�1NOTES FROM STUDYING DISCIPLINE IN !

THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS!This is one individual’s efforts to study out the evolution and execution of disciplinary action in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. It is a collection of notes reflecting personal understanding and opinion, and does not represent the official doctrine of the church, though it does quote from and examine things which are official doctrines. This is not an essay, targeted to change the minds of anyone else or “lead them astray.” It only reflects my own conclusions and processing of thoughts from my studies. I share them because it’s been requested."While this disclaimer should be sufficient prevent charges of apostasy and efforts toward excommunication from being levied, not only according to scripture but also the standards of the Church Handbook of Instructions, vol. 1 (CHI-1), current practice in the church reflects exactly the opposite, despite contrary assertions. I expect that if this were to make it into the hands of leadership, they would undoubtedly wage a war of unrighteous dominion and seek to strip me of God’s eternal blessings for myself and my family through their understanding of excommunication. The likely approach would be to tell me to recant, then when I refuse they would charge me with “Repeatedly act[ing] in clear, open and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders,” one of their unscriptural definitions of apostasy from CHI-1."Luckily for me, in doing so they will only forfeit for themselves that which they sought of me. My eternal blessings and those of my family are between us and God. The leadership of the institution has no voice in the matter, despite assertions otherwise."""A PEOPLE OR A CHURCH?!In the beginning, the Restoration was not an effort to establish another Christian Sunday religion. It was meant to establish a people, a nation unto itself of sorts. They were to be self-sufficient, NOT as individuals but as a community, reliant only on God and one another. They were expected to be a contained civilization. They were to have their own government, evidenced by the original use of terms in revelations such as “government” and “laws” and “courts.” "As a people, they were given laws and an internal judicial system. It was not only meant for “spiritual” matters, tied to religion and “church” membership; it was to be used for all matters concerning the law which the people lived under. It handled business and property conflicts, breaking of laws both temporal and spiritual, almost any dispute that could arise between parties. Bishops were the front line of this system, handling a far larger load of “temporal” responsibilities (the only ones they are authorized to handle) than they do now."This court system was intended as a “Mormon” replacement for the judicial system of the land, the only offense which could not be handled internally being that of killing. Killers were to be handed over to the state, as only the state had authority to enact justice against one who kills. All other offenses were intended to be handled internally, as even then the American judicial system was considered laughably corrupt (sarcastically referred to in the Joseph Smith Papers (JSP) as the “so called” judicial system on p. 30 of Minute Book 1). Mormons could not hope for actual justice—or mercy—in the courts of the land, so the Lord provided a system for them to use among themselves. This system promised both justice and mercy in greater measure, if it were followed properly. What we were first offered was immensely valuable, and comparing what we were initially given with what we now operate under should help bring to light just how much we’ve lost in our evolution."""

�2THE EARLY CHURCH JUDICIAL SYSTEM SUMMARIZED!The purpose of any judicial system is punishment for breaking of laws (Alma 42:15-22). While this system is intended to help protect the innocent and punish the guilty, it is understood that man is fallible. We will not get things right every time. So is it better to wrongly punish the innocent, as a precaution against failing to punish all the wicked? Or is it better to fail to punish some of the wicked, as a precaution against wrongly punishing the innocent? I believe the system of checks and balances that were initially built into the church judicial system overwhelmingly reflect a Divine interest in protecting the wrongly accused innocent over punishing every last offender. For no man can ultimately escape just punishment, else God would cease to be God. Any punishment we fail to render can be entrusted to God to handle. But we cannot expect Him on the same note to grant us any leniency in destroying the innocent. We can only expect to call down the punitive justice of God on our own heads."First and foremost, God’s judicial system hinges on a requirement set forth in D&C 20:80: Any member of the church of Christ transgressing, or being overtaken in a fault, shall be dealt with as the scriptures direct. There is no latitude for interpretation as to the primary source of direction we are to follow. It is not the hidden CHI-1, it is the scriptures. Furthermore, D&C 42 is a section comprised of instruction concerning laws we have been given and how we are to handle their infringement. We are twice given the instruction that ALL disciplinary matters are to be handled the same way, as laid out for us in that section (vv. 83 & 93). Joseph Smith stated unequivocally that new revelation cannot trump scripture, as contradicting a former revelation is a sign of a false messenger (TPJS, p. 214). The Lord expects us to be guided by the scriptures, and any effort to defy them or set them at naught is anti-Christ."Within the scriptures, as will be shown below in comparison to current practice, we were given a series of checks and balances on judicial power, limiting unilateral action and creating protections for the innocent against false or wrongful punishment. Such protections included:"- Requirements restricting the sources of information presenting evidence against the accused."- Multiple levels of appeals, with more guaranteed re-hearings in case of biased or erroneous

judgment on the part of some councils."- Respect for the proper understanding and application of both punishments and repentance."- Measures preventing an accuser from sitting in judgment against the accused."- Measures preventing judges from rendering verdicts without majority agreement to its correctness."- Built-in defenders of any and all innocence on the part of the accused, with no actual built-in

prosecution."- The accused and their defenders always being granted the last word, so that any true words of

innocent defense will ring out over the words of accusation."- Measures requiring multiple witnesses with integrity and sound evidence to convict."- Required opportunities for forgiveness to swallow up the just punishment of the accused, as the

offended are required to attempt to resolve issues personally before bringing in church involvement."""EVOLVING MORMONISM AFFECTED THE LDS COURTS!The early Mormons were apparently more interested in garnering from the Lord what they wanted, rather than what He wanted for them. They wanted a Sunday religion, as such religions were understood at the time. They wanted a New Testament model Christian church, comparable to all the others, only hoping that theirs would be the most right before God. Our refusal to accept what the Lord offered us resulted in the church being placed under a collective condemnation in 1832, only two years after our initial inception as a church (D&C 84:56-57)."

�3In the time since 1832, we even began altering the revelations themselves. Words like “government,” “laws” and “courts” have been changed to “presidencies,” “covenants and commandments” and “councils.” This is the jargon of a Sunday religion, not a people. As time progressed, we began to primarily use the secular judicial system and abandon the use of the church judicial system in temporal matters. (We’ve similarly done the same thing with the church “welfare” system, encouraging members to approach the state first and the church second, in diametric opposition to previous counsel and practice.) "As part of the evolution, we altered the actual functioning of our judicial system, both in what cases it will try and the procedure for trying them. Fear of the state has led the church to wash its hands of all cases determining things like property ownership or other civil disputes. This stripped the bishops of much of their temporal responsibility. "But in those religious cases the church would still hear, procedure evolved in the direction of making it increasingly easy for leadership to do as they please, checks and balances against their power being systematically removed. In the church today, adhering fully to CHI-1, an authority (we'll use the stake president) can unilaterally walk a person from accusation to excommunication unchecked, as follows:"- First, they can discover for themselves that a member may be involved in some sort of sin or

transgression, making them accuser and/or witness (which in and of itself is fine). "- Then, rather than hand off the case to another authority to judge so they can properly act as accuser/

witness, the stake president can instead personally open an investigation of the accused. "• While certain tactics are forbidden (such as stalking and wire-tapping), other techniques such as

data mining, false internet personas, and delegated spying have been used and considered appropriate in practice. "

- Then, having gathered information on the accused, that stake president can sort through the information and determine what is and is not “relevant” as evidence for a disciplinary council, before it is called. "

- Then they can call the accused before a disciplinary council, with themselves heading the council as judge. "

- The council will follow or disregard procedures as the stake president determines, regardless of even CHI-1 procedural instructions (which power CHI-1 actually grants them), and the accused need not be informed of what procedures will and will not be followed in their own trial. "

- The stake president chooses who will and will not speak (with the sole exception of the accused themselves, still being granted that token right). "

- The stake president determines what evidence will and will not be examined, what witnesses and testimonies will and will not be examined in the council. "• This includes those evidences, witnesses and testimonies which the accused provides during the

council. "- When all allowed testimony, evidence and remarks have been submitted and examined, the stake

president makes a unilateral decision concerning punishment, with a ceremonial but actually powerless “sustaining” vote on the part of the council."

In other words, a stake president may currently act as plaintiff, detective, prosecution, defense, witness, legislation, jury and judge, unilaterally and unchecked. CHI-1 grants them this. Besides "the honor system," there is literally nothing preventing a biased church authority from unjustly and single-handedly walking someone to their guaranteed excommunication if they so wish. This is only the case because every check and balance on authoritarian power has been systematically removed over the last 150+ years, most especially via Correlation. It is no wonder David O. McKay lamented that he feared Correlation would bring about apostasy in the church. (Prince, Gregory and Wright, Robert. David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, p. 150-152)"

�4CHI-1 DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE!"INITIATION OF DISCIPLINE!The disciplinary process is initiated when leadership receives information about serious transgression (6.3), by:"- A sinning member’s confession."

• While the scriptures refer to confession as evidence that repentance has already taken place (D&C 58:43), CHI-1 sees it as only a beginning of the church’s “repentance process.” "- This “repentance process” is an unscriptural checklist and procedural mandate by which the

leadership (also unscripturally) inserts themselves into the process of the penitent receiving God’s forgiveness."

- Information provided by anybody."• D&C 42:80 requires it come from church members."

- Promptings from the Holy Ghost."• This creates difficulty if the leader who receives this is also to act as judge, as they cannot

scripturally act as accuser and judge simultaneously. Therefore this prompting could only lead to counseling and possible confession, or the leader would need to act as accuser while another acts as judge in a formal disciplinary setting."

- A guilty verdict in judicial courts is grounds for initiating a disciplinary council (6.10.12)."- Not mentioned, but practiced, is a member of leadership discovering for themselves incriminating

information, and then proceeding to initiate the disciplinary process in the role of judge, rathe than accuser or witness."• This obviously conflicts with D&C 102:20’s requirement of impartial examination of the case.""

Witnesses and victims deliver their complaints to church authorities, with no requirement to first approach the offender."- Offended parties—who in most circumstances would also end up being the aforementioned

witnesses—are scripturally mandated to first approach the offender directly and personally, and seek reconciliation."• D&C 42:88 - And if thy brother or sister offend thee, thou shalt take him or her between him or

her and thee alone; and if he or she confess thou shalt be reconciled.!- If the offense is neither public nor broad, then it should be addressed privately."

• D&C 42:92 - If any shall offend in secret, he or she shall be rebuked in secret, that he or she may have opportunity to confess in secret to him or her whom he or she has offended, and to God, that the church [Brethren] may not speak reproachfully of him or her.!

