S11 E18 LDS Church Membership Council

Episode 18 of Apostates explores Church membership councils in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, examining their stated purposes, procedures, and recent terminology changes. We discuss when councils are mandatory versus discretionary, the four possible outcomes, and the appeals process. We also address significant critiques about fairness, confidentiality, and the gap between official intentions and member experiences. The episode covers the evolution from "disciplinary councils" to "membership councils" and analyzes ongoing controversies surrounding these ecclesiastical proceedings.

Sources

• Handbook_General Handbook_LDS.org
• Essay_Church Discipline_LDS.org
• News_Church Discipline_LDS.org
• Wikipedia_Church Membership Council
• News_LDS Church Members no Longer Excommunicated_KUTV
• Essay_Court of Love_MormonThink

AI Prompt

Examine the process of Church discipline. What is it? What is the goal? When are they required? Who is disciplined? What is the process? What are the outcomes? What are the issues and challanges people have with the process? What should members know?

Transcript

Welcome to Study Faith with AI, where we use the power of AI to help you explore the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I'm Meg Jensen.

And I'm Paul Carter,

and we're Google AIs. Whether you're a lifelong member or just starting to learn about the Church, we're here to dive deep into its history, beliefs, and culture.

So, if you're ready to learn, you're in the right place.

That's right.

Let's get started. 

Okay, let's unpack this. Today, we're taking a deep dive into a topic that touches on identity, belonging, and well, the sometimes complex relationship between an individual and an institution. Right. We're talking about Church discipline or as it's now known, Church membership councils within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Right. And you've shared a really fascinating stack of sources with us. Everything from, uh, official handbook excerpts and recent news reports about the terminology changes to historical notes and some pretty critical commentary too from places like Mormon think and dialogue journal. So a real range of perspectives on the process.

Definitely. And our mission here our goal for this deep dive is to navigate through all these sources. We want to understand, you know, the stated purposes behind these membership councils, the procedures involved, what the outcomes might be, what's changed recently because things have changed, and crucially where the controversies or let's say differing experiences seem to emerge based on materials you've pulled together.

Think of it as getting a comprehensive overview, trying to help you understand this often private, often sensitive part of Church life.

Exactly. We're here to guide you through this material, focusing on the key insights, maybe some surprising details from the sources you've provided without adding our own opinions or taking sides.

Okay. So, where do we start? I think the first stop in navigating these sources has to be understanding the fundamental why. Why does this process exist?

Good starting point. What do the official sources like the General Handbook actually say is the core purpose?

Well, maybe surprisingly to some, the primary stated purpose is not punishment. That's stated pretty clearly.

Not punishment. Okay. That word discipline definitely makes you think punishment, doesn't it?

Yeah.

So, if it's not that, what is the goal according to them?

The sources, the official ones say the purposes are threefold really. One, to help the individual repent and access the, um, the atonement of Jesus Christ.

Okay. help the person,

Two, to protect the innocent from potential harm. And three, to protect the integrity of the Church itself.

Protect the innocent and protect the Church. Makes sense.

And they also point out that the word discipline shares the same root as disciple implying, you know, self-discipline, learning, becoming a follower.

Ah, that disciple discipline connection. That's interesting. It reframes it kind of as a tool for growth, maybe.

Spiritual growth, less like just a penalty.

That seems to be the intended framing. Yes. But was it always put exactly like that? Do the historical sources you looked at give any different context?

They do. Sources like Dialogue Journal, for instance, they highlight that some older handbooks mention other purposes, things like, um, purging iniquity from the Church body or conserving the Church's dignity, especially with serious stuff.

Purging iniquity. That sounds a bit different.

It does. They note a definite shift in more recent handbooks where facilitating repentance, that helping aspect, has become much more prominent. as the stated purpose. So yeah, you see an evolution in how the intent is officially described.

That's a pretty significant shift in emphasis over time. Okay, so we've looked at the stated intention framed as help, growth, protection, not just punishment,

Right?

Which leads us naturally to the next question. Your sources dig into when might this actually happen? When might a member encounter this process?

Yeah, the when the sources outline various actions uh situations that may lead to a membership council. It generally involves what the Church defines as serious transgressions.

Serious transgressions, but it says may lead to one. So, it's not automatic.

Not always. For many things, it's a decision that rests with the local leader, the Bishop or the Stake President. They consider the specifics, the context of each situation.

Okay. So, what kinds of actions fall into that category where a council might be needed depending on the leader's judgment?

The sources list several things. Um, abortion is mentioned, transsexual operations, and also doctors who perform them. Patterns of serious sins, not just a one-off mistake perhaps.

