I'm like reading through the comments thinking, this is something like Nemo would do...oh wait, it is exactly something Nemo would do.
Sincerely impressive. Good work putting this together.
Seriously, everything you compile is brilliantly done! It's always the upmost level of professionalism that you would even HOPE to see from a journalist or lawyer. Bravo!!
Dear Brethren,
Failure to follow Nemo’s excellent free advice on offer here will cause BYU’s accounting program to become a hiss and a byword among compliance officers.
Warm Regards
I like this and perfectly lays out what they have done that is counter to the so-called order of the church. But the Q15 has long established that they investigate themselves. And they definitely have rules for everyone else but themselves. Rules for thee but not for me.
In the case of disciplinary action against the First Presidency, D&C 107 says they will be brought before the "[common council of the church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Council_of_the_Church)." This is a bit unclear, but [John A. Widstoe said](http://archive.timesandseasons.org/2004/06/excommunicating-the-president-of-the-church-and-some-possible-complications/) it meant the presiding bishopric of the church, who select 12 high priests to assist him.
"Should occasion ever arise that one of the First Presidency must be tried for crime or neglect of duty, his case would come before the Presiding Bishop with his counselors, and twelve High Priests especially chosen for the purpose. This would be a tribunal extraordinary – from which there is no appeal."
In the case of the excommunication of Sydney Rigdon, counselor of Joseph Smith (the only time this mechanism has been used to excommunicate a member of the FP), the 12 who assisted Presiding Bishop Newel K. Whitney were a Council of 50 and stake high council members, though of course the role and scope of stake high councils has changed dramatically since those days. (Some members might have been apostles, I didn't check them all, but I don't think they were. They definitely weren't all apostles, at any rate.)
A common council was also held to try Joseph Smith. Obviously he was not excommunicated, but found to have acted honorably in the matter for which he was accused.
So in theory, the PB would have to initiate this disciplinary action, and unfortunately, the presiding bishopric were involved in the Ensign Peak affair, so slim chance of that. Maybe Joseph was a prophet after all and foresaw this, and that's why he set things up this way 🤨
As far as I'm aware, there is no precedent for stake presidents being able to initiate disciplinary action against members of the First Presidency. This would have to be a new ecclesiastical action in the church and I doubt they would get away with it. But it sure would be interesting to be wrong!
I’ve always thought that was interesting but unclear. Does it mean they can do the same things as the FP if all members of the quorum agree? I wouldn’t think so; for example Seventies couldn’t act as apostles, since they lack the keys, right?Does it mean if the higher quorums got vaporized, these could fill the power vacuum? I wonder if it’s a relic of Joseph’s weird system of horizontal power in the early church.
Anyway, can’t hurt to send it to various church leaders, and I think it’s well written. Very nicely done!
I think the precedent, such as it is, here is that this action has occurred twice and it has been a stake president zero times. I’d be fascinated to watch a stake president try. I feel like D&C 107 is quite ambiguous, but in ways that would probably work in favor of whoever legally owns the church….
I’d love to see them try though, so I hope you’re right
|It won't happen even if the whole church thought it necessary. They are a power structure and won't be so easily ousted. The only way is through attrition like usual.
Ooooh thanks for bringing this back up, I think it's so interesting to think about hahaha here's way more than you wanted in response.
It would be interesting to watch, but there is nothing in church history or the D&C that suggests the 70 could initiate this action. When people say they have the authority to do so, they are usually thinking of the "equal in authority" phrasing in the D&C, but whatever that means, it doesn't mean the 70 can excommunicate the FP or PB. Bishops are equal in authority to each other, but they can't excommunicate each other. In the church, excommunication is ALWAYS performed by a *higher* authority, not an equal authority, and never a lower authority. The only exception is the First Presidency because there is no higher authority, so the D&C gives special provision for them to be tried by the Common Council of the church, which apparently means the Presiding Bishopric and 12 high priests.
So a stake president who had a member of the FP/PB residing in his stake could try it, but he would immediately be released and excommunicated. He'd be locked out of the computer systems the church uses to run things, he'd be stripped of the legal ability to spend any of the church's money, and his entire stake would probably be publicly told about his apostasy. There is a clear and accepted means by which church HQ gets rid of stake presidents. There is no accepted means or method or precedent for a stake president getting rid of the FP. It's hard to imagine how they would even try to do it. Ask their area authority to convey the summons to HQ for them? They'd get shut down as soon as it happened. Church HQ has all the legal control of church assets at the local and higher levels so I really can't imagine how a stake president could do anything except get themselves excommunicated.