- If the offense is broad or open, it should be handled accordingly."• D&C 42:90-91 - And if thy brother or sister offend many, he or she shall be chastened before

many. And if any one offend openly, he or she shall be rebuked openly, that he or she may be ashamed…!- In the case of Ezra Taft Benson’s 14 Fundamentals for Following the Prophet talk, the content of

the talk was so offensive that it led to President Kimball rebuking Benson and requiring him to come before a select body of general authorities and apologize for teaching it. But the apology was kept behind closed doors, and most who heard it found it unsatisfactory (Benson was being

�5required to denounce things he still chose to believe, so a feigned recant would of course come off as hollow). Fast forward to Benson’s church presidency. Suddenly things he’s taught in the past are given an additional air of validity, as this man has risen to the highest rank in the church with its incumbent title of “Prophet.” He “cannot lead the people astray.” His 14 Fundamentals talk resurfaces. Generally speaking, hardly a soul knows that it was offensive and condemned. Most the membership is unaware that Benson was rebuked and made to apologize for it, not having attended or even been made aware of the secret apology meeting. Many of those who did attend had since gone the way of the dust. For all intents and purposes, we have a talk from a President of the church with seemingly negligible reason to doubt its truth and value. So it gets published again, and makes its way onto LDS.org and into our general conference addresses. The offensive and false ideas Benson put forth become official doctrines of the church. Had President Kimball obeyed these verses and chastened Benson as openly and publicly as he had offended with his speech, perhaps even offering corrections to it, it is likely we would instead have those corrections and rebuke published on the church website and in conferences, rather than the false, now officialized doctrines put forth in the 14 Fundamentals talk."

- If the offender is unrepentant after attempted reconciliation, then they shall be delivered to the church for discipline."• D&C 42:89 - And if he or she confess not thou shalt deliver him or her up unto the church, not

to the members, but to the elders. Prior to the 1835 D&C, early transcripts of this revelation held an additional requirement: If reconciliation wasn’t made with the first approach, get someone else to join you on a second attempt at reconciliation. Then go to the church if reconciliation is still not made. (See “Select D&C Sections Analysis, D&C 42:74-93 - Notable Text Changes”)."

• D&C 42:91 - And it shall be done in a meeting, and that not before the world. And if any one offend openly, he or she shall be rebuked openly, that he or she may be ashamed. And if he or she confess not, he or she shall be delivered up unto the law of God.!"

If church membership or standing is in jeopardy, then prior to the actual council taking place, there is to be a lengthy period of discussion and counseling between the accused and the leadership."- “Actions to address a person’s membership and standing in their congregation are convened after

lengthy periods of counseling and encouragement to reconsider behavior.” - Official Church Press Release, June 11, 2014."• This is obviously not true, or not followed in many cases, for example the fast and loose initiation

of “informal probation,” a non-scriptural punitive measure that is generally preceded by no counseling or discussion whatsoever. There are also actual recent cases where a member went from initial leadership confrontation of an accusation to discipline—even excommunication—in as little as three days."

- The scriptures require an approach of persuasion and long-suffering (D&C 121:41-42), which would indeed warrant a potentially lengthy period.""

The need for a disciplinary council is based on the seriousness of the sin (6.4). "- Sincerity of repentance is not necessarily accounted for, but simply let enough time pass before you

confess and you can avoid discipline (6.7)."• This obviously creates the notion that if you hide your sins for long enough, you can pass a statute

of limitations and no longer be accused. It has nothing to do with the sincerity or actuality of repentance. (See key terms - Repentance)"

�6- Some of the listed “transgressions” meriting a disciplinary council—while perhaps unsavory—are

debatable as “sins” (e.g. transsexual operation), having no scriptural commandment against them, therefore requiring a chain of additional philosophies of men to connect them to actual scriptural sins. Others are outright dubious or dangerously vague (See key terms - Apostasy)."

- Tithing is considered a “standard,” (6.7.1) as opposed to a law or commandment, sidestepping the need for formal discipline when there is non-compliance."• D&C 119:5 - Verily I say unto you, it shall come to pass that all those who gather unto the land of

Zion shall be tithed of their surplus properties, and shall observe this law, or they shall not be found worthy to abide among you.!

• D&C 85:3 - It is contrary to the will and commandment of God that those who receive not their inheritance by consecration, agreeable to his law, which he has given, that he may tithe his people, to prepare them against the day of vengeance and burning, should have their names enrolled with the people of God.!

• Perhaps holding onto the offenders as members increases the potential for tithing revenues down the line, whereas excommunication risks losing that source of tithing revenue permanently.""

Once incriminating evidence or testimony is brought to a church authority, he interviews the accused to grant them an opportunity to confess (6.4)."- Should they confess, this can provide grounds for convening a disciplinary council, and evidence

against the offender within that council (6.3).""If there is no confession, the church authority “gathers further evidence.” He is even allowed to “conduct the investigation himself” (6.4)."

• They aren’t allowed to use spy equipment or stalk the accused (6.4). "- However, they can evidently data mine, gossip, use false internet personas and engage in

entrapment, delegate others to do the same, or rely on those who already are, for example the Strengthening the Church Members Committee and its delegates.""

A disciplinary authority gets the privilege of “determin[ing] the relevant facts” of a case before even convening the council where he then hears the case based on the facts he deemed relevant (6.10.2)."- This is obviously a gross misrepresentation of justice.""Once sufficient grounds are uncovered for convening a disciplinary council, the accused is notified of said impending council (6.10.2).""WHO WILL TRY THE CASE?!“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.” (6.2.1)"- There are NO gender-based scriptural determinations for which court is to be used. It is ONLY the

nature and difficulty of the offense."- Were the Aaronic expansions partially responsible for this shift? (see “Aaronic Expansions”) The

Aaronic expansions allow for bishops who do not hold the high priesthood, if they are Aaron’s descendants (D&C 107:69), which was not allowed prior to the expansions. This risked a holder of

�7the higher priesthood being judged of someone with only the lower priesthood, if the offense was within the scope of the bishop’s office. With our obeisance to our definition of authority, such a thing certainly could not stand. This would provide justification for switching the determining factor from being the type of transgression to the authoritative status of the transgressor. I don’t know whether this was the case."

- There is a recognized division between the greater (Melchizedek) and lesser (Aaronic) Priesthoods (D&C 107:6). The Mechizedek is to administer in greater, spiritual things (D&C 107:8, 12), while the Aaronic, headed by the bishopric, is to administer in the lesser, temporal things and the written law (D&C 107:14, 20, 68). Therefore, the only determining factor as to which council should initially try a case is whether an Aaronic level written law is clearly broken (stealing, lying, etc.). If the matter is more difficult or serious, requiring more deliberation, more understanding, more of the Spirit to properly resolve, it is to be handled by the Melchizedek councils (adultery, teaching questionable doctrine, offenses questionably condemned by scripture, etc.)"• There is NO scriptural basis or allowance for informal or formal probation, disfellowship, or any

other disciplinary punishment other than removal from the congregation, which is excommunication. A person is either a member of the congregation, considered on par with the rest of the church, or they are not part of the congregation. "- In fact, if our current understanding of excommunication is correct, bishops lack entirely the

scriptural authority to hold any disciplinary council in the church, as excommunication is the only church punishment prescribed in scripture. (Mosiah 26:36; Alma 1:24, 5:57, 6:3; Moroni 6:7; D&C 41:5, 42:20-28 (esp.28))(see “Evolving Office of Bishop”)."

• Prior to 1835, elders’ councils represented the initial Melchizedek arm of handling church discipline, from which appeals could go to the high council. In 1835 The Messenger and Advocate published an article attributed second-hand to Joseph Smith, which put an end to the use of elders’ councils in that place and time, instead directing those disciplinary matters to be handled by the high council."- Because this change was never canonized while the canonized instruction to utilize elders in

discipline remains in our scriptures (D&C 42:80-81, 89), and because the church under Joseph’s Presidency treated the change as legitimate while our best attribution of the article to Joseph Smith is only second-hand, I have not resolved the matter of this change in my mind.""

THE DISCIPLINARY COUNCILS (6.10.4)!Both bishops’ councils and stake disciplinary councils are to function according to the same procedures, with only a few differences. When a difference arises, the council it applies to will be noted."Confidentiality creates an umbrella over everything (6.5), limiting information as much as possible on a “need-to-know” basis."- D&C 42:81 requires the congregation be involved in an excommunication by their vote of agreement."- D&C 42:90-91 requires public and open rebuke for public and open offense."Bishops, stake presidents, mission presidents, district presidents, and branch presidents are all called to be “judges in Israel” (6.2)."- The provided scriptural source of D&C 107:72-74 only refers to bishops (specifically high priests who

are not direct descendants of Aaron) as “judges in Israel.”"• There are no scriptural provisions for disciplinary authority being in the hands of mission

presidents, district presidents, or branch presidents."

�8- D&C 102:1-2 grants stake presidents authority in disciplinary matters as presidents of their local high

councils. D&C 107:72-74 simply doesn’t apply."All written mandates for procedure and evidence can be dismissed on a whim, as the presiding officer “rules on the procedures that are followed and the evidence that is presented.”"- D&C 20:80 requires adherence to scripture."A clerk records the proceedings (6.10.4, 6.10.11)."- In practice, some presiding officials have taken the liberty of telling clerks to withhold certain items

from the record, bolstering their unilateral power over the entire process.""PROCEDURE"1. The presiding officer explains the council’s purpose to the accused, and “asks for consent to use [any] confession as evidence in the council.” The confession cannot be used without the member’s consent, but the presiding officer “explains that refusal reflects a lack of contrition and repentance.”"

• Requiring member consent to use their confession against them is nullified, as “the presiding officer can still impose informal discipline on the basis of the confession, even if the member does not give consent for the confession to be used in the council.”""

2. Before the accused is allowed into the room, “the presiding officer tells his counselors (and the high council if it is a stake disciplinary council) whom it is for and what the reported misconduct is.” As he “rules on the procedures that are followed and the evidence that is presented,” he also “explains the procedures of the council to these leaders.”"

• The leaders get to know which procedures are going to be used in the process, but the accused is not granted the privilege of knowing how they are to be tried. Couple this with our lack of rights to know secret interpretations of laws we are expected to obey (see key terms - Apostasy), and the membership is not allowed to know all the laws they are to keep or the procedures by which offenses will be tried. These are hallmarks of tyranny."

• The best that can come out of this is that the balance of the council members theoretically don’t know who the accused is, or the charges against them before this time. This provides hope of greater impartiality from them as they hear the case, though their power to affect the actual council proceedings is now arguably non-existent.""

3. Then the accused may enter.""4. Open with a prayer (6.10.4-1).""5. The charges and plea are stated (6.10.4-2)."

• In case of guilty plea, examination of evidence is skipped (6.10.4-3).""6. Examination of evidence, as provided by the presiding officer (6.10.4-3)."

• A disciplinary authority, should they simply wish, can withhold from any victims of the accused the opportunity to make statements or present evidence, as the bishops and stake presidents “determine whether it would be helpful and appropriate for the victim to be given an opportunity to provide a written or oral statement about the known or alleged misconduct.” (6.10.3, emphasis mine)."

�9• If any council members were involved in the investigation or collection of the evidence, they nullify

their scripturally required impartiality (D&C 102:20).""CONCERNING WITNESSES!In CHI-1, witnesses are only required for charges of adultery (6.10.12), and therefore there might be no witnesses to testify in any other case. If they are present it is considered helpful, though it is not required in practice that “witnesses” provide firsthand knowledge. Rumors and gossip have evidently proven acceptable."- See key terms - Witness"- Scripturally there must be at least two witnesses, for any accusation."