Okay.

Deliberate abandonment of family responsibilities is another one like serious non-payment of child support or alimony. Selling illegal drugs, other serious criminal acts. And then there's a specific category called apostasy.

Apostasy. Yeah, that term comes up a lot in these discussions. How do your sources define what that actually means in this context?

According to the handbook information in the sources, apostasy is defined pretty clearly. It's about repeated, clear open public opposition to the Church, its leaders, or its doctrine.

Open public opposition,

Right? Or trying to persuade others to adopt those opposing views, or publicly insisting the Church must change its doctrine. It also includes formally joining or subscribing to what the Church considers apostate groups, like those practicing or advocating for plural marriage.

Okay, so the emphasis really seems to be on the public nature of it or actively trying to draw others away, not just someone having personal doubts or questions. privately.

Precisely. The sources seem to make that distinction. Things like just being inactive or quietly joining another Church. That usually doesn't require a membership council. It's handled administratively.

I see.

But a council might be considered if someone joins another Church and then actively advocates its teachings in a way that publicly attacks or opposes fundamental LDS doctrine. Yeah.

That could cross the line into that definition of apostasy, possibly leading to membership withdrawal.

Okay, that clarifies the “may happen” situations. Yeah. But you mentioned earlier, sometimes it's not discretionary. Are there times when a council has to happen? It's required by policy.

Yes, absolutely. For certain very serious offenses, the sources state a membership council is mandatory. These are seen as particularly harmful acts.

Mandatory. Okay. What lands someone in that category?

It's a heavy list. Murder as defined by the Church. So excluding things like self-defense in certain situations, rape, conviction for sexual assault, child or youth abuse, abuse of a spouse or another. adult,

predatory behavior, incest (that one's noted as almost always requiring a council), offenses involving child pornography, entering into or performing a plural marriage,

Right?

Also committing a serious sin while holding a prominent Church leadership position that includes General Authorities, Area Seventies, Temple or Mission Presidents, Stake Presidents, Patriarchs, Bishops.

So high-level leaders.

Yes. Interestingly, the sources specifically note that a Branch President isn't included in that particular mandatory list for holding a prominent position, though other serious sins might still apply.

Huh, interesting distinction.

Also, mandatory are most felony convictions and embezzlement of Church funds.

That mandatory list really highlights the focus on protecting people in the institution itself from severe harm, doesn't it? It's a very clear line around certain actions.

It seems so.

So, on the flip side, then, what about things that the sources explicitly say are not grounds for membership council? things that shouldn't trigger this.

Yeah, the sources are quite specific about this, too, which is helpful. Councils are not meant to be held just because someone isn't complying with all Church standards.

Like what?

Like not fully keeping the Word of Wisdom, not paying a full tithing, having spotty Church attendance, or maybe struggling with a Church calling. Those aren't reasons for a formal council.

Okay?

Neither are things like business failure, not paying back personal debts, civil disputes between members, just general inactivity. or sins of omission, things you didn't do.

Right?

Masturbation is specifically mentioned as not grounds for a council. Using pornography isn't either unless it involves child pornography, which is mandatory, or if the use is so intensive and compulsive that it's causing significant harm to their family.

That detail about pornography use is quite specific, drawing a line between personal struggle and actions with wider severe impact or illegality.

It seems to be trying to make that distinction. Yes.

Okay. This helps clarify the boundaries quite a bit. Yeah.

So, let's say a council is deemed necessary, either mandatory or discretionary. How does the actual procedure work? What happens next?

Well, the process usually starts well before a council is called. It begins with counseling from the local leader, the Bishop or Stake President, often multiple times.

So, counseling first.

Yes. If after that a council is still felt to be necessary, the member is notified. And the level of the council where it's held depends on the situation and the member's status in the Church.

How so?

Well, most councils are held at the ward level. That's with the Bishop and his two Counselors. And these are typically for members who haven't received their temple endowment.

Okay. Ward level for non-endowed members. What about endowed members or cases where the potential outcome is more serious?

Those usually go to the stake level. These councils are for endowed members, especially if the potential outcome might be withdrawal of membership. They're also held for issues involving the Bishop's own immediate family members. And who's involved at the stake level?

That's the Stake President and his two Counselors. The sources also mentioned that the twelve members of the Stake High Council might participate in certain situations.

The High Council too, when would they be involved?

The sources say they might participate. If the facts of the situation are contested, if their input is seen as valuable for balance, if the member specifically requests their involvement, or if a member of the Stake Presidency or their family is directly involved in the matter.

