First, let’s set the stage and answer a few questions:
Who?
John Swallow is a former Attorney General of Utah who was in office from January 7, 2013 to December 3, 2013. On November 21, 2013, Swallow resigned following Federal and state investigations of alleged improprieties. Swallow is a member of the LDS Church who served a Spanish-speaking mission in Los Angeles, California. Swallow was also a former bishop.
Mark Shurtleff is a former partner in the Washington DC office of the national law firm Troutman Sanders. He started this position January 2013 and resigned in June 2013, and previously served as attorney general of the state of Utah. Shurtleff is a member of the LDS Church who served as a missionary in Peru.
What?
On July 15, 2014, the FBI arrested Swallow, along with former Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, and charged him with receiving or soliciting bribe or bribery by a public servant, false or inconsistent material statements, evidence tampering and misusing public monies. The arrest came after a search warrant was executed on the Swallow residence in June 2014. Shurtleff has been charged with unlawful activity, soliciting a bribe, witness tampering, obstruction of justice. The case documents show the State of Utah vs. the two defendants.
I’ve been following this story from afar, but after learning this morning that both Shurtleff and Swallow were arrested by Federal agents this morning, and considering the current online LDS environment concerning disciplinary courts, I couldn’t help but wonder what would happen to both Shurtleff and Swallow if they are convicted of felonies.
The Church Handbook of Instructions (Volume I) seems to leave a lot of the discretion regarding disciplinary actions to the Bishops and Stake Presidents involved in the decisions, but a few things stood out to me:
First, in section 6 (under “Church Discipline and Name Removal”), there is a section called “Determining Whether a Disciplinary Council is Necessary” (6.7). Within this section are 3 options: when one is not necessary, when one may be necessary, and when one is mandatory. Within the “Mandatory” section is a paragraph that (in my opinion) applies to the Shurtleff/Swallow case:
“Serious Transgression That Is Widely Known
A disciplinary council must be held for a member who commits a serious transgression (as defined in 6.7.2) that is widely known”
Upon going to section 6.7.2 (“Serious Transgression,” which falls under the category “When a Disciplinary Council May Be Necessary”), under the heading “Serious Transgression,” one finds the following:
“Formal Church discipline may be necessary for any member who commits a serious transgression. As used here, serious transgression is defined as a deliberate and major offense against morality. It includes (but is not limited to) attempted murder, forcible rape, sexual abuse, spouse abuse, intentional serious physical injury of others, adultery, fornication, homosexual relations, deliberate abandonment of family responsibilities, robbery, burglary, theft, embezzlement, sale of illegal drugs, fraud, perjury, and false swearing.”
Additionally, considering the Swallow/Shurtleff cases have been brought before a judge, the Handbook of Instructions says the following in section 6.10.12 “Procedures in Exceptional Cases”:
“”Conduct Examined in Criminal or Civil Courts”
Normally a disciplinary council is not held to consider conduct being examined by a criminal trial court until the court has reached a final judgment. In some cases it may also be appropriate to delay disciplinary proceedings until the period of appeal has expired or the appeal has been rejected.
Criminal charges may or may not necessitate Church discipline. Acts that constitute serious crimes under local law normally would be considered serious transgressions. However, minor offenses under local law, such as traffic violations or unintentional failure to comply with technical government regulations, normally would not. Criminal charges that have serious moral overtones may warrant Church discipline even if a criminal court dismisses these charges for technical reasons. Acts such as fornication, adultery, or abortion are serious transgressions though they may not be crimes under local law.
When a member is convicted of a crime or found guilty in a civil action for fraud or other dishonest or immoral conduct, the judgment of the criminal or civil court is a sufficient basis for holding a Church disciplinary council. A finding of guilt in a court may be considered as evidence of guilt for purposes of Church discipline. Reliable evidence submitted to a court may also be considered in a Church disciplinary council.”
I don’t know all the details of the Swallow/Shurtleff case. As a matter of fact, I’ve got my hands full with work plus following Mormon News that I don’t think I could dedicate more time to following it. However, if the allegations against both Mr. Shurtleff and Mr. Swallow stand, and they are convicted, I would assume they would qualify for an LDS disciplinary council. Considering the recent disciplinary actions against Kate Kelly (and others), I hope it would follow that prominent LDS individuals accused of felonies such as Mr. Shurtleff and Mr. Swallow would be required to answer for their actions.
When the Kelly news broke, I stated that I do not revel in disciplinary courts, nor do I want to diminish the seriousness of them and the effect they can have on people. Perhaps I’m guilty of selective bias, because in a situation like this, with public officials who were accused of these blatantly dishonest actions, and especially individuals who used their religious affiliation to help them become elected (as I’ve heard from various politicos in the Utah area that religious affiliation plays a huge factor in electability), it seems to be that this is an area that should qualify for a disciplinary court. And considering they are high profile members of the LDS Church, and this will be taken as a direct reflection on the LDS Church, I would assume they are dealt with swiftly.
Repentance is a gift freely given to all. At the same time, the second great commandment is to “love thy neighbour as thyself.” Perhaps Mark Shurtleff and John Swallow could do a bit of brushing up on the basics of the gospel.
It would be inappropriate for the church to hold a court before this as played out in the courts. The jury would be influenced by the church court either way it came out. So cool your jets and wait the 5 years this will take to go through the courts.
A reader might think that the author of the article is trying to suggest the Church makes a difference between men and women in its disciplinary councils. He has also convicted the two accused men in his mind before guilt has been determined in a court of law.
The criteria for excommunication is not only the gravity of the offense, but also the presence of contrition. If a person does wrong, admits it, and sincerely seeks to make things right, excommunication is not generally the outcome. A member could also be disfellowshipped or placed on probation for a time. The Church’s discipline will wait the outcome of the legal hearings in all likelihood.
Kate Kelly’s excommunication came about because of her lack of contrition. She asked her questions; she received answers she didn’t like. She persisted in trying to derail people’s faith in the established, revealed order of the Church. When she was corrected by her ecclesiastical officers, she came out in rebellion against them and persisted when asked to desist. No contrition is present. She continues to say she has done nothing wrong. She has not acknowledge her sin of rebellion and she has not begun to repent of it yet.
Trying to make these two cases “equivalent” somehow is over-reaching.
If past is prologue, they will be if convicted. Cases like this have ended in ex-communication many times. However, the Church judgement will hinge on if they committed just secular crimes or spiritual ones; although they usually go hand in hand.
Speculation over who’s going to get kicked out of the church and who’s not and why is not a spectator sport. It’s kinda gross, I think.