I got notice of my court on the day it was to be held. I was not given specifics of the charge, even when I asked for them both before the court and during it. I was not allowed a delay to try to get witnesses, since one of the members of the court was traveling from out of town to be there, and it “would be inconvenient” for him!

To this date, I have no idea of the specifics of the charge. The only evidence I saw of the Spirit’s being there is that I was only disfellowshipped when my bishop wanted both me and my wife excommunicated, hanged, and then drawn and quartered, burned, and have our ashed scattered to the wind. The SP refused to let him take any action against my wife. The SP probably took more flack over that decision than any other he made regarding our situation.

I do know the Spirit was there a little over a year later for the court that reinstated me. One of the court members was openly hostile to me, both during the year I was “out” and at the court. When it was over, he told me that he voted for my restoration because when he prayed about his vote, the Spirit told him I was sincere in trying to “come back.”

We moved to a different state a week later, and haven’t looked back.

re 89, I could not agree more. I was thinking of Elder Lee earlier but not sure, and I would much rather be blissfully ingorant of those details.

“Apologist logic of inspiration”? Inspiration is what is required, if we truly believe the basic principles of the church.

However, even after I made my post about the guidance of the spirit that I have observed, I know that there are cases where some could question if inspiration was involved. I don’t know the certainties of those incidents, as I have not personally experienced it. But I share the concern that sometimes, being a church with lay leadership, if we are always as inspired as we should be.

I would agree with what Eugene England wrote about in his essay “Why the Church is as True as the Gospel”. The requirements of a lay leadership puts us both in the position of having to be a leader, and try as hard as possible to make the right decisions, and as a follower, to understand that sometimes leaders, do make mistakes. I know that I made mistakes, and that I offended people while serving as a bishop. It has made it easier for me to cut other leaders some slack for things I could take offense to.

Establishing a codified legal system only reduces the dependence on the spirit that leadership, and also being led, requires of us daily in the church. I know of no other religion that stresses the importance of personal revelation, and that you can receive answers to know for yourself, and not always rely on someone else’s spiritual access. That, however, sets up the paradox that sometimes puts us at odds with each other, and with authority. It’s not perfect, but it points out to us that we need to try harder.

Once Church discipline is lifted all reference to the discipline is removed from the person’s records–in the case of excommunication, the original baptism date is used and the rebaptism date does not appear, and following the restoration of blessings, the original ordination and temple dates are used and the date of restoration of blessings does not appear. In very limited cases, such as in the case of child abuse, there is a special notation on the record (I do not know what it looks like.)

The same is true in the case of divorce–no reference is made to the prior marriage or divorce on the membership record, except if the person is still sealed to the prior spouse, in which case a brief notation to that effect is included. Also, children from prior marriages (or from no marriage at all) do appear on records.

These changes were made around 20 years ago. I still remember them because our ward (for which I was then serving in a bishopric) received a box full of new records to replace the old ones.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, especially when the law follows common notions.

The government’s obligation to pronounce and publish the law is an ancient legal principle. Trying to whiggle one’s way around publication is embarrassing.

Your example would not be a case of ignorance of the law but rather of authorities who are keeping the law from the people by design. Whether certain behavior is wrong is only part of the issue. An equally important aspect is that Aaron could not invoke the law if it were to favor him.

Practically, that may mean that LDS authorities can use the law to badger their opponents but the leaders themselves may not have to abide by legal constraints. That’s not the rule of law. It’s authoritarianism.

The bottom line is that there is no rule of law in Mormonism. There is no case law. There is no church law. If there is then we don’t know it.

The stake president is effectively the judge and prosecutor. There is no representation. Insofar as there is an appeal, neither the accused nor their representatives get to participate.

Catholicism, on the other hand, has the rule of law. That is why the Catholic Church did not excommunicate a single sex abuse advocate even though their organizations are now threatened by bankruptcy.

By contrast, Mormon leaders have excommunicated mothers of abused children. Why? Because LDS leaders can.

Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If one does not constrain mortals institutionally then there will be abuse.

It is not enough to recognize that LDS leaders are as imperfect as anyone else. That insight requires a response in terms of institutional design. In that respect, the LDS Church is woefully lacking. We are all paying the price for that deficiency one way or another.

The apologist logic of inspiration is frankly more honest than Orwellian attempts to redefine authoritarian models of power as the rule of law.