D&C 102

Section 102 is a little bit different than we’ve seen before and we’re given some insight into how the Church functions through its disciplinary councils. The IM gives background saying, “On 17 February 1834 Joseph Smith organized the first high council of the Church in this dispensation. On the next day, 18 February, the Prophet reviewed and corrected the organizational minutes. Then on 19 February the council was reassembled, transacted business, and the minutes were presented to the council. The Prophet Joseph Smith spoke to the council on the necessity of prayer, ‘that the Spirit might be given, that the things of the Spirit might be judged thereby, because the carnal mind cannot discern the things of God. The minutes were read three time, and unanimously adopted and received for a form and constitution of the High Council of the Church of Christ hereafter; with this provision, that if the President should hereafter discover anything lacking in the same, he should have the privilege to supply it.’ The minutes of this council meeting were included in the Doctrine and Covenants as section 102 because the order of the council, which was patterned after ancient councils, had been shown to Joseph Smith in vision.” These are meeting minutes, and I wondered why they were included in the D&C, but that last sentence answered that for me, because it had come to him in a vision, which makes sense.

102:1-5 - The first high council is organized at this meeting “for the purpose of settling important difficulties which might arise in the church, which could not be settled by the church or the bishop’s council to the satisfaction of the parties.” The presidency of the first high council are:

1. Joseph Smith, Jun.
2. Sidney Rigdon
3. Frederick G. Williams

The members of the council are:

1. Joseph Smith, Sen.
2. John Smith
3. Joseph Coe
4. John Johnson
5. Martin Harris
6. John S. Carter
7. Jared Carter
8. Oliver Cowdery
9. Samuel H. Smith
10. Orson Hyde
11. Sylvester Smith
12. Luke Johnson

All these men accepted their “appointments” and agreed “they would act in that office according to the law of heaven,” to which they all agreed. The “law of heaven” might have been a kind of abstract concept, but the IM quotes the minutes of the meeting as explaining, “Bro. Joseph… said he would show the order of councils in ancient days as shown to him by vision. The law by which to govern the council in the Church of Christ. Jerusalem was the seat of the Church Council in ancient days. The apostles, Peter, was the president of the Council and held the keys of the Kingdom of God on the earth (and) was appointed to this office by the voice of the Savior and acknowledged in it by the voice of the Church… It was not the order of heaven in ancient councils to plead for and against the guilty as in our judicial Courts (so called) but that every counsellor when he arose to speak, should speak precisely according to evidence and according to the teaching of the Spirit of the Lord; that no counsellor should attempt to screen the guilt of his guilt was manifest. That the person accused before the high council had a right to one half the members of the council to plead his cause in order that his case might be fairly presented before the President that a decision might be rendered according to truth and righteousness… Bro. Joseph said that this organization was an ensample to the high priests in their Councils abroad… It was then voted by all present that they desired to come under the present order of things which they all considered to be the will of God. On 19 February, when the corrected minutes were presented, Joseph wrote, ‘We all raised our hands to heaven in token of the everlasting covenants, and the Lord blessed us with His Spirit. I then declared the council organized according to the ancient order, and also according to the mind of the Lord.’’ The IM continues, “A special item of instruction written for Melchizedek Priesthood holders noted: ‘The first high council in the Church in this dispensation was organized in Kirtland, Ohio, February 17, 1834. This high council was in some particulars different from the high councils in stakes of Zion as they are constituted today. While all that is written in that revelation in relation to (Church disciplinary councils) still applies today, it should be remembered that the First Presidency of the Church constituted the presidency of that high council… This council had wide jurisdiction and was not confined to the borders of a stake. It was not until high councils were organized in stakes as we find them today that stake presidencies presided in their deliberations… Attention is called especially to verse 9 and 10, or section 102… We see from this that the first high council had general jurisdiction throughout the Church. Later another high council was organized in Missouri to take care of problems arising in that distant part of the vineyard. Later when stakes were organized as we have them today a stake presidency was appointed and a complete high council for the stake appointed.”

102:6-14 - There are several more guidelines laid out:

1. The high council can’t act without at least 7 of the members present.
2. These 7 can appoint “alternates” to “act in the place of absent councilors.”
3. The President of the high council nominates others to fill vacancies as they arise.
4. These nominations are “sanctioned by the voice of a general council of high priests.”
5. The president of the high council is appointed by revelation, and acknowledged by the church.
6. Any of the presidency of the high council can preside in the absence of the others.
7. Speaking turns as decided by casting “lots by numbers.” Very interesting.
8. In difficult cases 4 to 6 councilors may “be appointed to speak.”
9. In simple cases only 3 councilors are to address the issue.

The IM comments “To ensure that enough councilors are available to conduct council business, current Church policy allows stakes presidents to appoint alternate high councilors. A stake disciplinary council consists of the stake presidency and twelve high councilors. Alternate high councilors may serve in the absence of one of the regular councilors.”