• MOSIAH 26:5-9 - And now in the reign of Mosiah they [the unbelievers]… did deceive many with their flattering words, who were in the church, and did cause them to commit many sins; therefore it became expedient that those who committed sin, that were in the church, should be admonished by the church… And it came to pass that Alma did not know concerning them; but there were many witnesses against them; yea, the people stood and testified of their iniquity in abundance."

• 1 Timothy 5:19 - Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.!

• Moroni 6:7 - And they were strict to observe that there should be no iniquity among them; and whoso was found to commit iniquity, and three witnesses of the church did condemn them before the elders, and if they repented not, and confessed not, their names were blotted out, and they were not numbered among the people of Christ.!

- Witnesses are to be from the local congregation, or “church.”"• If the “church” is expected to lift up their hands against the condemned (D&C 42:81), it is both

impractical and unreasonable to understand this as including those from all distant congregations throughout the larger “Church,” who know nothing of the accused or the allegations."

• It is a reasonable check against unbridled authoritarianism, such as is currently practiced through the Strengthening the Members Committee (STMC) and similar programs in which upper leadership seeks to police the general membership from their authoritarian seats."- The STMC is run from within the Quorum of the Twelve, in defiance of Joseph’s instructions

that the Quorum only hold authority where no stake is organized (which instructions became entirely disregarded via Correlation). The church even claims to still follow this, which is demonstrably a lie."• “The Twelve will have no right to go into Zion or any of its stakes and there undertake to

regulate the affairs thereof where there is a standing High Council. But it is their duty to go abroad and regulate all matters relative to the different branches of the church.” (Joseph Smith to the Twelve, Kirkland Council Minute Book, May 2, 1835.)"

- Scripturally, witnesses and accusers are required to “testify,” and to be “just,” which would not allow for gossip, rumors and hearsay to be treated as evidence, or for witnesses to merely put leadership on the trail of the accused and then extract themselves from the disciplinary process."• D&C 58:18 - And to judge his people by the testimony of the just, and by the assistance of

his counselors, according to the laws of the kingdom which are given by the prophets of God."• D&C 107:72 - And also to be a judge in Israel, to do the business of the church, to sit in

judgment upon transgressors upon testimony as it shall be laid before him according to

�10the laws, by the assistance of his counselors, whom he has chosen or will choose among the elders of the church."

• See key terms - Testimony & Just"- When a witness or party cannot (or doesn’t wish to) attend, they may avoid questioning and

cross-examination if they submit a written statement, which “may be considered as evidence” (6.10.12), should the President decide to do so.""

7. “The member must be given an opportunity to question any witnesses who give evidence against him.” And then this requirement is immediately discarded (6.10.4-3)."

• Who knows but it all turns out to be a misunderstanding, which could be cleared up at this moment if this requirement were upheld. Or even more, the entire council might have been avoided if D&C 42:88 had been respected and the accused had been afforded the privilege of a scripturally required conversation with those who would accuse them.""

8. The accused can then present their case (6.10.4-4), but only according to whatever evidence and witnesses the presiding official decides to allow them to present, as he “rules on the procedures that are followed and the evidence that is presented.”"

• Witnesses in behalf of the accused are not required to be members, scripturally or in CHI-1, but they are required by CHI-1 to be “approved” by the presiding officer (6.10.4-4). This is yet another opportunity for council member bias to affect the outcome of the trial."

• Some who have stood as the accused have been prevented from “discussing doctrine” when laying out their case, though doctrinal differences were the basis for the Apostasy charges which brought the trial into being in the first place. Discussing doctrine in this setting has a well established precedent, which has even altered the course of official doctrine in the church."- Bishop Bunker was tried for heresy for teaching that the Adam-God doctrine was false

during Wilford Woodruff’s presidency, and faced excommunication. Bishop Bunker's court couldn't quite reach a conclusion on what to do because he defended his beliefs so well from the scriptures. And as a consequence of that, it was tabled without a decision. Wilford Woodruff came down and they had another convening of the church court and in the second court presided over by President Woodruff ultimately they decided not to do anything. And the doctrinal exposition that Bishop Bunker made has since become the doctrine of the church, although at the time it was dangerous heresy for the man to preach it."

"9. The accused and their defensive witnesses (if any were allowed) are questioned by the presidency (6.10.4-5, 6.10.4-6).""10. HIGH COUNCIL - The high council speaks on the evidence, according to the drawn lots."

• The presiding officer also “may invite any member of the high council” to speak, negating D&C 102:13-14: Whenever this council convenes to act upon any case, the twelve councilors shall consider whether it is a difficult one or not; if it is not, two only of the councilors shall speak upon it, according to the form above written. But if it is thought to be difficult, four shall be appointed; and if more difficult, six; but in no case shall more than six be appointed to speak.!

�11• The councilors “are not prosecutors or defenders,” yet D&C 102 clearly lays out that there are to

be those defending the accused against insult and injustice, even speaking in their behalf (vv. 15 & 17), but no definitive “prosecution.” The defenders are not trying to shield the guilty from justice, but to shield the potentially innocent from the insult and injustice that stems from assumptions of guilt."

• Rather than one half of the full council as required by D&C 102:15-17, only “one-half of those appointed to speak are responsible to stand up in behalf of the accused, and prevent insult and injustice.”"- In practice, councilors given this assignment frequently choose to make no comment, failing to

uphold their sacred duty.""11. “The accused member and the accuser (if any) are then given another opportunity to speak.”"

• “the accuser (if any)…”"- How does a difficult or serious case, such as a Melchizedek Priesthood holder being tried for

his membership in the Church (the required basis for calling this council), come before the council without an accuser having brought the offense to their knowledge? Only if the accusers sit upon the council itself, now judging the accused, in defiance of D&C 102:20."

- It is interesting that when a case was brought before Christ to be judged, but none would stand as accusers, Christ Himself chose not to judge the case (John 8:10-11).""

12. HIGH COUNCIL - All but the council and presidency depart, and “the stake president may ask for any additional comments from the high council,” without the accused present to hear the comments or respond."

• The President is supposed to render a verdict once the accused has finished laying out their defense (D&C 102:19) There is no latitude for further, closed discussion to take place afterward. In scripture, all matters in a church disciplinary council are transparent and open to all involved, with nothing going on secretly behind closed doors."

• Ultimately the high council’s input has no more influence than the president determines. This is a king receiving disposable input from advisors, not a council with a presiding officer.""

13. The Presidency privately confers to deliberate, and “the presiding officer…makes the decision” and “invites his counselors to sustain it” (6.10.4-7)."

• D&C 102:19 makes no mention of a presidency conference to take place after the accused finishes their final remarks. The president is to render his verdict when the accused finishes, in the presence of the council and the accused. If there is disagreement in the council, it is all on the table and transparent, as the entire process is meant to be."

• If the counselors disagree, the presiding officer “seeks to resolve the differences,” but ultimately “the presiding officer is the judge” (6.10.4-7)."- D&C 26:2 and 28:13 require that “all thing shall be done by common consent in the church.”

Councils and congregations are to decide all matters by this, as a check and balance precisely against this sort of unilateral power, which allows a president to function more as a king with advisors than a president of a council."

• “If there is not enough evidence to justify formal Church discipline but it seems inappropriate to conclude the matter immediately by a decision of no action, the presiding officer adjourns the council temporarily to seek additional evidence.” (6.10.4-7)."

�12- What a scary practice, for if a leader or accuser should decide they want someone punished

(which happens), yet they fail to uncover sufficient evidence for conviction, they can return trial after trial to the same case as often as necessary to pursue the desired verdict.""

14. HIGH COUNCIL - “After the stake president reaches a decision and his counselors sustain it, he announces it to the high council and asks them as a group to sustain it. The high council cannot veto the decision; it is binding even if it is not sustained unanimously.” (6.10.4-7)."

• D&C 102:19 and 22 require a majority vote of the council to ratify the decision, or in other words to make it effective. This would in fact constitute veto power by majority vote."

• D&C 26:2 and 28:13 require that “all thing shall be done by common consent in the church.” Again, councils and congregations are to decide all matters by this, as a check and balance precisely against this sort of unilateral power, which allows a president to function more as a king with advisors than a president of a council.""

15. If any have a concern with the President’s decision, “the stake president makes every effort to resolve the concerns and achieve unanimity.”"

• This is a wasted exercise, as only a majority is required by the scriptures, and the lack of unanimity has no bearing on the outcome anyway. It is meaningless ceremony to create a false perception.""

16. If the president cannot achieve the image of unanimity, he can still pull rank by virtue of his priesthood, as “the presiding officer is the judge,” and “the high council cannot veto the decision.”"

• This is precisely the kind of behavior D&C 121:34-43 was targeting and intended to curtail.""17. HIGH COUNCIL - The President “may recall witnesses for further questioning” and “again review the evidence,” but “not in the presence of the [accused] member.” Behind their backs, with no one present to even represent them."

• The disturbing nature of this procedure should be self-evident.""18. The accused is brought in and informed of the verdict and pertinent information concerning punishments and appeals (6.10.4-8, 6.10.4-9).""POSSIBLE VERDICTS (6.10.4-8, 6.10.5)"- No action"- Unscriptural punishments, all of which come with restrictions yet do not prevent a person from paying

tithing."• HIGH COUNCIL - Refer to bishop for potential “informal” punishment"• BISHOP - Informal probation"• Formal probation (while “formal,” it doesn’t go on your record) (6.9.1)"• Disfellowshipping (6.9.2)"

- Excommunication (6.9.3)""

�13Stake level authority is required to excommunicate Melchizedek priesthood holders, all others can be excommunicated by bishops."- If excommunication is only understood as temporal removal from the temporal body of the church for

unlawful behavior—with no other strings necessarily attached—then it appears a bishop has authority to excommunicate. If all the spiritual ramifications we attach to excommunication are true (loss of baptism and temple blessings, etc., which ramifications of excommunication are additions of men tacked onto God’s word, more than what He has spoken in scripture (3 Nephi 11:40; D&C 10:68; D&C 93:25)), then a bishop cannot have authority to excommunicate, as that would be administering in spiritual things, an infraction against D&C 107. (See “Evolving authority of bishops,” and key terms - Excommunication)"

- Excommunication is used for:"• Serious transgressions, especially violations of temple covenants."

- This also includes infractions against the secret interpretations of “apostasy,” and any number of loosely defined infractions which allow the judge great latitude of interpretation."

• The unrepentant disfellowshipped, for whom this “seems to offer the best hope for reformation.”"- The initial disfellowshipping is unscriptural, and the use of excommunication here is only a

manipulation tactic. It doesn’t matter if it is with the member’s “best interests” at heart, manipulation is ungodly."

• Those who are a serious threat to members, whose continued membership would facilitate their access to victims."

• Church leaders or prominent members who have publicly harmed the image of the church."- Even if the harm to the image is done by simply shining a light on unflattering truth, or

expressing an opinion that is claimed to be nothing other than an opinion."- Public and open transgression require public and open response, saying nothing of increased

gravity (D&C 42:90-91). Fame or prominence do not make a person’s sins worse than if the common member committed them, or God would be a respecter of persons, applying different measures for the same crimes."

