Legal counsel may not be present for disciplinary trial

[drumdude]

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... _the_mail/

What kind of a church tells this to a member who is facing (in their minds) the potential of losing everything in the afterlife - "sorry, you can't have representation."

Definitely sounds like a church headed by Jesus Christ to me.

[drumdude]

Compare with 2014's Kate Kelly letter - where she was invited to have witnesses and evidence shown during the "council."

https://ordainwomen.org/wp-content/uplo ... ter1-1.pdf

[Moksha]

The disciplinary trial is just a formality, the decision has already been made.

[Res Ipsa]

As an attorney, my professional expertise is in law. In the U.S., with a few, narrow exceptions, the First Amendment prevents the government from interfering in the internal processes of church governance, including decisions about who can be a member and who can not. Professionally, I would have nothing to add to an LDS disciplinary hearing. And that's what I would tell someone who approached me about representing them at such a hearing.

[drumdude]

As an attorney, my professional expertise is in law. In the U.S., with a few, narrow exceptions, the First Amendment prevents the government from interfering in the internal processes of church governance, including decisions about who can be a member and who can not. Professionally, I would have nothing to add to an LDS disciplinary hearing. And that's what I would tell someone who approached me about representing them at such a hearing.

As an attorney, would you expect the church to use boiler plate language in these letters rather than just make up random arbitrary rules for each one?

[Res Ipsa]

As an attorney, my professional expertise is in law. In the U.S., with a few, narrow exceptions, the First Amendment prevents the government from interfering in the internal processes of church governance, including decisions about who can be a member and who can not. Professionally, I would have nothing to add to an LDS disciplinary hearing. And that's what I would tell someone who approached me about representing them at such a hearing.

As an attorney, would you expect the church to use boiler plate language in these letters rather than just make up random arbitrary rules for each one?

As an attorney, I have no expectations either way. Given my understanding of the process, which is that discipline is conducted at the local (stake?) level, with involvement from higher authorities ranging from zero to a bunch, I'd guess that both would occur, depending on individual circumstances.

[honorentheos]

The letter suggests the recipient has been forward and vocal about attempting to dissuade others from participating in the LDS church. I can't say I view the recipient having attempted to bring an attorney to the council and posting about it on Reddit favorably, either. It reads like a stunt.

[drumdude]

Seems to have worked, it’s getting a lot of attention on Reddit.

If it is a stunt: fighting fire with fire, I suppose.

[Failed Prophecy]

This is in the Phillipines, not the US. In countries where canon law has been present (i.e. majority Catholic countries) there may be an assumption that canon lawyers can/should be present to represent the parties. Obviously in the LDS context there's no such thing. But, if there is a cultural expectation for it, the language may just be saying don't bother with that.

[bill4long]

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... _the_mail/

What kind of a church tells this to a member who is facing (in their minds) the potential of losing everything in the afterlife - "sorry, you can't have representation."

Definitely sounds like a church headed by Jesus Christ to me.

Here's the thing. It's not a criminal tribunal. It's not even a civil tribunal. There is no "right" to a lawyer. It's merely a squabble between members of a social club.

Beyond that, anyone at a D.T. probably doesn't really want to be a MormBot anymore anyway. So why even bother to show up to such a Kangaroo proceeding? Time to move on.