Church councils without a confession?

[Torn]

Lets say you cheated on your husband, you confessed, went to the bishop, had your council meeting, all is well. The person you had the affair with, his bishop was notified to speak with him and he called him in and he denied everything, so they slapped him on the wrist and sent him on his merry way.

Okay, so now lets say that his stake president is notified (long story as to how) that he lied about everything. So his bishop now wants you to come in and tell your side of the story and said you may have to be a witness against him in the stake council meeting. Is this standard proceedure? What if the person you had the affair with (who happens to be a temple married priesthood holder) still denies anything happened? Can they really hold a stake council if he still tells his bishop nothing happened, despite what the bishop knows? I have zero idea how this works.

Also... doesn't his wife deserve to know? Will she be told anything? He's done this before - and lied to her and priesthood authority about it (he admitted it to me), and I am positive he'll do it again.

[Wingnut]

Assuming you're speaking about yourself and not a "friend," I'll say this: you've done your part. It is not your responsibility to see that this man is brought to justice. He will receive his recompense.

[pam]

A disciplinary council isn't a court of law and you can't be "subpoened" into having to testify against someone.

If he lies, he lies but as Wingnut said, he'll get his in the end.

[prisonchaplain]

What's amazing and ironic is that insurance companies are now offering churches protection against civil lawsuits by disgruntled former members. The example the companies offer is when someone is put out of a church due to immorality, and s/he sues the church for slander, defamation of character, etc.

So, we're discussing this in my service the other day and a few of the visitors express shock that a church would get involved in personal matters. I point out that this is actually very rare, but when a member joins s/he agrees to live by certain standards. Removal of membership is usually only after open and unrepentent sin. Still they were uncomfortable, until I read the example in 1 Corinthians 5, of the man who was having an immoral relationship with his step mother. Paul says the church erred in not correcting the man, and that now he must be put out--"given over to Satan,"--so that perhaps he may come to his senses and repent.

The modern rejection of absolute moral standards and community accountability still astounds me.

[Wingnut]

Interesting points, PC. I think anyone would have a hard time convicting the LDS Church for slander, etc. for excommunicating someone for immorality. The LDS Church doesn't reveal or broadcast the reasons for excommunicating its members. There's always speculation, and the ousted person's side of the story, but the LDS Church is careful about protecting confidentiality.

I like your thoughts on agreeing to abide by certain standards. It's similar to signing an honor code when you enter a university. You know the "rules" and if you choose to go against them, you understand that there will be consequences. You can't suddenly turn around and blame the university for treating you unfairly.

("You" generally, of course.)

[pam]

One argument that I hear over and over is that the LDS church is run by a bunch of stodgy old men who have no idea what is really going on in the world. That they need to get with the modern times on their thoughts.

The standards have never changed over the years. Adultery and fornication is the same 100 years ago and even 1,000 years ago as it is today.

[Dravin]

So, we're discussing this in my service the other day and a few of the visitors express shock that a church would get involved in personal matters. I point out that this is actually very rare, but when a member joins s/he agrees to live by certain standards. Removal of membership is usually only after open and unrepentent sin. Still they were uncomfortable, until I read the example in 1 Corinthians 5, of the man who was having an immoral relationship with his step mother. Paul says the church erred in not correcting the man, and that now he must be put out--"given over to Satan,"--so that perhaps he may come to his senses and repent.

As LDS we've got a number of Book of Mormon (and D&C) scriptures highlighting that. Mosiah 26 is a great example, Alma wasn't sure what to do with unrepentant sinners and most of the chapter deals with him first trying to pass them off to Civil authority (which hands them back over) and his subsequent turning to the Lord (and receiving) guidance on what to do.

I imagine your average LDS is more inclined to find excommunication less shocking, both because of teachings concerning excommunication itself (The above Book of Mormon scriptures and then Church History involved the excommunication of some fairly prominent members) and because of our teachings on authority. On my mission a common response from non-members about excommunication was, "What gives you the authority to excommunicate people?" and love us or hate us, believe us or not, we've got a solid answer to that question.

