The Constitution of the High Council

Section 102 of the Doctrine and Covenants is very unique in that it contains the minutes of a meeting and not a direct revelation of the Lord through the Prophet Joseph Smith.  It goes through the details of how a high council is to be organized and how the council proceeds in “settling important difficulties” of the Church, which I believe are typically disciplinary councils that are convened when there is serious transgression of a member of the Church (v. 2).  While in some respects the section itself is less exciting to read than other scriptures because of its logistical nature, I see at least two important lessons that can be extracted from this “constitution of the high council” (see the section header).

                Perhaps the most obvious principle that we see in reading this section is the need for respect and fairness towards those who have been accused of wrongdoing.  First of all we see that when there is a serious case that has to be considered involving someone’s transgression, the Lord wants 15 people gathered together in addition to the individual in order to evaluate the facts.  There are the 12 members of the high council plus the president who is “assisted by two other presidents” (v. 10).  That’s a lot of busy men who could be doing other things that are to take the time out of their schedules to make sure that the issue is properly resolved and that the facts are properly laid out.  Not only that, but “the accused, in all cases, has a right to one-half of the council, to prevent insult and injustice” and they are to “stand up in behalf of the accused” (v. 15, 17).  This is not saying that they need to defend the accused’s actions but rather ensure that the accused is properly represented and receives a just decision.  Lastly, we also see that the Lord allows for a “re-hearing” if there was some mistake in the council’s decision or if new evidence comes to light afterwards (v. 20).  The structure is laid out so that there are as many means as possible for the accused to be sure to be treated fairly and get the right decision from the council.  The forum is to be ennobling rather than demeaning and be filled with kindness instead of animosity.  To me this setup is a practical implementation of what Jesus taught by example when he told the adulteress woman, “Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more” (John 8:11).  He did not condone the sin and commanded her to repent, but He treated her with much more dignity and respect than those who had brought her to Him. 

                Another principle that we see is the importance of revelation and Priesthood keys.  The president of the council is “appointed by revelation” and is to “preside over the council” (v. 9-10).  While the 12 councilors play an important role in bringing out the facts of the case and speaking for both the Church and the accused, ultimately the decision is up to the president: “After the evidences are heard, the councilors, accuser and accused have spoken, the president shall give a decision according to the understanding which he shall have of the case” (v. 19).  If the decision is not obvious and “there is not sufficiency written to make the case clear to the minds of the council, the president may inquire and obtain the mind of the Lord by revelation” (v. 23).  So while the 12 councilors are to “sanction” the decision, ultimately it must be made by revelation of the president (v. 19).  This same principle applies to just about all of our councils in the Church, whether that is a Ward Council or the Council of the First Presidency.  While all are entitled to revelation and to get a confirmation through the Spirit, the decision rests upon the president who holds the keys and is responsible to obtain the will of the Lord.