In his landmark work Jesus the Christ, James E. Talmage spends several pages outlining the “high priest’s unrighteous adjuration” of the Savior. The Sanhedrin wanted so badly to not only stem the growth of Jesus’ growing disciples, but to take back control of what he continued to point out as a broken religious system of Pharisees, Sadducees, hypocrisy, judgment and adherence to outdated laws that ignored the heart of his message of love, tolerance and spiritual growth.
Before I proceed, let me make it clear with those who are looking closely for opportunities to cry foul that I am not comparing Kate Kelly to Jesus Christ in the sense that she is a savior figure, or worthy of worship. She is as mortal and flawed as any of the rest of us.
This post does seek, however, to ask important questions about how Kate Kelly’s local leaders have handled her situation, as it relates to Mormonism’s closest thing to church law – the Church Handbook of Instructions.
Talmage painstakingly outlines a host of examples of how the Sanhedrin – the governing council of Jewish law – circumvented clearly established Jewish procedure in order to hastily try and convict Jesus of blasphemy. They held proceedings on the Sabbath. They did not call the proper witnesses. They did not provide the required evidence.
It would seem that, from the 30,000 foot view most of us have of the situation, the pending trial of Kate Kelly in Vienna, Va. contains much of the same circumventing of LDS procedure in order to come to a swift and, in my personal opinion, pre-determined outcome.
I do openly acknowledge that I have not been privy to all of Kate Kelly’s private conversations with her ecclesiastical leaders. Kate has, however been very open about them herself.
Some have suggested to me privately that Kate is not being entirely forthcoming about all of her interactions with her bishop and Stake President. I, however, have no reason not to take her at her word.
Outlined below are ways in which Kate Kelly’s leaders either knowingly or unknowingly circumvented established church procedure in bringing charges of apostasy against her.
We will start with President Wheatley.
Issue #1: Jurisdiction
Shortly before leaving the Washington, D.C. area to relocate to Utah, Kate Kelly met with her Stake President, Scott Wheatley and one of his counselors, Kenneth Lee. As a result of that meeting, Kate received a letter notifying her that she had been placed on informal probation.
Said informal probation was to include not holding a calling, giving talks, praying in public, sustaining church officers or “representing that you are a member in good standing.”
A couple of things blatantly at issue here.
First, the Handbook clearly states that the bishop is the first line of defense when it comes to church discipline [1]. Stake Presidents normally get involved when it comes to formal church discipline, and then only for Melchizedek Priesthood holders.
President Wheatley’s first move was to circumvent the church’s code of jurisdiction as outlined by the Handbook by not deferring to her bishop.
Issue #2: Informal Probation Restrictions
President Wheatley outlines some rather odd restrictions to be placed on Kate as a result of an informal probation.
For informal probation [2] , the Handbook discusses things like not taking the sacrament, not attending the temple (including handing in your temple recommend) and not exercising the priesthood (obviously not in play here).
What is striking here is that the more severe restrictions President Wheatley outlines are nowhere to be found in the recommendations of restrictions on those who are going through informal probation. So where did he come up with them?
Those restrictions come from a section on the formal church discipline of Disfellowshipment. [3]
President Wheatley placed disfellowshipment restrictions on Kate Kelly under the guise of informal probation.
All without a formal church court.
President Wheatley sentenced Kate to what is effectively a church prison without a trial.
Issue #3: Impropriety of Informal Probation
The Handbook clearly states that informal probation is NOT to be used when considering some of the more serious acts that formal discipline is meant to address. [4]
On that list are things like murder and incest. Not applicable.
But also on the list is Apostasy. The charge with which Kate is accused in the letter from her bishop.
President Wheatley never should have placed Kate Kelly on informal probation. Her case should have been taken immediately to formal discipline.
Issue #4: Written and (threatened) public notification of informal probation
We all know the church is big on keeping records. Which is why the Handbook clearly states that informal probation does not require ANY sort of paperwork to be done. In fact, it discourages it. [5]
The fact that President Wheatley took the time to write and email a letter to Kate is a not in line with the Handbook’s recommendation for handling informal discipline.
Issue #5: Threatening public announcement of informal probation status
According to Kate Kelly, the reason she came forward last week with the letters was because she was told by President Wheatley that if she did not comply with the demands he placed on her in regards to her (illegal) informal probation, he would go public with it. This, in response and seemingly retaliation to her public actions in conjunction with Ordain Women.
Anyone who knows anything about church discipline – formal or informal, knows this is a big No-No. The Handbook backs this up, with language instructing bishops (again, it’s so unusual for SPs to administer informal probation that the Handbook speaks in terms of the bishop’s actions) to not announce the decision to anyone, and keep only private records that he is to destroy later.
So, now we have Kate Kelly’s Stake President circumventing church policy in five specific ways:
1. Overriding the bishop’s jurisdiction
2. Placing inappropriate restrictions on her for informal probation
3. Improperly placing informal probation on her when her charges necessitated formal church discipline.
4. Keeping a formal record of her informal probation
5. Threatening to make public her informal probation
Those are troubling enough to me. But they don’t end there.
Kate received the email notifying her of her informal probation from President Wheatley on May 22.
On June 8, after she had already left for Utah, she received a letter from her bishop, Mark Harrison, notifying her of a formal disciplinary council being called to address the charge of Apostasy against her.
Let’s take a look at the issues surrounding that letter.
Issue #1: Mode of notification
When I served as a bishop’s counselor, I knew not only from reading the Handbook, but also from participating in a few church courts myself that all notifications of church disciplinary action being taken on an individual must be delivered to the accused in person, by two Melchizedek priesthood holders.
But wait, you say. Kate had already moved to Utah by then.
Yes. Which is why the church puts an exception into the notification rule. But it’s not email. [6]
If a member being summoned before a disciplinary council cannot be reached in person, the church officer issuing the letter “may” deliver the notification via certified mail, with return receipt requested where available.
“May” implies permission given. That’s standard use throughout the Handbook.
Thus, bishops are given special permission to step outside the normal rule (hand delivery by two MP holders) by sending via certified mail.
What’s lost here is the intent of this rule. Why two MP holders? Why certified mail with return receipt?
It seems to me that the Handbook is encouraging the “in the mouths of two or three witnesses” here. Multiple priesthood holders can attest to a successful delivery of the letter.
A return receipt implies that the post office (while obviously void of priesthood authority) is acting alongside the bishop as a witness that the letter was delivered properly.
Email falls outside these bounds. There is no proof of delivery. No guarantee that the receiver opened the email and received your message.
Can you send a regular court summons via email? No, and for good reason.
Bishop Harrison goofed when he sent his notification via email.
He seems here to be following the pattern of President Wheatley, which would suggest to me that their efforts were in some way coordinated.
Issue #2: No counsel provided
The Handbook makes it clear that, before resorting to church discipline, the presiding officer should attempt to meet with the individual to counsel over the issues at hand. This, understandably, is a course of action meant to stave off formal church discipline and allow the accused to repent on their own accord. [7]
According to multiple interviews with Kate, her bishop never once expressed an ounce of concern with her involvement with Ordain Women. Not when the website went up, not at the first public demonstration, not when church PR got involved and not at the second demonstration.
Here’s what Kate told the Salt Lake Tribune:
“I said [to my bishop] if you have any questions, please come to me first, let’s have a conversation about it. And he literally never approached me. Every Sunday, week after week, I saw him, I interacted with him, I had a calling. He never called me. He never stopped by my house. He never pulled me aside on any Sunday. He personally never called me in to have a conversation about this.”
The Handbook indicates that personal interviews are an opportunity for the accused to confess and forsake sin. Even if she stood at fault for any of her actions (I don’t believe she is at fault), Kate Kelly was never given a chance to personally confess to her bishop through a personal interview. This, after multiple personal interactions between Kate and Bishop Harrison.
