Posted on 01/15/2010 10:46:09 PM PST by Colofornian
MILLCREEK, Utah, Jan. 15 (UPI) -- Utah Senate Majority Leader Sheldon Killpack was booked into a county jail Friday, suspected of drunken driving, police said.
The 41-year-old Republican was pulled over about 12:15 a.m. by a state highway patrol officer who allegedly noticed "a poor driving pattern," the Deseret News reported. Police said he failed a field sobriety test and then refused to breathe into a portable breath tester, the newspaper said.
"I could smell the odor of alcohol coming from the subject's breath," a trooper wrote in a probable cause statement.
Killpack issued a statement in which he said he is "deeply sorry for the impact this incident will have on those who support and trust me -- my colleagues in the Senate, my constituents and, most importantly, my family."
He added he is "prepared to accept all personal, legal and political consequences for my actions."
After Killpack was arrested, his car was impounded and he was booked into the Salt Lake County Jail on suspicion of DUI. Highway patrol officials obtained a warrant to allow them to take his blood. Results could take two to four weeks to obtain.
Senate President Michael Waddoups said Killpack's father was killed by a drunken driver when Killpack was a teenager. He also said he didn't know Killpack, who is a member of the Mormon Church, which frowns on drinking, was a drinker, the newspaper said.
My source is the 2006 Church Handbook of Instruction. According to pg 119 of the hand book, in all conditions where a member has been disciplined by a Church Disciplinary council, if there is a crimial/civil sentence it states
If a person who has had Church Discipline has been convicted of a crime or found guilty in a civil action of fraud or other dishonest or immoral conduct, a disciplinary council should not be held to consider changing his Church status until he has fulfilled all terms and conditions of any sentence imposed by legal authorities. These conditions may include imprisonment, probation, parole, and fines or restitution. Exceptions require the approval of the First Presidency
Bottom line, how gravely did Killpack's DUI and his link to mormonism damage the image of the mormon church. Excom may be one of three means of punishment, however, he will lose his temple privilages for all until the full terms of the law are met - with the only exception being granted by the FP.
Excommunication, p. 94
Considerations in Church Discipline, pp. 102-103
Serious Transgression While Holding a Prominent Church Position, p. 95
|
Better copy than my scanned 2006 version. I see no real differences between the two in the extra areas you posted.
Yes. From reading all the related sections of the handbook, it seems that way to me too.
It's interesting for me note just how much gravity is reserved for "violations of temple covenants."
Excommunication, p. 94
A person who is excommunicated is no longer a member of the Church. Excommunication is the most severe Church disciplinary action. As directed by the Spirit, it may be necessary for:
Members who have committed serious transgressions, especially violations of temple covenants.
Members who have been disfellowshipped and have not repented and for whom excommunication seems to offer the best hope for reformation.
Members whose conduct makes them a serious threat to others and whose Church membership facilitates their access to victims.
Church leaders or prominent members whose transgressions significantly impair the good name or moral influence of the Church in the community that is aware of the transgression.
Excommunication is mandatory for murder and almost always required for incest.
4. Church leaders or prominent members whose transgressions significantly impair the good name or moral influence of the Church in the community that is aware of the transgression.
I think this is probably most applicable, but it depends upon the political theocratic evaluation of the governing bishop and which is the most expedient way to handle the situation. As one reads, I noticed a significant emphasis on sexual immorality than DUIs
"How do I love thee"?
Let me count they ways."
And then point out the WRONG ones...
"How do I love thee"?
Let me count the ways."
And then point out the WRONG ones...
Nope, not true. Repentance starts immediately. Except for murder, and usually incest as well, conviction of a serious crime is not automatic grounds for excommunication (see CHI excerpt posted by delacoert). If someone hasn't been excommunicated, then they're still a member, and certainly aren't expected to refrain from beginning a repentance process until some government agency says they're done with their sentence.
if you are convicted of a felony, you must have been involved in behavior against LDS standards and therefore need to be excommunicated.
