Church Discipline, part 4: Appeals and Return

In comparing scriptural discipline to that found in the Church Handbook of Instructions vol. 1 (CHI-1), I will use the church's current procedure as the baseline, and note the red flags and scriptural conflicts along the way.  I will also note the location within CHI-1 where you may find any specific instructions I am referencing (e.g. 6.10.1).

APPEALS

You have 30 days to appeal (6.10.10).

-  There is no scriptural deadline for appealing a council’s decision.  This is a corporate practice.

Appeals of the actions of a bishop’s council go to the stake.  Appeals of the actions of a stake high council go to the First Presidency (6.10.10).

-  The high council was created as an appeals court (D&C 102:2), but with the dissolution of elders’ councils, it became the first level of discipline for Melchizedek priesthood holders facing potential excommunication.

APPEALS TO THE FIRST PRESIDENCY

“The First Presidency has ultimate authority over all Church discipline.  Decisions of the First Presidency take precedence DESPITE ANY RULES OR PROCEDURES TO THE CONTRARY.”  (6.10.12, emphasis mine).

-  In spite of the First Presidency’s claims to be above the law, D&C 107:82-84 conflicts with this, noting explicitly that “none shall be exempted from the justice and the laws of God,” focusing its remarks specifically on the Presidency of the church.

"And inasmuch as a President of the High Priesthood shall transgress, he shall be had in remembrance before the common council of the church, who shall be assisted by twelve counselors of the High Priesthood; And their decision upon his head shall be an end of controversy concerning him. Thus, none shall be exempted from the justice and the laws of God, that all things may be done in order and in solemnity before him, according to truth and righteousness." -- D&C 107:82-84

A decision may be rendered by the First Presidency on an appeal (without mention of a rehearing) (6.10.10), determining to:

- Let the decisions stand.

- Modify the decision.

- Direct the original disciplinary council to hold a re-hearing.

-  Not only does this lack scriptural support, but it simply doesn’t make sense.  The First Presidency would be trying the case with no new evidence, so the same would go for the original disciplinary council.  With no change to the evidence, how could that same court be expected to be open to any variation from their original stance?  That is not a re-hearing or re-trial, it is nothing more than a replay.

- Redirect appeals to other councils to hear the case and weigh in on it with a recommendation.

-  Both the practice of delegating this responsibility, and the bodies themselves who are given the responsibility, lack any scriptural basis or authority to perform in this manner.

REINSTATING MEMBERSHIP

Scripture only requires repentance (Not as it is defined by the church), and a person may generally be readmitted.  The only scriptural exceptions to readmission are those who kill (D&C 42:18, 79) and those who are repeat offenders of adultery (D&C 42:25-26).  Therefore EVERYTHING else entailed in the following reinstatement process is entirely unscriptural, requiring minimal comment.

THE UNSCRIPTURAL CHI-1 MEMBERSHIP REINSTATEMENT PROCESS

A new disciplinary council will need to be called, with equal or higher authority to the condemning one (6.12.1).

The current presiding officer of the disciplinary council reviews the reports from the condemning one (6.12.2).

The presiding officer interviews the condemned to evaluate “repentance” (6.12.3).

Any sentenced punishment for civil crimes must be complete, unless First Presidency approval grants otherwise (6.12.4).

Current presiding officer must contact the condemning officer for insight (6.12.5).

Contact leadership over any victims, and consider if and how to inform victims of the new disciplinary council (6.12.6).

Notify the condemned about the new disciplinary council to be called (6.12.7).

The new disciplinary council (6.12.8) runs same as the prior, with these changes:

- Question the condemned about their repentance, commitment to “the church,” and strength of testimony.

- No drawing lots and appointing council speakers.

Verdict may continue or lift disciplinary measures.  

Oddly, a single note is made that the disfellowshipped cannot be placed on formal probation (6.10.8).

Complete and send report as before (6.12.9).

First Presidency approval is required to lift disfellowshipment or excommunication for a list of convictions, including “Apostasy”.  The approval can be obtained after the council has already convened. (6.12.10)

Written notice of the decision is given to the person (6.12.11).

Once approved, a person is rebaptized and reconfirmed a member of the church. (6.12.12).

- If unendowed, they go back to membership normalcy.

- If endowed, they have restrictions until they receive the “restoration of blessings” ordinance.  Restrictions include no wearing garments, no activity that requires holding priesthood and no entering the temple, even for proxy baptisms.

- Men who had priesthood but no endowment have priesthood conferred and are ordained to their prior office:  “Immediately after baptism and confirmation, these brethren have the priesthood conferred upon them and are ordained to the priesthood office they held at the time of excommunication.”

RESTORATION OF BLESSINGS ORDINANCE (6.15)

Endowed excommunicants who held priesthood have an ordinance performed called “the restoration of blessings” (which has no scriptural basis), and purports to restore the priesthood and blessings "lost" through the excommunication:  “Such persons are not ordained to priesthood offices or endowed again, since all priesthood and temple blessings held at the time of excommunication are restored through the ordinance [of restoration of blessings].”  This excepts the offices of bishop, seventy and patriarch (6.15).

- Requires First Presidency approval.

- Must wait at least one year after rebaptism.

- A general authority interviews the applicant to determine worthiness.

- The general authority performs the ordinance upon those they deem worthy.

- There is no public script or outline for this ordinance, beyond hands being laid upon the head.

The earliest appearance of the ordinance of the restoration of blessings I can find is from May 13, 1965, when it is only noted that this was performed in behalf of the deceased, excommunicated former apostle John W. Taylor.  I have not yet discovered its inception.

Church Discipline, part 3: The Disciplinary Council

In comparing scriptural discipline to that found in the Church Handbook of Instructions vol. 1 (CHI-1), I will use the church's current procedure as the baseline, and note the red flags and scriptural conflicts along the way.  I will also note the location within CHI-1 where you may find any specific instructions I am referencing (e.g. 6.10.1).

WHO WILL TRY THE CASE?

“Bishops normally administer church discipline unless evidence indicates that a man who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood is likely to be excommunicated.  In that case, the stake president convenes a stake disciplinary council.” (6.2.1)

-  There are NO gender-based scriptural determinations for which court is to be used.  It is ONLY the nature and difficulty of the offense.

-  There is a recognized division between the greater (Melchizedek) and lesser (Aaronic) Priesthoods (D&C 107:6).  The Mechizedek is to administer in greater, spiritual things (D&C 107:8, 12), while the Aaronic, headed by the bishopric, is to administer in the lesser, temporal things and the written law (D&C 107:14, 20, 68).  Therefore, the only determining factor as to which council should initially try a case is whether an Aaronic level written law is clearly broken (stealing, lying, etc.).  If the matter is more difficult or serious, requiring more deliberation, more understanding, more of the Spirit to properly resolve, it is to be handled by the Melchizedek councils (adultery, teaching questionable doctrine, offenses questionably condemned by scripture, etc.)

