Leaked Minutes wrote:A disciplinary council is mandatory for a member who is in apostasy.
How do we help a stake president who is reluctant to step up and handle the situation?
...
The member might ask for their name to be removed. Elder Christensen to get policy statement on this to Area Seventy.
The Church's definition of apostasy:
CHI wrote:A]postasy refers to members who:
Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.
Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.
Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.
Are in a same-gender marriage.
Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.
People like me probably aren't usually considered to be in apostasy, because participating here or in the minor level I do on social media doesn't really arise to the level of public opposition. The clear notable indications of apostasy are, joining another church or group, particularly involving polygamy, or getting married to someone of the same sex. Kind of odd, but we've noted that the Discrimination Policy doesn't really make sense.
But according to the leaked minutes, some stake presidents don't really want to follow through and do their duty to ex apostates. Some of them have to be coerced into it. This lends support to something I've long said, Most church leaders really don't want to hold disciplinary councils, at least if they don't think that will hold any power over the individual. It's too much bother, especially for an SP, who has to convene a full council. And most of them really would like to minister and not attack. I think a lot of them are really aware of how little such actions really benefit. They like to hold out hope of a return, a repentance. And if it is a high profile individual, Runnells, Palmer, Kelly, Dehlin, etc., most of them don't want to bother with the attention that comes their way. It's really not necessarily a local issue, as church headquarters claims, because sometimes the SP has to be coerced or pressured into it.
They're not really sure what to do if someone asks for their name to be removed. They have to get Christensen to give them a policy statement. They're on pretty shaky ground if they do anything other than accept it and terminate the proceedings. That's not that hard to figure out.