Issue #3: Not giving adequate time to consider implications of formal church discipline or to gather facts
The Handbook takes formal church discipline very seriously. So much so, that it counsels bishops and stake presidents to wait until the accused has had a reasonable amount of time to consider the ramifications of a formal disciplinary hearing before scheduling the hearing. [8]
Bishop Harrison’s letter gives no time. In fact, he scheduled the hearing with absolutely no warning. Notification of discipline and scheduling of the council, all within the same few paragraphs.
The presiding officer is also encouraged to gather as much information as possible before deciding on a course of action. Presumably, this would include talking to the accused if they are amenable to discussing, no?
What Bishop Harrison should have done was to either visit with Kate prior to her departure, or call her in order to inform her that he was considering formal church discipline. See, this is the part where the accused gets an opportunity to speak openly with the accuser before “charges” are formally filed.
Bishop Harrison never even gave her that chance.
Issue #4: Official Wording
This one is nitpicky to be sure, but it highlights Bishop Harrison’s sloppiness.
The Handbook clearly gives specific wording the letter of notification of formal discipline is to contain. I’m quite sure this is for legal reasons. Words you might commonly hear on the news pertaining to people who have been accused – but not convicted – of a crime. [9]
Reading his letter…er….email, Bishop Harrison clearly is writing off the cuff here.
Again, a nitpick, but it speaks to the overall bypassing of the Handbook by Bishop Harrison.
Issue #5: Kate’s Relocation
This one is pretty important.
The Handbook clearly states that if a member moves while church discipline is being considered, the presiding officers in both locations are to consult together on the best course of action. Should action be taken in the member’s old ward or new ward? That’s up to both bishops to decide. [10]
We know that Kate had not been informed by her bishop before she moved that he was considering formal discipline. In fact, she has stated repeatedly in the last week that her bishop saw her just days before she pulled out of town to leave for Utah, and never mentioned a word of it.
“I saw him before I left, I gave him a hug and that was it,” Kate has said.
Bishop Harrison makes no indication in his letter to Kate that he consulted with Kate’s new bishop in Utah and they both, together, decided to hold the council in Virginia. In fact, there is clear indication that Bishop Harrison had no intention of moving her records at all, something he should have informed Kate of before she moved.
The Handbook encourages this communication between presiding authorities for several reasons. The availability of witnesses is one. I am not keen on this information specifically, but it is my understanding that several prominent Ordain Women leaders reside in Utah. Leaders who could have acted as witnesses on either side. Obviously, Church leaders – who told Ordain Women not to hold another demonstration during April Conference could act as witnesses against Kate – reside in Utah.
It would seem to me that a church court would actually make more sense in Utah. And yet, in his wisdom, it would seem he finds it completely appropriate to not only hold the council in Virginia, but not to bother discussing the matter with Kate’s new bishop.
So, Bishop Harrison seems to have circumvented the Handbook in the following ways:
1. Improper method of notification
2. Not providing any type of pastoral counsel prior to issuing notice of formal discipline
3. Not giving adequate time for accused to consider implications, or time to gather information
4. Official wording not used
5. Improperly handling her relocation
Church leaders have a sacred obligation to treat church discipline with the seriousness and preciseness inherent with threatening to strip someone of their membership.
What’s most striking about this issue is what position this has put Kate in. She has stated multiple times over the last week that the most frustrating thing is how “opaque” the church disciplinary process is.
Most church members would never know about these procedures, because the church keeps the Handbook strictly prohibited to Stake Presidencies and bishoprics.
While it may be in the church’s best interest to keep this information under a tight lid, it also makes abuse of power not only a real possibility, but much easier to pull off.
Because when the members don’t know the rules, it’s impossible to know if their leaders aren’t following them.
—————————–
[1] Church Handbook of Instructions, 6.8
[2] CHI, 6.8.2
[3] CHI, 6.9.2
[4] CHI, 6.9.1 “Formal probation is not an option when priesthood leaders administer Church discipline for a member who has been involved in any of the serious transgressions listed in 6.12.10”
[5] CHI, 6.8.2 paragraph 4
[6] CHI, 6.10.2, paragraphs 6 and 7
[7] CHI, 6.8.1 and 6.4 paragraph 1
[8] CHI, 6.10.2 paragraph 1
[9] CHI, 6.10.2 paragraphs 3, 4 and 5
[10] CHI, 6.2.7
James Patterson
James Patterson lives with his wife and two children in North Carolina. He makes no apologies for being an avid fan of both Duke basketball and Taylor Swift.
All posts by James Patterson
very interesting–
and well done.
This is amazing. I’m so glad you explained it.
“President Wheatley outlines some rather odd restrictions to be placed on Kate as a result of an informal probation.
For informal probation [2] , the Handbook discusses things like not taking the sacrament, not attending the temple (including handing in your temple recommend) and not exercising the priesthood (obviously not in play here).
What is striking here is that the more severe restrictions President Wheatley outlines are nowhere to be found in the recommendations of restrictions on those who are going through informal probation. So where did he come up with them?
Those restrictions come from a section on the formal church discipline of Disfellowshipment. [3]
President Wheatley placed disfellowshipment restrictions on Kate Kelly under the guise of informal probation.”
President Wheatley also wrote that “[i]f you are invited to pray or read a passage or comment in a class or other Church meeting, you must decline.”
As far as I can tell, the handbook does not forbid either disfellowshipped or excommunicated members from reading a passage or making a comment in a class or other meeting (as opposed to giving a talk).
Nun, that’s a great observation, and one I didn’t get around to making.
Wheatley’s restrictions on Kate seem to be over and above what the Handbook outlines.
Great piece.
I just wanted to add that–in the case of women into church–only 9 women (church wide) are allowed access to the CHI. Those 9 people are the auxiliary presidency members.
Sure, I have a leaked copy of it on my computer, but I shouldn’t have it.
It is incredibly frustrating and disheartening to be required to obey rules and procedures we cannot see.
Yes. Thank you.
Equality is not a feeling.
Thanks for the write up. I think it is a tragedy that we have allowed the Church Handbook to be the church Law. In my opinion it is an uninspired set of laws that the average member has never seen or read yet we are judge by them. What the…!?
We have to stand up and call foul. Here is a quote from LDSAnarchy blog: “Disfellowship and excommunication is to occur in the church according to prescribed laws given of God in the scriptures. The procedure itself is divine and designed to preserve the rights of every accused member in the church, that justice prevail at all times.”
Take some time and read it, I think it is worth it.
http://ldsanarchy.wordpress.com/tag/excommunication/
Thanks, Suzie.
You bring up a great point in that the church is administered by this handbook, but it’s not available to the general public. It’s problematic, to be sure. Kate’s case is a glaring example of that.
What!? Handbook 1 can be found online in 10 seconds. It’s called Google. Stop acting like it’s some forbidden, hidden document. BTW: Your site is garbage. Nothing like fanning the flames beneath the church your teaching Primary in. Rich. How about trying to print something uplifting for once instead of always digging for the controversial. If our beliefs are so distasteful, don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
Doug, you are correct, Church Handbook of Instructions Book 1 can be found utilizing google.
Now, lets us consider the ignorance of your proclamation.
Does the LDS Church host the links to Handbook 1?
Does the LDS Church publish Handbook 1 for the general public to read?
Handbook 1 is very much a “hidden document” by the Church. The LDS Church does not make it available to the public as it does Handbook 2 (which is available for all to read on lds.org(
Excellent write-up! Thank you for a different perspective on the situation.
Talmage’s few pages on the trial are pulled from a book, which he cited, “The Trial of Jesus from a Lawyer’s Standpoint,” available free to read.
Not to be nitpicky here, but it’s one of my favorite books and mind-bogglingly exhaustive. You might enjoy it!