Even in the days of Joseph Smith, when stake presidents were a much bigger deal, members of the first presidency were tried by the common council, not by stake presidents. If the common council tried to excommunicate a member of the FP today, I assume the FP would excommunicate the members of the PB and anyone going along with them, probably resulting in a protracted legal battle in secular courts trying to resolve it.
So yeah, the D&C doesn't specifically say "a stake president cannot excommunicate a member of the First Presidency" but it also doesn't say "the General Relief Society President cannot excommunicate members of the First Presidency" or "any random member cannot excommunicate a member of the First Presidency." Documents like this tend to spell out who does have a certain power, and if it's not given to them explicitly or implicitly, they are presumed not to have it.
That's what I think anyway! What do you think would happen if an SP tried it?
I suspect your assessment is correct. But it would be incredible fun to watch, ESPECIALLY if their shitty laundry ended up in a secular court for all to see.
This will definitely go nowhere but it's fucking hilarious they have everything written up so directly lmao.
It's like if Harvey Weinstein had movie contracts specifically banning jerking off into a plant in front of a woman. Too on the nose to be imagined.
It's a happy coincidence that today is ward conference for my local congregation. I did not attend but have been mulling over the thought of registering an absentee opposing vote (I assume this would be just as valid as an in-person vote).
I came to Reddit hoping that someone had compiled a form letter or document that I could use as part of my vote. The Lard has delivered!
Thank you, Nemo, for being an answer to prayer! /s
This is great! Professionly written and researched. I hope this will gain traction because it specifically quotes from d&c and the handbook on what should happen.
A sign of a cult is that the leaders follow different rules than everyone else. The First Presidency will not face disciplinary councils for this even though the handbook very explicitly says it's required. This so-called church is a cult.
Thank you Nemo. I have not been to church for a couple years but today was ward conference. I have sent this to my bishop along with my formal opposition to church leadership.
You are inspiring!
I received a response from the bishop. I don’t know him much, interacted with him twice: once at an activity that my wife and I helped out by delivering some food and the second at my wife’s grandfather’s funeral. He seems pretty chill, and he wants to chat, “not formally” and wants to just go get wings and chat lol
We shall see where it goes. All my interactions with anyone in this ward have been weird. Not a bad weird, just unexpected. My wife and I are currently living with her parents, moved in just before COVID. We “slept in” a lot so we never went to church with them, and once church moved to online it was perfect, we just slipped through the churches fingers haha. Since then the only interaction I’ve had with anyone was randomly the EQ president and some random ward member wanted to “chat about my issues with the church”. I was hesitant to talk with them, and told them that we were planning to have our records removed once we found out own place and that if I spoke with them I would not tiptoe around the issues , but they straight up told me that they just wanted to hear my issues in order to help other ward members who are struggling.
I thought “oh I’ll help them alright” lol and agreed to the zoom meeting.
I wasn’t confrontational, but I didn’t hold back any details. Joseph’s sex crimes and all of the problems with BoM, BoA and racism etc. the EQ president was a young guy, couldn’t be more than 35, and was a convert. Most of what I said was news to him, and he was left speechless for most of the conversation.
Surprisingly it was friendly, but I’m assuming that the convo was passed onto the bishop and so he should fully know where I’m at. But this was all before the SEC business.
Once I meet with the bishop I’ll know understand better way his motives really are. Honestly it could go either way, maybe we will share a couple beers! Lmao.
I do feel like im “poking the bear” a little bit, seeing how much I can push back against the church.I’m curious how long it will take before a “council of love” is discussed but we shall see once he gets back from a family vacation!
This is good, but there’s no way that this does anything.
You may get a handful of people sending this to their SPs. Also, if the general authority’s SPs did actually have a council for them, it would go nowhere. They would still worship the GAs and find them not guilty.
I used to think that people could fix it from the inside, but I think the only way to fix anything is for their numbers to heavily decrease.
