NOM

In the callings post, AzFlyer asked:

What was it like sitting in on a DC? My dad was on the HC and he'd told me about a few DC in non-specific details. He mentioned one that got pretty nasty and he drew the 'defend the member' straw.

What kind of things were people facing DC's for?

It's been so long ago that I'm comfortable telling my experience. I was the ward clerk about 15 years ago in a past mormon life of a ward I no longer live in. During this time I sat through a few disciplinary councils at the ward level over a 2 year period in this calling. This was before the MLS system was updated and the ward clerk was required to fill out a form and send a copy to Salt Lake City. Now I believe they are all done online in the MLS system.

DC#1: The Bishop was asked by the SP to convene a ward disciplinary council for a recently returned missionary who had been home for about 4 months. The RM had sex with his girlfriend. Ironically, the girlfriend was the daughter of the SP. He was disfellowshipped for 6 months.

DC#2: A single adult age male who happened to be partially deaf (he could speak) had sex with his non member girlfriend who was totally deaf. The Bishop (who to this day was the best bishop I've ever known) convened a disciplinary council for the guy. He brought his non member deaf girlfriend in as support. She couldn't understand why he was "in trouble" for having consensual sex. He was trying to interpret for her in sign language and the Bishop became flustered and kindly thanked her for coming in and excused her to the hall. He asked a few questions regarding any chance she could be pregnant. The guy said no, "I used condoms" (plural). The Bishop said, "Condoms? I thought you told me you only had sex once?" The man replied, "I don't remember..." The Bishop then asked, "how many times did you have sex?" The guy replied, "I can't hear you? What do you say?" The Bishop replied, "HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU HAVE SEX?" The guy smiled, turned bright red, and said, "A lot!"

The Council excused the guy and once the door shut, the Bishop just sat there and laughed. He said "you know guys, part of me wants to give this poor kid a high five! And the other part of me has to discipline him!" The Bishop turned to me and said, "You don't have to write that in the notes!" I didn't. The Bishop recognized the opportunity this single mid thirties virgin had in his bed and couldn't blame him for faltering. He was disfellowshipped for 6 months.

DC#3: This DC involved a missionary who was sent home mid mission for the second and final time. The first time the missionary was sent home for kissing and making out with a few girls on his mission. He spent six months home before returning to another mission state side. The family had announced he was home for a surgery in order to avoid embarrassment. Six months went by and he left again. About 3 months after that, he was sent home and the SP had instructed the a Bishop to convene a disciplinary council. The Bishop chastised the poor kid for messing up a second time and explained he wasn't feeling lenient at all. The Bishop then asked very detailed questions regarding the level of make out. Did you have sex? No. Did you touch her breasts? Yes. Did you touch her "down there"? Yes. Over or under her panties? Under. Did you penetrate? Yes. How many fingers? How far in? At this point, I stopped taking notes because it was extremely awkward. The Bishop asked him to step out while the council convened. The bishop then apologized to the councilors and myself for having to listen to that level of detail. The SP had asked him to grill the kid to see if he would confess to sex so that the SP could excommunicate him because the SP felt the kid lied to the SP. The Bishop defended the kid and he was disfellowshipped for 1 year. He obviously didn't finish serving his mission and was married a short time later outside of the temple.

DC#4: A sister in the ward with a long history of repeated cycles of activity/inactivity came in to repent for past drug abuse during her latest inactive phase. The bishop took her circumstances into consideration and determined it was not the right time to convene a disciplinary council even though the SP suggested it would help the woman become active and worthy again. The bishop was compassionate and caring and offered to help in anyway possible and paid for counseling for this women.

RR's perspective then: Looking back, these DC's were some of the best spiritual experiences I've had in the church because of the compassion and care the Bishop and his councilor took to help these members get back on their spiritual feet. They didn't judge these people and offered empathy and support the best they could. They lucked out with Bishop roulette. I've heard and read many miserable experiences on the web. I was fortunate to be a part of the good ones where the people were not humiliated, broken down, and required to suffer before getting back into the favorable graces of the church.

RR's perspective now: Don't ever confess! It's nobody's business if two consenting adults decide to engage in sexual activity together or whose hands touch where. The church disciplinary council process is an abusive demonstration of power designed to maintain control.

ETA: I believe the notes that were taken and sent in to SLC still exist and reside in a file somewhere. Even though these people repented, there is a paper trail that outlines in detail their sins. While I was the Stake Financial Clerk, we decided to clean out a few of the overstuffed file cabinets in the stake office. In the back of a drawer, there was a manilla file folder labeled "Disciplinary Actions". I pulled it out and realized the stake still had copies of the forms from past DC's going back nearly 10 years. Over the years nobody purged the files or cleaned out the old stuff. My friend (who was the current ward clerk in our ward) and I read through the files realizing that we knew many of the people who had their sins and DC's documented. We ended up shredding the DC forms and started on the rest of the old junk paperwork before we burned up the shredder in the stake office. The rest we loaded into the back of his truck and took to the dump. Nothing ever stays confidential in a Mormon ward. One more reason to never confess!