- The vote of the congregation is no longer required for an excommunication, being replaced with, at best, announcements (6.10.9)."• D&C 42:81 - …and the elders shall lay the case before the church, and the church shall lift up their

hands against him or her, that they may be dealt with according to the law of God.!• Announcements of church discipline are done on a “need to know” basis, containing it as much as

possible, rather than involving the congregation in the decision as scriptures dictate. (6.10.9)"- Leadership all gets to know in PEC, whether they “need to know” or not. It’s a privilege of higher

authority, being involved in pious but exclusive gossip that is intended to be a community concern."

- The following cases get a more widespread range of announcement:"• Preaching false doctrine (as church leadership defines it)"• Predators"• “Flagrant” transgressors, such as plural marriage, cult behaviors, and ridicule of leaders

(because apparently that is tantamount to cult behavior and plural marriage)."- The disbanding of elders’ councils also impacts the process of excommunication for a member,

removing a layer of trial and appeal to streamline the process of kicking someone out.""

�1419. Closing prayer (6.10.4-10).""20. Prompt written notice is given of the decision (6.10.7).""21. Efforts are to be made to keep records tracking the excommunicated if possible (6.10.8)."

• This seems a bit Soviet…""APPEALS!You have 30 days to appeal (6.10.10)."- There is no scriptural deadline for appealing a council’s decision. This is a corporate practice."Appeals of the actions of a bishop’s council go to the stake. Appeals of the actions of a stake high council go to the First Presidency (6.10.10)."- The high council was created as an appeals court (D&C 102:2), but with the dissolution of elders’

councils, it became the first level of discipline for Melchizedek priesthood holders facing potential excommunication.""

APPEALS TO THE FIRST PRESIDENCY"“The First Presidency has ultimate authority over all Church discipline. Decisions of the First Presidency take precedence despite any rules or procedures to the contrary.” (6.10.12)."- In spite of the First Presidency’s claims to be above the law, D&C 107:82-84 conflicts with this,

noting explicitly that “none shall be exempted from the justice and the laws of God,” focusing specifically on the Presidency of the church."• D&C 107:82-84 - And inasmuch as a President of the High Priesthood shall transgress, he shall

be had in remembrance before the common council of the church, who shall be assisted by twelve counselors of the High Priesthood; And their decision upon his head shall be an end of controversy concerning him. Thus, none shall be exempted from the justice and the laws of God, that all things may be done in order and in solemnity before him, according to truth and righteousness.!

A decision may be rendered by the First Presidency on an appeal (without mention of a rehearing) (6.10.10), determining to:"- Let the decisions stand."- Modify the decision."- Direct the original disciplinary council to hold a re-hearing."

• Not only does this lack scriptural support, but it simply doesn’t make sense. The First Presidency would be trying the case with no new evidence, so neither would the original disciplinary council. With no change to the evidence, how could that same court be expected to be open to any variation from their original stance? That is not a re-hearing or re-trial, it is nothing more than a replay."

- Redirect appeals to other councils to hear the case and weigh in on it with a recommendation."• Both the practice of delegating this responsibility and the bodies who are given the responsibility

lack any scriptural basis or authority to perform in this manner.""REINSTATING MEMBERSHIP!

�15Scripture only requires repentance (Not as it is defined by the church, see key terms - Repentance) and a person may generally be readmitted. The only scriptural exceptions to readmission are those who kill (D&C 42:18, 79) and those who are repeat offenders of adultery (D&C 42:25-26). Therefore EVERYTHING else entailed in the following reinstatement process is entirely unscriptural.""THE UNSCRIPTURAL CHI-1 MEMBERSHIP REINSTATEMENT PROCESS"- A new disciplinary council will need to be called, with equal or higher authority to the condemning

one (6.12.1)."- The current presiding officer of the disciplinary council reviews the reports from the condemning one

(6.12.2)."- The presiding officer interviews the condemned to evaluate “repentance” (6.12.3)."- Any sentenced punishment for civil crimes must be complete, unless First Presidency approval

grants otherwise (6.12.4)."- Current presiding officer must contact the condemning officer for insight (6.12.5)."- Contact leadership over any victims, and consider if and how to inform victims of the new disciplinary

council (6.12.6)."- Notify the condemned about the new disciplinary council to be called (6.12.7)."- The new disciplinary council (6.12.8) runs same as the prior, with these changes:"

• Question the condemned about their repentance, commitment to “the church,” and strength of testimony."

• No drawing lots and appointing council speakers."- Verdict may continue or lift disciplinary measures. "

• Oddly, a single note is made that the disfellowshipped cannot be placed on formal probation (6.10.8)."

- Complete and send report as before (6.12.9)."- First Presidency approval is required to lift disfellowshipment or excommunication for a list of

convictions, including “Apostasy”. The approval can be obtained after the council has already convened. (6.12.10)"

- Written notice of the decision is given to the person (6.12.11)."- Once approved, a person is rebaptized and reconfirmed a member of the church. (6.12.12)."

• If unendowed, they go back to membership normalcy."• If endowed, they have restrictions until they receive the “restoration of blessings” ordinance.

Restrictions include no wearing garments, no activity that requires holding priesthood and no entering the temple, even for proxy baptisms."

• Men who had priesthood but no endowment have priesthood conferred and are ordained to their prior office: “Immediately after baptism and confirmation, these brethren have the priesthood conferred upon them and are ordained to the priesthood office they held at the time of excommunication.”""

RESTORATION OF BLESSINGS ORDINANCE (6.15)"Endowed excommunicants who held priesthood have an ordinance performed called “the restoration of blessings” (which has no scriptural basis), and purports to restore “lost” priesthood from the excommunication: “Such persons are not ordained to priesthood offices or endowed again, since all

�16priesthood and temple blessings held at the time of excommunication are restored through the ordinance [of restoration of blessings].” This excepts the offices of bishop, seventy and patriarch (6.15)."- Requires First Presidency approval."- Must wait at least one year after rebaptism."- A general authority interviews the applicant to determine worthiness."- The general authority performs the ordinance upon those they deem worthy."- There is no public script or outline for this ordinance, beyond hands being laid upon the head."

• The earliest appearance of the ordinance of the restoration of blessings I can find is from May 13, 1965, when it is only noted that this was performed in behalf of the deceased, excommunicated former apostle John W. Taylor."""

EVOLVING OFFICE OF “BISHOP”!As with any office, even in the secular world, the office of bishop comes with a bunch of attachments. It has qualifications that must be met, it has boundaries placed on the authority they may rightly exercise, it has responsibilities to execute. Since the restoration of the office by Joseph Smith, it has evolved in each of these aspects, and the evolution deserves examining.""QUALIFICATIONS"The scriptures list a number of qualifications one is expected to meet if they are to be called as a bishop:"- Blameless, husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach (1

Timothy 3:1-2)."- Blameless, not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre (Titus

1:7)."- High priests who are worthy, appointed by First Presidency (D&C 68:15, 19)."- From the Aaronic Expansions (see “Aaronic Expansions”)"

• High priests who are worthy, appointed by First Presidency, except they are literal descendants of Aaron (meaning literal descendants of Aaron don’t have to be high priests). (D&C 68:15, 19)."

• The legal right to this office belongs to firstborn descendants of Aaron (D&C 68:16, 18, 21)."• Even firstborn sons of Aaron must be approved by First Presidency (D&C 68:20)."

In today’s world we have become so afraid of certain types of “judging,” you would be hard-pressed to find stake presidents comfortable with looking for a new bishop and eliminating candidates on notes such as “nope, he’s not very hospitable,” or “sorry, but he’s just too given to his interest in money.” "Feeling unworthy to judge our brethren so, it seems that perhaps we simply choose not to do it. We don’t require ourselves to measure the candidates against the scriptural qualifications. Instead, it seems we take the easier path of assuming all men have all of these qualities (so long as they are “active” members), and then we can instead focus on whether they have a background that really interests us, such as an ability to drive up numbers, or to be “smart” with the money they would be managing. These are qualities we have no problem evaluating in our brethren, and they have perhaps frequently been the basis for the selections made.""

�17SCRIPTURAL BOUNDARIES OF THE OFFICE"The scriptural boundaries of the office of bishop have remained the same for 180+ years. At the widest view, the office of bishop is in administering all temporal things (D&C 70:11; 107:68). Temporal means it pertains to this world. They are not to attempt to administer in spiritual things, things pertaining to the eternal world, as that responsibility belongs to the high priesthood (D&C 107:8, 10, 12). Joseph Smith appears to have further reaffirmed this in simplicity, in a letter attributed to him that was published in the June 1835 Messenger and Advocate: “The high council has been expressly organized to administer in all her [Zion’s] spiritual affairs; and the bishop and his council, are set over her temporal matters” (The Messenger and Advocate, vol. 1 Num. 9, “To the Saints Scattered Abroad”)."In examining the responsibilities and privileges of the office of bishop, a more detailed and clear picture is painted of the boundaries established here.""SCRIPTURAL RESPONSIBILITIES"As Mormons were once intended to be a self-contained civilization within the world, it was necessary that they should have their own government. The office of bishop fit within that government, the office being that of a paid employee (D&C 42:71-73; 51:14). Bishop was essentially a government job."Within that office, the bishop was to handle a wealth of responsibilities pertaining to the temporal well-being and efforts of this Mormon people. Here are their non-disciplinary responsibilities, according to the D&C:"- The bishop handled all receiving, storing, and distributing of goods through the storehouse, in

accordance with the internal laws of the church at that time, which we refer to as the law of consecration. (D&C 42:31-34; 48:6; 51:3-5, 11-13; 57:15; 58:17, 51-55; 72:10-14, 17-19; 84:104; 85:1; 90:30; 119:1; 124:21)"• The bishop is not exempt from also living according to these laws which he regulates (D&C

70:10-11)."- Directing certain conferences (D&C 58:62)."- Overseeing outward (temporal) performance of ordinances (D&C 107:20)."- Receiving accounts of stewardships, certifying the faithful stewards for their interactions with other

bodies (D&C 72:5-6, 11, 16-19, 25)"- Aiding the poor, specifically at the expense of the rich and proud (D&C 82:12; 84:112; 124:21)."- Presiding over a body of 48 priests, sitting in council with the and teaching them the duties of their

office (D&C 107:87-88)"• NOTE: The original transcripts did not give this responsibility to the bishop, but only to a president

of the priests. Giving this responsibility to the bishop was one of the many alterations instituted in the 1835 D&C. D&C 107:61 still notes a priest (as opposed to a bishop) is to preside over a body of priests."

As far as disciplinary responsibilities go, bishops have bishops’ councils wherein they are to judge the people. But there are limitations placed on what and how they are authorized to judge. "- All judgment is to be maintained within the scope and boundaries of pertaining only to the “temporal”

things (D&C 107:68)."- They are to judge according to the testimony of the just (D&C 58:18; 107:72)"- They are to judge with the assistance of their counselors (D&C 58:18; 107:72)"- They are to judge according to the laws of the kingdom which are given by the prophets of God (D&C

58:18; 107:72)."

