On January 1, 1999, a new Church Handbook of Instructions became effective. The excerpts below are taken from various subsections found in the tenth chapter on "Church Discipline." Of particular interest is the treatment of confidentiality found in these passages. For example, members must now approve any disciplinary use of their confessions. However, unlike the seal of confession in the Catholic tradition, confidentiality does not mean that a confession may not be revealed. Such information may be disclosed to "authorized church leaders," a vague, catch-all term, which obviously undermines true confidentiality.

The consent requirement that members must approve disciplinary use of their confessions sends confusing signals about what the purpose of such consent is. Genuine freedom to give or withhold consent would be respected without sanction. However, the new handbook treats refusal to give consent as a sign of continued sin and a bishop is free to impose sanctions on the member, even without consent.

Furthermore, a bishop can proceed with formal discipline on the basis of "other evidence," another broad, undefined term that invites procedural abuse and misuse of ecclesiastical discretion.

Thus, while the concepts of confidentiality and consent found in the new handbook appear to provide new protections and respect for members facing the prospect of discipline, in reality they fall far short of their commonly accepted definitions and offer little in the way of true protections. Once again, members come to their leaders not as equals in a community of believers but as children being punished by their parents.

Of final concern is the manner in which the handbook lumps together homosexual relations with such things as murder, rape, theft, embezzlement, and sale of illegal drugs. Such statements reveal a bizarre and inexplicable need by church leaders to continue to demonize gays and lesbians, and speaks for itself to the irrationality and obtuseness that underlie the church's current policy statements on homosexuality. Beyond the psychological damage that results from teaching such prejudice is the physical harm these lies engender. Matthew Shepard would not have been killed except in a society that believes gays and lesbians are as bad as murderers and rapists.

It is a tragedy that we have now come to expect such statements from a church that prides itself on its image as a "family" church. No family can be strong when it is taught to view its gay members as the worst of criminals.

The subsection on "Responsibility for Church Discipline" contains the following:

Stake President
The stake president has authority over the Church discipline of all members in a stake. However, bishops normally administer Church discipline unless evidence indicates that a person who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood is likely to be excommunicated. In that case, the stake president convens the disciplinary council. (p. 91)

Bishop
The bishop administers most Church discipline. He has authority for the discipline of all members in his ward, except the exxommunication of a member who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood.

The bishop must confer with the stake president and obtain his approval before convening a disciplinary council. If evidence indicates that a Melchizedek Priesthood holder is likely to be excommunicated, the bishop immediately transfers the matter to the stake president. (p. 92)

Further, in the "Confidentiality" subsection, the following is found:

Bishops, stake presidents, and counselors in a stake presidency have a solemn duty to keep confidential all information that members give them in confessions and interviews. The same duty of confidentiality applies to all who take part in Church disciplinary councils. It includes what is said in the presentation of evidence and in deliberations. Confidential information must not be shared with anyone except authorized ecclesiastical leaders.

Information received in a member's confession cannot be used as evidence in a disciplinary council without the member's consent. When necessary, a bishop attempts to persuade the member to give this consent. He explains that refusal reflects a lack of contrition and repentance, preventing justice and mercy from operating fully for the good of the transgressor. If consent is not given, the bishop can still impose informal discipline on the basis of the confession. A lack of consent to use a confession in evidence does not prevent a disciplinary council from proceeding on the basis of other evidence. (p. 93)

Formal Church Discipline
At times, formal discipline is the only way to help a transgressor repent, to protect the innocent, or to safeguard the purity and good name of the Church. A presiding officer who is unwilling to proceed in such cases is not fulfilling his reponsibilities as a common judge. Presiding officers should approach formal discipline with a prayerful desire to help, not to condemn. (p. 94)

Disciplinary Councils
When a Disciplinary Council Is Mandatory: A disciplinary council MUST be held when evidence suggests that a member may have committed any of the following transgressions.
...
Serious Transgression While Holding a Prominent Church Position
A disciplinary council must be held for a member who commits a serious transgression while holding prominent Church position, such as Area Authority Seventy; temple, mission or stake president; patriarch; or bishop.

As used here, serious transgression is defined as a deliberate and major offense against morality. It includes (but is not limited to) attempted murder, rape, forcible 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. (p. 96)