Defenses in LDS Church Courts

[_Darth J]

Sock Puppet---

I would like to see one or more of the following defenses attempted in church court:

--Diminished capacity
--Insanity
--Ineffective assistance of counsel (that one might be in a church post-conviction remedy case)
--The bishop failed to disclose Brady material
--Statute is void for vagueness

Aren't the first two implied? It is a church court after all.

No, I mean even granting that one is a believing Mormon.

[_Darth J]

Since the Church has decided to call these officious, perfunctory, pre-determined disciplinary meetings "court," let's hold the Church to its own claims.

If this is a court, what are the rules of evidence?

What is the standard of proof?

Who has the burden of proof?

[_LDSToronto]

It's not a court, it's a disciplinary council. The metaphor of a court doesn't hold up. I've attended over a dozen disciplinary councils, as a high councilor and as a member of a stake presidency, and my experience is that these councils are already decided prior to the council being held.

H.

That makes sense. It is a function of a religion that relies on confirmation bias. You have to first decide to belief, then if you have and ask god, you'll feel good about your decision. If you haven't made a firm decision, you'll feel yet confused. The prayer and the feeling are predetermined by how firmly you've decided the matter mentally before you pray.

By the way, H., is it the Stake President then that has predetermined the outcome before the court is convened?

In my experience, yes. The stake president is the only person who determines the outcome of the council - there is no majority vote.

Prior to a disciplinary council, a good stake president will try to meet with the accused multiple times. My stake president is a good guy, he goes out of his way to avoid disciplinary councils. From my experience, if the accused met with my stake president and showed some inkling of repentance, then my stake president would usually avoid the counsel or give him a lighter penalty. On the other hand, if the accused didn't show up to pre-meetings, or did not show any sign of repentance, then you could almost guarantee the outcome would be excommunication.

In the end, why anyone would ever subject themselves to a disciplinary council is beyond me - more than a courtroom, it's an arena where you are judged and questioned, and the power imbalance is hard to overcome for most.

H.

[_harmony]

In the end, why anyone would ever subject themselves to a disciplinary council is beyond me - more than a courtroom, it's an arena where you are judged and questioned, and the power imbalance is hard to overcome for most.

H.

Bring or at least threaten to bring the press.

Why anyone would actually show up for one of them is beyond me.

[_LDSToronto]

In the end, why anyone would ever subject themselves to a disciplinary council is beyond me - more than a courtroom, it's an arena where you are judged and questioned, and the power imbalance is hard to overcome for most.

H.

Bring or at least threaten to bring the press.

Why anyone would actually show up for one of them is beyond me.

I guess you could threaten to bring the press. The thing is, the majority of disciplinary councils are for adultery or some sort of crime - not exactly something you want splashed across the front of a newspaper. Very few are for apostasy.

I've only been in one council for apostasy. The rest were all adultery in varying degrees. Although there was one were the guy was ex'd for living common law with his girlfriend. That one made little sense to me because he was inactive. To the credit of the high council, a few high councilors mentioned that there were lot's of people who are inactive and living common law in our stake, and so it made little sense to single out this one guy.

H.

[_Yoda]

To the credit of the high council, a few high councilors mentioned that there were lot's of people who are inactive and living common law in our stake, and so it made little sense to single out this one guy.

Interesting.

Was the guy excommunicated? I would hope not.

[_sock puppet]

To the credit of the high council, a few high councilors mentioned that there were lot's of people who are inactive and living common law in our stake, and so it made little sense to single out this one guy.

Interesting.

Was the guy excommunicated? I would hope not.

I read H.'s post to the effect that this guy was excommunicated.