[MarginOfError]

As LDS we've got a number of Book of Mormon (and D&C) scriptures highlighting that. Mosiah 26 is a great example, Alma wasn't sure what to do with unrepentant sinners and most of the chapter deals with him first trying to pass them off to Civil authority (which hands them back over) and his subsequent turning to the Lord (and receiving) guidance on what to do.

I imagine your average LDS is more inclined to find excommunication less shocking, both because of teachings concerning excommunication itself (The above Book of Mormon scriptures and then Church History involved the excommunication of some fairly prominent members) and because of our teachings on authority. On my mission a common response from non-members about excommunication was, "What gives you the authority to excommunicate people?" and love us or hate us, believe us or not, we've got a solid answer to that question.

"What gives you the authority to kick someone out of your private club?"

Idiot.

[Dravin]

"What gives you the authority to kick someone out of your private club?"

Idiot.

One of the many sentiments I thought but never gave voice too. I'm sure if I hadn't possessed a brain-mouth filter I would have been sent home for setting back the work. It's amazing a group of twenty somethings don't manage to burn every bridge out there. :)

[Torn]

Okay, let me switch this around. Lets say it was my husband who was involved. He assured me it was nothing, that it was all this other woman who was stalking him, she's making it up, whatever. She supposedly told her husband everything, she went to her bishop, and now she's gone to our bishop (actually, it wasn't her doing at all, it was her husband) and is telling him that she slept with my husband, only my husband flat out denies it, still. Next week, my husband is going to baptize my daughter. Can they tell him he can't do it based on what she has said? Can they take away his recommend or not let him renew it based on what she has said? Can they call him to a church council based on what she has said? Can they disfellowship/excommunicate him based on what she has said?

If it's really true, if this affair did happen (and why would she lie to her husband and her bishop and go through all this herself if it wasn't true?), do I not deserve to know the truth, even though my husband still denies anything ever happened? Have I not lost my eternal marriage? Am I supposed to trust him and then be okay with it on the other side when he then gets his justice? Isn't it too late then?

Four bishops and a stake president all have said that this woman should come forward and witness against him...

[Wingnut]

Have I not lost my eternal marriage?

You only lose the blessings of the sealing ordinance when you break covenants. You are not punished for your husband's choices.

[WmLee]

CtheR ~ what you are seeing is not standard practice but I am proud of you leaders for following through. Too often when is appears something has happened a brother is called in and it is denied. It must have happened as you went in and you wanted things put right. His denial can’t be overlooked and forgotten all because he wants to carry on as if nothing happened.

I believe your priesthood leaders are giving him every opportunity to get his life in order. If you are asked to speak with his Bishop, I think you should. If you are asked to speak to the Stake President, you should.

This isn’t a matter of “snitching” on someone. Someone has broken a very sacred covenant and if he doesn’t think it’s that big of a deal, let him deny it to those who have been instructed to look after the church.

I’ve seen too many testimonies shaken and shattered by those who have been given the responsibility to look after the church, not do just that.

Before I retired I was a police officer. We were expected to live by a higher standard, (I know, many do not). As an LDS police officer I was expected, by other officers, to have an even higher standard.

I don’t believe you’ve been asked to do anything out of the ordinary; or anything that shouldn’t be considered ordinary when someone refuses to help themselves.

[Torn]

"I’ve seen too many testimonies shaken and shattered by those who have been given the responsibility to look after the church, not do just that."

Honestly, this is a huge factor in this... my dh's testimony is being greatly shaken by the fact that this man is still being allowed to carry on with his church duties as if he did nothing wrong. My dh is the one who did this, who went to his SP, and I was not told until later. I have not gone in yet, they want to talk to my bishop before they talk to me. It was my dh who sought the opinion of these four bishops as to what to do. I feel horrible that this man has been given the opportunity to make things right and has chosen not to.

"You only lose the blessings of the sealing ordinance when you break covenants. You are not punished for your husband's choices."

Explain this to me... if it were my husband who did this, I continue on doing everything I know to be right and I get to the celestial kingdom someday, is he going to be there with me even though he did this and chose not to repent for it?