Okay, so a tiered system ward level, stake level, sometimes involving the High Council. How does the actual meeting, the council itself usually unfold?

It starts with the presiding officer, the Bishop or Stake President stating the alleged misconduct. Then the member who is accused is asked to admit or deny it.

Admit or deny. What happens if they deny it?

If it's denied, then evidence is presented. This could be written statements, oral statements, maybe testimony from witnesses, or documents.

Evidence. What kind?

The sources are clear that a previous confession the member might have made, say to the leader privately, cannot be used in the council as evidence unless the member consents to it.

Oh, that's important. Consent is needed for prior confessions.

Yes. And the accused member has the right to question any witnesses brought forward. They can also present their own evidence and make their own statements. Council members can ask questions, too.

So, there's opportunity for back and forth.

There is, though, the sources also emphasize this isn't a legal court. Witnesses aren't under oath. Standard rules of evidence don't apply. It's an ecclesiastical setting. And if the member admits the misconduct at the start, then presenting evidence isn't necessary.

Now, this whole procedural aspect, you know, fairness, due process, some of the critical sources you mentioned had things to say about this, right?

They absolutely did. Sources like MormonThink and Dialogue Journal, they raised several points of concern based on reported experiences.

Like what?

Well, one point is that the accused member isn't always allowed to freely discuss the reasons behind their actions or beliefs even if the procedure says they can make statements.

What do you mean?

Examples are cited where individuals wanted to discuss, say, historical information or doctrinal questions that led to their views the very reason they were in the council but were reportedly shut down by the presiding officer, told that wasn't the place for such discussion.

Hmm. So the why might not get fully explored even if it's central to the issue.

That's the critique raised in those sources. They also point out that the Stake President's decision is ultimately final even if other council members like the High Counselors might disagree.

The leader has the final say.

Yes. Another critique is that council members themselves might have very limited knowledge of the actual evidence before the council. There are reported cases where council members apparently hadn't read the blog posts or books that were the basis for the apostasy charge, for example.

Wait, the people making the decision might not have reviewed the core material being discussed.

That's a serious concern highlighted in the critical commentary. It raises questions about how informed the decision can really be in those cases.

Yeah, that seems pretty fundamental. What else did those critiques mention?

The lack of recording. Proceedings are generally not recorded officially. And sources note this makes any kind of appeal later really difficult because there's no official record of what was said or presented.

Unlike a court case where you'd have a transcript.

Exactly. Some sources mention individuals trying to secretly record proceedings, because of this or being asked not to record. They also say that sometimes witnesses the accused person wants to bring might be disallowed by the presiding leader.

It sounds like based on these critiques, the actual experience can really vary a lot depending on who's running the council.

That's definitely a theme in the critical sources that the procedure in practice, the atmosphere can depend heavily on the individual Bishop or Stake President.

Okay, shifting gears slightly. What about confidentiality? You mentioned historical practices were different.

Right? Historically, decades ago, things like excommunication were sometimes announced publicly from the pulpit. That's changed. Now, the process is officially presented as private and confidential. But, as the sources acknowledge, you have several people involved in a council: Counselors, maybe High Counselors, Clerks. Leaks can happen, information can get out, leading to rumors in the ward or community. One source calls this an unfortunate but maybe human side effect.

A sad by-product. Yeah.

Okay. And what about gathering the information before a council? Are there rules about how leaders should investigate potential misconduct?

Yes, the sources do address that. Leaders are told to use appropriate legal methods. They're explicitly warned not to use illegal means like electronic surveillance, hidden cameras, or taping without consent.

Okay, no spying,

Right? And not to do things like stake-outs on members’ homes. They're also told to stop their own information gathering if law enforcement is actively investigating the same thing to avoid interfering with the legal investigation.

That makes sense. Anything else on gathering info?

For serious sins? If the member denies them, the sources mention a preference for having two sources of information. That sounds a bit like the old principle of two witnesses, but could mean the leader's own knowledge plus another reliable source.

Got it. Now, one of the most striking things you mentioned earlier documented in the sources isn't about the procedure, but the actual words used, the language shift.

When did that happen? And what exactly changed?

Yeah, this was a really significant systemwide change in terminology. It happened quite recently around 2020.

2020. Okay. And the big one was the name of the council itself.

Exactly. What used to be called a Church disciplinary council is now officially termed a Church membership council.

Disciplinary council to membership council.

Yup.

What about the names for the outcomes? Did those change too?

They did. Excommunication which was the most severe outcome. The removal from membership.

Yeah, it's now officially called “withdrawal of membership”.