�18- NOTE: the altered text of the Aaronic expansions in D&C 107:71-76 includes variations and

exceptions from the listed items, whereas the original transcripts do not (see “Aaronic Expansions”)."Lastly, it’s worth noting that a bishop will ultimately be answerable to the people in his execution of his duties (D&C 64:38-40). Having judged the people, he will then be judged of the people, creating a balance.""BOUNDARIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES EVOLVING"As Mormonism progressed, rapidly moving away from a “people” model into a “church” model, the church surrendered rights and responsibilities pertaining to the well-being of the people. The law of consecration was done away with (in practice but not in oath, a dangerous thing), and the bishops stopped judging matters in the people’s “civil” disputes. In other words, they stopped sitting as judges in the people’s temporal matters."With the loss of these temporal responsibilities, which once constituted the bulk of their office, bishops found their plates rather empty. Eventually it would be filled again with countless meetings and auxiliary programs and so forth, but none of these responsibilities involved working as a “judge,” a title granted in scripture that certainly no man would want to lose. So a solution was instituted, involving the high priesthood delegating a portion of their judging matters into the hands of the bishops. This would lighten the load on the high priesthood, give the bishops responsibility to replace that which they lost, and seem to fulfill their scriptural title of “judge” once again."To justify this, the determining line for which court was to judge someone needed to be shifted. Instead of the nature of the crime determining which court would try a matter, which kept God from appearing to be a respecter of persons, the distinguishing line became how much “priesthood” authority the person had accumulated for themselves, how well-ranked they were on the God ladder, making the Lord out to be precisely a respecter of persons. "If you have the high priesthood, you’re apparently more important than those who don’t and therefore you require higher authority to judge you. But all the rest who lack this higher ranking power, they are inferior and can therefore be judged of an inferior court. Women, they can all be judged by bishops. They’re just women, they can’t hold the priesthood even in its lowest form, so they can be handled by the lowest of judges, even if their crimes are spiritual in nature. And men, well if they don’t hold priesthood higher than Aaronic, then there’s no need to trouble with having a higher priesthood spend their time judging them. Even if their crimes are spiritual."The rationalization that is used for this shift is noting that the bishop is a high priest with Melchizedek priesthood (D&C 68:15 and 19; 84:29; 107:17), and therefore he is enabled to also fulfill responsibilities theoretically limited to the high priesthood, i.e. spiritual matters. "But an office has limitations, regardless of the powers of its occupant. Within that office, only that which belongs to that office can come forth from that office. To act outside the bounds of an office to to act outside that office, without any of the authority or title of that office. The best common analogy I can refer to is switching hats. When a high priest enters the bishop’s office, he switches to the bishop’s hat, leaving the high priest hat at the door. He does what a bishop does, no more and no less, while in that office and wearing that hat. Should he be needed to fulfill a responsibility requiring his high priesthood, he may step out of the bishop’s office and hat, and put the high priest hat back on. He doesn’t perform his high priestly duties from within the bishop’s office with that hat. Only one hat is worn at any given time, the two are not to be worn at once and treated like a singular, all-inclusive hat."Therefore, if we want be in harmony with the scriptures, the disciplinary actions that bishops are allowed to judge must relate only to crimes pertaining to this world, for example theft, or incorrect execution of outward ordinances. But if the crime pertains to the eternal world, such as broken covenants or teaching of damning doctrines, those are to be handled by the high priesthood. This is

�19the scriptural dividing line for which court is to handle a disciplinary council. It is not gender, or whether the accused holds Melchizedek priesthood. It is the nature of the crime."""AARONIC EXPANSIONS!What I refer to as the Aaronic Expansions are additions made to revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants, which additions expound and grant specific rights and privileges belonging to Aaron’s lineage. These expansions are not found in the original transcripts of the revelations, only arising at a later date and without justification. Examples include D&C 68:15-21, and D&C 107:68-71, 73, 76-77. The JSP have not published any copies of the first portion of D&C 107 predating the 1835 D&C. Therefore I have no basis of comparison yet for verses 1-58, specifically verses 13-17 being of interest."I have yet to uncover any further information concerning who was actually responsible for these expansions being published in the 1835 D&C, as Joseph Smith had limited involvement in this process, focusing his efforts on preparing the Lectures on Faith for publication in that volume. "Many writings on the topic are pulled from the 1902 History of the Church (HoC), a problematic series. It was first written largely by Joseph’s various scribes (some of which had a flare for embellishment), and much of it was written in the 12 years after his death, during Brigham’s reign (a tumultuous time for doctrine). Decades later, after doctrines and their understanding had endured extensive alteration, B.H. Roberts was commissioned to compile the HoC into a published series. Preparation for publication included “corrections” to the material (through the 1902 doctrinal lens) and other efforts to “improve” the narrative. I have not found a copy of the original HoC to compare to the 1902 version, current belief is that no copy now exists."I note these expansions because they are relevant if in fact excommunication carries with it the eternal ramifications as now taught by the LDS church. If we have incorrectly defined excommunication (as I believe), and it is in fact only the temporal expulsion from the temporal body of the church, then these expansions lose their relevancy to the specific topic of church discipline, though are certainly worthy of investigation nonetheless."The Aaronic expansions as presently constituted also have differences I cannot reconcile with other scripture, whether excommunication is correctly understood or not. Even if we accept that the LDS understanding of excommunication is incorrect, which resolves the conflicts with D&C 58:18 and 107:72 concerning their right and ability to judge, we still have D&C 84:29-30 to hurdle."- The Aaronic expansions claim that the rights of the bishopric belong to Aaron and his lineage, by

virtue of the priesthood granted to them. The bishopric not only presides over the Aaronic priesthood, it belongs to it."

- D&C 84:29 notes that the office of bishop belongs to the high priesthood, alongside the office of elder. This cannot be reconciled by noting that the lesser priesthood belongs to the higher priesthood and therefore the office of bishop can belong to both, because the very next verse (v. 30) speaks separately of the lesser priesthood which was given to Aaron, and lists offices belonging to that priesthood. If the Aaronic expansions and D&C 84 were both legitimate, then the office of bishop would have been named as belonging to Aaron’s priesthood in verse 30, not the high priesthood in v. 29, which priesthood was removed from the Israelites when they were given the lesser Aaronic portion. Therefore it seems either D&C 84 or the Aaronic expansions concerning bishops are incorrect."

Purely for the sake of argument, we can consider the content of the expansions and we still find that bishops have no right to judge in spiritual matters, but an Aaronic bishop does have special privileges concerning judging."

�20- While bishops may be called from among the high priesthood (D&C 107:17), and the high priesthood

is capable of administering the spiritual things (107:8, 10, 12, 71), the office of a bishop is able only to administer in the lesser, Aaronic things, as evidenced below:"• Literal descendants of Aaron have a legal right to this office, meaning non-Aaronic descendants

shouldn’t be filling it if a literal descendant is found."- D&C 107:16, 76 - No man has a legal right to this office, to hold the keys of this priesthood,

except he be a literal descendant of Aaron…But a literal descendant of Aaron has a legal right to the presidency of this priesthood, to the keys of this ministry, to act in the office of bishop independently…!

• A literal descendant of Aaron is NOT required to have the high priesthood to function in the office of bishop."- D&C 107:69 - Nevertheless a bishop must be chosen from the High Priesthood, unless he is a

literal descendant of Aaron;"• Therefore, if the office can be filled by one who does not hold the high priesthood, then this office

cannot claim power or authority in any matters pertaining to the duties of the high priesthood, necessarily including the spiritual matters of the church (D&C 107:8, 10, 12). Any judging in a bishop’s court is done wearing the bishop’s hat, not the high priest’s hat, which means the high priest serving in the bishop’s office and holding the bishop’s court can only judge the temporal matters within the scope of the bishop’s office, regardless of high priest status outside the bishop’s office."

- A literal descendant of Aaron is authorized to perform as bishop and judge without counselors, except when the accused is a President of the High Priesthood. A literal Aaronic bishop can judge the President of the High Priesthood, if aided by counselors (D&C 107:82, the “common” council being the bishop’s council, he being a “common” judge)."• D&C 107:76 - But a literal descendant of Aaron has a legal right to the presidency of this [Aaronic]

priesthood, to the keys of this ministry, to act in the office of bishop independently, without counselors, except in a case where a President of the High Priesthood, after the order of Melchizedek, is tried, to sit as a judge in Israel."

• It seems we wouldn’t want this in the modern church model, as this potentially allows a man with only Aaronic level priesthood to judge the one who not only holds but is president of the high priesthood. But are these scriptures even read or studied enough to bring this matter to anyone’s minds? Or is it simply circumvented by our practice of only calling bishops from the body of high priests?"

If the Aaronic expansions were freelance additions coming from men rather than God, and excommunication were properly understood as a temporal matter only, that would resolve some consistency issues in the D&C. Bishops would be recognized as belonging to the Melchizedek priesthood, rather than the Aaronic (though still presiding over the Aaronic), and all bishops would always have to judge with the aid of counselors. Bishops would be authorized to judge and execute punishment, even excommunication, without even being prevented from judging Melchizedek priesthood holders."""SELECT D&C SECTIONS ANALYSIS!There are more alterations to the sections examined here than I treat. I am only looking at those alterations I understand as affecting church discipline.""

�21D&C 42:74-93 - STRUCTURAL CHANGES!Section 42 is made up of three different partitions, from two different revelations. As part of distinguishing the partitions, prefacing remarks or titles were used to create separation:"- Partition 1, “The Law,” was the first revelation, received on Feb 9 1831. It somewhat constitutes our

current verses 1-73, some would say especially vv. 11-69. I will refer to it but not examine it."- Partition 2, the first portion of the second revelation, was prefaced with an explanation that this

partition addresses “how…to act upon the points of the Law” that have been received. This partition constitutes our current verses 78-93."

- Partition 3 was titled “How to act in cases of adultery,” with specific instructions for the handling of that offense. It constitutes our current verses 74-77."

