followed a process called accusatio, largely based on Germanic practices. In this procedure, an individual would make an accusation against someone to the court. However, if the suspect was judged innocent, the accusers faced legal penalties for bringing false charges. This provided a disincentive to make any accusation unless the accusers were sure it would stand. By the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries, there was a shift away from the accusatorial model toward the legal procedure used in the Roman Empire. Instead of an individual making accusations based on first-hand knowledge, judges now took on the prosecutorial role based on information collected. Under inquisitorial procedures, guilt or innocence was proved by the inquiry (inquisitio) of the judge into the details of a case." (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Inquisition)

It is now considered a part of history that the inquisitional system was fraught with abuse.  Much of this can be attributed to the changes in procedure.

Since the LDS church has decided to change its procedures as outlined in D&C 102 to those outlined in Handbook 1 - what has been the result?  What follows is a list of links that detail the recent stories of those who have gone through courts of love during the last year.  I will leave you to decide whether or not the nature of these courts deserves the appellation "Court of Love".

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Denver Snuffer

Brent Larsen

Brian Beckle

Will Carter

Angel Cicero (In English)

Adrian Larsen

Rock Waterman

This is a just a sampling.  These and many more are listed here.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Only One Doctrine Matters


It is important to point out that in all of the cases above, those who were excommunicated all believe and have a testimony of the following:

1.  There is a God
2.  Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world
3.  The Book of Mormon is the word of God
4.  Joseph Smith was a prophet of God

But none of this mattered.  The church is full of hundreds of members who may have doubts about these four items, they may even publicly express their views.  For these things, they are not disciplined.  Not having a strong testimony of any of these four items is not considered an offense worthy of excommunication.

So what is it then?  What is the core doctrine that if you dare express a contrary viewpoint will land you in a disciplinary council?  If you read through these stories, you will see a pattern about what really matters: Fidelity to the current leadership.  Any hint that you don't fully believe that the current leaders are prophets, seers, and revelators will put you in the hot seat.  If you question whether or not the leaders are still in communication with heaven, you have betrayed the church.  If you receive a witness that others speak the word of God that are not these leaders, then again, you have betrayed the church and are worthy of a court of love.  If you believe in following the Savior only and do not subscribe to the mantra "follow the prophet" - well, you are probably not worthy to be a member anymore.

Denver Snuffer pointed out that we should only "follow" Christ while "receiving" the prophets or the message they bring and only then when it is from God.

He also pointed out that in the church, there is only one doctrine left.

A friend of mine summed up his experience acting as witness in multiple courts as follows:

"The only questions I was asked, were asked in this manner: "Do you believe like this accused brother, that...." Each of the questions were about the top 15 PSRs and whether I supported, sustained and recognized their authority. I thought they were just trying to learn who I was and what I believed before the real questions began. Those were the only questions I was asked. I was not allowed to testify on behalf of my brother. The whole thing, as far as witnesses for the accused, was a complete sham. Each of the six witnesses reported this same treatment."

No comments:

Post a Comment