Excellent write-up! Thank you for a different perspective on the situation.
Talmage’s few pages on the trial are pulled from a book, which he cited, “The Trial of Jesus from a Lawyer’s Standpoint,” available free to read.
Not to be nitpicky here, but it’s one of my favorite books and mind-bogglingly exhaustive. You might enjoy it!
Awesome, Josh.
JTC continues to be my favorite mission-approved book. I’ll have to check out the source material!
There are a few possibilities. One is that Wheatley and Harrison are naturally sloppy about following official instructions. Given their professional success, that’s not too likely.
Another is that, as highly successful men, they’re accustomed to their own opinions and methods taking precedent over mere manuals. Rules are for lesser beings, right?
Another is that they were reacting in haste to messages from higher authorities (carefully worded to give said higher authorities plausible deniability and to maintain the appearance that the discipline is always a local matter). After all, the CHI doesn’t say what one is to do when an Area Authority calls on behalf of irate Apostles. Hop to it, no? No time for consulting handbooks and going by the numbers. Get the job done. Make the problem go away. Do the brethren’s bidding. Maybe get on a short list for a GA position.
All of those are indeed possibilities.
It seems clear to me, no matter the motivation or reason, this particular disciplinary action has been rushed and sloppy.
Wow, you sure seem to put a lot of thought into this. Did you ever sit back and ask if it was your business? Didn’t Elder Uchtdorf say for us to stop judging? Seems to me just because Kate Kelly airs her dirty laundry in the media doesn’t give us the right to nitpick the details. If this bishop and stake president has acted wrong in this then it is up to higher church authorities to do something about it. Remember the church is full of imperfect people. Personally I will be happy when the internet will let this subject die. There are much more worries in life than wether Kate Kelly’s bishop followed the handbook.
Thanks for your comment, Amy.
If you have heard Kate speak over the last few days, you’ll note that she mentioned that her Stake President threatened to announce publicly that she had been put on informal probation. She decided to release the letter before he could.
As to what business of mine this is, my overall point was that the church handbook creates an uneven playing field, especially for women, who are never given access to it.
Kate’s Stake President overstepped the Handbook when he placed her on informal probation.
But how would Kate even have known that? She couldn’t have, because the Handbook is kept from the general membership.
That’s the larger point that I believe needs to be talked about more here.
This comment makes no sense to me. The post is a analysis of the ecclesiastical authorities actions as they relate to the Church Handbook of Instructions, which contains exhaustive and legalistic detail about how these things should be handled. I dont see that James was being “judgmental” of anyone – he was simply looking at the rules and whether they were followed.
The terms of informal probation are determined by the bishop. Having counseled with many bishops on the topic, I can say that the limits placed on her membership, as a result of informal probation, are not out of the ordinary.
If it’s quite normal to place disfellowshipment-type restrictions on a member as a part of informal probation, then why does the Hanbook not list it as part of the recommended informal probation restrictions? That’s the larger question. If the Handbook is meant to be a guideline for bishops to follow, why are they not following it?
Also, Dee, I have served in bishoprics before myself, and the directive from the Stake Presidency, which directive came from Salt Lake, was that the Handbook was not to be treated as some loosey-goosey document that you could pick and choose. It is meant to be a clear set of guidelines church leaders are supposed to follow and rarely deviate from.
I’m sure mileage varies in terms of bishops and SPs actually heeding that directive.
James Patterson,
I agree with Amy. We sustain our leaders, not because we think they are flawless, but because we believe they are called of God. You cannot write blog posts like this and at the same time claim to sustain general and local leaders.
As you understand callings and stewardships, you understand that it is the responsibility of an area seventy to provide instruction and correction to stake presidents– not public opinion and blog commentary. The idea of stewardship and authority is more central to the doctrine of our church than any fine print detail that may have been overlooked in this ridiculously public discussion.
Well, luckily for me I don’t have to sustain Kate’s local leaders.
I also believe that the opportunity to sustain does not preclude the ability to disagree with.
Disagreeing with privately and in council with the Bishop is one thing. Publicly trying to convince others to disagree with the leaders and church doctrine is completely another. You my friend are treading on the latter.
>>Because when the members don’t know the rules, it’s impossible to know if their leaders aren’t following them.<<
There's nothing in the CHI that's sacred or that needs to be revealed to only a select few. It's just policies and procedures. Except imagine the problems if general membership DID know when their leaders weren't following the CHI, were making up their own rules or substituting their own opinions for official Church stances on thorny issues. In an authoritarian organization like the LDS Church, the validity of authorities must never be questioned.
The handbook may not be sacred but excommunication is kind of a big deal and spelling out the rights of the accused is very important in a situation that can be that prone to abuse. Otherwise it’s all arbitrary and up to the priesthood leader’s whim.
James Patterson,
If you sustain the Prophet and Apostles, then you sustain the local leaders whom they call by revelation.
To disagree is one thing. To publicly criticize and try to convince others to find fault also is another.
I sustain my church leaders as long as i have independent confirmation through the spirit that they are acting in accordance with God’s will. But hat has limits. But if a church leader is acting inappropriately or illegally or contrary to the church handbook, then that ends. The gospel does not require us to be mindless sheep!!
Jenifer,
That very logic is what caused the Mountain Meadows Massacre. People following local leaders as surely as if they were general leaders. I recommend reading D&C 121 again. The minute a priesthoodholder invokes their office as the sole reason to be obedient to them instead of using “longsuffering, persuasion etc.” is the moment they lose priesthood power.
I would add that your very public critique of ordained men is based solely on one-sided heresay. Maybe someday you will be a Stake President and you can learn from this experience.
I appreciate the time you put into this post. But after reading your post, I am unconvinced of the impropriety of Kate’s Stake President placing her on informal probation or her Bishop not following the Handbook.
The primary weakness in your arguments about the Stake President is that they take general rules and guidelines and treat them as absolutes, without allowing for exceptions or judgement. But in matters of Church discipline, Church policy as set forth in the Handbook is written to allow for Church leaders to exercise their judgment.
The primary weakness in your criticism of Kate’s bishop is you assume facts where you have no evidence one way or the other, and you are obnoxiously legalistic.
1. Jurisdiction: Your argument is that Stake Presidents normally get involved in church discipline only in matters of formal discipline and then only with respect to Melchizedek Priesthood holders. Perhaps so, but Stake Presidents are not forbidden from getting involved in matters of informal discipline. Stake Presidents are permitted to exercise judgement. For example, the handbook states: “A bishop or branch president normally administers informal Church discipline.” It follows that in exceptional circumstance, someone else may administer informal Church discipline. And if you step back for a minute, this just makes sense. Bishops are typically the best suited people to administer discipline in their wards, but in some circumstances, Stake Presidents may find it helpful to administer informal discipline to help people repent and come closer to God. Applying some blanket rule that Stake Presidents are not allowed to administer informal church discipline strikes me as unreasonable.
2. You argue that it is improper to place restrictions on a person from a “formal probation” section of the handbook when placing them on “informal probation.” The Handbook includes no such prohibition on “cross-penalizing.” Instead, it provides some examples of penalties that may be applied in informal probation and examples of penalties that may be applied in formal probation. They are not mutually exclusive, but rather they provide guidelines. They are introduced by the words, “Such restrictions may include…” Again, leaders are permitted to exercise judgement to apply any restrictions they feel are appropriate. For example, if a Stake President was concerned that a member was on the line of apostasy, having not yet openly opposed Church leaders, but having expressed an intent to do so, the Stake President may feel that informal probation with relatively strong restrictions may be sufficient to help the person return to the fold, or may protect other Church members from the preaching of false doctrine in church meetings. The Stake President is not limited to only the examples provided in the “informal probation” section of the Handbook.