Until the 1835 D&C, these three partitions were understood to be separate but related. One, two or all three partitions might be published at any time, and whenever the second and third partitions were published together, partition 3 followed partition 2:"- Symonds Rider copy, JSP Documents, 23 Feb 1831"

• How to act upon the Law (vv. 78-93)"• Cases of adultery (vv. 74-77)"

- Revelation Book 1!• Cases of adultery only (vv. 74-77)"

- July 1832 The Evening and the Morning Star"• Cases of adultery only (vv.74-77)"

- Oct 1832 The Evening and the Morning Star!• How to act upon the Law only (vv.78-93)"

- Revelation Book 2!• Cases of adultery only (vv.74-77)"

- Book of Commandments, 1833!• How to act upon the Law (vv. 78-93)"• Cases of adultery (vv.74-77)"

- Feb 1835 Evening and Morning Star!• Cases of adultery only (vv.74-77)"

- June 1835 Evening and Morning Star!• How to act upon the Law only (vv.78-93)""

The preface for partition 2 is not recorded beyond Symonds Rider’s manuscript, and as of July 1832 the header or title “How to act in cases of adultery” was removed from partition 3. Then in 1835, the decision was made to combine all three partitions, and to move partition 3 (How to act in cases of adultery) into its current position between partitions 1 and 2."On the surface this move might make sense, as the section on adultery is moved into a position immediately preceding another reference to adultery, seemingly tying the subject together through that keyword. The loss of the prefacing titles further facilitated the move."But these partitions were not meant to be conflated on a keyword basis, or there wouldn’t have been a title separation between partition 3 and partition 2. Doing so opened up a door for trouble, as can be seen when comparing the structure of the original with the current version:"

�22"ORIGINAL STRUCTURE OF D&C 42:74-93"- PREFACE: “How the Elders of the church of Christ are to act upon the points of the Law given by

Jesus Christ to the Church in the presents of twelve Elders February 9th 1831 [D&C 42:1-73] as agreed upon by seven Elders Feby 23d 1831 according to to the commandment of God—“ (Not in current version)"

- An opening statement declares the expectation that the church is to obey God’s commandments and covenants. (v. 78)"

- The greatest offense of killing cannot be justly handled by church courts, so this offense must be handled by the state. (v.79)"• There is “no forgiveness” for killing (vv. 18 and 79). Reconciliation cannot be made, as one party

necessary for it is no longer part of this world. Therefore, as the church has no authority to see that a killer “die” (v. 19), they are to be handed over to the state, which has authority to try a person for their life."

- The second greatest offense, adultery, can be disciplined by the church. So it is used as an example to lay out the basic pattern for church discipline in “all cases”. (vv.80-83)"• There are no qualifiers to the “all cases” statement. It does not say “all such cases,” or “all cases

of adultery.” It simply states “all cases.”"- It is clarified how widely this instruction is to be applied to varied offenses, even to “all cases” brought

forth for discipline. (vv.84-87)"• “law of the land” appears to be an erroneous 1835 alteration from the “Law of God” (addressed

later)."- Instruction is given to offended members on responding to offenses and delivering up the offenders

for church discipline. (vv. 88-92)"- It is emphasized again that this is blanket instruction for all offenses. (v.93)"- PREFACE / TITLE: “How to act in cases of adultery” (Not in current version)"- Now that the blanket pattern has been laid out, specifics are given concerning the crime of adultery.

(vv.74-77)""CURRENT STRUCTURE OF D&C 42:74-93"- The crime of adultery is specifically addressed (vv.74-77)"- The opening declaration (v.78) now seems like a random insertion interrupting the flow of an ongoing

discussion about adultery, as v. 80 is now seen as a return to that subject."- Stating that killers are to be delivered to the law of the land also seems like an odd sidestep point. (v.

79)"- Mentioning adultery in v. 80 now reads like a return to the subject, in the same exclusive context.

Therefore this portion is understood as pertaining to “all cases” of adultery. (vv.80-83)"- There is a flip-flop return to other offenses which are to be delivered up to “the law of the land,” as it

is no longer only killing. (vv.84-86)"- Flip-flopping back, iniquities of “any manner” (apparently expecting that we infer this excludes the

iniquities just listed in verses 84-86?) are to be handled according to the Law of God. (v.87)"- Instruction is given to the offended for responding to offenses and delivering up the offenders for

church discipline. (vv. 88-92)"

�23• These details are no longer required or followed in full by CHI-1."

- The final declaration that we are to do “all things” in this way is confusing (v.93), as the altered text and structure have muddied up any single understood course of conduct."

In short, there is now confusion as to whether the church or the state should handle an offense, and verses 80-83 are understood as applying only to adultery, as opposed to all cases.""D&C 42:74-93 - NOTABLE TEXT CHANGES!From the time of the original revelations until their publication in the 1835 D&C, the text itself underwent numerous changes. Some were arguably smaller, or without doctrinal impact. For example spelling and grammatical corrections, or perhaps the inclusions of both genders. Others alter the content and understanding of the revelations themselves, which is more troubling. Most of these important changes occurred near or in 1835, becoming part of that edition of the Doctrine and Covenants.""“THE WORLD” CHANGED TO “THE ENEMY” (v.80)"This change first appeared in the 1835 D&C and June 1835 Evening and Morning Star (EMS). While these words can be understood synonymously in the LDS world, they can also be understood differently. "“The enemy” is a title given to Satan throughout scripture. It always refers to one who intends harm. “The world” is generally understood as all those not belonging to the covenant people. Today we’d say “non-members.” This is far greater in scope than “the enemy,” as it also includes all the truly good people who are non-members."Witnesses against the accused were therefore required to be church members (specifically, those of the local “church” or congregation). This alteration changed the requirement so witnesses can be non-members, so long as they don’t serve “the enemy.”"This is a change in procedure and as such it better have the Lord’s approval, or we should expect to incur some sort of loss as a result of departing from what He has approved (Isaiah 24:5). Not to mention the difficulty of screening out servants of the enemy, as honesty is not a requirement in that camp.""“THE LAW” CHANGED TO “THE LAW OF THE LAND” (vv.84-86)"This change first appeared in 1835 D&C and June 1835 EMS. In the original transcript of the revelation, and in every version until 1835, the only crime for which “the church” was to hand offenders over to “the law of the land” was killing (v.79). The remainder were to be handled by the church, according to the Law of God. "In all versions of partition 2 prior to 1835, the pattern of the sentences makes clear which “Law” is really being referred to in these verses:"- And if a man shall rob, he shall be delivered up unto the law,"- And if he shall steal, he shall be delivered up unto the law,"- And if he lie, he shall be delivered up unto the law, "- If he do any manner of iniquity, he shall be delivered up un to the law, even that of God."There are at least two notable reasons why the church was expected to have its own functioning court system, rather than relying on the courts of “the land”:"- The state’s judicial system was already understood to be corrupt. As Mormons were intended to

become their own independent people—rather than another Sunday religion in the world—the church

�24court system was to be the reliable source of justice for members, to offset the injustice they should expect from the state’s corrupt system."

- In the church court system there is hope for mercy to swallow up justice, unlike the state judicial system. Opportunities for reconciliation to be made and forgiveness granted is built into the very process, rather than punishment being rendered for every offense, which thing is just, but not merciful.!"

“THOU SHALT TAKE ANOTHER WITH THEE, AND THEN IF HE CONFESS NOT” REMOVED (v. 89)"Removed in the Oct 1832 and Jun 1835 EMS, and finally the 1835 D&C. It remained in all other versions prior to 1835, including the 1833 BoC. The understood practice required the offended party to approach the offender, and if reconciliation wasn’t made they were to bring another with them and try again, before finally turning the offender over for church discipline. "Arguments can be made both in support of and opposition to this change."- Some arguments for the change "

• Simply because a second person hears an exchange doesn’t necessarily make that person a “witness” to the offense. They are arguably only a witness to an exchange between an accuser and accused."

• Just because we don’t have proof that Joseph or God approved this or other alterations, doesn’t stand as proof that he didn’t."

- Some arguments against the change "• The requirement to bring another party and approach the offender a second time builds two

opportunities for reconciliation and forgiveness into the system before the church becomes involved, rather than only one."

• Without bringing the second party, the offended person can only hope that another witness will independently report the offense, so that the necessary two witnesses can initiate the church’s scriptural disciplinary involvement."

• While the second party may not be a witness to the original offense, they are witness to the efforts of the offended to seek reconciliation and the possible refusal of the offender before the case is turned over to the church."

• The content was first removed in the Oct 1832 EMS—which publication was not managed by Joseph—but it was present in the 1833 Book of Commandments, which was published by the church. Either someone made a mistake in the EMS, which mistake was corrected in the Book of Commandments, or the Book of Commandments simply ignored the EMS, being considered scripture as opposed to a community publication. The Jun 1835 EMS publication was merely a reprint of the Oct 1832."

• The original version was an accepted revelation from God, through Joseph. God’s approval of changes would seemingly then come through Joseph as well. But Joseph wasn’t responsible for The Evening and Morning Star, and Joseph entrusted others to prepare for publication his transcribed revelations which make up the “Covenants” portion of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, in which this content lies. Joseph himself was instead focused on editing the Lectures on Faith (the “Doctrine” portion of the 1835 “Doctrine and Covenants”). Therefore alterations to these revelations were more likely performed by these other editors, their stylistic voices even being recognizable in many cases, while Joseph’s approval of these alterations is only assumed.""""

�25D&C 107 !This section is made up of two parts, received at two different times. Verses 60-100 are (roughly) the content of a revelation from Nov. 11, 1831. Verses 1-59 are said to be from a revelation sometime around April of 1835, with no specific date declared as of yet. The Joseph Smith Papers have yet to publish any versions of this portion dated prior to the 1835 D&C. Without any originals to compare to the 1835 D&C, and knowing that some degree of freelancing took place in editing that initial edition, it is impossible to guess how much of the content can comfortably be attributed to revelation, and how much to the hand of men."Examining the Nov. 11 revelation (vv.60-100), we find some of the Aaronic Expansions, with major additions related to the rights and role of Aaron’s lineage in the office of bishop (vv. 68-71, 73, 76-77). Said to be expanded by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, I have yet to discover the source of their understanding which allowed them to insert these additions, but hope the purported April 1835 revelation will be published. These changes affect the disciplinary process as they affect the calling of bishops, therefore affecting whether a bishop properly qualifies to serve as the “common judge.” (Non-Aaronic bishops are only allowed to serve if Aaron has no available descendants to fill a vacancy. If the vacancy is improperly filled, can it be truly said that God will sustain the impropriety? That seems debatable…)"Another notable addition is the phrase “in spiritual matters” (v. 80). The church disciplinary system was built to handle not only “spiritual” matters, but temporal ones. Else the bishop, whose role is exclusively related to “temporal things” (v. 68) would not be considered a “judge” (D&C 58:18; 107:72, 74-76). This added phrase is apparently part of the church’s transformation from a people of God to another Sunday religion. This is further attested to by the switch from “court” to “council” in every instance in this section."One notable word change was the switch from “me” to “him” in the current verse 84. The original transcript and the 1832 reprint in The Evening and Morning Star both use the word “me,” the first-person word identifying the speaker: God. Joseph was merely acting as voice for His words. The moment this word was altered to “him,” God ceased to be the speaker. This was no longer a revelation in which God spoke to us, but was rather, at best, a revelation to Joseph Smith, which he then attempted to express in his own words. This weakens the importance of fidelity to what was originally spoken, as it is taken to be Joseph’s words rather than God’s.""D&C 68!The two Joseph Smith Papers sources of this revelation predating the 1835 D&C are Revelation Book 1, and the Oct. 1832 Evening and Morning Star. These two sources are consistent with one another, so the following changes found in the 1835 D&C came after these publications."Like section 107, this section endured additions concerning the rights and role of Aaron’s lineage in the office of bishop (vv.15-21). I have yet to find any explanation of these expansions and their sources, other than third party attributions to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. No source is provided for these attributions."The word “Laws” has been replaced entirely, being changed to “covenants” in verse 13, and “covenants and commandments” in verse 23. No explanation is given for the change, but these terms, while related, are not interchangeable. On the surface, it could be understood as

�26part of the transition from understanding the church as being a people of God, to being a Sunday religion. That is only speculation."One change which functioned to transition power from a more localized model to a centralized one is the switch from utilizing a “council of high priests” to instead utilizing the First Presidency (vv. 15, 22-23). Transgressing bishops could no longer be tried and punished by a local council of high priests, but instead their case must be tried directly by the highest court of the church. The result both removes from the accused bishop at least one opportunity for appeals (having no lower trials), as well as making more difficult the accusation and trial of a transgressing bishop, as the First Presidency has become increasingly distanced from the rank and file membership who might report the wayward bishop."Changing the word “judge” to “high priest” in verse 22 also affects the disciplinary process, as not all high priests are called to be judges or bishops. This creates for all the high priests the same effects noted above for bishops; removing opportunities for appeal, and making them harder to discipline."""WARNINGS TO JUDGES!This is a series of warnings to all those leaders called to sit in judgment of the accused. This is a true calling, a righteous responsibility, when performed as outlined by the Lord. Deviation is to call down damnation upon the judges. If judges commit any of the following offenses, justice will require a price be paid if repentance in full is not used to invoke mercy."- If you choose to adhere to the Church Handbook of Instructions—rather than the scriptures—

whenever there is a point of conflict or disagreement, you sin and offend God (D&C 20:80). Many conflicts are enumerated in the step-by-step examination of the CHI-1 instructions concerning discipline."

