Breaking the Rules of Scripture in Church Trials:

The canonized instructions for church trials are provided in D&C 102 and D&C 42.¹ Here we will briefly compare the execution of church trials in modern Mormonism to the scriptural instructions provided.²¹⁴

D&C 102 describes the roles of the Stake President (the judge) and the high councilors, who are split into defense and prosecution of the defendant.

Whenever a high council of the church of Christ is regularly organized, according to the foregoing pattern, it shall be the duty of the twelve councilors to cast lots by numbers, and thereby ascertain who of the twelve shall speak first, commencing with number one and so in succession to number twelve. 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. The accused, in all cases, has a right to one-half of the council, to prevent insult or injustice. And the councilors appointed to speak before the council are to present the case, after the evidence is examined, in its true light before the council; and every man is to speak according to equity and justice. Those councilors who draw even numbers, that is, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12, are the individuals who are to stand up in behalf of the accused, and prevent insult and injustice. (D&C 102:12-17.)

Current church trials have a very different form. The handbook reads:

After hearing any additional comments from the high council, the stake presidency withdraws from the council room to confer in private. After consultation and prayer, the stake president makes the decision and invites his counselors to sustain it. The stake presidency then returns and announces the decision to the high council. The stake president asks the high councilors as a group to sustain his decision. The high council cannot veto the decision; it is binding even if it is not sustained unanimously. (Church Handbook of Instructions.)

Elder Oaks described that an LDS church court is not actually a court at all:

In a stake disciplinary council, the stake president is assisted by twelve high councilors. Their role is easily misunderstood. Uninformed persons are tempted to liken the high council to a jury. In view of the not well understood instructions in section 102 of the Doctrine and Covenants, there is also a tendency to view individual high councilors as prosecutors or defenders. Neither of these comparisons is appropriate. Members of the high council are present to “stand up in behalf of the accused, and prevent insult and injustice” (Doc. & Cov 102:17). In other words, they are to give added assurance that the evidence is examined in its true light and that the procedures and treatment of the accused are consistent with equity and justice. Their roles are illumination and persuasion, not advocacy or decision. (Elder Dallin H. Oaks, “The Lord’s Way,” pp. 233-34, 1991.)

Elder Oaks mistakenly claims that half the council does not advocate for the defendant. It is defined as defense, support, or vindication. The sample sentence provided by the 1828 Webster's is “the advocate pleads in behalf of the prisoner.” A literal reading of the scripture matches trials as they were held in Joseph’s day, but contradicts the current implementation.

The church has also removed the veto power of the high council. In D&C 102, there are two veto mechanisms provided the high council. The first is to demand a retrial, a right of each member of the high council. Second, a “majority of the council” has to agree² with the decision in order for the Stake President's decision to stand.

After the evidences are heard, the councilors, accuser and accused have spoken, the president shall give a decision according to the understanding which he shall have of the case, and call upon the twelve councilors to sanction the same by their vote. But should the remaining councilors, who have not spoken, or any one of them, after hearing the evidences and pleadings impartially, discover an error in the decision of the president, they can manifest it, and the case shall have a re-hearing. And if, after a careful re-hearing, any additional light is shown upon the case, the decision shall be altered accordingly. But in case no additional light is given, the first decision shall stand, the majority of the council having power to determine the same. (D&C 102:19-22.)

The church has recently claimed “[Disciplinary] Decisions are made by local leaders and not directed or coordinated by Church headquarters.”³ This is not true. A string of recent communications have been initiated by General Authorities. Recent excommunicant Denver Snuffer wrote:

In my case the news came directly from Elder Russell M. Nelson of the twelve, who presides over the Strengthening the Members Committee. Usually the news comes through Elder Whitney Clayton, one of the seven presidents. He was also involved in my case, but the original pressure came through Elder Nelson directly. (http://denversnuffer.com/2014/06/church-discipline-topdown/)

The New York Times reported that, in the case of Rock Waterman,

If he did not resign he would face excommunication, he said the bishop told him, on orders from another official higher up — one of the church’s leaders known as an Area Seventy.⁴

The same article reported that Keith Kloosterman had his temple recommend removed at request of a Seventy for posting a pro-gay marriage twitter post. There are plenty of other examples.⁵

In defense of Jesus, a dissenting Pharisee attempted to correct the High Priest for unrighteously condemning Jesus without the requirement of hearing the defendant plead his case: “Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?” (John 7:51.)⁶ Likewise, D&C 102 requires that the councilors hear “the evidences and pleadings impartially” (D&C 102:20). They cannot do so if they are under the understanding that the defendant is guilty before the trial has even begun, or if they do not understand that their duty is to independently decide the matter and vote according to their own understanding, not merely agree with the Stake President.