Edited June 22, 2010 by choosingtheright

[MarginOfError]

Bishops are supposed to interview any member accused of a serious transgression. If the member denies the accusation, the bishop may choose to either drop the matter or investigate. Investigation would entail gathering evidence, or putting together witnesses of the transgression to testify against the member.

Written and oral statements are both admissible in a disciplinary council. Interviews of witnesses who attend other wards should be conducted by their own bishop, not the bishop of the member being investigated.

In the disciplinary council, evidence against the member may be presented in the form of witnesses, or written and oral statements. If a witness against a member does not want to be present, he or she may submit a written statement. The member also may produce witnesses and evidence in his defense.

The presiding authority of the council then weighs the evidence and makes their decision. They do not have to have a confession to call a disciplinary council, nor to impose Church discipline, if they feel the evidence of transgression is sufficient.

[MarginOfError]

"I’ve seen too many testimonies shaken and shattered by those who have been given the responsibility to look after the church, not do just that."

Honestly, this is a huge factor in this... my dh's testimony is being greatly shaken by the fact that this man is still being allowed to carry on with his church duties as if he did nothing wrong. My dh is the one who did this, who went to his SP, and I was not told until later. I have not gone in yet, they want to talk to my bishop before they talk to me. It was my dh who sought the opinion of these four bishops as to what to do. I feel horrible that this man has been given the opportunity to make things right and has chosen not to.

Rest assured, if they feel there is enough evidence to warrant disciplinary action, then they may impose that. He does not have to confess in order to be disciplined.

"You only lose the blessings of the sealing ordinance when you break covenants. You are not punished for your husband's choices."

Explain this to me... if it were my husband who did this, I continue on doing everything I know to be right and I get to the celestial kingdom someday, is he going to be there with me even though he did this and chose not to repent for it?

There isn't really a clear-cut response. But, the second Article of Faith states that man will be punished for their own sins. We are each responsible for our own salvation. Just as one person can not be held accountable for another person's sins, one person can not be rewarded for another person's righteousness.

So if the wife is righteous and the husband is not, the wife will have celestial glory and the husband will not. What the implications of that are is speculative. Not a very satisfying answer, but that's the best we've got.

[neudawn]

In this case, the woman should be interviewed by the Bishop or Stake President. After prayerful consideration, he may wish to question your husband on the matter. If the husband denies everything and states that he was stalked etc. and they have prayed and believe him, then that is the end of it.

If they do not believe him, then they may hold a court.

If the affair really did happen, you have not lost your eternal marriage. There is still forgiveness. I know of members who have had similar things happen and have fully repented and now hold callings.

I also know of a women who was "someone" went to the Bishop as accused her of infidelity. The Bishop interviewed her and found it to be groundless. She was innocent.

If perchance the man in question has done this...but gets away with it, well the Lord does know...and like it was written he will "get his on the other side." As far as your sealings go, they are still valid and the wife/you will still be given all blessings due her/you.

From what I have been taught, when one person makes it to the Celestial Kingdom and the other partner does not, the worthy person will be given to another. I have heard some complain about this because they "may not like the person to whom they are given." I would think they would still have a choice to say no, but what better match maker is there than a loving Heavenly Father, who knows us better than anyone?

As far as the marriage goes, there always has to be trust...and of course you deserve to know the truth. But these things are personal between husband and wife. In some case I have known, the husband was guilty, they worked it out and are still together. In other cases, they were not able to resolve the issue and ended the marriage. AGain, it is a personal thing that should involve much prayer and fasting, as well as counseling with the Bishop. If it were me, I would ask for a blessing, because of the stress.

[Torn]

Bishops are supposed to interview any member accused of a serious transgression. If the member denies the accusation, the bishop may choose to either drop the matter or investigate. Investigation would entail gathering evidence, or putting together witnesses of the transgression to testify against the member.

Written and oral statements are both admissible in a disciplinary council. Interviews of witnesses who attend other wards should be conducted by their own bishop, not the bishop of the member being investigated.

In the disciplinary council, evidence against the member may be presented in the form of witnesses, or written and oral statements. If a witness against a member does not want to be present, he or she may submit a written statement. The member also may produce witnesses and evidence in his defense.