• Prior to 1835, elders’ councils represented the initial Melchizedek arm of handling church discipline, from which appeals could go to the high council.  Volume 1 Number 9 of The Messenger and Advocate contains an article, attributed secondhand to Joseph Smith (only signed "P"), titled "To the Saints Scattered Abroad." This article put an end to the use of elders’ councils in that place and time, instead directing those disciplinary matters to be handled by the high council.  
• On one hand, this change was never canonized, while the canonized instruction to utilize elders in discipline remains in our scriptures (D&C 42:80-81, 89).
• On the other hand, the church under Joseph’s Presidency treated the change as legitimate. 
• The article also contains the qualifier "in her unorganized condition," concerning the elders' councils no longer being allowed to "meddle with [the church's] spiritual affairs, to regulate her concerns, or hold councils for the expulsion of members." This leaves a door open for a shift when the church is in an "organized condition."
• I have not resolved in my mind whether this change should be effective at present or not.

-  Were the Aaronic expansions partially responsible for the shift in what determines who will judge a matter? (see Aaronic Expansions)  They allow for bishops who do not hold the high priesthood, if they are Aaron’s descendants (D&C 107:69), which was not allowed prior to the expansions.  This risked a holder of the higher priesthood being judged of someone with only the lower priesthood, if the offense was within the scope of the bishop’s office.  With our fidelity to rank and authority over principle, such a thing certainly could not stand.  This would provide seeming justification for switching the determining factor from being the type of transgression to the status of the transgressor.  I don’t know whether this was the case.

-  If the current LDS understanding of excommunication is correct (see The Evolving Office of Bishop), then bishops lack entirely the scriptural authority to hold any disciplinary council in the church, as excommunication would be a "spiritual matter" and is the only church punishment prescribed in scripture.  (Mosiah 26:36; D&C 42:20-28).

THE DISCIPLINARY COUNCILS (6.10.4)

NOTE:  Both bishops’ councils and stake disciplinary councils are to function according to the same procedures, with only a few differences.  When a difference arises, the council it applies to will be noted.

Confidentiality creates an umbrella over everything (6.5), limiting information as much as possible on a "need-to-know" basis.

-  The congregation is meant to be involved in an excommunication by an informed vote of agreement. (D&C 42:81)

-  Public and open rebuke are scripturally required for public and open offense (D&C 42:90-91).

Bishops, stake presidents, mission presidents, district presidents, and branch presidents are all called to be “judges in Israel” (6.2).

-  The provided scriptural source of D&C 107:72-74 only refers to bishops (specifically high priests who are not direct descendants of Aaron) as “judges in Israel.”

-  There are no scriptural provisions for disciplinary authority being in the hands of mission presidents, district presidents, or branch presidents.

-  Stake presidents get their authority in disciplinary matters, as presidents of their local high councils, from D&C 102:1-2.  D&C 107:72-74 simply doesn’t apply.

All written mandates for procedure and evidence can be dismissed on a whim, as the presiding officer “rules on the procedures that are followed and the evidence that is presented.”

-  All disciplinary procedure is supposed to adhere to scripture (D&C 20:80).

A clerk records the proceedings (6.10.4, 6.10.11).

-  In practice, some presiding officials have taken the liberty of telling clerks to withhold certain items from the record, bolstering their unilateral power over the entire process.

COUNCIL PROCEDURE

1.  The presiding officer explains the council’s purpose to the accused, and “asks for consent to use [any] confession as evidence in the council.”  The confession cannot be used without the member’s consent, but the presiding officer “explains that refusal reflects a lack of contrition and repentance.”

-  Requiring member consent to use their confession against them is nullified, as “the presiding officer can still impose informal discipline on the basis of the confession, even if the member does not give consent for the confession to be used in the council.”

2.  Before the accused is allowed into the room, “the presiding officer tells his counselors (and the high council if it is a stake disciplinary council) whom it is for and what the reported misconduct is.” As he “rules on the procedures that are followed and the evidence that is presented,” he also “explains the procedures of the council to these leaders.”

-  The leaders get to know which procedures are going to be used in the process, but the accused is not granted the privilege of knowing how they are to be tried.  Couple this with our lack of rights to know secret interpretations of laws we are expected to obey (e.g. "Apostasy"), and the membership is not allowed to know all the laws they are to keep, nor the procedures by which offenses will be tried.  These are hallmarks of tyranny.

-  The best that can come out of this is that the balance of the council members theoretically don’t know who the accused is, or the charges against them before this time.  This provides hope of greater impartiality from them as they hear the case, though their power to affect the actual council proceedings is now arguably non-existent (examined later).

3.  Then the accused may enter.

4.  Open with a prayer (6.10.4-1).

5.  The charges and plea are stated (6.10.4-2).  In case of guilty plea, examination of evidence is skipped (6.10.4-3).

6.  Examination of evidence, as provided by the presiding officer (6.10.4-3).

-  A disciplinary authority, should they simply wish, can withhold from any victims of the accused the opportunity to make statements or present evidence, as the bishops and stake presidents “determine whether it would be helpful and appropriate for the victim to be given an opportunity to provide a written or oral statement about the known or alleged misconduct.” (6.10.3, emphasis mine).

-  If any council members were involved in the investigation or collection of the evidence, they nullify their scripturally required impartiality (D&C 102:20).  But if they lip-service assurances of impartiality, they allow themselves to continue in their judging capacity.

--CONCERNING WITNESSES--

Witnesses are currently only required for charges of adultery (6.10.12), and therefore there might be no witnesses to testify in any other case.  If they are present it is considered helpful, though it is not required in practice that “witnesses” provide firsthand knowledge.  Rumors and gossip have proven acceptable.

-  Scripturally, it seems there should be at least two witnesses for any accusation (Mosiah 26:5-9; Moroni 6:7; 1 Timothy 5:19).  

-  Witnesses are also intended to be from the local congregation, or “church.”

• If the “church” is expected to lift up their hands against the condemned (D&C 42:81), it is both impractical and unreasonable to understand this as including those from all distant congregations throughout the larger “Church,” who know nothing of the accused or the allegations.
• It is a reasonable check against unbridled authoritarianism, such as is currently practiced through the Strengthening the Members Committee (STMC) and similar programs in which upper leadership seeks to police the general membership from their authoritarian seats.

• The STMC is run from within the Quorum of the Twelve, in defiance of Joseph’s instructions that the Quorum only hold authority where no stake is organized (Kirkland Council Minute Book, May 2, 1835).  These instructions became entirely disregarded via Correlation, though the church claims to still follow them, which is demonstrably false.

-  Scripturally, witnesses and accusers are required to “testify,” and to be “just,” which would not allow for gossip, rumors and hearsay to be treated as evidence, or for witnesses to merely put leadership on the trail of the accused and then extract themselves from the disciplinary process.