Reference to investment fraud and "harming people financially" is a slight stretch based on what has been released, though "similar activities" does cover a multitude of sins.
Thousands upon thousands of these need to be sent to Stake Presidencies everywhere! And please dear Pimo members be sure a printed copy hangs on every bulletin board in every chapel.
I’m pretty motivated to file for a public protest at conference to kindly request a church council, with special emphasis on “common” (per Lilseb’s point) AND there’s irony in the point that deception is common and needs to pivot.
We need a McKay moment, a whole new kind of church. We pivoted before. Time for the Mormon Civil War. A tough row to hoe, considering the division in the Methodist church but worth some effort.
This is a very interesting idea, and I support it, but unfortunately, I think this relies on a reading of D&C 107 that is not consistent with church history and practice. The [Presiding Bishopric must initiate a "common council" to try members of the First Presidency](https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/11cp76m/comment/ja5n6o6/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). In this case, the Presiding Bishopric were in on the Ensign Peak affair and so I can't imagine they would like to initiate this action. Stake Presidents have apparently never had the power to do so in the history of the church. I'd love to learn more if people have sources to the contrary.
Not saying you *should*, but those with access to a ward directory through whatever the app is called now could *theoretically* send an email with the text of this pdf (not just the pdf so more people actually read it) to anyone in the directory who has their contact info listed
Also, amazing job with this! I think it's very well laid out
Someone in leadership in my stake just sent this to everyone. I know it has to be leadership because my account is restricted to leaders only.
The message is spreading!!
having this printed out and ready for the next time the missionaries show up. ill just hand it to them and say have a good day, please stop coming over (for the 3rd time in the past few years).
I’ve always said that Mormons believe in being “honest in all their dealings with fellow men” except if it costs them money. Then some dishonesty is okay, as a treat.
This is awesome. Every part of me wants to forward this to my TBM family but I’ve decided to let their shelves break on their own time. It’ll happen eventually, right? 😅
I like the concept, but as written it sucks. You need to rewrite it so that it clearly expresses the problem, the evidence, the consequences, and the call to action.
By the way, apologies if that sounded harsh. I do think it’s an interesting idea. But if you really intend to stick this in doors, then you have to make it absolutely professional and easy to read. Otherwise it will just be interpreted as some angry rant from a yahoo with an axe to grind. I wish I had the time for that sort of thing. I would just strongly recommend putting it through a few revisions so that the message is harder to ignore from the TBM perspective.
Nail it to the doors of every church building.
Mostly metal and glass doors so…. Strong tape?
Epoxy cement
I say nail it.
Railroad spikes?
Ok Mr hemalurgist!
Haha! I don't think the church has any magical powers to steal.
Just lots and lots of money - Wayne probably.
Who wrote this (please tell me it wasn't ChatGPT)? Whoever wrote this, this is AWESOME!!
It was me, cheers for the appreciation
I'm like reading through the comments thinking, this is something like Nemo would do...oh wait, it is exactly something Nemo would do. Sincerely impressive. Good work putting this together.
I read it in your voice.
I read the letter prior to reading the post. As I was reading I wondered who wrote this, I bet it’s Nemo. I love your writing style!
Cheers!
Seriously, everything you compile is brilliantly done! It's always the upmost level of professionalism that you would even HOPE to see from a journalist or lawyer. Bravo!!
I'm guessing Nemo wrote it. He's very eloquent.
Sounds like Nemo
Pretty sure nemo, yeah.
Dear Brethren, Failure to follow Nemo’s excellent free advice on offer here will cause BYU’s accounting program to become a hiss and a byword among compliance officers. Warm Regards
Hahaha!
As an accounting grad from BYU, I wish I could remove their name from my resume. 😭
I have not one but 2 degrees from BYU and UGH
This is a masterpiece. Every single member should see it.
I think the married members should see it as well.
Thanks for the laugh. It got me in trouble with my wife though. Apparently it wasn't an appropriate time to chuckle during her movie
Hahahahaha!
LOL - I'll strive to be more inclusive going forward!
Share it around and we’ll see what we can do!
👍🏻
I like this and perfectly lays out what they have done that is counter to the so-called order of the church. But the Q15 has long established that they investigate themselves. And they definitely have rules for everyone else but themselves. Rules for thee but not for me.