Withdrawal of membership. Okay. And there used to be something called disfellowshipment, right? A kind of formal probation.

Correct. That is now called formal membership restrictions.

Formal membership restrictions. And there was also informal probation.

Yep. That's now informal membership restrictions.

Wow. So across the board, discipline, excommunication, disfellowshipment, probation, all replaced with language focused on membership and restrictions.

It seems very intentional. A consistent move away from terms that might sound more punitive or you know judicial towards language emphasizing the members status and participation level within the Church structure.

That's a really notable change. It seems designed to align the language more closely with that stated purpose we talked about earlier. Helping, maintaining membership status, repentance rather than punishment.

That appears to be the goal behind the shift. Yes.

Okay. So, regardless of the new terminology, let's look at the usual outcomes. What can happen as a result of a Church membership council? What are the possibilities the sources lay out?

The sources list four potential outcomes.

Four. Okay. What's the first one?

First, the member remains in good standing. The council decides no formal action is needed. The leader might still give some counsel or caution, but basically their membership status isn't formally affected.

Okay. So, no formal action. What's next?

Second, outcome is personal counseling with the leader and informal membership restrictions. So, a council was held, but the decision isn't one of the more severe formal actions. Instead, the Bishop or Stake President might impose some temporary restrictions themselves.

Like what kind of restrictions?

Things like maybe not partaking of the sacrament for a time, not exercising the Priesthood, not holding a calling or a temple recommend. These are temporary. The leader decides when they start and end, and they're usually kept confidential, not formally recorded on the membership record.

Informal restrictions. Got it. What's the third outcome? Third is formal membership restrictions. This used to be disfellowshipment. Here the person is still a member of the Church, but they're officially considered not in good standing.

Not in good standing. What does that mean in practice?

There are specific limitations listed. They can't hold a temple recommend. They can't serve in a calling. They can't exercise the Priesthood. They can still attend public meetings, but they can't speak, teach, offer public prayers, or partake of the sacrament.

Okay. Significant restrictions on participation.

Yes. But they are still permitted to pay tithing and fast offerings and to wear temple garments if they've previously received them. This is considered a severe action. It typically lasts for about a year, assuming the person is repentant, and it takes another council meeting to approve lifting the restrictions and returning them to full fellowship.

This is seen as the appropriate outcome for most serious transgressions that don't quite warrant withdrawal of membership.

Okay, formal restrictions. And the fourth most serious outcome

that's with withdrawal of membership. This is what used to be called excommunication. The person is simply no longer a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

No longer a member. So, what does that entail?

All the restrictions from formal membership restrictions apply. Plus, they cannot pay tithing or fast offerings, and they cannot wear temple garments. The sources state this outcome is mandatory for murder and for entering into plural marriage. It's also almost always required for incest.

Mandatory for those specific things.

Yes, it might also be deemed necessary for people considered a serious threat or who've committed particularly severe sins and show no repentance or whose actions are seen as significantly harming the Church's integrity. This almost always lasts for at least a year, usually longer. And getting back into the Church requires rebaptism and another membership council decision.

Rebaptism required. That's the most significant consequence.

It is. And just a quick historical note, one source mentioned that way back sometimes public confession in a Church meeting was offered as an alternative to a formal trial or council. But that practice seems to have disappeared from the recent handbooks.

Interesting historical tidbit. Okay, that covers the potential outcomes clearly.

Yeah.

Now, what if a member feels the council's decision was wrong or unfair? Do the sources say anything about appeals?

Yes, they do. Decisions can be appealed. If the decision was made at the ward level by the bishopric, the appeal goes to the Stake President.

Okay.

If the decision was made at the stake level, the appeal can go higher all the way to the First Presidency of the Church.

They're the very top leaders.

Yes. However, the sources also note that actually making these appeals is pretty uncommon in practice.

Uncommon. Okay. So, let's say a decision is made: formal restrictions or withdrawal. Is that just the end of the story for that person's relationship with the Church?

No. The sources frame it quite differently. They present the disciplinary action not as an end point, but as the beginning of the road back, the start of the journey towards full fellowship again.

The beginning. How so?

Leaders are specifically instructed to provide frequent confidential counseling and encouragement to the individual during this time. The whole focus shifts squarely onto repentance, accessing the atonement, making restitution if possible, and actively avoiding negative influences or situations that led to the problem.

So, ongoing support and guidance.

That's the idea. The sources even list encouraged activities. Prayer, scripture study, attending Church meetings, even with restrictions, doing family history or temple work where appropriate, serving others, sharing the gospel. The length of this process isn't fixed. It depends on the individual's progress and repentance.