"And to judge his people by the testimony of the just, and by the assistance of his counselors, according to the laws of the kingdom which are given by the prophets of God." -- D&C 58:18

"And also to be a judge in Israel, to do the business of the church, to sit in judgment upon transgressors upon testimony as it shall be laid before him according to the laws, by the assistance of his counselors, whom he has chosen or will choose among the elders of the church." -- D&C 107:72

7.  “The member must be given an opportunity to question any witnesses who give evidence against him.”  And then this requirement is immediately discarded (6.10.4-3).

-  When a witness or party cannot (or doesn’t wish to) attend, they may entirely avoid questioning and cross-examination if they submit a written statement, which “may be considered as evidence” (6.10.12), should the President decide to do so.

-  Who knows but the accusation all turns out to be a misunderstanding, which could be cleared up at this moment if the right of the accused to face and question their accusers were respected. Or even more, the entire Disciplinary Council might have been avoided if D&C 42:88 had been respected, and the accused had been afforded the privilege of a scripturally required conversation with those who would accuse them.

8.  The accused can then present their case (6.10.4-4), but only according to whatever evidence and witnesses the presiding official decides to allow them to present, as he “rules on the procedures that are followed and the evidence that is presented.”

-  Witnesses in behalf of the accused are not required to be members, scripturally or in CHI-1, but they are required by CHI-1 to be “approved” by the presiding officer (6.10.4-4).  This is yet another opportunity for a judge's bias to affect the trial.

-  Some who have stood as the accused have been prevented from discussing doctrine when laying out their case, though doctrinal differences were the basis for the Apostasy charges which brought the trial into being in the first place.  Discussing doctrine in this setting has a well established precedent, which has even altered the course of official doctrine in the church.

• Bishop Bunker was tried for heresy for teaching that the Adam-God doctrine was false during Wilford Woodruff’s presidency, and faced excommunication.  But the court couldn't reach a conclusion on what to do because he defended his beliefs so well from the scriptures.  Wilford Woodruff came down and they had another convening of the church court, with President Woodruff presiding.  Once again, they rendered no decision, finding his position unassailable.  Bishop Bunker's doctrinal exposition on the topic has since become the doctrine of the church, although at the time it was dangerous heresy for him to preach it.

9.  The accused and their defensive witnesses (if any were allowed) are questioned by the presidency (6.10.4-5, 6.10.4-6).

10.  HIGH COUNCIL - The high council speaks on the evidence, according to drawn lots.

-  The presiding officer also “may invite any member of the high council” to speak, negating D&C 102:13-14: 

"Whenever this council convenes to act upon any case, the twelve councilors shall consider whether it is a difficult one or not; if it is not, two only of the councilors shall speak upon it, according to the form above written. But if it is thought to be difficult, four shall be appointed; and if more difficult, six; but in no case shall more than six be appointed to speak."

-  The councilors “are not prosecutors or defenders,” yet D&C 102 clearly lays out that there are to be those defending the accused against insult and injustice, even speaking in their behalf (D&C 102:15, 17), but no definitive prosecution.  The defenders are not trying to shield the guilty from justice, but to shield the potentially innocent from the insult and injustice that stems from assumptions of guilt.

-  Rather than one half of the full council as required by D&C 102:15-17, now only “one-half of those appointed to speak are responsible to stand up in behalf of the accused, and prevent insult and injustice.”

• In practice, the councilors given this assignment frequently choose to make no comment at all, failing to uphold their sacred duty.

11.  “The accused member and the accuser (if any) are then given another opportunity to speak.”

-  “...the accuser (if any)…”

• How does a difficult or serious case, such as a Melchizedek Priesthood holder being tried for his membership in the Church (the required basis for calling this council), come before the council without an accuser having brought the offense to their knowledge?  Only if the accusers sit upon the council itself, now judging the accused, in defiance of D&C 102:20.
• It is interesting that when a case was brought before Christ to be judged, but none would stand as accusers, Christ Himself chose not to judge the case (John 8:10-11).

12.  HIGH COUNCIL - All but the council and presidency depart, and “the stake president may ask for any additional comments from the high council,” without the accused present to hear the comments or respond.

-  The President is supposed to render a verdict once the accused has finished laying out their defense (D&C 102:19).  There is no latitude for further, closed discussion to take place afterward.  In scripture, all matters in a church disciplinary council are transparent and open to all involved, with nothing going on secretly behind closed doors.

-  Ultimately, the high council’s input has no more influence than the president determines.  This is a king receiving disposable input from advisors, not a council with a presiding officer.

13.  The Presidency privately confers to deliberate, and “the presiding officer…makes the decision” and “invites his counselors to sustain it” (6.10.4-7).

-  The scriptures make no mention of a presidency conference to take place after the accused finishes their final remarks.  The president is to render his verdict when the accused finishes, in the presence of the council and the accused.  If there is disagreement in the council, it is all on the table and transparent, as the entire process is meant to be.

-  If the counselors disagree, the presiding officer “seeks to resolve the differences,” but ultimately “the presiding officer is the judge” (6.10.4-7).

• All things are to be done by common consent in the church (D&C 26:2; 28:13). Councils and congregations are to decide all matters by this principle, as a check and balance precisely against this sort of unilateral power, which allows a president to function more as a king with advisors than a president of a council.

-  “If there is not enough evidence to justify formal Church discipline but it seems inappropriate to conclude the matter immediately by a decision of no action, the presiding officer adjourns the council temporarily to seek additional evidence.” (6.10.4-7).

• What a scary practice, for if a leader or accuser should decide they want someone punished (which happens), yet they fail to uncover sufficient evidence for conviction, they can return trial after trial to the same case as often as necessary to pursue the desired verdict.

14.  HIGH COUNCIL - “After the stake president reaches a decision and his counselors sustain it, he announces it to the high council and asks them as a group to sustain it.  The high council cannot veto the decision; it is binding even if it is not sustained unanimously.” (6.10.4-7).

-  A majority vote of the council is scripturally required to ratify the decision, or in other words to make it effective (D&C 102:19, 22). This would in fact constitute veto power by majority vote.  Council presidents are not meant to be acting the part of kings.

15.  If any have a concern with the President’s decision, “the stake president makes every effort to resolve the concerns and achieve unanimity.”

-  This is a wasted exercise in appearances.  Only a majority is required by the scriptures (D&C 102:19, 22), and the lack of unanimity has no bearing on the outcome anyway.  It is meaningless ritual to create an empty mirage of unity.

16.  If the president cannot achieve the image of unanimity, he can still pull rank by virtue of his priesthood, as “the presiding officer is the judge,” and “the high council cannot veto the decision.”

-  This is precisely the kind of behavior D&C 121:34-43 was targeting and intended to curtail.