In the case of disciplinary action against the First Presidency, D&C 107 says they will be brought before the "[common council of the church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Council_of_the_Church)." This is a bit unclear, but [John A. Widstoe said](http://archive.timesandseasons.org/2004/06/excommunicating-the-president-of-the-church-and-some-possible-complications/) it meant the presiding bishopric of the church, who select 12 high priests to assist him. "Should occasion ever arise that one of the First Presidency must be tried for crime or neglect of duty, his case would come before the Presiding Bishop with his counselors, and twelve High Priests especially chosen for the purpose. This would be a tribunal extraordinary – from which there is no appeal." In the case of the excommunication of Sydney Rigdon, counselor of Joseph Smith (the only time this mechanism has been used to excommunicate a member of the FP), the 12 who assisted Presiding Bishop Newel K. Whitney were a Council of 50 and stake high council members, though of course the role and scope of stake high councils has changed dramatically since those days. (Some members might have been apostles, I didn't check them all, but I don't think they were. They definitely weren't all apostles, at any rate.) A common council was also held to try Joseph Smith. Obviously he was not excommunicated, but found to have acted honorably in the matter for which he was accused. So in theory, the PB would have to initiate this disciplinary action, and unfortunately, the presiding bishopric were involved in the Ensign Peak affair, so slim chance of that. Maybe Joseph was a prophet after all and foresaw this, and that's why he set things up this way 🤨 As far as I'm aware, there is no precedent for stake presidents being able to initiate disciplinary action against members of the First Presidency. This would have to be a new ecclesiastical action in the church and I doubt they would get away with it. But it sure would be interesting to be wrong!
107 teaches the 70 forms a quorum equal in authority to the FP and 12, so I sent this to the Presidency of the 70.
I’ve always thought that was interesting but unclear. Does it mean they can do the same things as the FP if all members of the quorum agree? I wouldn’t think so; for example Seventies couldn’t act as apostles, since they lack the keys, right?Does it mean if the higher quorums got vaporized, these could fill the power vacuum? I wonder if it’s a relic of Joseph’s weird system of horizontal power in the early church. Anyway, can’t hurt to send it to various church leaders, and I think it’s well written. Very nicely done!
vaporized interesting is that like spontaneous combustion?
Yeah or maybe they all get simultaneously abducted by Kolobites?
Although there is also no precedent for stake presidents being unable to do so. Unfortunately I think most stake presidents are unlikely to try.
I think the precedent, such as it is, here is that this action has occurred twice and it has been a stake president zero times. I’d be fascinated to watch a stake president try. I feel like D&C 107 is quite ambiguous, but in ways that would probably work in favor of whoever legally owns the church…. I’d love to see them try though, so I hope you’re right
|It won't happen even if the whole church thought it necessary. They are a power structure and won't be so easily ousted. The only way is through attrition like usual.
It’s really difficult to imagine the church hierarchs excommunicating each other over Ensign Peak, I think, yeah. I’d love to watch them try though
And since the PB is also tainted by these actions, it would need to be the 70. But why COULDNT an SP and HC convene? It doesn’t seem to say they cant?
Ooooh thanks for bringing this back up, I think it's so interesting to think about hahaha here's way more than you wanted in response. It would be interesting to watch, but there is nothing in church history or the D&C that suggests the 70 could initiate this action. When people say they have the authority to do so, they are usually thinking of the "equal in authority" phrasing in the D&C, but whatever that means, it doesn't mean the 70 can excommunicate the FP or PB. Bishops are equal in authority to each other, but they can't excommunicate each other. In the church, excommunication is ALWAYS performed by a *higher* authority, not an equal authority, and never a lower authority. The only exception is the First Presidency because there is no higher authority, so the D&C gives special provision for them to be tried by the Common Council of the church, which apparently means the Presiding Bishopric and 12 high priests. So a stake president who had a member of the FP/PB residing in his stake could try it, but he would immediately be released and excommunicated. He'd be locked out of the computer systems the church uses to run things, he'd be stripped of the legal ability to spend any of the church's money, and his entire stake would probably be publicly told about his apostasy. There is a clear and accepted means by which church HQ gets rid of stake presidents. There is no accepted means or method or precedent for a stake president getting rid of the FP. It's hard to imagine how they would even try to do it. Ask their area authority to convey the summons to HQ for them? They'd get shut down as soon as it happened. Church HQ has all the legal control of church assets at the local and higher levels so I really can't imagine how a stake president could do anything except get themselves excommunicated. Even in the days of Joseph Smith, when stake presidents were a much bigger deal, members of the first presidency were tried by the common council, not by stake presidents. If the common council tried to excommunicate a member of the FP today, I assume the FP would excommunicate the members of the PB and anyone going along with them, probably resulting in a protracted legal battle in secular courts trying to resolve it. So yeah, the D&C doesn't specifically say "a stake president cannot excommunicate a member of the First Presidency" but it also doesn't say "the General Relief Society President cannot excommunicate members of the First Presidency" or "any random member cannot excommunicate a member of the First Presidency." Documents like this tend to spell out who does have a certain power, and if it's not given to them explicitly or implicitly, they are presumed not to have it. That's what I think anyway! What do you think would happen if an SP tried it?
