Excommunication notification

[Try2CTR]

My friend is facing a disciplinary council soon. He is concerned that his exwife will be notified of the results if it is excommunication. Their divorce was less than amicable and is VERY worried she will take this information and spread gossip. She has done so since their divorce and has been very ugly and destructive. She is also LDS and to others maintains he abused her. Is there any request he can make to have this information stay confidential or since they were sealed, will they notify her anyway?

Also, what would be IN the letter if she is notified? Details or just a generic form letter?

Thanks in advance. He is humbly trying to follow the proper channels of authority, but worried for his kids, profession and reputation.

[Martain]

I'm sorry but I do not know the answer to this question. Perhaps another here will and you can relay the answer to your friend.

If not, couldn't this brother speak with his stake president and his counselors regarding such a question? Wouldn't they know and be in the best position to advise him as to what to expect?

[Dark_Jedi]

I don't know the answer, either. I do know that excommunication is usually not publicized, and in the case of a married couple the spouse would be notified in some way (but it's likely the spouse already knows in that case). Notification does depend somewhat on the noteriety of the sin (the person was a serial killer, multiple child molestor, or embezzled millions of dollars) and/or the person's station in the church (he was stake president or bishop, etc.). Not knowing those details (and I don't want to know), it would appear your friend is pretty sure he's going to be excommunicated. If it doesn't fall into the broad actegories above, it's unlikely any notifcation would take place. That said, I agree with Martian. He will meet with the stake president both before and after the disciplinary council, he should bring up his concern there.

[dimbulbz]

If the council has nothing to do with the divorce, there should be no reason for the ex-wife to attend the hearing, or to even have any knowledge of the process. They are handled with sensitivity, and in no way should mocking, or gossip or revenge play a part in any church disciplinary council. This sister needs help if she thinks the priesthood is a tool used to belittle or destroy. Hopefully strong members will be able to guide her away from such destructive behavior. A church council is a very spiritual experience. There is no belittling, or condescension. The only concern is for soul of the participant.

[Guest Doctrine]

Because she is sealed to him, if he is exed then all of his sealings will be gone she will be notified that she is no longer sealed to him. The letter will be generic, and say things like we are sorry to report that your sealing to ------ is nolonger. Reason should not be on the letter.

[dahlia]

Are people excommunicated just because they get a divorce? I'm pretty sure I've heard of divorced Mormons. Am I missing something here as to why a divorcee would lead to excommunication?

[Dravin]

Are people excommunicated just because they get a divorce?

No.

I'm pretty sure I've heard of divorced Mormons. Am I missing something here as to why a divorcee would lead to excommunication?

Since the answer to the first question is "no", then you aren't missing anything. I will point out though that a divorce and an excommunication could share the same cause. For example, if someone was found out to be a child molester they could lose their membership and their marriage, but the divorce wouldn't be why they were excommunicated.

Edited August 19, 2013 by Dravin

[annewandering]

Are we sure the exwife is notified? I have never heard of this being done.

[Dark_Jedi]

Are we sure the exwife is notified? I have never heard of this being done.

I never had, either, but Doctrine makes a good point. They were sealed, so it does seem there would be some notification that the sealing is no longer in effect because of the excommunication - unless, of course, that had already been cancelled.

[Quin]

I would suspect, as this is a domestic violence case, that the notification may be legally required. Depends on the restraining order wording. Not that the courts have any say over the church, but there are often exceptions made or protocols to be followed (when my ex and I were both in the hospital with my son, the 500meter bit has a clause that means he can't be arrested as long as reasonable precautions are made to limit contact. Aka if he's in a different room, and no messages are passed, as I also have a no contact order in place).

I'm lucky, however, in that my ex was never a member of the church... So I don't have personal experience in how the church would deal with members in a domestic violence / restraining order situation.

Doubly lucky, scanning through some responses, if the attitude of domestic violence and personal safety is considered petty / mocking / belittling / destructive behavior that a person should be dissuaded from. Yikes.

Q

[Dark_Jedi]

I would suspect, as this is a domestic violence case, that the notification may be legally required. Depends on the restraining order wording. Not that the courts have any say over the church, but there are often exceptions made or protocols to be followed (when my ex and I were both in the hospital with my son, the 500meter bit has a clause that means he can't be arrested as long as reasonable precautions are made to limit contact. Aka if he's in a different room, and no messages are passed, as I also have a no contact order in place).

I'm lucky, however, in that my ex was never a member of the church... So I don't have personal experience in how the church would deal with members in a domestic violence / restraining order situation.

Doubly lucky, scanning through some responses, if the attitude of domestic violence and personal safety is considered petty / mocking / belittling / destructive behavior that a person should be dissuaded from. Yikes.

Q

Are you seeing some post that I'm not seeing? I don't see where it says anything about domestic violence or any other detail about what led to the divorce or possible excommunication.

[Dravin]

Are you seeing some post that I'm not seeing? I don't see where it says anything about domestic violence or any other detail about what led to the divorce or possible excommunication.

