Another (ignorance-based) boundary violation

[Born Free]

I heard just yesterday during a catch up with a good Mormon friend, that her father and brother were exed by her father's step-brother, who happened to be their priesthood leader. So I am unambigously clear, one step-brother conducted the Church court of the other.

That reminded me of my experience of being worthiness-interviewed by my father and reminded me of the massive price Mormons pay for their under-trained clergy. I happen to know the step-brother, who is a highly academically qualified man with broad life experience, but clearly he failed to see the potential for the destruction of family relations that existed within his presiding over those Church courts.

In other areas, if people were presented with this conflict of interest, they would stand aside, and an independent party fill the chair to perform the role. That would remove any concern about preferential treatment, overly firm treatment to leave no room for criticism of preferential treatment, or otherwise distorted judgments.

Anyone else had experience of that type of conflict of interest/roles which the Church has failed (in all its God-appointed Priesthood wisdom) to get sorted out? One would wonder how guidance on this type of issue never has got into the handbooks. Is there no organisational learning, or does Mo happily move forward in the belief that if the Lord doesn't approve, then he'll come a knockin'. :rolleyes:

In the absence of such learning, another Mormon family gets ripped asunder, under the banner of Eternal Families. :duh

Daryl

[cactus jack]

Daryl, honestly I am of mixed feelings on this. First, when I read the title, I was practically ready to bet cash that I once again transgressed against the sacred cow. But after reading what you aid, I feel sad for your friend and her father and brother. If they truly believe in the Church, then I say let them do as they wish. If they want out, let them leave without difficulty or question. You havn't said much about the father and brother, or the family itself, so that leaves a lot of questions about how they feel about it.

As for a family member doing the disciplinary council, my understanding is that it's procedural misconduct. Now please keep in mind *I* am not a bishop or branch president. So perhaps their procedures are a bit nore lax than the civil system is.

[Born Free]

Daryl, honestly I am of mixed feelings on this. First, when I read the title, I was practically ready to bet cash that I once again transgressed against the sacred cow. But after reading what you aid, I feel sad for your friend and her father and brother. If they truly believe in the Church, then I say let them do as they wish. If they want out, let them leave without difficulty or question. You havn't said much about the father and brother, or the family itself, so that leaves a lot of questions about how they feel about it.

As for a family member doing the disciplinary council, my understanding is that it's procedural misconduct. Now please keep in mind *I* am not a bishop or branch president. So perhaps their procedures are a bit nore lax than the civil system is.
cactus jack,

My understanding was that at least the father was distressed at the ex'ing.

There are two levels (at least) at which one can address events such as this: the personal and the systemic. My particular focus here was that the Church continues to amplify pain at the personal level through its failure to get vaguely professional and adept at the system level.

Daryl