Comments on: The Peacemaker and Bishop’s Court

By: Clark

Clark — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 16:21:42 +0000

I think the realities of the Church population at the dawn of the 20th century versus even the 1950′s let alone now means that kind of world will likely never return soon.

By: Justin

Justin — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 22:02:43 +0000

It’s unfortunate that HJG’s friend did not appeal. From what I’ve read, he may have had a sympathetic ear in D.H. Wells.

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:02:12 +0000

Okay, my nostalgia is idealistic, assuming that all bishops are wise and successful at meeting the goals outlined for them, when I know better. In order to be an active Mormon today, I had to finally resolve my confusion over a bad leader, realizing that while a man may be called of God he doesn’t necessarily live up to his calling. At least the church court system provides for review and appeal, as long as an unfairly treated member can control his hurt and outrage long enough to wait for the process to work.

By: Researcher

Researcher — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 19:21:23 +0000

Sorry for the length, but here’s a little story from Heber J. Grant. I can provide a citation if needed.

In early days the Bishops with their counselors were permitted to have trials and excommunicate men from the Church. One of my nearest and dearest and best beloved friends was excommunicated by the Bishopric of his Ward, and I considered it nothing short of an outrage. I desired to be present to testify in his behalf, but was not permitted to be at the meeting.

I sat on the outside of the meeting house on the top of a high post. A fence was being built around the meeting house and the boards of the fence had not been put on, but the posts were set up and I climbed on top of one of these posts and could see and hear the people in the second story of the meeting house, and I heard the whole proceedings.

To many of the questions that were asked of my friend, I answered: “No, I would not do any such thing,” and I felt so mad at the Bishop’s counselor who was asking the questions of my friend and it was many years before I could have any respect for him. He was a very devoted Latter-day Saint, but he was not charitable. The thing that outraged me was that my friend was put in with a crowd of boys who were really no good, and they were all excommunicated at the same time.

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 18:53:44 +0000

Justin, you must be right — I mean, aside from your track record of being right , the introduction to this manual (which I’m reading again today) shows quite a concern for getting the boys involved, not just stuffing their heads with information. I feel quite a sense of urgency (or urgentity, to bring in Ray and Mark) in the fervency (ferventity) of that section.

By: Justin

Justin — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 18:27:38 +0000

As I understand from reading William Hartley’s work, this manual would have been studied during the priesthood reform movement. Among other things, church leaders were concerned about the state of affairs in the lesser priesthood quorums (instruction was not correlated, activity levels were poor, boys were not being advanced to the office of priest on a regular basis, etc.).

By: Mark B.

Mark B. — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 18:01:53 +0000

Ray, you’re following your inner Warren Harding in choosing “normalcy” over “normality”. The story is that the former was little used and moving even further from normality when the estimable Mr. Harding rescued it from history’s dustbin during the 1920 presidential election campaign. His “Return to Normalcy” slogan was a winner, although language snobs didn’t like the word. And, if rampant corruption is normal, it appears that Harding won on that score as well. (Would you like some Teapot Dome with your crumpets, sir?)

By: Howard

Howard — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 17:54:27 +0000

I could find no reason under any circumstances that the situation would have benefited from the intervention of religious authority Our SP likes to say; We'll take care of the spiritual, you take care of the legal.

By: Mark B.

Mark B. — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 17:47:08 +0000

I read a story in the Mormon samizdat years ago entitled Bishop’s Court. Memory is sketchy, at best, but there may have been a dispute about maintaining the headgate on the canal/irrigation ditch. The “court” involved the bishop, the disputants and others gathering at the site, with shovels, other tools, building materials, and together rebuilding the headgate. Then they all shook hands and went home.

I have no idea where the story came from, or whether it was fiction or a record of actual events. Anyway, I’d give serious props to the person (Ardis, maybe) who could dig it up.

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 17:31:34 +0000

Yes, Bruce, but even that wouldn’t go far enough. I might, for instance, find a small claims judge who had all those qualities and who awarded me a fair judgment in a suit against a client who had not paid a bill. But even with that judgment in hand, the work to collect can be so difficult and drawn out that it isn’t worth the uncompensated time, effort and bitterness that result. It’s the system and the fact that the debtor still feels no need to abide by the judgment, not the respected judge, that is the problem. Theoretically, a church member would respect the decision of the bishop and value his church membership highly enough not to play the games that civil defendants play because they can so easily get away with it.

Not that I speak by experience or anything. Oh, no.

J., I am so looking forward to more of Nate’s studies of church courts, their theory and operation!