Can Discipline Remain Local in a Global Church?

Last updated on: February 11, 2015 at 11:05 pm by Emily Belanger

Can Discipline Remain Local in a Global Church? 2015-02-11T23:05:44+00:00 Emily Belanger

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Leading up to Kate Kelly’s disciplinary hearing in 2014, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints published a statement that emphasized the role of local leaders:

“Disciplinary councils may be held by local leaders when members preach doctrines contrary to teachings of the Church and refuse to be counseled… Council proceedings are considered private matters between a member and his or her local Church leader.”

The statement implies that Church leadership agrees with Kelly’s local leaders, while also distancing global leaders from the responsibility of disciplining members. For Dehlin, the Church’s recent statement affirms similar support but elaborates on the great trust the Church places in local leaders:

“Holding a disciplinary council for a member of the Church is not something that any local leader takes lightly. Such councils are always held in private, and the member is always invited to be a part of that discussion. The decision as to whether to hold a disciplinary council, when and for what reasons rests with the local leader who knows the individual best. Local leaders operate under general principles and guidelines of the Church.” (emphasis added)

Supporters of Ordain Women and Mormon Stories have been quick to dismiss these statements as disingenuous, but I’m more interested in considering the repercussions of leaving discipline to local leaders. Putting aside the question of whether Kate Kelly and John Dehlin in particular should have been excommunicated, is the current policy as effective as official statements suggest?

“The Local Leader… Knows the Individual Best”

That local leaders will know and understand the member best is the primary reason the Church has given for leaving disciplinary councils to them. Perhaps that is true for members in stable jobs, who are rooted to their community and have lived there for years. But it holds less true for individuals who move frequently for school or work. For transient members, facing a disciplinary council of local leaders could easily mean defending oneself to strangers. That risk is further exacerbated by the fact that in the US the groups most likely to engage in activism within the church are often the groups most likely to be transient: students, academics, and young people. And while a local leader will likely know a member better than someone in a far-removed position of authority (such as a general authority), there is no guarantee the leader will know the individual well or understand the particulars of their life.

Local leaders are themselves transient in a sense, because their positions are filled on a volunteer basis and are only temporary. Leaders are not required to be long-time members of the local community, and membership in a community does not automatically grant a bishop or stake president a close friendship with any person in his flock. Even if most local leaders are personally rooted in the community, one change in leadership can determine whether a member remains in good standing. Mormon feminist bloggers refer to the constant shift in local leadership as “bishop roulette,” a phenomenon recent commenters at The Exponent describe as “undeniable” and “terrifying.”

On the other hand, knowing the member in question may in fact make it difficult for a leader to look past his own feelings and recognize the promptings of the Spirit. Like many life-long members, I have heard of both wonderful and concerning experiences with local leaders. Among those many stories, I have heard first-hand accounts of local leaders who allowed their friendship with an individual to overshadow their knowledge that the individual was engaged in serious sin. Recently, examples such as Cliven Bundy and Bruce Jessen demonstrate that members can remain in good standing despite publicly encouraging others to engage in behavior contrary to the Church’s teachings.

In other cases, first-hand accounts have described over zealous local leaders limiting membership privileges for issues as small as staying married to an inactive member or publicly stating personal support of same-sex marriage. Church policy provides an avenue for addressing a local leader’s abuse: members can appeal a decision. But by that stage a member is put in the position of proving a leader overstepped, and as the official statements on Kelly’s and Dehlin’s discipline make clear, Church leadership places high faith in local discipline councils and allows a great deal of individual discretion.

Local Decisions: Global Consequences

Kate Kelly’s disciplinary proceedings caught national headlines in part because they were by definition anything but local. Even before Kelly chose to make the letters from her stake president public, her move from Virginia to Utah, combined with her planned move to Kenya, complicated the matter. Kelly had already left Virginia when her local leaders there communicated the full extent of their concerns. Despite her move, those leaders held enough sway to keep her records from transferring to her new ward, thus maintaining their control over her disciplinary council. If the decision truly rests with local leaders, then the timing of Kelly’s move may have been an important factor in her excommunication.

Whether her leaders were right or wrong to call a disciplinary hearing and excommunicate her, the consequences clearly reached well beyond the regional and temporary stewardship of lay clergy. Whether they were right or wrong, their decision prevents Kelly from participating in ordinances on another continent, though she would now fall under the stewardship of different lay clergy. If the decision to excommunicate a member rests solely on the shoulders of local leaders, then right or wrong, Kelly and Dehlin would perhaps still be considered members in good standing, simply by living in a different state, town or country.

Discipline Councils

moderate Mormon feminism

Previous Post

February 2, 2015

The Hobbit, by J.R.R. Tolkien

Next Post

February 16, 2015 Inversion

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category American society Art baptism Blogging Book of Mormon Book review Brigham Young Brigham Young University Bundy Catholicism Christianity Communalism Community of Christ conferences conversion correlation Culture denominations Digital History Discipline Councils diversity Doctrine Donald Trump education Emma Smith ethics family feminism fiction Film review food French Polynesia Fundamentalism Gay rights Gender global Gun politics Halloween health History Honor Code hymns Joseph Smith Kirtland Temple law of consecration massacre site military Ministering missionary moderate Mormon feminism Modern Mormonism Mormon origins Mormon War Mormonism Mormonism, politics, Romney Obama Peace politics Polygamy Pope Francis Poverty Prayer Priesthood Protestantism Race Religious freedom Revelation Reviews sacred sites Scientology Scripture Secularization See Stones sexual assault Star Wars television temples Tithing Utah violence war women's ordination

Select a Month October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 October 2017 September 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 November 2016 October 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does Jeremiah use to symbolize Israel's relationship to God in Jeremiah 18?

Select your answer to see how you score.

A shepherd and sheep A bride and bridegroom A potter and clay A tree and fruit