Ironically, Elder Holland recently made this statement:

In this Church there is an enormous amount of room—and scriptural commandment—for studying and learning, for comparing and considering, for discussion and awaiting further revelation. We all learn ‘line upon line, precept upon precept,’ with the goal being authentic religious faith informing genuine Christlike living. In this there is no place for coercion or manipulation, no place for intimidation or hypocrisy. (Jeffrey R. Holland, “A Prayer for the Children,” Ensign, May 2003.)

There have been others like it.⁷ And yet, the recent excommunication of Rock Waterman, Denver Snuffer, and many other less-known individuals followed a generic pattern: Charges of apostasy for pointing out church doctrines that contradicted scripture, coercion in threats to cease writing or suffer consequence, lack of attempts to reason with the individual and show error in their positions, and an anti-scriptural predetermined court outcome. Church courts in modern Mormonism are vastly different from those described in the revelations. If the church’s current practices bear no resemblance to what God revealed, how can they be binding in heaven? After all, God said, “I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise.” (D&C 82:10.) They are courts of men, operating under the commandments of men.

In these types of proceedings, men are judged for their allegiance to the commandments of men instead of the commandments of God. This is a Pharisaical condition. As the Pharisees taught:

even if they tell us that what we think is our right hand is our left hand and what we think is our left hand is our right hand, we should accept their teaching. (Sifrei)

And again:

According to the teaching that they will teach you and according to the judgment they will say to you, shall you do; you shall not deviate from the word they will tell you, right or left. (Devorim 17:11.)

Just as in the days of Jesus, righteous men are prosecuted not because they have broken God’s word as revealed in scripture,⁸ but because they have broken the man-made traditions of the elders, that in many cases contradict the scriptures.

Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them. (John 9:16.)

Jesus was tried for violating policy, not for violating commandments:

`And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so? Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me? (John 18:22-23.)

Just as in modern examples, specific doctrinal charges were lacking in Jesus’ trial. Eventually, the ill-defined charge of blasphemy was applied. Today, the equivalent is “apostasy.” In both cases, the real charge is daring to agree with God’s word when those in power do not. Since there are no charges of sin, there is nothing to persuade the member of. There is no need to continue ministering to the individual, because their facts are not the problem: their lack of allegiance to the brethren in spite of the facts is. Thus the suspicious absence of the mandated continual ministry to the excommunicant in modern apostasy excommunications.

Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out of your synagogues, or your places of worship, for unto such shall ye continue to minister; (3 Nephi 18:32.)

Joseph taught that the way to minister to those in error is to teach them truth, not to shun them:

...If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear down on them? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better. I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by force or reasoning, for truth will cut its own way. Do you believe Jesus Christ and the gospel of salvation which he revealed? So do I. Christians should cease wrangling and contending with each other, and cultivate the principles of union and friendship. I am just as ready to die defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any other denomination. (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 5:498– 99.)

Nephi made a prophesy about our time and the consequences of men who hold these unjustified councils:

For assuredly as the Lord liveth they shall see that the terrible one is brought to naught, and the scorner is consumed, and all that watch for iniquity are cut off; And they that make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of naught. (2 Nephi 27:21-32.)

The only doctrine that matters in modern Mormonism is “believe anything the brethren say.” As with all organizations led by man, “The price of maintaining membership in the establishment is unquestioning acceptance of authority.”⁹

You would think that one would have to rebel against Christ or his teachings in order to be considered apostate. When apostasy becomes a measure of allegiance to an organization or a group of men—both having proven exceptionally capable of deviating from God—instead of to Christ, the process of church discipline becomes a farce that is not recognized in heaven as anything but a glaring instance of taking the Lord’s name in vain.