17.  HIGH COUNCIL - The President “may recall witnesses for further questioning” and “again review the evidence,” but “not in the presence of the [accused] member.”  Behind their backs, with no one present to even represent them.

-  The disturbing nature of this procedure should be self-evident.

18.  The accused is brought in and informed of the verdict and pertinent information concerning punishments and appeals (6.10.4-8, 6.10.4-9).

POSSIBLE VERDICTS (6.10.4-8, 6.10.5)

-  No action

-  Unscriptural punishments, all of which come with restrictions, yet do not prevent a person from paying tithing.

• HIGH COUNCIL -  Refer to bishop for potential “informal” punishment
• BISHOP - Informal probation
• Formal probation (while “formal,” it doesn’t go on your record) (6.9.1)
• Disfellowshipping (6.9.2)

-  Excommunication (6.9.3)

--CONCERNING EXCOMMUNICATION--

-  Stake level authority is required to excommunicate Melchizedek priesthood holders, all others can be excommunicated by bishops.

-  If excommunication is only understood as temporal removal from the temporal body of the church for unlawful behavior—with no other strings necessarily attached—then it appears a bishop has authority to excommunicate.  If all the spiritual ramifications we attach to excommunication are true (loss of baptism and temple blessings, etc.), then a bishop cannot have authority to excommunicate anyone, as that would be administering in spiritual things, an infraction against D&C 107.  (see The Evolving Office of Bishop and Excommunication)

-  Excommunication is used for:

• Serious transgressions, especially violations of temple covenants.
• This also includes infractions against the secret interpretations of “Apostasy,” and any number of loosely defined infractions which allow the judge great latitude of interpretation.
• The unrepentant disfellowshipped, for whom this “seems to offer the best hope for reformation.”
• The initial disfellowshipping is unscriptural, and this use of excommunication is only a manipulation tactic.  It doesn’t matter if it is with the member’s “best interests” at heart, manipulation is ungodly.
• Those who are a serious threat to members, whose continued membership would facilitate their access to victims.
• Church leaders or prominent members who have publicly harmed the image of the church.
• Even if the harm to the image is done by simply shining a light on unflattering truth, or expressing an opinion that is claimed to be nothing other than an opinion.
• It is public and open transgression that requires public and open response (D&C 42:90-91).   Fame or prominence do not make a person’s sins worse than if the common member committed them or God would be a respecter of persons, applying different measures for the same crimes.

-  The vote of the congregation is no longer required for an excommunication, being replaced with, at best, announcements (6.10.9), in defiance of D&C 42:81.

• Announcements of church discipline are done on a “need to know” basis, containing it as much as possible, rather than involving the congregation in the decision as scriptures dictate.  (6.10.9)
• Leadership all gets to know in PEC, whether they “need to know” or not. It’s a privilege of higher authority, being involved in pious but exclusive gossip that is intended to be a community concern.

-  Excommunication for the following crimes get a more widespread range of announcement:

• Preaching false doctrine (as church leadership defines it)
• Predators
• “Flagrant” transgressors, those involved in such activities as plural marriage, cult behaviors, and ridicule of leaders (because apparently that is tantamount to cult behavior and polygamy).

-  The disbanding of elders’ councils also impacts the process of excommunication for a member, removing a layer of trial and appeal to streamline the process of kicking someone out.

19.  Closing prayer (6.10.4-10).

20.  Prompt written notice is given of the decision (6.10.7).

21.  Efforts are to be made to keep records tracking the excommunicated if possible (6.10.8).  This doesn't require their permission.

Church Discipline, part 2: Initiation

In comparing scriptural discipline to that found in the Church Handbook of Instructions vol. 1 (CHI-1), I will use the church's current procedure as the baseline, and note the red flags and scriptural conflicts along the way.  I will also note the location within CHI-1 where you may find any specific instructions I am referencing (e.g. 6.10.1).

INITIATING DISCIPLINE

The LDS disciplinary process is initiated when leadership receives information about serious transgression (6.3), by:

-  A sinning member’s confession.

• While the scriptures refer to confession as evidence that repentance has already taken place (D&C 58:43), CHI-1 sees it as only a beginning of the church’s “repentance process.”  This repentance process is an unscriptural checklist and procedural mandate by which the leadership inserts themselves (also unscripturally) into the process of the penitent obtaining God’s forgiveness.

-  Information provided by anybody.

• The scriptures require it come from church members (Moroni 6:7).

-  Promptings from the Holy Ghost.

• This creates difficulty if the leader who receives this is also to act as judge, as they cannot scripturally act as accuser and judge simultaneously.  Therefore this prompting could only lead to counseling and possible confession, or the leader would need to act as accuser while another serves as judge in a formal disciplinary setting.

-  A guilty verdict in judicial courts is grounds for initiating a disciplinary council (6.10.12).

-  Not mentioned, but practiced, is a member of leadership discovering for themselves grounds for possible accusation, and then proceeding to initiate the disciplinary process in the role of judge, rather than accuser or witness.  This conflicts with D&C 102:20’s requirement of impartial examination of the case.  Assurances of impartiality do not qualify as impartiality.

Witnesses and victims can deliver their complaints to directly to church authorities in private confidence, with no requirement to first approach the offender.

-  Offended parties—who in most circumstances would also end up being the aforementioned witnesses—are scripturally mandated to first approach the offender directly and personally, and seek reconciliation.

"And if thy brother or sister offend thee, thou shalt take him or her between him or her and thee alone; and if he or she confess thou shalt be reconciled." -- D&C 42:88

-  If the offense is neither public nor broad, then the offender should be approached privately, not the church authorities.

 "If any shall offend in secret, he or she shall be rebuked in secret, that he or she may have opportunity to confess in secret to him or her whom he or she has offended, and to God, that the church [Brethren] may not speak reproachfully of him or her." -- D&C 42:92

-  If the offense is broad or open, it should be handled accordingly.

"And if thy brother or sister offend many, he or she shall be chastened before many.  And if any one offend openly, he or she shall be rebuked openly, that he or she may be ashamed…" -- D&C 42:90-91

• For a detailed look at the importance of this instruction, look at the Canonizing 14 Fundamentals post.

-  If the offender is unrepentant after attempted reconciliation, then they shall be delivered to the church elders for discipline.

"And it shall be done in a meeting, and that not before the world. And if any one offend openly, he or she shall be rebuked openly, that he or she may be ashamed. And if he or she confess not, he or she shall be delivered up unto the law of God." -- D&C 42:91

"And if he or she confess not thou shalt deliver him or her up unto the church, not to the members, but to the elders. " -- D&C 42:89

-  Prior to the 1835 D&C, early transcripts of this revelation held an additional requirement:  If reconciliation wasn’t made with the first approach, get someone else to join you on a second attempt at reconciliation.  Then go to the church if reconciliation is still not made. 