3. Impropriety of Informal Probation:
Here you state that placing Kate on informal probation was improper because she was accused of apostasy in a letter from her Bishop. But was she accused of apostasy by the Stake President? Is it possible that he did not yet believe that she had apostatized? If the Stake President accused Kate of apostasy, then you are correct, and informal probation was not the correct discipline. But if he just feared she was on the path to apostasy when he administered discipline, informal probation could still be appropriate. Since I haven’t done my research to determine whether the Stake President accused Kate of apostasy, I don’t have the facts to make a judgement as to whether or not informal probation was appropriate.
4. You suggest that it was improper for the Stake President to send Kate a letter telling her the terms of her informal probation. I find this suggestion ridiculous. Why would a Church leader not be permitted to give a recipient of church discipline written guidance regarding how to have restrictions lifted? There is no official record of informal discipline, but the Stake President’s letter was not an official record, and the Handbook says nothing to suggest leaders cannot provide written notice of the terms of Church discipline. Normally, if a Bishop meets regularly with a member of his congregation, written notice may not be necessary, but if the member were to move away, don’t you think it could be helpful? In any event, the Handbook does not forbid it, and the Stake President is permitted to exercise his judgement.
5. Regarding the threatened public announcement of her discipline, if true it would be improper. But I don’t know Kate or her Stake President, so I can’t make any judgement regarding whether she is telling the truth or whether he would make such a threat. And the truth may be impossible to know, since she came forward before he did anything. Now if only the threat was in writing…
6. Regarding the mode of notification, you indicate that delivering notification to Kate by email is not permitted by the Handbook. You are right here. And there’s probably very good reasons for how the Handbook is written, but I can’t bring myself to care that Kate was improperly notified by email. The message was sent from the correct person and delivered to the correct person. Sure, it’s best to do it by the book: it’s best to home teach with a companion, to drive under the speed limit, and to keep your garments off the floor(I hope my Bishop doesn’t read this). But don’t you think we’re getting pretty Pharisaical and legalistic to quibble over whether notice is provided by “certified mail” or by email? Well, maybe you don’t, but I definitely do. I’m all for email notifications. They’re efficient and instantaneous. They also allow for an immediate response, if the recipient desires to respond. Anyway, I know that’s not in the Handbook, so you are right on this point, and I just can’t muster any indignation.
7. Regarding Kate’s bishop not counseling with her prior to discipline being imposed, you overstate the position of the Church Handbook. You make it sound as though the Handbook states counseling with members is a prerequisite for administering discipline. (“The Handbook makes it clear that, before resorting to church discipline, the presiding officer should attempt to meet with the individual to counsel over the issues at hand.”) What the Handbook actually says is “Private counsel… may be sufficient discipline for members who have committed minor transgressions and are genuinely repentant.” It says more about private counsel, but nothing along the lines of “leaders must counsel with members prior to administering discipline.” Although I don’t think the Handbook supports such an argument, if this allegation is true (that Kate’s Church leaders didn’t counsel with her prior to administering discipline) then I agree it is a serious mistake. It doesn’t make the informal discipline improper, but it probably made it ineffective.
8. You assert that Kate’s former Bishop did not give her adequate time to give unhurried consideration to the consequences of her transgression (apostasy). If this letter is the first Kate heard of it, then you are right. However, (please correct me if I am wrong) I understand that Kate was asked by Church leaders not to protest at General Conference and she went ahead and did so. Surely, her planned defiance gave her adequate time to give unhurried consideration to the consequences of her actions. Maybe she didn’t feel that it rose to the level of apostasy, and maybe it doesn’t, but she must have known (or should have known) that it could.
9. You also allege that Bishop Harrison did not use the official wording from the handbook for the notification letter. You describe this critique as “nitpicky.” “Legalistic,” “Pharisaical” (i.e. placing too much importance on unimportant matters unrelated to spiritual growth (whatever happened to judgement, mercy, and faith!?)), “overly-restrictive,” and “obnoxious” also come to mind. But you’re right. He didn’t use the exact words from the Handbook. Let’s get him, the Sadducee! It’s just like the unjust trial of Jesus!
10. Here, for some reason, you assume that Bishop Harrison hasn’t consulted with Kate’s new Bishop. You may be right, but as far as I can tell, you have no evidence either way. No one has said he has and no one has said he hasn’t. If he hasn’t, then you are right, he should. But you don’t know and shouldn’t assume.
Perhaps Kate is being subjected to a travesty of justice, but the reasons you set forth in your post don’t establish the travesty. Church leaders are permitted judgement to apply discipline, and her Bishop Harrison doesn’t seem to have done anything seriously wrong here (if anything at all – not sure since much of the post is based on assumptions lacking evidence).
Adam, I appreciate your critique.
I have more to add, but I’ll just say this first. It seems very telling to me at least that it’s not called:
The Church Handbook of Guidelines
The Church Handbook of Suggestion
or
The Church Handbook of Recommendations
Yes, there is leeway. But from everything I have ever been able to gather about the book, the Brethren expect it to be followed as strictly as possible precisely because it’s entirely too easy for bishops and Stake Presidents to go off the reservation in cases like these.
Adam, in response to your points:
1. In general, I find your “because it doesn’t say you can’t do it is a general license to do it” argument pretty flat. This seems to me to be an appeal to legalese as much as you accuse me of.
I mean, if we applied that principle to, say, female ordination, there’s nowhere in the scriptures where it says women can’t have the priesthood, so the church should automatically give it to them, right?
The issue isn’t really if these men had the power to do what they did. The issue is, what does their overall interpretation of the Handbook say about their proceedings against Kate Kelly?
2. See above
3. You say “Is it possible that he did not yet believe that she had apostatized?”
The only way your argument here seems convincing is to assume that between May 22 and June 8, Kate Kelly had a fundamental shift in the way she was conducting herself relating to the church and all of a sudden her leaders found her to be in apostasy. I find that assumption rather absurd, but I suppose it’s possible.
4. I can think of 100 different reasons why it’s not appropriate to send communication about someone’s disciplinary action via email. I think you’re smart enough to be able to as well.
There is a reason why leaders are counseled not to keep records about informal probation: because of the possibility that it could be damaging to the person. To email that information, where it could be found in the inbox by a family member, co-worker, IT personnel, is inappropriate, and is why the Handbook contains such language.
You find it appropriate. I don’t. We disagree.
5. Again, I acknowledged in my post that I’m going on Kate’s statements here and that I have no reason to think she is lying.
6. This speaks to the overall issue at hand: did her leaders follow the handbook? If it were one thing or two where they deviated, I don’t think this would have caught my attention.
But I have 10 places where they deviated from the Handbook. To you, that means little because you feel that’s perfectly normal. To others, it raises questions.
7. Even if I concede your point that the bishop has no obligation to counsel with someone before threatening them with the possibility of being cut off from their eternal covenants, that prospect doesn’t leave me all warm and fuzzy inside, does it?
Again, you seem to be in this space of “what is the bishop allowed to do” rather than what should he have done?
8. Really? Unless I’m mistaken, the bishop’s June 8 letter was the first time anyone in an official capacity in the church had referred to Kate’s actions as “apostasy.”
So, yes, the bishop according to the Handbook, should have given her time to contemplate what that meant. Instead, he scheduled a court in the very same breath.
9. See 4 and 6.
10. You are right. I don’t know. Kate has not said either. I am speculating here.
Finally, I will acknowledge that I am not a lawyer. I am not trying to win a court case.
What I am trying to do is raise questions about the problems a secret handbook of instructions poses for the average church member.
I would end with this: if the Handbook can and should be interpreted at will, and parts moved around in different sections, then what really is it for? Why have it at all?
James,
I sincerely appreciate your thoughtful responses. We clearly disagree, but I’m OK with that.