Interesting story RR. I'm sure those kinds of things are interesting to everybody, which is probably one reason why they persist.

It truly is Bishop Roulette. About a month before our wedding date my future wife and I went to my bishop to repent for getting to third base. My fiance didn't want to talk to her bishop because he was her father's best friend, she was afraid her bish would tell her father.

My bishop was just relieved we hadn't had sex. He didn't even ask details or how many times, he just told us not to fool around again until we were married. We dodged a huge bullet.

I think you nailed it about DC's - if they are used to help individuals, and there is compassion and empathy, they can be useful. All to often, though, they are about punishing the transgressor. I've been on a few stake ones as an emergency fill-in, and that seems to be the goal of most of the HC, at least the ones I saw with my own eyes.

I was pretty determined never to hold a council, I couldn't forsee any event that would make me do it. Except when it did. There was a late 20's/early 30's sister in the ward who was hell-bent on a course of action that not only made me fear for her spiritual/emotional health, but her physical safety as well. Her family, who was in leadership in our area, was determined to ignore her behaviour and pretend it didn't exist. To me, I had no recourse but to wake this family up, to get her the help she needed, so I had a council and we ex'd her. It was the toughest thing I ever did. Especially after Mom met with me and reamed me up and down for what I did, even as I was still meeting with her daughter weekly to help her out. These things are confidential, I told her, but I said pretty firmly that once they found out what was going on, they would thank me later. The Mom never did, but a couple of years later when the story came out, the Dad was pretty grateful on how I handled things.

A good ending though. Some years later this sister turned it around, got all the help she needed from another pretty compassionate bishop and great counsellors at LDS services (which I used for ward members on a regular basis, they were and are excellent in this area), and I was pretty happy to get an invite from this sister to the re-baptism; MUCH to the chagrin of the rest of the family, except for the Dad. So I think they can be useful, I'm just not sure they are even half the time.

Spicy McHaggis wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2017 8:08 am It truly is Bishop Roulette. About a month before our wedding date my future wife and I went to my bishop to repent for getting to third base. My fiance didn't want to talk to her bishop because he was her father's best friend, she was afraid her bish would tell her father.

My bishop was just relieved we hadn't had sex. He didn't even ask details or how many times, he just told us not to fool around again until we were married. We dodge a huge bullet.

Similar experience for Mr and soon-to-be Mrs Kori. A little 3rd base action never hurt nobody.

Couple things - warmth, compassion, and understanding isn't necessarily what everyone gets in a "Court of Love". Maybe the experiences shared thus far are fairly representative, and maybe they aren't, but it is a fact that not everyone is fortunate to have a relatively good experience in them.

But more importantly, they should never be happening. It is a violation of boundaries for a church to call a member in and judge them for their personal behavior. It simply isn't any of the Church's business. If someone has done something wrong and seeks out a Church leader for spiritual guidance, that is one thing, but it is unacceptable for a church to haul a member in front of leaders and humiliate them with a disciplinary council. It is a shameful practice and I personally don't look upon it with the smallest degree of approval. It is an oppressive tool used by an oppressive Church that has a basic lack of respect for personal boundaries.

Korihor wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2017 9:42 am [quote="Spicy McHaggis" post_id=7710 time=<a href="tel:1485961739">1485961739</a> user_id=161]
It truly is Bishop Roulette. About a month before our wedding date my future wife and I went to my bishop to repent for getting to third base. My fiance didn't want to talk to her bishop because he was her father's best friend, she was afraid her bish would tell her father.

My bishop was just relieved we hadn't had sex. He didn't even ask details or how many times, he just told us not to fool around again until we were married. We dodge a huge bullet.

Similar experience for Mr and soon-to-be Mrs Kori. A little 3rd base action never hurt nobody.
[/quote]


In my teenage years we called it "dry farming". It's better than nothing I guess.

Similar experience for Mr and soon-to-be Mrs Kori. A little 3rd base action never hurt nobody.

Nope. A lot of third base action never hurt anyone. I can highly recommend it.

Not Buying It wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2017 10:37 am Couple things - warmth, compassion, and understanding isn't necessarily what everyone gets in a "Court of Love". Maybe the experiences shared thus far are fairly representative, and maybe they aren't, but it is a fact that not everyone is fortunate to have a relatively good experience in them.

But more importantly, they should never be happening. It is a violation of boundaries for a church to call a member in and judge them for their personal behavior. It simply isn't any of the Church's business. If someone has done something wrong and seeks out a Church leader for spiritual guidance, that is one thing, but it is unacceptable for a church to haul a member in front of leaders and humiliate them with a disciplinary council. It is a shameful practice and I personally don't look upon it with the smallest degree of approval. It is an oppressive tool used by an oppressive Church that has a basic lack of respect for personal boundaries.

That is a great point. Nobody deserves to be shamed in front of their church peers. Nobody.

