Defenses in LDS Church Courts

[_sock puppet]

Apart from the obvious ("I didn't do it" and an alibi, whatever 'it' is that has landed a member in an LDS Church court), what defenses are there?

Suppose 'it' is adultery. Is it an absolute defense, one that the LDS Church court does not assail, that God told the member that he should engage in spiritual wifery with the neighboring member's wife (and that she asserts that she engaged in polyandry with the member in question, as the result of personal revelation given to her), as part of the New and Everlasting Covenant?

COJCOLDS tells its members that the should seek out and that they are entitled to personal revelation. So if the member brought up on charges of adultery makes such a claim in his defense, must and does the LDS Church court accept that defense and dismiss the charges?

[_jon]

No.

You would be excommunicated for apostasy and adultery.

Also, a defence of "...but Joseph Smith did it..." will likewise fail to secure acquittal from your release from membership.

[_Yoda]

No.

You would be excommunicated for apostasy and adultery.

Also, a defence of "...but Joseph Smith did it..." will likewise fail to secure acquittal from your release from membership.

Somehow, I get the feeling that Sock Puppet already knew that. LOL

[_jon]

No.

You would be excommunicated for apostasy and adultery.

Also, a defence of "...but Joseph Smith did it..." will likewise fail to secure acquittal from your release from membership.

Somehow, I get the feeling that Sock Puppet already knew that. LOL

When I try and read between the lines all I see is spaces....

[Guest]

Has anyone been tried in church court and NOT been excommunicated or disfellowshipped? It seems pretty much a forgone conclusion that once you go in you're screwed. Not much of a "court" if that's the case. More like a kangaroo court.

[_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

[_sock puppet]

So, the LDS Church that encourages members to seek personal revelation does not believe its members when it is asserted in an LDS Church court?

Why not? Revelation is the epistemological method that the COJCOLDS teaches members to rely upon, and give priority to, over empirical data and logical, reasoned conclusions drawn from that empirical data. So why would an LDS Church court discount a member's claim to personal revelation to do the conduct for which he or she is being tried? Why would not an LDS Church court that cannot independently verify whether god did or did not give the claimed personal revelation discount it and disregard it?

Why would an LDS Church court put stock in the verification that witnesses and other means of forensics provides when a factual allegation is disputed, but not put stock in the preferred epistemology of revelation?

[_Buffalo]

Because ultimately the only consistent tenant of the LDS church is absolute obedience and obsequiousness to LDS authority. Everything else is expendable.

[_sock puppet]

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.

[_LDSToronto]

Has anyone been tried in church court and NOT been excommunicated or disfellowshipped? It seems pretty much a forgone conclusion that once you go in you're screwed. Not much of a "court" if that's the case. More like a kangaroo court.

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.