- Justifying reliance on the CHI-1 by leaning on the merits of current leaders who claim to be prophets and apostles is not a safe foundation, as some of them shall be exposed as frauds, lairs and hypocrites (D&C 64:38-39). "

- If you do not adhere to the teachings of the Book of Mormon in your laws and judgments, you further perpetuate the still-present condemnation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (D&C 84:54-58)."

- If your disciplinary methods do not strictly adhere to the pattern of persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, love unfeigned, kindness and pure knowledge, then you exercise unrighteous dominion, offending D&C 121:34-42, the price of which is the loss of any priesthood of God that you may have."

- Indeed, to be “righteous” your dominion must be exactly as God prescribes, which prescription is found throughout scripture, else your dominion is necessarily unrighteous and your priesthood is forfeit."

- Beware of how you judge others ye leaders, for in a perfect image of balance, those leaders called to judge the people will themselves be judged of the people of Zion in the end, and if their dominion is found offensive, the judges will suffer the consequences of so choosing (D&C 64:38-40)."

- If you charge someone with apostasy, it better actually fit the true meaning of the word. As shown in the section “apostasy,” the definitions used by the church are unsound, and to use unsound judgment to condemn another is to warrant the same for your own condemnation before God."

�27- If you try and condemn anyone for an “offense” which breaks no laws found in scripture, you are in

conflict with D&C 20:80 and Alma 42:22, requiring adherence to scripture and the breaking of laws for the execution of punishments. Therefore you exercise your dominion in a manner which violates scripture, making it necessarily “unrighteous.” The scriptural cost for so acting is forfeiture of priesthood (D&C 121:34-42) and damnation (Matthew 7:2; seeking to strip people of eternal blessings through excommunication is seeking their damnation. If you seek others’ damnation, you call it down upon yourself according to this verse).""

CONCERNING MEMBER REBAPTISM "Laws exist governing who can baptize and how. No law exists in all of scripture preventing baptism according to the scriptural pattern, whether it be a first or 50th. No law exists in scripture granting “authorities” the right or privilege of withholding, preventing or punishing baptisms performed in accordance with the scriptural patterns. No law even requires that the baptized join a church, it is only noted as an option.""CONCERNING THE HOLDING OR EXPRESSING OF UNORTHODOX BELIEFS "Alma 30:7-12 specifically prevents the formation or execution of laws which punish a person for holding or expressing any belief, even if such a person and their teachings are anti-Christ. So long as it is expressed as a belief, rather than as Christ’s or the church’s doctrine, there can be no law and therefore no just punishment, regardless of how frustrating it might seem. Even CHI-1 has a written requirement that false doctrines be taught “AS church doctrine” before a person may be charged with apostasy (CHI-1, 6.7.3, “Apostasy”; emphasis mine)."

• Joseph Smith himself condemned thought policing and reversed an excommunication rendered for the teaching of erroneous doctrine, not even caring whether efforts were first made to correct the man:"- “Elder Pelatiah Brown, one of the wisest old heads we have among us, and whom I now see

before me, has been preaching concerning the beast which was full of eyes before and behind; and for this he was hauled up for trial before the High Council. I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodists, and not like the Latter-Day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled . It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine. The High Council undertook to censure and correct Elder Brown because of his teachings in relation to the beasts. Whether they actually corrected him or not, I am a little doubtful, but don't care.” (Joseph Smith, April Conference 1843; emphasis mine) ""

CONCERNING BELIEF IN PROPHETS OUTSIDE THE LDS TOP 15 "To punish a person for this is to deny the entirety of scripture and take on the role of idolater and anti-Christ. Profess His name all you want, He will declare He did not know you and you did not know Him."- God informs us of holy men we know not of (D&C 49:8). "- Moses exhorts us to all be prophets (Numbers 11:29)."- Even the LDS Bible dictionary defines a prophet as “anyone who has a testimony of Jesus Christ by

the Holy Ghost.” "- John the Baptist, Lehi, Abinadi, Samuel the Lamanite, Malachi, Isaiah and others—even Jesus

Himself—not only operated outside the established hierarchy, they called the established hierarchy to

�28repentance, laying out the leaders’ sins for both the leaders and the world to see. The greater scriptural balance is made up of prophets falsely condemned by the hierarchy of priests."

- This is a layered misunderstanding of D&C 28 and 43, which sections cannot be correctly used to support a condemnation of this belief."• We read these sections as proclaiming that only the President of the church can receive prophetic

utterance and revelation to the church and this can apply to any President of the church, because they apparently occupy the same seat as Joseph. We say this is a type."

• There is a pattern or type involved in those sections, expressed clearly, with a specific, necessary component, which component we ignore and yet we consider ourselves obedient. D&C 28:2 and 43:2-5 speak of the fundamental principle of divine appointment. Joseph can receive revelations and commandments for the church because he was appointed by God to do so. But D&C 43:4 includes the direct requirement for the type: any who replace Joseph in this appointment must be appointed by God, through Joseph. This is the type. No one who is not appointed by Joseph could be considered his divinely appointed replacement or equal in that position in the hierarchy. Joseph did appoint his replacement: Hyrum Smith. Hyrum was murdered before Joseph’s eyes, moments before his own death. The Lord saw fit to remove the appointed replacement, then remove Joseph before he could choose another. This says something, but is not the topic of discussion. """

KEY TERMS!The following key terms include definitions from Webster’s 1828 Dictionary, meaning these are the definitions that would have been understood and used by Joseph Smith in his day.""APOSTASY"- Webster’s 1828 Dictionary"

• An abandonment of what one has professed; a total desertion, or departure from one's faith or religion."

In the LDS church, apostasy has an evolving publicized definition representing only a fraction of the basis for disciplinary actions, and a secret interpretation which is the actual basis for waging all charges of apostasy."- Publicized definitions (before June 28, 2014)"

• LDS.org definition - “When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel, they are in a state of apostasy.”"- The most correct statement, which is also the least followed. Nearly all charges of apostasy are

currently built on infractions against other definitions. In speaking of the principles of the gospel being corrupted or turned away from, such corrupt or turning away must be directly related to the gospel, which gospel is defined by Christ Himself: "• 3 Nephi 27:13-16 - Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I

have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me. And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil— And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works. And it shall come to pass, that whoso

�29repenteth and is baptized in my name shall be filled; and if he endureth to the end, behold, him will I hold guiltless before my Father at that day when I shall stand to judge the world."

• Ally Isom, official church spokesperson (as opposed to the church President) - “We define it as when our members turn away from the principles of the gospel, or corrupt principles of the gospel, or make unauthorized changes in Church organizations or priesthood ordinances. It's one thing to make one's views known; it's quite another to actively draw others away from clear doctrine… Elder Oaks was clear in last April's general conference when he stated categorically that the leaders of the Church don't have the authority to change things.” (June 16, 2014)"- This statement is riddled with problems and should be examined."

• The gospel is defined by Christ (above), and apostasy from it is far more frequently used as a basis for putting membership records on the back burner or inactive lists than it is for excommunication."

• “unauthorized changes in Church organizations or priesthood ordinances” - This creates awkward circumstances, because the highest leadership has in fact made changes to ordinances numerous times, which thing Joseph Smith stated and Elder Oaks here affirmed that leadership has no “authority to change.” Joseph taught that the ordinances were instituted before the foundation of the world, and were not to be altered, period (TPJS, 308). Isaiah notes that alteration of ordinances is coupled with the breaking of covenants, transgressing of laws and defiling of the earth (Isaiah 24:5). Therefore the “unauthorized” clause concerning changes condemns rather than justifies the leadership, and having offended the principle they are themselves necessarily in a state of apostasy by their own definition."

- Publicized First Presidency Statement definition, June 28, 2014"• “Apostasy is repeatedly acting in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or

its faithful leaders, or persisting, after receiving counsel, in teaching false doctrine.”"- This is a major shift, as “the gospel” is not to be understood as being the same thing as “the

church” or its leaders. (Indeed, the gospel has apparently gone completely out the window with this revised definition.)"

- Public disciplinary actions taking place at the time of this declaration and higher accessibility to information forced the First Presidency to be slightly more transparent and honest with their definition of apostasy, or face being further humiliated by the press. This definition is pulled from CHI-1."• The First Presidency added the qualifier “faithful” in this statement. Why? Is the CHI-1

statement upon which they execute discipline insufficient and in need of alteration? Is it a PR stunt to make the phrase appear more palatable to the public? Is it a blanket compliment applied to all the leadership, as though there are none who are not faithful? Is it a tacit admission that there are priesthood leaders who are not faithful and therefore opposition to them does not constitute apostasy? Why present an altered version to the public, rather than an accurate one?"

- Secret definitions from CHI-1, 2010 edition (6.7.3, “Apostasy”)"• 1. “Repeatedly act in clear, open and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.”"

- The definition says nothing of opposition to the gospel, nor the Lord, nor the scriptures. One can fully believe and follow Christ, the scriptures and the gospel, yet be punished for disagreement with the current stewards. This is definitively tyranny."

- This definition has four qualifiers for the “opposition” that theoretically must all be met, according to the conjunction “and” sandwiched in its adjectives. Clear. Open. Deliberate.

�30Public. If your opposition meets less than all four descriptors, then according to the language of lawyers used to write and interpret the Handbook, you should not be able to be punished for infraction against this point. (However we see in practice that this is not the case.)"

- It is worth noting that there is a major difference between “deliberate” opposition to one paradigm, and deliberate support of a paradigm that happens to disagree."

- This point has become a breeding ground for institutional hypocrisy."• In word, President Uchdorf’s General Conference address in October 2013 publicly

acknowledges that church leadership has been and continues to be subject to human error. He then invited even those with “doubts” and “questions” pertaining to these human errors into the fold."