I think Quin is making the assumption that the exwife maintaining she was abused to others means the divorce was over domestic violence.

[Dark_Jedi]

I think Quin is making the assumption that the exwife maintaining she was abused to others means the divorce was over domestic violence.

We could all make assumptions. It could alternatively be assumed that the individual was involved in adultery, which could also lead to divorce and possible excommunication, or that the individual is involved with child pornography, with the same possible outcomes. I do get that he talked about her assertions, but in nasty divorces, as he also says, there are always lots of assertions. With the limited information given, I don't think any of us in in any position to assume or jump to any conclusions. After all, you know what happens one one assumes (oh, it was so tempting to hyphenate that word!).

Edited August 20, 2013 by Dark_Jedi

[Dravin]

We could all make assumptions. It could alternatively be assumed that the individual was involved in adultery, which could also lead to divorce and possible excommunication, or that the individual is involved with child pornography, with the same possible outcomes. I do get that he talked about her assertions, but in nasty divorces, as he also says, there are always lots of assertions. With the limited information given, I don't think any of us in in any position to assume or jump to any conclusions. After all, you know what happens one one assumes (oh, it was so tempting to hyphenate that word!).

You weren't assuming that I agreed with her assumption were you? Sometimes it is hard to tell whether someone is using a quote as a springboard or if they are directly responding to it. I was simply explaining, in my mind, what seems the most likely source of Quin's response.

Edited August 20, 2013 by Dravin

[Backroads]

I think Quin was just tossing out theories and possibilities.

[Dravin]

I think Quin was just tossing out theories and possibilities.

If that is the case I suggest that in the future Quin make more use of conditional statements. For example instead of this:

I would suspect, as this is a domestic violence case, that the notification may be legally required.

I suggest this:

I would suspect, if this is a domestic violence case, that the notification may be legally required.

[Dark_Jedi]

You weren't assuming that I agreed with her assumption were you? Sometimes it is hard to tell whether someone is using a quote as a springboard or if they are directly responding to it. I was simply explaining, in my mind, what seems the most likely source of Quin's response.

Nope, no assumption made on my part, simply a springboard. And, i agree that perhaps Quin's post could have been worded differently if what was meant was different.

[Blackmarch]

My friend is facing a disciplinary council soon. He is concerned that his exwife will be notified of the results if it is excommunication. Their divorce was less than amicable and is VERY worried she will take this information and spread gossip. She has done so since their divorce and has been very ugly and destructive. She is also LDS and to others maintains he abused her. Is there any request he can make to have this information stay confidential or since they were sealed, will they notify her anyway?

Also, what would be IN the letter if she is notified? Details or just a generic form letter?

Thanks in advance. He is humbly trying to follow the proper channels of authority, but worried for his kids, profession and reputation.

Are they keeping their temple sealing? If they are going to remain sealed, then I have no idea...

If she is no longer his wife, and if any temple sealings between the two have been annulled there shouldn't be any passing of that information to her (I can't see any reason why his status of church membership would be). The individual to ask is probably the stake president (possibly the bishop as well), a letter explaining why the privacy would be important wouldn't hurt either. Details should probably be just enough to explain why and should be direct and to the point.

These sort of things are very private, and if everyone is doing their job then that information should not go beyond the leaders in the ward and/or stake he is in (and church HQ as well) that might need to know that information.

[dimbulbz]

The process is pretty straight forward:

Two worthy priesthood brethren are assigned by the Bishop (for sisters and non-endowed brothers) or Stake President (If this is an endowed Priesthood holder) to deliver a sealed message to the person, inviting them to a council. The brethren making the delivery will most likely not know what is in the envelope.

The Bishop or Stake President will determine who can attend the council, and will be invited. If you simply show up, unless there are reasons heretofore unknown, you will most likely be asked to leave.

Bishops courts consist of the Bishop and his councilors, along with the executive secretary. Typically people who are asked to come to these councils are not facing excommunication, but possible disfellowshipment, or some kind of formal or informal probation. Councils are held both when the person is starting and finishing the repentance process. There are sad ones and also joyous ones - but all of them deeply spiritual no mocking or condescension is involved. If the person is repentant, these things tend to be very sweet. If hostility or resentment is displayed, then other more severe outcomes become more likely,

When a Stake Disciplinary council is held, it is usually for more severe crimes and serious sin and almost always it is a melchezedek priesthood holder involved. Yet still the same love and concern are shown for the person. Typically the entire high council is there, along with the Stake Presidency and the persons Bishop is usually there as the brothers advocate. Also, half of the high council are assigned the role of advocate for the person. First an advocate speaks, then a high councilor speaks on behalf of the interest to the aggrieved and for the church. Questions are asked by members of the council, and also by the Stake Presidency. Though votes are taken, ultimately is it the decision of the Stake Presidency, and that decision is sustained by the high council. The purpose of these councils is to save the soul of the sinner, and to protect the good name of the church.