I just want to answer your concluding question: “if the Handbook can and should be interpreted at will, and parts moved around in different sections, then what really is it for? Why have it at all?”
My Answer: It is guidance. If I were in a leadership position (Heaven forfend!) I would exercise judgement when the Handbook permits it, and I would not when it doesn’t. For example, if I were a Stake President, I would not enact informal discipline unless I felt inspired to do so. Then, I would do so, and in my view this is consistent with Church policy.
Thanks, Adam. I appreciate all of your thoughtful responses. You’ve brought an important balance to this discussion.
I definitely see your point. There were two or three examples you provided (such as delivering notice by email instead of registered mail) where her Church leaders did not follow the Handbook. As I said in the original comment, I can’t bring myself to feel any indignation about changing words in a letter or delivering a notice by email. This is, to me, straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.
But in the rest of the examples you provide, the church leaders didn’t even violate the instructions in the Handbook. If the handbook says “such as” when listing possible restrictions, then it is not listing exclusive actions. If you were in a leadership position and asserted that the list must be treated as exclusive, then I submit that you would violate the policy in the Handbook, not Kate’s Church leaders. Likewise, if the Handbook says “normally” an action occurs, and you assert that that action must “always” occur, then you again are interpreting the Handbook in a way it is not written, and you would violate the written policy if you tried to implement your interpretation. The language in the Handbook itself provides the leeway for judgement. In contrast, when the Handbook wants to take away a leader’s judgement, it does so, such as by saying: “Formal probation is not an option when priesthood leaders administer church discipline for a member who has been involved in [serious transgressions listed in 6.12.10]”
While this post is limited to Kate’s Church leaders’ implementation of policies in the Handbook, it touches on the broader principle of members of the Church not only voluntarily surrendering their own judgement when they have the freedom to exercise judgement, but also trying to impose their surrender on others, which really irritates me. You may interpret the Handbook as not allowing for judgement, but in the instances above, I believe your interpretation of the policy is wrong, and also I believe you are wrong to try to impose your incorrect interpretation on Kate’s Church leaders (albeit only rhetorically) to take away their ability and responsibility to exercise inspired judgement.
Actually, you are quite mistaken. Handbook 1, which is available on the church’s website, states:
Hi CG,
We disagree. One of my main points was that in most of the points raised in the OP, the language in the Handbook allows for the exercise of judgement, and therefore the exercise of judgement is not a deviation from the instructions in the Handbook. The exercise of judgement when it is permitted in the Handbook is not a violation of 17.1.7. On the other hand, where judgement is not permitted, such as the approved methods for providing notice of a disciplinary council, the exercise of judgement is a violation of Church policy.
We have enough calls for conformity in our Church as it is, I really wish people would not surrender their judgement when it is given to them, and would not demand that others likewise surrender their judgement.
Adam,
Regarding your comment: ‘…For example, the handbook states: “A bishop or branch president normally administers informal Church discipline.” Where does it state that?
It could be that my copy is different to yours, but my copy states:
‘However, 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.’
It also states:
‘The bishop has authority over Church discipline in the ward, except the excommunication of a man who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood.’
I am sure you agree with the handbook that the SP has no jurisdiction over church discipline in the case of Kate Kelly as she is not a man who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood. So your statement:
‘Perhaps so, but Stake Presidents are not forbidden from getting involved in matters of informal discipline.’
This is incorrect. Stake presidents are forbidden and the handbook is very clear on this matter as quoted above.
Your statement:
‘Applying some blanket rule that Stake Presidents are not allowed to administer informal church discipline strikes me as unreasonable.’
According to the handbook it is not ‘unreasonable’. It is the Church Handbook Instruction given to stake presidents and bishops by the brethren for the local leaders to follow. It also makes any else you state about the stake president’s ‘judgement’ irrelevant as it is very clear from the beginning that he did not follow the procedures as outlined in the handbook. Before proceeding, he should have read up on the section entitled ‘Stake President’, realized immediately that he had no jurisdiction on this matter and then stood down. He did not but continued along a forbidden path and that’s why it is a current mess for all concerned.
The thing that bothers me is: who else has this happened to? We’re discussing this only because Kate Kelly published the letters. How many other members has this happened to where bishops and stake presidents have gone and done their own thing contrary to the handbook and potentially destroyed spiritual lives? Does the end really justify the means?
It would seem that the handbook is not only a secret to members but to the local leaders themselves.
Hi Undercover Brother,
“Regarding your comment: ‘…For example, the handbook states: “A bishop or branch president normally administers informal Church discipline.” Where does it state that?”
Handbook 1, section 6.8, first sentence.
“I am sure you agree with the handbook that the SP has no jurisdiction over church discipline in the case of Kate Kelly as she is not a man who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood.”
I can’t say I “agree” with the Handbook. It’s not something I agree with or disagree with. It’s just Church policy that I usually follow. I do not, however, agree with how you are interpreting the Handbook.
“This is incorrect. Stake presidents are forbidden and the handbook is very clear on this matter as quoted above.”
Not as clear as you appear to think, since I still strongly disagree with your interpretation. Now, if the Handbook said, “Stake Presidents are not to administer informal probation,” then you would have my whole-hearted support. But it doesn’t, so you don’t.
“According to the handbook it is not ‘unreasonable’.”
I really don’t think the Handbook defines what is reasonable. It defines Church policy. My appeal to reason was an attempt to show that a particular interpretation of the Handbook was incorrect, because if you stand back and look at the result (forbidding Stake Presidents to administer informal discipline), the result is ridiculous. But I can see that some people think that is how it should be. I don’t get it.
“as it is very clear from the beginning that he did not follow the procedures as outlined in the handbook. Before proceeding, he should have read up on the section entitled ‘Stake President’, realized immediately that he had no jurisdiction on this matter and then stood down. He did not but continued along a forbidden path and that’s why it is a current mess for all concerned.”
I set forth my reasons for disagreeing with this argument above and I stand by them. We are just interpreting the Handbook differently.
Adam,
Thanks for your response regarding section 6.8. I was quoting from section 6.2.1 under the title ‘Stake President’ (which we were discussing whether the stake president had jurisdiction on this matter). It’s on the 1st page of Section 6 ‘Church Discipline and Name Removal’. Again, the handbook is very clear on this so I’m very surprised you interpret it so differently. To quote:
‘6.2.1 Stake President – The stake president has authority over Church discipline in the stake. However, 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. When a stake president convenes a disciplinary council, the participation of the stake presidency and high council is required as outlined in ‘Stake Disciplinary Councils’ in 6.10.1.’
That’s all it says in this section regarding a stake president’s responsibilities in initiating and administering Church discipline. He has no jurisdiction to, ‘administer Church discipline unless evidence indicates that a man who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood is likely to be excommunicated.’ That responsibility belongs to the bishop. You stated:
‘Now, if the Handbook said, “Stake Presidents are not to administer informal probation,” then you would have my whole-hearted support. But it doesn’t, so you don’t.’
To answer this I refer to 6.2.3 – Bishop, which states:
‘The bishop has authority over Church discipline in the ward, except the excommunication of a man who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood.’
Surely you can see there’s no room for error or misinterpretation here. In 2 places the handbook states where jurisdiction resides – unless you are dealing with the possible excommunication of a Melchizedek Priesthood holder the bishop has authority over Church discipline.
As it is very clear that, ‘stake presidents are not to administer informal probation,’ but only when it is about the possible excommunication of a Melchizedek Priesthood holder do I now have your ‘whole-hearted support’?
I do believe the Handbook is clear. But I just think it says the opposite of what you do.