The presiding authority of the council then weighs the evidence and makes their decision. They do not have to have a confession to call a disciplinary council, nor to impose Church discipline, if they feel the evidence of transgression is sufficient.

This is exactly what I needed to know.... the other bishop did tell us that he chose to drop the matter and he should have investigated. Also explains why he needs to talk to my bishop first to seek permission to even talk to me. I'm also glad I don't necessarily have to be present if called for the disciplinary council... especially since I have family and close friends who will be on that council ... (and the person I had the affair with knows this) and if they were faced with taking my word over his, would they take mine? Probably.

[Wingnut]

I'm pretty sure that if the disciplinary council is held for you, that you are required to attend. What MOE said was that witnesses are not required to attend, as they may submit written testimony.

[MarginOfError]

I'm pretty sure that if the disciplinary council is held for you, that you are required to attend. What MOE said was that witnesses are not required to attend, as they may submit written testimony.

But if I remember correctly, she already had her disciplinary council. The bishops are considering calling her in as a witness against the other guy.

[Tarnished]

From what I understand the disciplinary counsel is being held for the man who the affair was committed with. Here is what I am gathering from what the OP has posted.

~She had an affair with a man

~She went through her own disciplinary counsel (DC)

~After her DC her bishop contacted the bishop of the man she had the affair with

~His bishop confronted the man about the affair and the man denied it

~The OP's husband contacted the other man's bishop, three other bishops (I am guessing one of them was her bishop) and the stake president over the other man's ward

~Now the Stake President has called a DC for the man and has asked that the OP act as a witness of the affair

The OP seems to be worried about whether she will have to be there physically as a witness, and what effect this will have on the family, particularly the wife of the man she had the affair with. Do I have this correct?

[Just_A_Guy]

... especially since I have family and close friends who will be on that council ... (and the person I had the affair with knows this) and if they were faced with taking my word over his, would they take mine? Probably.

As I recall (MOE can correct me), even though the whole council meets, the decision of whether to impose discipline or not lies solely with the Stake President. The rest of the High Council are there in an advisory capacity only.

[Moksha]

I point out that this is actually very rare, but when a member joins s/he agrees to live by certain standards. Removal of membership is usually only after open and unrepentent sin.

Chaplain, what do you do when the sinful actions stem from an uncontrolled mental illness, such as bi-polar disorder?

[Torn]

From what I understand the disciplinary counsel is being held for the man who the affair was committed with. Here is what I am gathering from what the OP has posted.

~She had an affair with a man

~She went through her own disciplinary counsel (DC)

~After her DC her bishop contacted the bishop of the man she had the affair with

~His bishop confronted the man about the affair and the man denied it

~The OP's husband contacted the other man's bishop, three other bishops (I am guessing one of them was her bishop) and the stake president over the other man's ward

~Now the Stake President has called a DC for the man and has asked that the OP act as a witness of the affair

The OP seems to be worried about whether she will have to be there physically as a witness, and what effect this will have on the family, particularly the wife of the man she had the affair with. Do I have this correct?

Yes, this is completely correct. We have an appt with the other mans bishop for Thursday night and he requested that I come prepared with every detail I can think of regarding the relationship so I am writing it all down and if they want to use it in his disciplinary council, they can, because I do not feel comfortable being there in person. I do also worry (I worry about things way too much) that this man will try to seek revenge upon me... as I am on probation and can still be called to disciplinary council with the stake if he should perhaps give them a reason to do so as we have done with him.

[bl8tant]

This must be very difficult for you, CtR. FWIW I commend you for your integrity in confessing your wrongdoing and trying to make it right, no matter the outcome of the other man's disciplinary proceedings.

[InquisitiveSoul]

Do you have any proof of an affair? Emails? Cell phone call records/texts?

I'm new, but if I was a Bishop or SP and saw this situation unfold, with one member vehemently denying the allegation, I'd have to see evidence. Without any evidence and the other party saying it never happened, it would be difficult to make a fair judgment. By the same measure, if the accusing party did have proof, I would guess the penalty will be far more harsh due to the continued attempts to deceive.

Please note I'm not judging you or your story in anyway, only trying to see it through the eyes of the Judge or Church Leaders.