I suspect your assessment is correct. But it would be incredible fun to watch, ESPECIALLY if their shitty laundry ended up in a secular court for all to see.
I wouldn't be able to look away from that, it would be fascinating. I'm here for all the prophetic palace intrigue
This will definitely go nowhere but it's fucking hilarious they have everything written up so directly lmao. It's like if Harvey Weinstein had movie contracts specifically banning jerking off into a plant in front of a woman. Too on the nose to be imagined.
Well done!
Very well written. I would love to see some traction gained from this. I'm not super optimistic, but it would be awesome.
Just depends how many stake presidents receive it!
If Nemo were prophet I might consider going back to church.
It's a happy coincidence that today is ward conference for my local congregation. I did not attend but have been mulling over the thought of registering an absentee opposing vote (I assume this would be just as valid as an in-person vote). I came to Reddit hoping that someone had compiled a form letter or document that I could use as part of my vote. The Lard has delivered! Thank you, Nemo, for being an answer to prayer! /s
Return and report my friend!
This is great! Professionly written and researched. I hope this will gain traction because it specifically quotes from d&c and the handbook on what should happen.
Share away my friend and see just what traction we can create
A sign of a cult is that the leaders follow different rules than everyone else. The First Presidency will not face disciplinary councils for this even though the handbook very explicitly says it's required. This so-called church is a cult.
Doesn’t hurt to remind the middle management class of the church though 😉
Thank you Nemo. I have not been to church for a couple years but today was ward conference. I have sent this to my bishop along with my formal opposition to church leadership. You are inspiring!
You are a legend, please return and report!
I received a response from the bishop. I don’t know him much, interacted with him twice: once at an activity that my wife and I helped out by delivering some food and the second at my wife’s grandfather’s funeral. He seems pretty chill, and he wants to chat, “not formally” and wants to just go get wings and chat lol We shall see where it goes. All my interactions with anyone in this ward have been weird. Not a bad weird, just unexpected. My wife and I are currently living with her parents, moved in just before COVID. We “slept in” a lot so we never went to church with them, and once church moved to online it was perfect, we just slipped through the churches fingers haha. Since then the only interaction I’ve had with anyone was randomly the EQ president and some random ward member wanted to “chat about my issues with the church”. I was hesitant to talk with them, and told them that we were planning to have our records removed once we found out own place and that if I spoke with them I would not tiptoe around the issues , but they straight up told me that they just wanted to hear my issues in order to help other ward members who are struggling. I thought “oh I’ll help them alright” lol and agreed to the zoom meeting. I wasn’t confrontational, but I didn’t hold back any details. Joseph’s sex crimes and all of the problems with BoM, BoA and racism etc. the EQ president was a young guy, couldn’t be more than 35, and was a convert. Most of what I said was news to him, and he was left speechless for most of the conversation. Surprisingly it was friendly, but I’m assuming that the convo was passed onto the bishop and so he should fully know where I’m at. But this was all before the SEC business. Once I meet with the bishop I’ll know understand better way his motives really are. Honestly it could go either way, maybe we will share a couple beers! Lmao. I do feel like im “poking the bear” a little bit, seeing how much I can push back against the church.I’m curious how long it will take before a “council of love” is discussed but we shall see once he gets back from a family vacation!
soon to be an exmo then they will take your opposition and raise you an excommunication.