102:15-19 - There is a very specific and very interesting format to be used with disciplinary hearings, and I wonder if they still use this structure today. It’s kind of complicated for me but I’m going to try my best to make sense of it on here, so just remember that this is doctrine according to Amy. Not everyone is to speak so those who are selected to speak by lots are to examine the evidence and “speak according to equity and justice.” All the councilors who select even numbers “2,4,6,8,10, and 12… are to stand up in behalf of the accused, and prevent insult and injustice. In all cases the accuser and the accused shall have a privilege of speaking for themselves before the council.” So basically everyone is going to have a fair say in their own behalf, and then half of the council members are to make sure that the accused have their rights protected, but what’s interesting is that the sides are not decided until then, so there’s no pre-decision involved. No one gets to choose which side to be on because they are inclined one way or the other, because they like someone or they don’t or they are personally affected or whatever. But surely everyone has prejudices, so could you imagine being on the council and being selected to defend someone that you personally have reservations about, that takes such humility, such a shift to be able to do that properly, to do that in a way that doesn’t put you in condemnation, that’s a perspective shift. Joseph Smith is so funny when he comments on the responsibility of the council to be fair, impartial, and to do the will of the Lord. The IM says, “The Prophet Joseph Smith in 1840 gave instruction for high councils concerning the rights of those involved. He wrote: ‘The Council should try no case without both parties being present, or having had an opportunity to be present; neither should they hear one person’s complaint before his case is brought up for trial; neither should they suffer the character of any one to be exposed before the High Council without the person being present and ready to defend him or herself; that the minds of the councilors be not prejudiced for or against any one whose case they may possibly have to act upon.’ If the parties fail to appear, the council may proceed on the basis of the available evidence. The Prophet Joseph instructed the brethren on the obligation placed on councils: ‘No man is capable of judging a matter, in council, unless his own heart is pure; and… we are frequently so filled with prejudice, or have a beam in our own eye, that we are not capable of passing right decisions. But to return to the subject of order; in ancient days councils were conducted with such strict propriety, that no one was allowed to whisper, be weary, leave the room, or get uneasy in the least, until the voice of the Lord, by revelation or the voice of the council by the Spirit, was obtained, which has not been observed in this Church to the present time. It was understood in ancient days, that if one man could stay in council, another could; and if the president could spend his time, the members could also; but in our councils, generally, one will be uneasy, another asleep; one praying, another not; one’s mind on the business of the council, and another thinking on something else. Our acts are recorded, and at a future day they will be laid before us, and if we should fail to judge right and injure our fellow-beings, they may there, perhaps, condemn us; there they are of great consequence, and to me the consequence appears to be of force, beyond anything which I am able to express. Ask yourselves, brethren, how much have you exercised yourselves in prayer since you heard of this council; and if you are not prepared to sit in council upon the soul of your brother.’” I thought it was so funny when he said that “one is asleep,” because my dad falls asleep, the bishop falls asleep, I fall asleep. But I thought that the importance of the council was very well communicated when he asked them if they were prepared, in their present state, “to sit in council upon the soul of your brother.” It’s like my job, even though I see so many patients every day, it’s routine to me, but for each individual patient, it’s a very important experience for them and I try to remember that, and I think that it’s a helpful way to keep that in perspective.

102:20-34 - Like our judicial system, decisions can be reexamined for new evidence or taken to a higher authority, and ultimately if something is not clear “the president may inquire and obtain the mind of the Lord by revelation.” When all is said and done in the council “it shall be the duty of said council to transmit, immediately, a copy of their proceedings, with a full statement of the testimony accompanying their decision, to the high council of the seat of the First Presidency of the Church.” The IM finishes up saying, “The stake president assigns a clerk to summarize stake disciplinary council proceedings. Following approval by the stake president, the report is forwarded to the First Presidency. Any person disfellowshipped or excommunicated in a Church disciplinary council has the right to appeal the decision of a bishop’s disciplinary council may be appealed to the stake disciplinary council, and the decision of a stake disciplinary council may be appealed to the First Presidency. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught: ‘No standing High Council has authority to go in to the churches abroad, and regular the matters thereof, for this belongs to the Twelve. No standing High Council will ever be established only in Zion, or one of her stakes.’ Later he added: ‘The High Council had nothing to do with the Twelve, or the decisions of the Twelve. But if the Twelve erred they were accountable only to the General Council of the authorities of the whole Church, according to the revelations.’ The role of the high council is to assist the presidency in a stake, and the high council fulfills assignments as directed by the stake presidency. In an article on the Melchizedek Priesthood, the function of high councilors was discussed more fully: ‘High councilors play a vital role in the administration of the state. Figuratively speaking, they constitute the right arm of the stake presidency. The degree to which they are faithful, efficient, and willing to work determines their value to the stake presidency and goes far in determining the progress made by the stake and ward organizations in which they have been called to serve. The duties and assignments of high councilors are very extensive and varied. Such assignments absorb much time in stakes where the stake presidencies fully utilize their high councilors in carrying forward the Church program. Experience has shown that it was wisdom for stake presidencies to make very extensive use of their high councilors, because the progress of the work of the Lord within a stake and the efficiency with which it is carried forward will be determined a large extent by the use made of high councilors by the stake presidency.’”