• In practice, there have been many now who have expressed these “human error” based questions and doubts while believing in Christ, the Book of Mormon and the divine calling of Joseph Smith, and desiring to be numbered among the church. The decision of the church has overwhelmingly been to interpret their questions and doubts as opposition, and to excommunicate rather than embrace."

• 2. “Persist in teaching as church doctrine information that is not church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.”"- This mandate is clearly misunderstood by many authorities, as it is generally armed against

opinions that are stated as opinions, and are rarely (if ever) claimed as representing church doctrine. While this mandate could perhaps be rightly applied to those lying about the teachings of the church and spreading intentionally false doctrine, it is instead used to silence any voice of disagreement with the correlated and censored teachings of the Church."

- Note, again it is about church doctrine. Not Christ's doctrine, not scriptural doctrine, not gospel doctrine. It fosters the idolatrous worship of the church."

• 3. “Continue to follow teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.”"- Originally designed—right or wrong—to weed out polygamists (as still evidenced within the

statement). “Follow[ing] teachings of apostate sects” has become so loosely interpreted as to include simply hearing a person speak ideas that certain members of church leadership don’t like, or having a conversation with someone else who questions the alignment of an official church doctrine or statement with scripture. There is too much latitude of interpretation. If teachings do not go against scripture there may be room for disagreement, but there is no scriptural basis for punishment."

• 4. “Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.”"- In writing, the “formal” aspect is heavily emphasized, including the phrases “If a member

formally joins another church…” and “ if formal membership in the other church is not ended…” Therefore if you were to informally engage in religious practices outside the LDS church, or informally attend group meetings outside the control of the LDS church, you should be able to avoid concern on this."

- In practice, this instruction is loosely (and INFORMALLY) interpreted to now include rebaptisms by LDS priesthood holders, with no ties to any other church, simply operating outside standard church regulation. It is also levied against those who believe God can work with people outside the hierarchal framework of the church, including those “holy men” of whom the church doesn’t know (D&C 49:8), even though God gave us the heads up that they exist and are recognized of Him."

�31Considering how loosely each definition is interpreted, and the trend of such interpretations, it could be said that the one current definition of an apostate is “anyone who doesn’t follow the current Prophet (meaning President of the LDS Church).” This is idolatry. ""BEHALF"- Webster’s 1828 Dictionary"

• 1. Favor; advantage; convenience, profit; support, defense, vindication. The advocate pleads in behalf of the prisoner. The patriot suffers in behalf of his country."

• 2. Part; side; noting substitution, or the act of taking the part of another; as, the agent appeared in behalf of his constituents, and entered a claim.!

"""EXCOMMUNICATION"- Webster’s 1828 Dictionary"

• The act of ejecting from a church; expulsion from the communion of a church, and deprivation of its rights, privileges and advantages; an ecclesiastical penalty or punishment inflicted on offenders. Excommunication is an ecclesiastical interdict, of two kinds, the lesser and the greater; the lesser excommunication is a separation or suspension of the offender from partaking of the eucharist; the greater, is an absolute separation and exclusion of the offender from the church and all its rites and advantages."

In this dispensation, excommunication is the only prescribed punishment for offenses we are authorized to handle within the church court system. This holds true both in the D&C and the Book of Mormon (e.g. Mosiah 26:36; Alma 1:24, 5:57, 6:3; Moroni 6:7; D&C 41:5, 42:20-28 (esp.28)). There is no such thing as disfellowshipment, no formal or informal probation, these are innovations of man. When you break the laws and refuse to repent, you are to be cast out and your name is to be removed from the records of the church. Then, if you repent, you can be welcomed back freely (excepting murder or a multiple offender of adultery)."In the scriptures, excommunication is never taught to have the attached eternal ramifications we tack on today (loss of baptism, temple blessings, etc.). Only unrepented sin has eternal ramifications. When excommunication occurs in scripture, their names are blotted out from the records and they are no longer counted members of the people or church, and that’s the end of it. In simplest terms they’ve been kicked out of a club. There is no more latitude concerning excommunication granted to men in the scriptures. (God Himself has perhaps done more, for example smiting Sherem, striking Korihor dumb, and maybe bringing about both of their deaths. But again, these are all recorded instances of God’s hand—not man’s—acting in the temporal world, not revealing the spiritual or eternal punishments these men may have been sentenced with.) If this doesn’t clarify the matter enough, then it should become clear in examining the topic of bishops:"- Bishops’ councils are a legitimate place for attempting to resolve at least some sort of issues (D&C

102:2). Bishops have the scriptural right to judge the people according to the laws (D&C 58:18, 107:72). Some of the written temporal laws have excommunication directly affixed as the punishment (e.g. D&C 42:20-26)."

- If excommunication has attached eternal ramifications—as we currently teach—then D&C 107 creates some problems, because that section makes abundantly clear that the office of bishop has no authority in administering spiritual matters, only temporal (vv. 8, 10, 12, 68, 71-72). Which means

�32that if excommunication is our only scriptural punitive measure, and it is saddled with spiritual ramifications, making it a spiritual matter, then bishops are NEVER authorized to excommunicate."

- But if the bishops have no authority to enact the single scriptural punishment, then we’re conflicting with D&C 58:18 and D&C 107:72, which authorize bishops to act as judges. How can one be a judge and have no authority to enact the singular approved punishment? "

However, if we contain the definition of excommunication to what is found in the scriptures, respecting God’s right to determine what a person does and does not have claim upon Him for, as the prophet-writers of the scriptures did, then the problem evaporates. If excommunication is only removing a person’s recognition as a member of a temporal organization, striking their name from the temporal records of the organization, then suddenly excommunication can fall within the bounds of a bishop’s authority. That is temporal administrative behavior, and so those transgressions that are temporal in nature can be judged in a bishop’s council."If there are in fact any spiritual or eternal ramifications that are related in any way to a person being excommunicated, it will be tied to committing the transgression or sin itself for which the person is being excommunicated, and the timing will not be based upon the excommunicating. God doesn’t move or stay His hand in eternal matters based on the semantics of men’s councils. He will punish or forgive as He will, when He will."NOTE: Excommunication may also be different dependent on the state of the people from which one is being excommunicated. Excommunication from a people who are part of a living covenant with God are likely bound to suffer greater losses than those excommunicated from a “condemned” people, like the LDS church since 1832, according to the word of the Lord (D&C 84:56-57). Death has been one consequence seen in scripture when those under a living covenant choose to break it (Acts 5:1-10). ""IMPARTIAL"- Webster’s 1828 Dictionary"

• 1. Not partial; not biased in favor of one party more than another; indifferent; unprejudiced; disinterested; as an impartial judge or arbitrator."

• 2. Not favoring one party more than another; equitable; just; as an impartial judgment or decision; an impartial opinion."

"INJUSTICE"- Webster’s 1828 Dictionary"

• 1. Iniquity; wrong; any violation of another's rights, as fraud in contracts, or the withholding of what is due. It has a particular reference to an unequal distribution of rights, property or privileges among persons who have equal claims.!

• 2. The withholding from another merited praise, or ascribing to him unmerited blame.""JUST"- Webster’s 1828 Dictionary"

• In a moral sense, upright; honest; having principles of rectitude; or conforming exactly to the laws, and to principles of rectitude in social conduct; equitable in the distribution of justice;"

• In an evangelical sense, righteous; religious; influenced by a regard to the laws of God; or living in exact conformity to the divine will."

�33"OFFICE "- Webster’s 1828 Dictionary"

• A particular duty, charge or trust conferred by public authority and for a public purpose; an employment undertaken by commission or authority from government or those who administer it. Thus we speak of the office of secretary of state, of treasurer, of a judge, of a sheriff, of a justice of the peace, &c. Offices are civil, judicial, ministerial, executive, legislative, political, municipal, diplomatic, military, ecclesiastical, &c."

"REPENTANCE"- Webster’s 1828 Dictionary"

• Repentance is a change of mind, or a conversion from sin to God."• Repentance is the relinquishment of any practice, from conviction that it has offended God."

Repentance is not a checklist which must be ticked off before one may receive Divine forgiveness. The word “repent” simply means to turn or change direction, and that word is used deliberately. To repent is simply to evaluate the direction you are going, and adjust course back to facing and moving toward God. It is a matter of the mind and heart. All the rest, the confessions, the making amends, etc. are fruits of repentance. They are evidence that the repentance has already taken place in the heart and mind, which is the only place repentance can take place. So as soon as someone is making an effort to conform outward actions to a more godly course than what they were before, that is evidence they have repented and they already warrant forgiveness. Indeed, God has likely already extended it.""SANCTION"- Webster’s 1828 Dictionary"

• To ratify; to confirm; to give validity or authority to.!"TESTIMONY"- Webster’s 1828 Dictionary"

• A solemn declaration or affirmation made for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact… Testimony differs from evidence; testimony is the declaration of a witness, and evidence is the effect of that declaration on the mind, or the degree of light which it affords."

WITNESS"- Webster’s 1828 Dictionary"

• That which furnishes evidence or proof; A person who knows or sees any thing; one personally present; One who sees the execution of an instrument, and subscribes it for the purpose of confirming its authenticity by his testimony."

""""

�34REMAINING QUESTIONS!These are things related to church discipline that I haven’t resolved in my own mind, whether because I haven’t found information that convinces me and concludes the matter for me, or because I’m temporarily burnt out on the subject and may delve into it later.""STRENGTHENING THE MEMBERS COMMITTEE"Did Joseph ever have an internal investigations body of any sort, similar to the Strengthening the Members Committee? For seeking out discrete sinners? Or did he wait until their sins surfaced or were reported, without investigation? (Having yet to find any evidence of such a body, I lean towards the latter.)""ELDERS COUNCILS TRANSFER ALL POWER TO HIGH COUNCILS"A letter in The Messenger and Advocate, originally attributed to Joseph Smith, ended the use of the Elders’ council without removing it from scripture, while simultaneously having this council be fully replaced by the high council without that instruction being added to scripture."- “According to the order of the kingdom begun in the last days, to prepare men for the rest of the Lord,

the elders in Zion, or in her immediate region, have no authority or right, to meddle with her spiritual affairs, to regulate her concerns, or hold councils for the expulsion of members, in her unorganized condition [A noteworthy caveat]. The high council has been expressly organized to administer in all her spiritual affairs; and the bishop and his council, are set over her temporal matters: so that the elders' acts are null and void.”"

I have yet to fall on one side of the line or the other in this matter."- On the one hand, it is the scriptures that we are to adhere to in disciplinary proceedings (D&C 20:80).

We did not remove the scriptures instructing our use of the elders’ councils, and we did not canonize the instruction concerning the transfer of power to the high councils. "

- However, there are other things Joseph delegated out with the assumption that they would be handled and handled correctly, only for us to examine them now and see that this wasn’t the case. Joseph may have instructed the changes be made to the scripture, but neglect on the part of man prevented it from occurring. The church operated in accordance with the instructions in the Messenger and Advocate, and such a shift in practice could not go unnoticed by Joseph. As we have no known attempt by him to repudiate the letter, and the church did operate in accordance with it during years of Joseph’s presidency, it would appear he likely considered the change legitimate.