And how does that journey formally conclude?

It ends with another membership council being convened. This council reviews the person's progress, the repentance, and then decides whether to approve their return to full fellowship.

And if membership had been withdrawn,

Then rebaptism is a required step before that final council can approve readmission.

Okay? So, there's a defined path back centered on repentance and leader support. Now, we've covered the official purposes, procedures, language, outcomes, the path back, but your sources also highlighted ongoing controversies and critiques, didn't they? Despite the official framework,

Yes, several significant critiques and areas of tension are definitely noted across the sources.

What are some of the main ones?

Well, one is this perceived gap between the informal label sometimes used for these councils, the court of love idea, and the actual experience. Some people report.

How so?

Some accounts describe the setting as feeling cold, intimidating, more like an interrogation or an adversarial process than a supportive loving one. That stark contrast comes up.

The lived experience differing from the label. Okay. What else?

Other critiques describe the process sometimes feeling like a witch hunt, especially in cases related to differing beliefs or perceived apostasy.

A witch hunt.

Yeah. Sources mention individuals feeling like the questions weren't just about their own actions or beliefs, but were focused on getting them to name other people who might share similar views or be involved in similar discussions. An effort to identify networks of dissent perhaps.

Hmm. Trying to find out who else thinks like you.

That's the concern raised. There are also worries expressed about the monitoring of members online activities.

Online. How?

Sources suggest that members' blogs, websites, even Facebook posts expressing views that differ from current Church teachings can be monitored by others, reported to leaders, and potentially lead to disciplinary action. Some commentators find this alarming, calling it things like digital danites or internet spying, infringing on personal expression.

That ties right back into how apostasy or differing beliefs are handled, which we touched on earlier. What did the sources say about the tensions or inconsistencies there?

Well, sources note that while the line seems pretty clear against, say, fundamentalist groups promoting polygamy, the handling of other kinds of dissent, maybe what some call liberal heresies, appears more inconsistent.

Inconsistent how?

It seems that public opposition or anything perceived as an attack on leaders or core doctrines is much more likely to trigger action than someone having private doubts or expressing differing views more quietly or academically. One source specifically suggests that how someone expresses dissent publicly can matter more than what the actual belief is in terms of prompting a council.

So, it's not just what you believe or question, but the manner and publicity of your expression that might be the deciding factor. According to these critiques,

That seems to be a major point emerging from the critical sources. Yes. They also report some specific difficult negative experiences. 

Like.

Like women reporting being asked for very explicit graphic details about past sexual sins in front of a council composed entirely of men finding the experience deeply humiliating and traumatic.

Oh wow. It sounds incredibly difficult.

Yeah. And another core conflict mentioned in one source is the sort of theological tension. The Church officially says discipline is not punishment. But historically and maybe commonly excommunication is seen as a punishment. So how does that square with the doctrine that Christ's atonement already paid the price for all sin? That tension is highlighted.

Right. The interplay between institutional consequences and the theological understanding of the atonement.

Exactly. And finally, there are these critiques about people facing discipline for discussing accurate but maybe uncomfortable or unflattering aspects of Church history, or for posting differing opinions online. Yeah,

Even when, as mentioned before, the council members themselves reportedly haven't even reviewed the specific historical sources or online content in question. This raises concerns, according to these sources, about whether the process is sometimes used more to enforce conformity or protect the institutional narrative rather than addressing the substance of the issues or allowing for sincere differing perspectives.

Wow. Okay. So, we've really covered a lot of ground here. We've looked at the stated intentions, the official procedure, those recent language shifts, the outcomes and also brought in some of the significant critiques and contrasting experiences from the sources you shared.

Yeah, it's complex. The terminology has changed which might signal a shift in emphasis maybe towards reconciliation, but the core mechanisms for addressing serious conduct and belief issues seem to remain largely in place.

It definitely brings up a lot of questions, you know,

About the balance between maintaining institutional standards, protecting the community, and then the individual's own journey of faith and repentance.

It really does.

So maybe a final thought to leave with you, our listener,

Considering everything we've discussed, if the ultimate stated purpose of Church membership councils is genuinely to help individuals access the atonement to repent and become better followers of Christ as the official sources say.

Then how might those procedural concerns we talked about, the questions about fairness, the very definitions, the really difficult experiences some report, how might those things impact whether that stated purpose is actually achieved in practice for everyone involved.

If you find value in this exploration, please like, share, follow, and consider becoming a subscriber. Your contributions help keep these conversations going and allows us to maintain the highest quality production. You can find all the details at studyfaithwithai.com. Thank you for being part of this journey.