If church membership or standing is in jeopardy, then prior to the actual council taking place, there is to be a lengthy period of discussion and counseling between the accused and the leadership.

“Actions to address a person’s membership and standing in their congregation are convened after lengthy periods of counseling and encouragement to reconsider behavior.”  - Official Church Press Release, June 11, 2014.

• This above quote is not true, or not followed in many cases, for example the fast and loose initiation of “informal probation,” a non-scriptural punitive measure that is generally preceded by no counseling or discussion whatsoever.  There are also actual recent cases where a member went from being initially confronted with an accusation by leadership to discipline—even excommunication—in as little as three days.

The scriptures require an approach of persuasion and long-suffering (D&C 121:41-42), which would indeed warrant a potentially lengthy period.

The need for a disciplinary council is based on the seriousness of the sin, as interpreted by leadership (6.4).  

-  Sincere repentance is not necessarily accounted for, but if one simply lets enough time pass before confession, they can avoid discipline (6.7).

• This obviously creates a notion that if you hide your sins for long enough, you can pass a statute of limitations and no longer be accused.  It has nothing to do with the sincerity or actuality of repentance.

-  Some of the listed “transgressions” meriting a disciplinary council—while perhaps unsavory—are debatable as “sins” (e.g. transsexual operation), having no scriptural commandment against them, therefore requiring a chain of additional philosophies of men to connect them to actual scriptural sins.  Others are outright dubious or dangerously vague (For example, the CHI-1 definitions for "Apostasy").

-  Worth noting, tithing is considered a “standard,” (6.7.1) as opposed to its scriptural status as a law or commandment, sidestepping the need for formal discipline when there is non-compliance.

"Verily I say unto you, it shall come to pass that all those who gather unto the land of Zion shall be tithed of their surplus properties, and shall observe this law, or they shall not be found worthy to abide among you." -- D&C 119:5

"It is contrary to the will and commandment of God that those who receive not their inheritance by consecration, agreeable to his law, which he has given, that he may tithe his people, to prepare them against the day of vengeance and burning, should have their names enrolled with the people of God." -- D&C 85:3

• Perhaps holding onto the offenders as members increases the potential for tithing revenues down the line, whereas excommunication risks losing that source of tithing revenue permanently.

Once incriminating evidence or testimony is brought to a church authority, he interviews the accused to grant them an opportunity to confess (6.4).

-  Should they confess, this can provide grounds for convening a disciplinary council, and evidence against the offender within that council (6.3).

If there is no confession, the church authority “gathers further evidence.” He is even allowed to “conduct the investigation himself” (6.4).

-  Leaders aren’t allowed to use spy equipment or stalk the accused (6.4).  

• However, they can evidently data mine, gossip, use false internet personas and engage in entrapment, delegate others to do the same, or rely on those who already are, for example the Strengthening the Church Members Committee and its delegates.

A disciplinary authority gets the privilege of “determin[ing] the relevant facts” of a case before even convening the council where he then hears the case based on the facts he deemed relevant (6.10.2).

Once sufficient grounds are uncovered for convening a disciplinary council, the accused is notified of said impending council (6.10.2).

Church Discipline, part 1

A PEOPLE?  OR A CHURCH?

In the beginning, the Restoration was not an effort to establish another Christian Sunday religion.  It was meant to establish a people, a nation unto itself of sorts.  They were to be self-sufficient—NOT as individuals, but as a community—reliant only on God.  They were intended to be a contained civilization.  They were even to have their own government, evidenced by the original use of terms in revelations such as “government” and “laws” and “courts.”

As a people, they were given laws and an internal judicial system.  It was not only meant for “spiritual” matters, tied to religion and “church” membership; it was to be used for all matters concerning the law which the people lived under.  It handled business and property conflicts, breaking of laws both temporal and spiritual, almost any dispute that could arise between parties.  Bishops were the front line of this system, handling a far larger load of “temporal” responsibilities (the only ones they are authorized to handle) than they do now.

This judicial system was intended as a “Mormon” replacement for the court system of the land; the only offense which could not be handled internally being that of killing (D&C 42:79).  Killers were to be handed over to the state, as only the state had authority to enact justice against one who kills.  All other offenses were intended to be handled internally, as even then the American judicial system was considered laughably corrupt (sarcastically referred to as the “so called” judicial system on p. 30 of Minute Book 1).  Mormons could not hope for actual justice—or mercy—in the courts of the land, so the Lord provided a system for them to use among themselves.  This system promised both justice and mercy in greater measure, if it were followed properly.  What we were first offered was immensely valuable, and comparing what we were initially given with what we now operate under should help bring to light just how much we’ve lost in time.

THE EARLY CHURCH JUDICIAL SYSTEM SUMMARIZED

The purpose of any judicial system is punishment for breaking of laws (Alma 42:15-22).  While the system is intended to help protect the innocent and punish the guilty, it is understood that man is fallible.  We will not get things right every time.  So is it better to wrongly punish the innocent, as a precaution against failing to punish all the wicked?  Or is it better to fail to punish some of the wicked, as a precaution against wrongly punishing the innocent?  

I believe the system of checks and balances that were initially built into the church judicial system overwhelmingly reflect a Divine interest in protecting the wrongly accused innocent over punishing every last offender.  For no man can ultimately escape just punishment, else God would not be a “just” God (Psalms 89:14; Isaiah 45:21; Mosiah 16:1).  Any punishment we fail to render can be entrusted to God to handle.  But we cannot expect Him on the same note to grant us any leniency in destroying the innocent. We can only expect to call down the punitive justice of God on our own heads.

First and foremost, God’s judicial system hinges on a requirement set forth in D&C 20:80:  

"Any member of the church of Christ transgressing, or being overtaken in a fault, shall be dealt with as the scriptures direct."

There is no latitude for interpretation as to the primary source of direction we are to follow.  It is not the hidden Church Handbook of Instructions vol. 1 (CHI-1), it is the scriptures.  Furthermore, D&C 42 is a section comprised of instruction concerning laws we have been given and how we are to handle their infringement.  We are twice given the instruction that ALL disciplinary matters are to be handled the same way, as laid out for us in that section (D&C 42:83 & 93). Joseph Smith stated unequivocally that new revelation cannot trump scripture, as contradicting a former revelation is a sign of a false messenger (TPJS, p. 214).  The Lord expects us to be guided by the scriptures, and any effort to defy them or set them at naught is anti-Christ.