Again, not true, which is why the CHI specifies only two crimes for which excommunication is mandatory (though, oddly, it specifies that the First Presidency may make an exception in the case of incest). The people you recall having been excommunicated for "minor" offenses were almost people who had repeated the offenses multiple times and/or lied to their priesthood leader about what they had done, etc.
The issue of initial baptism is completely different. For whatever reason, the Church policy is not to baptize new converts while they are still serving a prison term or parole, etc, though exceptions can be made and are probably made quite often in the case of lesser crimes and in cases where the court of jurisdiction is in a country with a sketchy judicial system. But it is definitely not Church policy to excommunicate anyone who wouldn't currently be eligible for first-time baptism, so lots of people retain Church membership even though their legal status is such that they would not be eligible for baptism if they were new converts.
Godzilla: You are misunderstanding the passage you quoted. It does not refer to excommunication, but to any status resulting from a Church Discipline proceeding -- such a status could be disfellowshipment or even some lesser impairment. And that's assuming a Church Discipline proceeding was held at all. In many cases, it wouldn't be, especially business/finance type cases, where failure to comply with certain arcane provisions of accounting rules, tax or securities regulations, etc., may constitute a crime, even though it may not be entirely clear whether the person realized they were committing a crime. While some convictions on such grounds result in a prison term, many more result in punishment such as being barred from the securities industry -- sometimes for life. No way is the Church is going excommunicate somebody and keep them excommunicated over a conviction for front-running or misclassification of a line item on audited financial statements. In fact it's very unlikely that a Church Discipline proceeding would held in most cases of this nature, in which case the convict wouldn't even be disfellowshipped.
The people you recall having been excommunicated for “minor” offenses were almost people who had repeated the offenses multiple times and/or lied to their priesthood leader about what they had done, etc.
- - - - - -
WRONG. I suppose it does depend upon your status in the ward and your Stake pres but you assume WAY too much about them.
BTW, you are NOT LDS are you? Much less a Stake Pres.
Don’t assume the LDS will tell you the truth. They will lie in order to make the “church” appear in the best light. I found that out the hard way.
No, I’m not LDS. And I’m sure there are situations where the official policy is violated and someone who is unpopular with local church leaders is excommunicated for something that didn’t really warrant it per official policy. That sort of abuse of power is hardly peculiar to the LDS Church, though. But I have to wonder if the people you cited 1) were really as innocent of other offenses as they led you to believe, and 2) tried to appeal their excommunications to a higher authority.
Had you read my entire response, you would have seen that I made the above inclusions. As you point out - any disciplinary action - will necessitate the implimentation after ANY crimial punishment period.
In fact it's very unlikely that a Church Discipline proceeding would held in most cases of this nature, in which case the convict wouldn't even be disfellowshipped.
However, as cited in the CHI, that 'convict' would not be eligible for full benefits of membership - ie temple worthy, until his/her entire sentence - including probation (specifically mentioned in the CHI) have been fulfilled to the satisifaction of the court.
No, that’s not what the CHI says. The CHI says that IF a formal Church disciplinary proceeding is held, then . . . But there’s no requirement that a disciplinary hearing be held at all in response to a criminal conviction, unless the conviction is for murder or incest. A criminal conviction for DUI can be handled by informal counseling and/or informal probation by the person’s bishop and go no farther than that. The decision to hold a formal disciplinary proceeding would not be based on the DUI conviction, but on the person’s history of Church-related problems (e.g. “Word of Wisdom” problems, such as drinking alcohol, with no legal action). If the Church response to Killpack’s DUI is informal counseling and informal probation under the direction of his bishop, then the duration of any restictions are also entirely at the discretion of his bishop. If his bishop requires him to turn in his temple recommend for 6 months and attend Church-approved alcohol counseling, then that’s all that happens, and the Bishop is free to give back his recommend at the end of 6 months (or even earlier if the bishop changes his mind). No formal Church Discipline proceeding >> no connection between legal status and Church status.
Unless the offense is grave enough to bring bad PR onto the lds - sufficiently vague to cover a multitude of sins.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.