But I think I’ve identified the specific part of the sentence that we disagree on. It’s what the word “normally” means. This is very much in the weeds, but here goes. The relevant portion of 6.2.1 says “bishops normally administer Church discipline unless evidence indicates that a man who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood is likely to be excommunicated” You are interpreting this to mean, Bishops administer Church discipline. This is “normal.” The exception is when a man who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood is likely to be excommunicated. This is “abnormal.” I am interpreting this to mean, Bishops normally administer Church discipline unless it involves a man holding the M. Priesthood who may be excommunicated. That is “normal.” However, a Stake President may administer church discipline when he feels it appropriate. That is “abnormal.”
Finally, you equate “The bishop has authority over Church discipline in the ward, except the excommunication of a man who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood” with “Stake Presidents are not to administer informal probation.” They are not the same. Giving the Bishop authority over discipline in his ward does not take away authority of a Stake President to administer discipline in the Stake. The words in the hypothetical Handbook that would support your argument are an affirmative statement that Stake Presidents do not have the authority to do something: Stake Presidents do not have authority to … Those words are not found in our Handbook, and I don’t think they should be read into the Handbook, so I must withhold my whole-hearted support at this time.
I have a question for those who seem to want to criticize James’ post. If you were the subject of church discipline, and did not agree with it, would you be comfortable with your bishop just acting however he saw fit and not following the handbook? Or would you expect him to follow the rules in your case?
I think its easy for those who are regular active members in good standing to justify this conduct because it does not affect them. But we know that both her bishop and stake president are both lawyers. They should know better. And I think given how high the stakes are it is perfectly reasonable for Sister Kelly and the rest of use to hold them to high standards, including following the rules they are supposed to follow. The end does not justify the means.
Porter, I’ll take a gander.
The only two things that would irritate me are: (1) if my Stake President were to threaten to make my Church discipline public, and (2) if a Church leader were to inform me that my disciplinary action would be across the United States without being willing to make accommodations in time, location, or persons conducting (e.g. not permitting my new Bishop to perform the disciplinary action).
The first would really get me angry. The second would just irritate me. I love the Church and plan to stay in it until I die, but if I were for some reason excommunicated unjustly, I don’t believe it would affect my relationship with God. I’m willing to admit I may be absolutely and totally wrong, since right now I feel secure in my membership and I can’t really know how I would feel, but that’s how I feel now. All the rest of the things on James’s list I either do not care (e.g. I would appreciate a notice by email rather than certified mail or, even worse, two Melchizedek priesthood holders) or believe he is interpreting the Handbook incorrectly, so it wouldn’t bother me if my Church leaders acted in a way that I think they should.
If I were the subject of church discipline I would be asking how I could change, not focusing on what my Stake President did wrong.
I would be more concerned about my own possible unrighteousness dominion than whether my discipline letter came by certified mail (to an address that was soon changing) or email (that would remain the same).
But, that’s just me.
This is misleading to those who don’t understand LDS doctrine, culture, and political philosophy. In reality, there is no “law,” only authority. The handbook is not a legal document; they are guidelines. And these guidelines are trumped by men in authority who claim to act under the guidance of the ultimate authority. If their actions are to be questioned, those questions come from the top down, not the bottom up.
>>The handbook is not a legal document;<<
Yet it reads as if it were created by the Church's legal department. In fact, many of the policies are in place in order to avoid legal action against the Church.
It may very well have been created in tandem with the legal department. A point which matters not at all to the proceedings against Kate Kelly or John Dehlin, or anyone for that matter who experiences a Church Court.
Member of the LDS Church have no “right” to be treated in anyway other than how the LDS leadership choose to treat them.
Again, the guidelines are there to guide the local leaders from the top down. If there’s a complaint, it will come from their superiors, not from the members. Top down, not bottom up.
Holy hell….did you honestly just state that LDS members have no right to be treated in any way other that how LDS leaders choose to treat them. I’m just going to pretend that you have some mental disability and have lost the ability to make a rational comment. Please, for the sake of all around you Timothy, please do not make comments that are beyond ridiculous. So according to your lack of logic it doesn’t matter how leaders treat members….they just have to grin and bare it. This is the mentality that exists that creates abusive situations all over. I’m not a praying man but I will pray that your twisted thinking does not negatively affect those around you
>>And these guidelines are trumped by men in authority who claim to act under the guidance of the ultimate authority. If their actions are to be questioned, those questions come from the top down, not the bottom up.<<
The guidelines were created by men in SUPERIOR authority, acting under the guidance of the Ultimate Authority. If actions by middle level authorities are truly guided by the Ultimate Authority, then they won't conflict with the quite detailed guidelines the Ultimate Authority gave the superior authority. In other words, stake presidents and bishops may act as inspired (if they truly are inspired and not simply confusing their own biases and ambitions for divine inspiration) within the published guidelines, not outside them.
On the contrary. LDS tradition is that authority always trumps guidelines. Even in the case of scripture. Authority pre-empts, always.
Another incorrect statement in President Wheatley’s letter (and the one I think is the most egregious) is his claim that Kate Kelly can no longer state that she is a member in “good standing” because she is on informal probation. However, the third paragraph of 6.1 clearly states that informal probation does not affect a member’s standing in the Church, but that only formal disciplinary actions (which require a disciplinary council) can impact a member’s standing. In other words, until a proper disciplinary council is held (in this case by a bishop), Sister Kelly is still a member in good standing, and the Stake President does not have the authority to say otherwise (i.e. he doesn’t have the keys to unilaterally make that determination). Members have a right to the protections and procedures of a disciplinary council in part to protect them from incompetent and/or vindictive priesthood leaders. Members also have the right to request the removal of a bishop or stake president from their disciplinary councils (if the member objects to the involvement of the stake president, the matter goes directly to the FP, which a Sister Kelly might as well do given that the FP actually in the same state as her. See 6.10.1)
In response to Jennifer’s call for blind unquestioning obedience to church leaders I offer this:
“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually.”
Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 9, p. 150
Nice try, Porter, but living prophets trump dead ones (Brigham Young has a quote about that, too). And, as everyone knows, taking ANY Brigham Young quote out of it’s historical context to prove any point about what’s happening now is of little worth.
Especially if it’s about race and the priesthood. Look out, Brother Brigham, here comes the bus.
https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood
It might behoove all of us, including Kate, to do a little research about Handbook 1. It is not available online, not widely distributed, etc….. but according to my ward clerk husband, there is supposed to be a copy in the clerk’s office that any member may consult and read at any time, but not remove from the premises. A reference copy, if you will. He said that after the new handbooks came out, a letter describing this permitted use followed. I cannot find the letter in my skimpy searching, but to continue to use the argument that “members are not permitted to view the laws by which they are governed” may not be completely accurate. I do agree that reading it in the clerks office may be a bit of a hassle, and some clerk/bishops may bristle when asked to share it, but in our ward it is available upon request.
That was the policy in our stake when I was Bishop, too. Anyone could peruse the Handbook, but it could not be taken from the building…even by the Bishop. We were admonished to keep the Handbook in a locked drawer. Some people may interpret that as “inaccessible”, but, I often shared the book with a member that had a question and wanted to see what “the church” had to say about it.
Not taken from the building! How the heck are any of those with general access supposed to find time to read it in that case?
No wonder they seem to be getting it all wrong, rushed as they apparently are!
I’m pretty sure my husband brought his copy home when he was a bishopric member. As I recall it became his regular reading material. He had a goal to get through it all. Perhaps I should have made it mine too…
Hedgehog, FYI it is now available to those in leadership positions when they sign on to lds.org, so they are not limited to the single copy in the clerk’s office or bishop’s office.
That does presuppose they have the necessary internet access at home though. Not everyone does. Though I imagine attorneys would, depending on where they live…
However, have the general membership been given the word from the pulpit that, A) the CHI exists, and, B) that there’s a copy in the clerk’s office that they may read?
Most people have no concept of the importance of defined standards of accountability for power and its deployment. It is not until you have been wrongfully accused that you get some meaningful insight into that process, and how ‘little people’ can be raped by power.