Within the scriptures, as will be shown later in comparison to current practice, we were given a series of checks and balances on judicial power, limiting unilateral action and creating protections for the innocent against false or wrongful punishment.  Such protections included:

• Requirements restricting the sources of information presenting evidence against the accused.
• Multiple levels of appeals, with more guaranteed re-hearings in case of biased or erroneous judgment on the part of some councils.
• Respect for the proper understanding and application of both punishments and repentance.
• Measures preventing an accuser from sitting in judgment against the accused.
• Measures preventing judges from rendering verdicts without majority agreement to its correctness.
• Built-in defenders of any and all innocence on the part of the accused, with no actual built-in prosecution.
• The accused and their defenders always being granted the last word, so that any true words of innocent defense will ring out over the words of accusation.
• Measures requiring multiple witnesses with integrity and sound evidence to convict.
• Required opportunities for forgiveness to swallow up the just punishment of the accused, as the offended are required to attempt to resolve issues personally before bringing in church involvement.

MORMON EVOLUTION AFFECTED THE LDS COURTS

The early Mormons were evidently more interested in garnering from the Lord what they desired of Him, rather than what He wanted for them.  They wanted a Sunday religion, as such religions were understood at the time.  They wanted a New Testament model Christian church, comparable to all the others, only hoping that theirs would be the most right before God.  Our refusal to accept what the Lord offered us resulted in the church being placed under a collective condemnation in 1832, only two years after our initial inception as a church (D&C 84:56-57).

In the time since 1832, we even began altering the revelations themselves.  Words like “government,” “laws” and “courts” have been changed to “presidencies,” “covenants and commandments” and “councils.”  This is the jargon of a Sunday religion, not a nation or people.  As time progressed, we began to primarily use the secular judicial system and abandon the use of the church judicial system in temporal matters.  (We’ve similarly done the same thing with the church welfare system, encouraging members to approach the state first and the church second, in diametric opposition to previous counsel and practice.) 

As part of the evolution, we altered the actual functioning of our judicial system, both in what cases it will try and the procedure for trying them.  Fear of the state has led the church to wash its hands of all cases determining things like property ownership or other civil disputes.  This stripped the bishops of much of their temporal responsibility.  

But in those religious cases the church would still hear, procedure evolved in the direction of making it increasingly easy for leadership to do as they please, checks and balances against their power being systematically removed.  In the church today, adhering fully to CHI-1, an authority (we'll use the stake president) can unilaterally walk a person from accusation to excommunication unchecked, as follows:

• First, they can discover for themselves that a member may be involved in some sort of sin or transgression, making them accuser and/or witness (which in and of itself is fine). 
• Then, rather than hand off the case to another authority to judge so they can properly act as accuser/witness, the stake president can instead personally open an investigation of the accused. 
• While certain tactics are forbidden (such as stalking and wire-tapping), other techniques such as data mining, false internet personas, and delegated spying have been used and considered appropriate in practice. 
• Then, having gathered information on the accused, that stake president can sort through the information and determine what is and is not “relevant” as evidence for a disciplinary council, before it is called.  
• Then they can call the accused before a disciplinary council, with themselves heading the council as judge.  
• The council will follow or disregard procedures as the stake president determines, regardless of even CHI-1 procedural instructions (which power CHI-1 actually grants them), and the accused need not be informed of what procedures will and will not be followed in their own trial.  
• The stake president chooses who will and will not speak (with the sole exception of the accused themselves, still being granted that token right).  
• The stake president determines what evidence will and will not be examined, what witnesses and testimonies will and will not be examined in the council. 
• This includes those evidences, witnesses and testimonies which the accused provides during the council.  
• When all allowed testimony, evidence and remarks have been submitted and examined, the stake president makes a unilateral decision concerning punishment, with a ceremonial but actually powerless “sustaining” vote on the part of the council.

In other words, a stake president may currently act as plaintiff, detective, prosecution, defense, witness, legislation, jury and judge, unilaterally and unchecked. CHI-1 grants them this, as will be shown.  Besides "the honor system," there is literally nothing preventing a biased church authority from unjustly and single-handedly walking someone to their guaranteed excommunication if they so wish. This is only the case because every check and balance on authoritarian power has been systematically removed over the last 150+ years, most especially via the Correlation program.  It is no wonder David O. McKay lamented in his journal that he feared Correlation would bring about apostasy in the church. (Prince, Gregory and Wright, Robert. David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, p. 150-152)

Superseding Scripture

“What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.” — D&C 1:38

The above verse is generally pulled out as supporting evidence of the idea that we need to follow everything leadership says, because whether by the Lord’s voice or theirs, God views it as equal.  That is not the part I want to address.  Rock Waterman does a great job of addressing that portion of this verse HERE.

What I want to focus on is the first part, in that the Lord declares that He does not excuse Himself in anything He says.  What does that mean?

When a person excuses themselves for something they have spoken, they are acknowledging that what they spoke is not now correct—if it ever was—and should be disregarded.  The excused statement should be considered null and void as of the time that the speaker excuses themselves.  

But apparently the Lord says He doesn’t do this with His words.  The heavens and earth will pass away, but not His words.  They remain in full effect, unexcused.

So what words of His do we have, which we are to recognize have not been nullified?  Which words of His do we have which are not to be disregarded, set at naught, or considered no longer relevant?  The answer of course, is scripture.

“And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation. Behold, this is the promise of the Lord unto you, O ye my servants.” — D&C 68:4-5

The Lord has His words to us recorded as scripture, and those words are not going to be excused by Him.  He’s not going to say “you know, I actually think I want to recant Alma chapter 32, so if you guys can just get rid of that and write something else, that would be great.”  This is why we are able to use the scriptures as a standard by which to measure all purported, subsequent revelations, and to always inform our understanding and conduct.  Those words are eternal, to be respected at al times.  Joseph Smith made many remarks to this effect.

“How, it may be asked, was this known to be a bad angel? …by his contradicting a former revelation.” — TPJS, pp. 214-215.

“I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” — DHC 4:461

“And again, the process of laboring with members: We are to deal with them precisely as the Scriptures direct.”  — Order for Instruction in the Church (Kirtland, April 13, 1833)

The scriptures themselves also tell us how important they are, to be honored and upheld, with no word of their being superseded by anyone.

“Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.” — Matthew 22:29

“Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?  If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;  Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?” — John 10:35

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” — 2 Timothy 3:16

“Now I need not rehearse the matter; what I have said may suffice. Behold, the scriptures are before you; if ye will wrest them it shall be to your own destruction.” — Alma 13:20

“Any member of the church of Christ transgressing, or being overtaken in a fault, shall be dealt with as the scriptures direct.” — D&C 20:80

We think we’re totally okay with accepting this idea, but things get uncomfortable the moment a person starts noting precise instances wherein Joseph’s successors have altered teachings, procedures and ordinances from what is laid out in scripture.  Are you aware of these things in the scriptures?:

- Priests are to only administer sacrament in the absence of elders (D&C 20:46-51).

- The LDS Church is numbered with the Gentiles, not the house of Israel (BoM title page; D&C 109:60).

