secret combinations

[_Coggins7]

They don't allow the accused to have witnesses on their behalf? I find that astonishing.

Nehor, this is pure bluster. She'll say anything she feels she needs two to win the argument. Although I hate to admit it, I've been in two disciplinary counsels during my life time, and both were exactly the same as to organization and structure. Both, ultimately, were positive experiences. My father was a Bishop for 10 years. I know how these counsels are set up and handled, and what there purpose is.

The entire things is standardized throughout the church according to a set pattern. If her stake isn't following that pattern, I'd suggest she check the name of the church she's going to before walking through the doors next Sunday.

[_harmony]

If someone is disciplined for what would be prosecuted as a crime, the public has a right to know. If the person is disciplined for something other than that which would be prosecuted as a crime, they should be able to have their friends and family there to support them. The proceedings being closed has nothing to do with protecting the person and everything to do with protecting the church.

I'm not following here Harmony. Disciplinary councils often let friends and family of the accused in and character witnesses are very, very common and half the High Council (if it is a High Council court) are bound by duty to support the accused.

Not in my stake, they don't.

They don't allow the accused to have witnesses on their behalf? I find that astonishing.

Witnesses, yes. Support, no. And once the witnesses have said their piece, they're escorted from the room.

[_Coggins7]

Keep up the pose...

[_harmony]

They don't allow the accused to have witnesses on their behalf? I find that astonishing.

Nehor, this is pure bluster. She'll say anything she feels she needs two to win the argument. Although I hate to admit it, I've been in two disciplinary counsels during my life time, and both were exactly the same as to organization and structure. Both, ultimately, were positive experiences. My father was a Bishop for 10 years. I know how these counsels are set up and handled, and what there purpose is.

Oh, so your father, a bishop, allowed you to know something that the rest of the members in your ward didn't know? Perhaps "secret" is only "sacred" for some members, but not for members of bishop's families?

[_The Nehor]

If someone is disciplined for what would be prosecuted as a crime, the public has a right to know. If the person is disciplined for something other than that which would be prosecuted as a crime, they should be able to have their friends and family there to support them. The proceedings being closed has nothing to do with protecting the person and everything to do with protecting the church.

I'm not following here Harmony. Disciplinary councils often let friends and family of the accused in and character witnesses are very, very common and half the High Council (if it is a High Council court) are bound by duty to support the accused.

Not in my stake, they don't.

They don't allow the accused to have witnesses on their behalf? I find that astonishing.

Witnesses, yes. Support, no. And once the witnesses have said their piece, they're escorted from the room.

Ahhh, I see the confusion, I mistyped and made it unclear that the support is the witnesses.

[_The Nehor]

They don't allow the accused to have witnesses on their behalf? I find that astonishing.

Nehor, this is pure bluster. She'll say anything she feels she needs two to win the argument. Although I hate to admit it, I've been in two disciplinary counsels during my life time, and both were exactly the same as to organization and structure. Both, ultimately, were positive experiences. My father was a Bishop for 10 years. I know how these counsels are set up and handled, and what there purpose is.

Oh, so your father, a bishop, allowed you to know something that the rest of the members in your ward didn't know? Perhaps "secret" is only "sacred" for some members, but not for members of bishop's families?

The organization of those councils is not secret or sacred. The method is laid out in the D&C. I just had to ask friends who were on the High Council to find out how they work. I have never been to one though.

[_harmony]

The organization of those councils is not secret or sacred. The method is laid out in the D&C. I just had to ask friends who were on the High Council to find out how they work. I have never been to one though.

The doors are closed. The proceedings are not public. Even family members are not allowed in.

[_Jason Bourne]

The Book of Mormon repeatedly warns against secret combinations, secret oaths, etc. Yet the LDS church has much that is secret and hidden.

1. temple rites open only to a few select members, and not at all to the general public, that are full of oaths and covenants
2. financials that are closed to the members and to the public
3. disciplinary meetings that are closed to the members and to the public

Any or all of those in combination could be interpreted to represent the secret combinations that the Book of Mormon warns against. Why have our leaders not changed these policies in order to come into line with our canon?

You need to study exactly what the Book of Mormon calls secret combinations and why, then you will see why what you listed above seems to fall outside those parameters.

[_harmony]

You need to study exactly what the Book of Mormon calls secret combinations and why, then you will see why what you listed above seems to fall outside those parameters.

I can accept that, Jason. What I'm having a hard time with is the secrecy that permeates the LDS church.

Why are the temples closed? There's nothing there that is inappropriate.

Why are the books closed? If there's nothing untoward going on, open them up!

Why are disciplinary proceedings closed?

Why is the CHI kept from the members?

[_Jason Bourne]

Nehor, quoting the D&C to me is useless. I consider very little of it to be God-breathed, and the vast majority of it to be manufactured revelation based on expediency at the time. Give me Bible or Book of Mormon.

It does not matter what you think, it matters what the majority of the Church you criticizes thinks. THe D&C is valid to defend anything LDS.

If the church does not fit a secret combination, then why is so much of it secret? Please tell me why are these reasons not valid:

You telll us why? Go to the Book of Mormon, use it to define secret combination, then till us why these things you listed fit.

1. Joseph closed the temples in order to hide his polygamous marriages from the public, the members not involved in polygamy, and his wife. There is no reason for them to be closed now, except the Brethren refuse to change a policy the reason for which disappeared several generations ago. To maintain this policy is simply a matter of selfishness and cruelty.

I am not sure the Joseph closed the temple per say as the Nauvoo temple was not complete at his death. The endowment may have been started prove to Joseph Smith who was loyal enough to keep quiet about polygamy. This may border on a secret combination per say but it missed a key element so in my opinion fails the test. Can you tell me which key element that is?

2. The books were closed in 1957 to hide fiscal malfeasance on the part of some of the Brethren. There is no reason to maintain this policy unless there is still something to hide.

Supposition only.

3. Disciplinary councils are secret to protect the church, not the person being discliplined

I think you are grossly mistaken on this one. There was a time when disciplinary actions were announecd publically. Why do you think the church stopped that?