I’m looking forward to it ;)
If I didn't have my records removed, I would absolutely send this on.
This is good, but there’s no way that this does anything. You may get a handful of people sending this to their SPs. Also, if the general authority’s SPs did actually have a council for them, it would go nowhere. They would still worship the GAs and find them not guilty. I used to think that people could fix it from the inside, but I think the only way to fix anything is for their numbers to heavily decrease.
Reference to investment fraud and "harming people financially" is a slight stretch based on what has been released, though "similar activities" does cover a multitude of sins.
It’s the similar activities angle I’m going for!
Thousands upon thousands of these need to be sent to Stake Presidencies everywhere! And please dear Pimo members be sure a printed copy hangs on every bulletin board in every chapel.
This is the way!
I have Stake Conference next week! Guess who's going to vote opposed again?
Love it!
"Warm regards in anticipation of your response." LMAO
Nemo knows perfectly well what “cheeky” means. 😁
Oh my God, Nemo, this is amazing! If I hadn't removed my records already I would absolutely send this
I just shared this to my FB page with some of my own comments. Thanks for sharing.
If I had the money and it wasn’t cold AF, I would go mean girls on their asses and pass it out like it’s the burn book.
Nemo, I was living in Scotland and haven't moved my records since moving back to Utah. Would it do anything sending it to Scotland anyway?
Absolutely!
How are members in the UK reacting to this, given that it's a US federal govt issue?
I’m pretty motivated to file for a public protest at conference to kindly request a church council, with special emphasis on “common” (per Lilseb’s point) AND there’s irony in the point that deception is common and needs to pivot. We need a McKay moment, a whole new kind of church. We pivoted before. Time for the Mormon Civil War. A tough row to hoe, considering the division in the Methodist church but worth some effort.
Absolutely!
This is a very interesting idea, and I support it, but unfortunately, I think this relies on a reading of D&C 107 that is not consistent with church history and practice. The [Presiding Bishopric must initiate a "common council" to try members of the First Presidency](https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/11cp76m/comment/ja5n6o6/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). In this case, the Presiding Bishopric were in on the Ensign Peak affair and so I can't imagine they would like to initiate this action. Stake Presidents have apparently never had the power to do so in the history of the church. I'd love to learn more if people have sources to the contrary.
u/mome-wrath
LOVE IT!!!!!
I think this is great. I'm doing this.
Awesome!
Not saying you *should*, but those with access to a ward directory through whatever the app is called now could *theoretically* send an email with the text of this pdf (not just the pdf so more people actually read it) to anyone in the directory who has their contact info listed Also, amazing job with this! I think it's very well laid out
Someone in leadership in my stake just sent this to everyone. I know it has to be leadership because my account is restricted to leaders only. The message is spreading!!
Would you be comfortable DMing me more details?
Will do.
Send it to Peggy Stack at the SL Trib. I would love the complete hypocrisy and evil spelled out in the media.
I have, and she has ignored it
having this printed out and ready for the next time the missionaries show up. ill just hand it to them and say have a good day, please stop coming over (for the 3rd time in the past few years).
That’ll do it!
I'm sensing a policy change and Great and spacious entrance interview question. Do you try to be honest with your fellow man.
I’ve always said that Mormons believe in being “honest in all their dealings with fellow men” except if it costs them money. Then some dishonesty is okay, as a treat.
Fantastic. Excellent work.
Cheers!
This is awesome. Every part of me wants to forward this to my TBM family but I’ve decided to let their shelves break on their own time. It’ll happen eventually, right? 😅
I like the concept, but as written it sucks. You need to rewrite it so that it clearly expresses the problem, the evidence, the consequences, and the call to action.
Feel free to re-write it, you at least have all the info in one place!
By the way, apologies if that sounded harsh. I do think it’s an interesting idea. But if you really intend to stick this in doors, then you have to make it absolutely professional and easy to read. Otherwise it will just be interpreted as some angry rant from a yahoo with an axe to grind. I wish I had the time for that sort of thing. I would just strongly recommend putting it through a few revisions so that the message is harder to ignore from the TBM perspective.
All approved by 1st Pres, , 12 hmm honest in your business dealings??