- This body of Gentiles will actually reject the fullness of the gospel and lose it (3 Nephi 16:10)

- A prophet can definitely lead you astray (1 Kings 13:11-26, including JST footnotes)

There are dozens more examples, if not hundreds.  Yet so few can bear the idea that if a new revelation contradicts an established former one, the source of the new revelation ain’t exactly trustworthy.  Mentioning these contradictions is the best trigger for getting someone to whip out and abuse D&C 1:38, and rail on about the changes being evidence of "continuing revelation."  

The problem is that this necessarily assumes that the living leaders qualify as “His servants,” and that those who wrote the scriptures do not.  For if they were both truly considered legitimate servants, we would actually have to battle with the paradox of a God who does not excuse Himself doing precisely that, making the God of Truth a liar.  

TEACHINGS WITH EXPIRATION DATES

Now, there have been times when the Lord has given a commandment that was intended only to be temporary.  It was not to be understood as an eternal principle.  The Law of Moses, for example.   The Law of Moses was always understood to have an expiration date (2 Nephi 25:30; Matthew 5:17-18).  When it finally ended, that was also declared (3 Nephi 9:17; Galatians 3:23-25).  Never at any time has it been understood to be an eternal principle.  This meant that when differing requirements and permissions came into play with its end, there was no need for concern about conflict between the two (which isn't to say that people weren't troubled, just that it was unnecessary).

However, if God doesn’t declare the temporary nature of a thing He gives us, do we really have the right to assume that it is properly discarded simply because some head honcho says so?  Especially with no explanation of how the abandoned teaching or commandment was a law that was fulfilled and thereby done away with? Or without a declared revelation from God explaining the ending or alteration of the teaching?  We should be careful about discarding truths or commandments that the Lord still considers valid and binding, regardless of what men might tell us.

PRIMACY OF JOSEPH SMITH IN OUR DISPENSATION

When looking at scripture and what gets abused or neglected, we must look at what has happened with Joseph Smith.  Not only was Joseph a prophet, he was the head of a dispensation, and personally responsible for a large helping of our scripture, through translation and revelation.  Yet we have adopted a rather cavalier attitude about setting aside what he gave us anytime some successor teaches or requires something which contradicts what we have through Joseph.

Think about that.  What dispensation in history has seen its subsequent prophets and leaders supersede their dispensation head?  Was Moses’ Law overthrown by any of the prophets within his dispensation?  Were Christ’s words overthrown by His apostles once He left?  Adam?  Enoch?  Any of them?  Did any dispensation heads have “living prophets” come afterward and oust them and their communications from God by virtue of mere breath?  This affliction appears to be unique to Joseph Smith.

But Joseph specifically warned against people taking the gospel teachings in any direction other than what he laid out for their understanding.

”…if any man preach any other gospel than that which I have preached, he shall be cursed…" (Historical Record 7:548)

So according to Joseph, if an individual contradicts what he taught and gave us in scripture, regardless of their status in an organization, that person will be cursed. We can therefore disregard their contradictory comments, lest we also become cursed.  We even have quotes from subsequent leadership to that effect.

“And if [a leader] says something that contradicts what is found in the standard church works (I think that is why we call them ‘standard’—it is the standard measure of all that men teach), you may know by that same token that it is false, regardless of the position of the man who says it.” — Harold B. Lee

On the other hand, we have our current teachings which are easily summarized within The 14 Fundamentals in Following the Prophet address, delivered by Ezra Benson, who would later become President of the Church.  That talk contains this gem:

“Beware of those who would set up the dead prophets against the living prophets, for the living prophets always take precedence.”

That, my friends, is bullshit.  Utter, damnable, devilish bullshit.  “Precedence” assumes outright that there will be conflicts, and grants whichever guy happens to be alive de facto correctness over those who are dead.  This allows church leaders to claim carte blanche Divine approval because they are the “living” prophets, and this talk has been enshrined as justification on LDS.org and in general conference addresses.  But here’s the biggest flaw in that logic:

If the prophets’ words are all supposed to be coming from God, He’s been alive the whole damn time.  Whoopsies.

His life spans from before the prophets graced the earth, and continues after their bodies return to the dust.  His words are not invalidated by death, because He lives.  And He claims the words of scripture as His own.  At best, this means the “living prophets” can deliver words equal to those found in scripture, but they simply cannot supersede them; for their author is still alive, and the living God supersedes the living prophets.

I have a hard time understanding why these matters are so offensive to so much of the leadership and membership of the church.  Why is so scary and difficult to hold up a teaching in the scriptures on one hand, and a conflicting teaching of a leader on the other, looking squarely at both of them, and make an informed decision as to which should be discarded?  Why is the very act of holding both of them up for examination now being considered “apostasy” and grounds for excommunication?  Aren’t we all supposed to be trying to humble ourselves and help teach one another and follow God above all else?  Or are we supposed to be shutting up, getting in line and obeying whatever the highest ranked arm of the flesh has to say?

We can accept the scriptures and use them as a standard against which to measure the new words we hear from men, as Joseph Smith recommends.  Or we can measure the scriptures against the words of the “living prophets” and discard the scriptures when there is conflict, as Ezra Benson recommended.  We cannot practice both, they are mutually exclusive.  Which will you choose?

The Evolving Office of Bishop

As with any office, even in the secular world, the office of bishop comes with a bunch of attachments.  It has qualifications that must be met, it has boundaries placed on the authority they may rightly exercise, it has responsibilities to execute.  Since the restoration of the office by Joseph Smith, it has evolved in each of these aspects, and the evolution deserves examining.

QUALIFICATIONS

The scriptures list a number of qualifications one is expected to meet if they are to be called as a bishop:

- Blameless, husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach (1 Timothy 3:1-2).

- Blameless, not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre (Titus 1:7).

- High priests who are worthy, appointed by First Presidency (D&C 68:15, 19).

- From the Aaronic Expansions (see “Aaronic Expansions”)

• High priests who are worthy, appointed by First Presidency, except they are literal descendants of Aaron (meaning literal descendants don’t have to be high priests). (D&C 68:15, 19).
• The legal right to this office belongs to firstborn descendants of Aaron (D&C 68:16, 18, 21).
• Even firstborn sons of Aaron must be approved by First Presidency (D&C 68:20).

In today’s world we have become so afraid of certain types of “judging,” you would be hard-pressed to find stake presidents comfortable with eliminating candidates for a bishopric on notes such as “he’s not very hospitable,” or “sorry, but he’s just too given to his interest in money.”  

Feeling unworthy to judge our brethren in this manner, it seems that perhaps we simply choose not to do it.  We don’t require ourselves to measure the candidates against the scriptural qualifications. Instead, it seems we take the easier path of assuming all men have all of these qualities (so long as they are “active” members), and then we can instead focus on whether they have a background that really interests us, such as an ability to drive up numbers, or to “motivate” people into doing what we want done, or to be “smart” with the money they would be managing.  These are qualities we have no problem evaluating in our brethren, and may frequently be the basis for the selections made.