The illusion that Mormonism is not a power structure is a nice fantasy so long as you can maintain it. And the statement that one will ‘be a member until the day they die’ makes it very clear that a commitment to maintenance is strong and defies any limits.
I have a dear friend who made the mistake of concluding that the Church would ‘do the right thing’ when she was involved in a serious accident whilst on a Church mission which resulted in serious spinal damage they will live with for teh rest of their life.
She found out too late, that the right way to ‘exercise her rights’ with the Mormon Corporation, was to sue it – plain and simple. Too late, the scales fell from her eyes, and she grasped the true nature of the animal she was dealing with.
The illusion of Godliness comes at a high price.
This is a great analysis, James–thanks for doing it. Mostly I’m struck by how this underscores the hastiness of it all. (Almost, dare I say, as if peeps were acting under hastily received direction from above, but that’s probs just my conspiracy alarm working overtime.)
Indeed! Even “apostasy” that she’s charged with is only defined in this book she lacks access to!
Can it really be considered “available” if MOST members do not know that they would be allowed access upon request? I have never been told I could have access. I suspect you only learned because you happen to be married to the clerk who happened to tell you (probably only after you mentioned this blog post and inquired if it was truly off limits). Far too much chance involved to claim that it’s readily available (even presuming no one “bristles” at being asked to share it).
Gotta love all this talk about the Handbook. Was the Handbook received by revelation, if so where is the revelation?
At least the scriptures were put forth so the members could vote and have them canonized as official scripture for the church, in which states the Lord’s procedure for these things, not the philosophies of a white Handbook written by man to protect the churhTM not the member. We can keep going around in circles about what the Handbook says but perhaps we are looking at the wrong ‘Handbook’.
These posts are so frustrating. I’ve seen far too many of them (IMO) over the past few weeks.
Let’s call it like it is. The arguments put forward by the author sound like a slick attorney trying to get his client off a DUI charge because the field sobriety test required 12 steps and his client only took 11. Forget the whole notion that the client was drunk, let’s instead focus on the mechanics of the process rather than actual innocence or guilt.
The CHI is littered with a very particular word, RECOMMENDED. This very specific word gives Bishops/SP’s guidelines and a framework to lead from. However, it also allows for flexibility when circumstances or the Spirit dictates otherwise. NONE of the points raised above speak to innocence or guilt. They are technical points relating to the process of notification and specific wordings in communication.
In any event, Kate’s innocence or guilt is none of my business. I view the Church Court an an opportunity for a member to receive corrective direction when they go astray. Members can choose to accept that corrective direction or not. Whether she received a letter or email has absolutely nothing to do with her eternal salvation. I suspect that Church courts will have absolutely nothing to do with whether one is exalted or not. The Lord knows her thoughts and her intentions. The Lord alone will make a final determination as to whether she is an apostate or not. Any punishment (or lack of punishment) received while in mortality will have no bearing in the hereafter.
BJ, I’m not trying to acquit Kate of anything. I am not a lawyer. I am a writer. And I value asking hard questions.
I also value standing up for people who are the victims of abuse, especially abuse of power.
I don’t think we have enough facts to know for 100% sure that that’s happening in this case. But there is enough here that smells fishy that I think people should be asking more questions.
I don’t necessarily think Kate’s guilt or innocence is my business either.
What I do think is the business of ALL church members is that we ensure that members get a fair shake when it comes to issues that could potentially STRIP THEM OF THEIR MEMBERSHIP.
You treat that as a light matter. I do not.
I have a couple of observations based on having served in 4 bishoprics, serving on the high council for several years, and professional training in interviewing in the course of fraud examinations:
1. I noted that Kate Kelly said she had kept her priesthood leaders informed and had not received any prior feedback from her bishop. As carefully as that is worded, it seems likely that she did receive ongoing counsel from her stake president. The bishop would be aware of this and would not try to duplicate what the stake president is already doing.
2. It is not at all unusual for a SP to work with non MP holders, up to and including holding a disciplinary counsel(DC). (See Margaret Toscano) Bishop’s, under the direction of the SP may hold a DC for a MP holder, though in that case the outcomes of the council could not include excommunication. IN any situation I am aware of, (and in 20 years there have been several) Whenever their is a DC for anyone, the bishop and stake president are both aware of what is going on. One does not act without counseling with the other.
3. The jurisdictional and the delivery of the letter questions raised would likely be caused by her Bishop and Stake President not being aware of where in Utah she was temporarily staying before her departure to Africa. It was only a matter of a few weeks, she would would not have had her records moved. Without an address neither a local bishop nor a certified letter could have been available.
4. As noted, both the SP and Bishop are attorneys and used to dealing with required procedures, both have Volume 1 CHI and are likely quite aware of what the CHI says, including the alleged discrepancies cited. (In my experience the handbook was reviewed by everyone involved, every time before a DC was held. I would not be quite so quick to say they were sloppy or that procedures were not followed as well as they could be under the circumstances. The original post does not persuade me of that.
David,
You stated:
‘It is not at all unusual for a SP to work with non MP holders, up to and including holding a disciplinary counsel(DC). (See Margaret Toscano) Bishop’s, under the…’’
Question – should your full stop be after ‘(DC)’ or after ‘(See Margaret Toscano)’?
If after ‘(DC)’, there is no justification in SPs holding DCs for non MP holders. I cannot find it in the handbook. If it is in there please point it out to me. And if you could find it, this would make it open season on our youth and that’s not going to happen.
I would hope that if you were in a DC meeting and saw this (have you?), the first question you would ask would be, ‘Why are we holding a DC for a non MP holder?’ I would also hope you would make sure that the SP was very clear in his response as to why he was presiding over a meeting contrary to the instructions given in the handbook. That is one of your responsibilities as a member of the DC ‘…to stand up in behalf of the accused, and prevent insult and injustice (D&C 102:17).
If the full stop should have been after ‘(See Margaret Toscano)’, the 2010 handbooks were introduced to stop examples like Margaret’s happening again. To quote President Monson from the 2010 Worldwide Training Session:
‘One area where errors occur frequently concerns disciplinary councils. There are really two types of councils: the ward or branch disciplinary council and the stake disciplinary council. Each has a different function, and if we stay within those rather specific functions, we will be all right.’
Let me know. Thanks.
David,
David,
You say that you’re confident that the Kelly’s Stake President is correctly interpreting the CHI, but how do you explain his claim that Kelly is no longer in “good standing” when CHI 6.1 clearly states that informal probabtion does not impact a members standing in the Church? He has gone beyond the bounds of his authority and denied Kelly (and the Church) the protection of a disciplinary council, which are required for impacting a member’s standing. There are enough unusual and bizarre actions by Kelly’s SP and BP that she ought to exercise her right not to have the DC at the ward or stake level, but instead go directly to the FP.
I may not have been clear in what I was saying, let me try again.
1. Kate Kelly seems to me to be parsing her words to say one thing while implying another.
2. When reading the news accounts, I immediately recognized the delivery method of the letter was not typical. But both the delivery method and the jurisdiction question are consistent with working with someone making a temporary move and not providing the address of the temporary layover spot.
3. The blog seemed to imply that certain things were out of order (The stake president counseling with Kate Kelly) When such is simply not the case.
James-
I understand your confusion. You are referring to the temporal/worldly Handbook, where leaders speak as men.
That version is not the true(!) word of God and only anti-Mormons bring it up now a days.
The Handbook they have used is the spiritual/eternal Handbook, the one that is too sacred to read. I am sure that the leaders have followed it to the teeth in their communication with Sister Kelly.
J/K 😉 Loved your post!
Adam,
I’m not able to reply to your comment, hence I’ve started anew.
You wrote:
‘I do believe the Handbook is clear. But I just think it says the opposite of what you do.’