In the resurrection, each of us will find ourselves with a perfect body, a perfect mind - a perfect recollection of everything we have done. For the serious sinner, these councils can greatly increase the sinners trust and faith in the atonement. If they have gone through the full process of repentance, they can be assured that When the Lord Forgives our sins he truly remembers them no more.

I cant imagine any priesthood holder allowing this sacred process to be impacted by bitter people wanting to inflict more harm on an already tragic experience. I have been involved in several of these in a priesthood capacity and they were for the persons involved one of the most spiritual experiences they had felt in years. To my knowledge, no one has ever let slip about any of these things, and I have seen those involved give beautiful testimonies of their love for the Savior - and the process they had been through.

[mnn727]

Bishops courts consist of the Bishop and his councilors, along with the executive secretary.

Actually its the Ward Clerk, not Exec Sec.

[garryw]

almost always it is a melchezedek priesthood holder involved

the follow up question to that statement is "why"? For example, are married women held to the same standard as MP holders? I would hope so.

[Torostoros]

Dimbulbz, I’d like to thank you for candidly pointing out the purpose of Church discipline. These councils are about LOVE – love and concern for the welfare of the soul of the transgressor. It’s horrible to think of a member using knowledge of Church disciplinary action to slander another, regardless of the history between the two. Breaching confidentiality of a disciplinary action decision is grounds for disciplinary action itself, but I think (Handbook-wise) this might apply only to those that were privy to the council. That said, if someone were to be heavily counselled to not disclose such facts by leaders, and then go around disregarding such counsel, they’d surely be getting themselves into quite dangerous territory.

Two worthy priesthood brethren are assigned by the Bishop (for sisters and non-endowed brothers) or Stake President (If this is an endowed Priesthood holder) to deliver a sealed message to the person, inviting them to a council. The brethren making the delivery will most likely not know what is in the envelope.

Unless they know their CHI 1 6.10.2 in which case they can easily put two and two together. If they have previously served on a HC, Bishopric or SP they'd have no real doubts either - then again, maybe Stake Pres would pick people he know haven't had this experience.

When a Stake Disciplinary council is held, it is usually for more severe crimes and serious sin and almost always it is a melchezedek priesthood holder involved. Yet still the same love and concern are shown for the person.

Correct. Can be for non-Priesthood holding males, or for females, though, in some cases - e.g. where hostility and resentment for the Bishop and/or Bishop's Court is high; where counsel given as part of Bishop's court is ignored and the person just continues on in the serious sin; where the accused does not sustain the Bishop/Bishop's Court (in my experience this is usually manifest by complaints to the Stake President/formal appeals against the Bishop's Court's decision).

Typically the entire high council is there, along with the Stake Presidency and the persons Bishop is usually there as the brothers advocate.

As Stake Exec Sec I've organised plenty of Stake DCs and have never heard of a Bishop there as a brother's advocate, or even being invited (and I do the invitations).

15 High Priests, no exceptions, are required before the Council can begin.

SP members that cannot make it are replaced by a High Councilman (Stake President has to be there, cannot be replaced though).

HC members that cannot make it are replaced by a High Priest in good standing (and usually with previous SP or HC experience).

In cases where the accused either denies the sin, or refuses consent for the Presiding Officer to use their communication with them in interviews as evidence in describing the sin, others that can provide evidence may be invited to the Council. They stay in a different room and only enter when invited to come in and give evidence, and leave immediately after.

The purpose of these councils is to save the soul of the sinner, and to protect the good name of the church.

And to protect the innocent; the two reasons you've mentioned are the purposes used to separate six members of the HC from the other six though - as you described.

Exec Secs are not on Disciplinary Councils at either level (at least not in the capacity of an Exec Sec). It's the Ward/Stake Clerk.

Regarding the OP, it sounds like legal divorce but with the temple sealing still in place. In this case, I'd think that she'd absolutely have to be informed that the person to whom she is sealed is now excommunicated. I'd think she'd also be instructed to keep this confidential (especially if the accused has indicated a concern over this).

Regarding the sealing, if she is faithful and in good standing, is she not still entitled to the blessings of the covenant, even though the other party is not? CHI 1 3.6.1 tells us that the excommunicated’s temple blessings are revoked, but that the sealing blessings of the innocent spouse and children born in the covenant are unaffected. This is what we teach - she can't be punished for the sins of another. Following that logic, and under the principle of "you can't have it both ways", I'd imagine that she'd still need to get a cancellation of sealing and a sealing clearance before being sealed to another man, even though the man with whom she entered the covenant before God is no longer a member of the Church. The covenant is cancelled for him, but not for her, the faithful member.

We need to keep in mind that a possibility for the excommunicated is the “Restoration of Blessings” ordinance, by which all their prior Priesthood and Temple blessings are restored (bar being restored to the office of Seventy, Bishop, or Patriarch) by the laying on of hands, so the sealing is not automatically cancelled just because he is excommunicated.