Does any other church do this sort of thing? I know born-again christian churches encourage waiting for marriage to have sex but do any of them try to humiliate a couple of young kids in love for fooling around? That behavior is a sure sign of a cult.

One of the wierdest DC's I was involved in was for an old man who had confessed to masturbating in the shower habitually. I'm pretty sure the handbook specifically states that you don't convene a DC for that behavior nowadays, but for some reason in this case they did. Maybe his wife caught him and pressed the Stake President to act. In any case it was really awkward and a waste of time. He got disfellowshipped. Pretty stupid.

In another case we had a reconvene for a guy who had served jail time for beating his wife. I had worked with his wife in a stake calling prior and she was an amazing dynamic lady. My jaw dropped to the floor to hear this guy had beat her. That was the most legitimate use of a DC in my time on the council. Probably the only justified reason I can think of for one (other than predatory behaviors, murder, child abuse, etc), although he had done his time in jail.

Not Buying It wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2017 10:37 am But more importantly, they should never be happening. It is a violation of boundaries for a church to call a member in and judge them for their personal behavior. It simply isn't any of the Church's business. If someone has done something wrong and seeks out a Church leader for spiritual guidance, that is one thing, but it is unacceptable for a church to haul a member in front of leaders and humiliate them with a disciplinary council. It is a shameful practice and I personally don't look upon it with the smallest degree of approval. It is an oppressive tool used by an oppressive Church that has a basic lack of respect for personal boundaries.

Amen! I agree and I'm embarrassed to think I once didn't see it this way.

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2017 1:58 pm One of the wierdest DC's I was involved in was for an old man who had confessed to masturbating in the shower habitually. I'm pretty sure the handbook specifically states that you don't convene a DC for that behavior nowadays, but for some reason in this case they did. Maybe his wife caught him and pressed the Stake President to act. In any case it was really awkward and a waste of time. He got disfellowshipped. Pretty stupid.

This church probably changed to not have DCs for masturbation because it wouldn't look good if 10 million members were disfellowshipped. This is really stupid. The poor chap probably felt relieved after confessing until an avalanche of guilt piled on him the next time he took a shower and couldn't resist.

Like RR, I was a ward clerk about 15 years ago in a ward far.far away and I sat in on a few DCs. All were for sexual activity between their girl friends (recently returned missionaries) and one was a young woman who was a candidate for re-fellowshipping. We had a very strict BP so everything ended up with a long term of discipline. The poor girl had been disciplined by this BP and was finishing about 18-months of being disciplined. The man in her life was married to someone else, held a leadership role in his ward and he never attempted to go through a DC. I felt she had paid an awful lot for her "crime". The Young Men were advised by the BP to end their relationship with their girlfriends/fiance's.

The last DC during my term as ward clerk was for my own Son. I chose to not sit in because I thought he might need the privacy. He complained about the length of discipline. But he followed the BP's counsel to break it off with his fiance. Which broke "our" hearts, as we truly loved her. She confessed to her BP at BYU-I and only had to serve a short discipline period of taking the sacrament.

ETA, to answer the question, I had thoughts that I would be a different kind of BP if the matter ever came up. I have heard of BP's and other leaders who admitted to masturbation when they were young. I always seemed to have BP's who practiced immaculate conception to father their own children. I stand with those who believe sexual sins shouldn't be confessed. Of course I never sat in a DC with molesters or spouse abusers or rapists. Although I thinks those behaviors should be confessed to law enforcement, not a meddling BP.

Not Buying It wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2017 10:37 am It is a violation of boundaries for a church to call a member in and judge them for their personal behavior. It simply isn't any of the Church's business. If someone has done something wrong and seeks out a Church leader for spiritual guidance, that is one thing, but it is unacceptable for a church to haul a member in front of leaders and humiliate them with a disciplinary council. It is a shameful practice and I personally don't look upon it with the smallest degree of approval. It is an oppressive tool used by an oppressive Church that has a basic lack of respect for personal boundaries.

I quite agree. The only two times I still think is warranted is 1) If the person is a danger to him/herself, or 2) a danger to others. In my mind, the church SHOULD be working closely with law enforcement on these matters, in cases of abuse, affinity fraud, predatory or criminal behaviour and domestic/other forms of violence and the like. And in the case of being a danger to him/herself, the individual voluntarily comes forward and identifies the behaviour, they are not "caught out" by presiding authorities. Otherwise, you are quite correct, it is all about control and humiliation. Matters such as consensual sexual sins, apostasy, these are absolutely ridiculous things to have a council over.

I would even add that in the cases of dealing with perpetrators of abuse, violence and sexual harassment, in many cases I have seen (so anecdotal evidence really, take it for what it's worth) councils are held to protect the good name of the church, rather than helping the victims. And that's the real tragedy of the council, is doesn't protect the innocent, it just deals with the perpetrator once the incident has concluded. I dealt with one of these abuse cases, and while it happened in the ward and went to a stake council I won't comment about it; I still find it difficult to think about. It's just so sad.