It should be worrying to all that you could have two people who could be participating in Disciplinary Councils have opposite views on what the handbook actually says.
In President Monson’s opening remarks given at the 2010 Worldwide Leadership Training Meeting on the newly revised Church handbooks (the ones we now use) he stated:
‘During the past several years, the Office of the First Presidency has received hundreds of requests for ratification of improper actions. Requests for nullification of ordinances that have been improperly performed, though fewer, also number in the hundreds. One area where errors occur frequently concerns disciplinary councils. There are really two types of councils: the ward or branch disciplinary council and the stake disciplinary council. Each has a different function, and if we stay within those rather specific functions, we will be all right.’
I think the reason for our discussion is that the stake president has not stayed ‘… within those rather specific functions’.
He also stated at the same meeting:
‘The point, however, is that in almost all cases, if the leaders would only read, understand, and follow the handbook, such problems would not occur. Whether you’ve been a lifelong member of the Church or are a relatively new member, consult the handbook when you are uncertain about a policy or procedure. You may think you know how to handle the situation when, in fact, you may be on the wrong track. There is safety in the handbooks.’
I can’t add any more than what President Monson had to say so I’ll leave it there.
UCB
Sorry. My bad. I should have written:
‘It should be worrying to all that you could have two people who are participating in Disciplinary Councils having opposite views on what the handbook actually says.’
U.B. – If you had replied to my comment, the column would have been about 2 words wide.
I must admit that your quote of Pres. Monson provides strong support for your interpretation of the Handbook. Particularly where he says, “There are really two types of councils: the ward or branch disciplinary council and the stake disciplinary council. Each has a different function, and if we stay within those rather specific functions, we will be all right.”
And yet, he appears to be restating the general rule, which is what our leaders do in general meetings. Then they allow local leaders to act on a case-by-case basis, where appropriate. So, without asking him about this specific situation we don’t know if he feels it was inappropriate for the Stake President to administer informal probation in this case, or if it is inappropriate for Stake Presidents to ever administer informal probation. I’m stubborn, I know, but I don’t think I am maintaining this position out of stubbornness. I really do think that the Handbook and Church policy allow Stake Presidents to administer informal probation in what they consider to be exceptional circumstances. And while your quote from Pres. Monson (nice grab from a leadership conference in 2010, by the way) provides strong support for the general rule, I don’t think it forecloses the exercise of the Stake President’s judgement to make an exception.
This discussion of what a stake president can do compared to what a Bishop can do reminds me of a discussion between a priest and a deacon regarding who can collect fast offering. Deacon’s normally due, but a Priest may do so.
A Stake President/High Council disciplinary council can do anything a Bishop’s disciplinary council can do, plus more. When a DC is needed the Bishop and SP council together about who should do it. A SP may have the Bishop hold the DC for a MP holder with the understanding that they cannot excommunicate. A Bishop’s DC is limited when working with a MP holder. Trouble arises (Which is what President Monson was referring to in the quote earlier) when a Bishop’s council oversteps it bounds when working with a MP holder. I know of cases where this has occurred. When the person, some years later, applied for re-baptism there was a question if they had actually been excommunicated.
I don’t have a CHI at hand to quote from. I am relying from experience sitting on many, many DC while a member of 4 bishoprics plus 1 ward clerk calling , plus 5 years on the HC,
David,
It frustrates the heck out of me that people just don’t read the handbook, or read it once and put it down. Just to be clear to all and again according to the handbook – 6.10.5 Possible Decisions:
‘A disciplinary council can reach any of the following decisions:
1. No Action – A disciplinary council can reach this decision even if a transgression has been committed. As part of this decision, the member may be given cautionary counsel, or he may be referred to his bishop for an interview that might lead to informal discipline.
2. Formal Probation
3. Disfellowshipment
4. Excommunication.’
According to point 1, A SP cannot issue informal discipline. A SP cannot everything a bishop can do. Any SP who thinks he can is not following the instructions provided in the handbook. If the SP issued an informal probation against Kate Kelly he is in the wrong. To quote President Monson again:
‘The point, however, is that in almost all cases, if the leaders would only read, understand, and follow the handbook, such problems would not occur. Whether you’ve been a lifelong member of the Church or are a relatively new member, consult the handbook when you are uncertain about a policy or procedure. You may think you know how to handle the situation when, in fact, you may be on the wrong track. There is safety in the handbooks.’
UnderCover Brother,
We are reading the same thing but understanding it differently. To say what conclusions a Disciplinary Council can reach says nothing about what steps can be done prior to a disciplinary council.
I understand the principle to be this: A Bishop is the president of the Aaronic priesthood and the Presiding High Priest in his ward. Anything to do with the Melchizedek Priesthood is under the direction of the Stake President who is also the Presiding High Priest in his stake. A Bishop’s role (outside of temporal affairs and welfare issues) has a smaller scope and is under the direction of the Stake President. Problems with Disciplinary Councils arise when a Bishop’s council tries to exceed it’s authority. A stake President giving council (including informal probation) has no such limits. I do read the CHI as contradicting this. Nor do I believe that when it says in scripture that we should raise our voices in songs of praise that means organs and piano music is not appropriate in church. Some religions do believe that. To me that seems the same type of reasoning being used here to limit the Stake Presidents authority within his stake. It is not a matter of not knowing what the handbook and President Monson have to say on the subject. It is a matter of not understanding it the same as what your understanding seems to be, though I do understand how you could reach such an understanding. Just as I understand those who do not except organs in churches.
Porter,
There is a difference in blind, unquestioning obedience and faithfully choosing to sustain the prophet and those he has called to lead.
We are not asked to critique every action of every church leader by the measure of our own personal revelation. We do not have stewardship to receive revelation concerning the actions of Kate’s Stake President.
Personal revelation applies to our own personal choices, stewardships, and applications.
This principle of priesthood authority is foundational to the organization of His Church. You will not receive revelation FROM GOD that gives you authority to publicly condemn His servants unless you have been set apart to receive this revelation. (In this case that would make you an area authority 70 or at least one who has been invited to sit in on the disciplinary counsel.)
Satan, on the other hand, loves to speak evil of Church leaders and incite contention. He would condone the use of bootlegged manuals, contention, and public critique. Be aware of the source of your personal revelation.
Please, have a look at this document:
http://ordainwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Brief-Submitted-by-Nadine-Hansen-in-Defense-of-Kate-Kelly.pdf
It is long, but VERY interesting!
Please, have a look at this document:
http://ordainwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Brief-Submitted-by-Nadine-Hansen-in-Defense-of-Kate-Kelly.pdf
It is long, but VERY interesting!
Thank you so much for your very precise and insightful words. I needed them. You explained things clearly and at this time, I so appreciate hearing from those who have experience in these scenarios . You have clarified a lot of things that needed clarified.
You have done some research, but clearly not enough. Good grief, I’ve only read a few of your posts, and the conclusion I have come to is, “I’m glad you’re not my kid’s primary teacher. Who knows what you would try to stick in their head.”
Anybody who encourages public demonstrations and criticism against church doctrine is walking a tightrope wire over a chasm of excommunication. While the church does not claim that its leaders are infallible, it does require members in good standing to accept canonized scripture and to recognize that men called of God hold the keys of the priesthood and are responsible for receiving inspiration or revelation to perform their duties. When a person refuses to accept that authority, they in essence remove themselves from the flock of the faithful even if priesthood authorities don’t take official action. It’s fine to feel sorry for Kate Kelly for allowing herself to rebel against priesthood authorities to the point that her membership was jeopardized and finally removed, but to take up her cause is to risk the same fate, a fate that Satan is working hard to see repeated countless times in a vain effort to weaken and destroy the restored gospel 9f Jesus Christ with its saving ordinances and principles.