SCRIPTURAL BOUNDARIES OF THE OFFICE

The scriptural boundaries of the office of bishop have remained the same for 180+ years.  At the widest view, the office of bishop is in administering all temporal things (D&C 107:68).  Temporal means it pertains to this world.  They are not to attempt to administer in spiritual things, things pertaining to the eternal world, as that responsibility belongs to the high priesthood (D&C 107:8, 10, 12).  Joseph Smith appears to have further reaffirmed this in simplicity, in a letter attributed to him, that was published in the June 1835 Messenger and Advocate:  “The high council has been expressly organized to administer in all her [Zion’s] spiritual affairs; and the bishop and his council, are set over her temporal matters” (The Messenger and Advocate, vol. 1 Num. 9, “To the Saints Scattered Abroad”).

In examining the responsibilities and privileges of the office of bishop, a more detailed and clear picture is painted of the boundaries established here.

SCRIPTURAL RESPONSIBILITIES

As Mormons were once intended to be a self-contained civilization within the world, it was necessary that they should have their own government.  The office of bishop fit within that government, the office being that of a paid employee (D&C 42:71-73; 51:14).  “Bishop” was essentially a government job.  Within that office, the bishop was to handle a wealth of responsibilities pertaining to the temporal well-being and efforts of this Mormon people.  

Here are their non-disciplinary responsibilities, according to the D&C:

- The bishop handled all receiving, storing, and distributing of goods through the storehouse, in accordance with the internal laws of the church at that time, which we refer to as the law of consecration.  (D&C 42:31-34; 48:6; 51:3-5, 11-13; 57:15; 58:17, 51-55; 72:10-14, 17-19; 84:104; 85:1; 90:30; 119:1; 124:21)

- The bishop is not exempt from also living according to these laws which he regulates (D&C 70:10-11).

- Directing certain conferences (D&C 58:62).

- Overseeing outward (temporal) performance of ordinances (D&C 107:20).

- Receiving accounts of stewardships, certifying the faithful stewards for their interactions with other bodies (D&C 72:5-6, 11, 16-19, 25)

- Aiding the poor, specifically at the expense of the rich and proud (D&C 82:12; 84:112; 124:21).

- Presiding over a body of 48 priests, sitting in council with them and teaching them the duties of their office (D&C 107:87-88)

• NOTE:  The original transcripts did not give this responsibility to the bishop, but only to a president of the priests.  Giving this responsibility to the bishop was one of the many alterations instituted in the 1835 D&C.  D&C 107:61 still notes a priest (as opposed to a bishop) is to preside over a body of priests.

As far as disciplinary responsibilities go, bishops have bishops’ councils wherein they are to judge the people.  But there are limitations placed on what and how they are authorized to judge.  

- All judgment is to be maintained within the scope and boundaries of pertaining only to the “temporal” things (D&C 107:68).

- They are to judge according to the testimony of the just (D&C 58:18; 107:72)

- They are to judge with the assistance of their counselors (D&C 58:18; 107:72)

- They are to judge according to the laws of the kingdom which are given by the prophets of God (D&C 58:18; 107:72).

• NOTE: the altered text of the Aaronic expansions in D&C 107:71-76 includes variations and exceptions from the listed items, whereas the original transcripts do not (see “Aaronic Expansions”).

Lastly, it’s worth noting that a bishop will ultimately be answerable to the people in his execution of his duties (D&C 64:38-40).  Having judged the people, he will then be judged of the people, creating a balance.

BOUNDARIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES EVOLVING

As Mormonism progressed, rapidly moving away from a “people” model into a “church” model, the church surrendered rights and responsibilities pertaining to the well-being of the people.  The law of consecration was done away with (in practice but not in oath, a dangerous thing), and the bishops stopped judging matters in the people’s “civil” disputes.  In other words, they greatly surrendered sitting as judges in the people’s temporal matters.

With the loss of these temporal responsibilities, which once constituted the bulk of their office, bishops found their plates rather empty.  Eventually it would be filled again with countless meetings and auxiliary programs and so forth, but none of these responsibilities involved working as a “judge,” a title granted in scripture that certainly no man would want to lose.  So a solution was instituted, involving the high priesthood delegating a portion of their judging matters into the hands of the bishops.  This would lighten the load on the high priesthood, give the bishops responsibility to replace that which they lost, and seem to fulfill their scriptural title of “judge” once again.

To justify this, the determining line for which court was to judge someone needed to be shifted.  Instead of the nature of the crime determining which court would try a matter, which kept God from appearing to be a respecter of persons, the distinguishing line became how much “priesthood” authority the person had accumulated for themselves, how well-ranked they were on the God ladder, making the Lord out to be precisely a respecter of persons.  

If you have the high priesthood, you’re apparently more important than those who don’t, and therefore you require higher authority to judge you.  But all the rest who lack this higher ranking power, they are inferior and can therefore be judged of an inferior court.  Women, they can all be judged by bishops.  They’re just women, they can’t hold the priesthood even in its lowest form, so they can be handled by the lowest of judges, even if their crimes are spiritual in nature.  And men, well if they don’t hold priesthood higher than Aaronic, then there’s no need to bother with having a high priesthood holder spend their time judging them, even if their crimes are spiritual.

The rationalization that is used for this shift is built on noting that the bishop is a high priest with Melchizedek priesthood (D&C 68:15, 19; 84:29; 107:17), and therefore he is enabled to also fulfill responsibilities theoretically limited to the high priesthood, i.e. spiritual matters.  

But an office has limitations, regardless of the powers of its occupant.  Within that office, only that which belongs to that office can come forth from that office.  To act outside the bounds of an office to to act outside that office, without any of the authority or title of that office.  The best common analogy I can refer to is switching hats.  When a high priest enters the bishop’s office, he switches to the bishop’s hat, leaving the high priest hat at the door.  He does what a bishop does, no more and no less, while in that office and wearing that hat.  Should he be needed to fulfill a responsibility requiring his high priesthood, he may step out of the bishop’s office and hat, and put the high priest hat back on.  He doesn’t perform his high priestly duties from within the bishop’s office with that hat.  Only one hat is worn at any given time, the two are not to be worn at once and treated like a singular, all-inclusive hat.

Therefore, if we want be in harmony with the scriptures, the disciplinary actions that bishops are allowed to judge must relate only to crimes pertaining to this world, for example theft, or incorrect execution of outward ordinances.  But if the crime pertains to the eternal world, such as broken covenants or intentional teaching of damning doctrines, those are to be handled by the high priesthood.  This is the scriptural dividing line for which court is to handle a disciplinary council.  It is not gender, or whether the accused holds Melchizedek priesthood.  It is the nature of the crime.