1. See Franck, Thomas, Clan and Superclan: Loyalty, Identity and Community in Law and Practice, 90 Am J Intl L 359 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar for a recent discussion of the pressures nationality faces in defining individual identity.

2. A public government is, of course, a formal legal system on the local, regional or national level, such as the province of Quebec or the United States of Mexico. A private government is less precisely defined. Depending on the criteria one employs, private governments range from company towns to trade associations to religious communities, all comprised of individuals interacting and sanctioning violations of group rules. See Macaulay, Stewart, Private Government in Lipson, Leon & Wheeler, Stanton, eds. Law and the Social Sciences 445–49 (Sage Publishing, 1986)Google Scholar.

3. Scholarly work on legal pluralism is voluminous. See, for example, Max Weber, On Law in Economy and Society (Harv U Press, 1954)Google Scholar; Hooker, M.B., Legal Pluralism: An Introduction to Colonial and Neo-Colonial Laws (Clarendon Press, 1975)Google Scholar; Hazlehurst, Kayleen, ed, Legal Pluralism and the Colonial Legacy: Indigenous Experiences of Justice in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (Arebury, 1995)Google Scholar.

4. Throughout this paper, I use the term Mormon, LDS, and Latter-day Saint interchangeably.

5. I use American to refer to citizenship in the United States of America. In English, there is no other widely accepted term for such citizenship. I recognize that many who are not citizens of the United States of America may nonetheless refer to themselves as American because they live on the American continent.

6. The impact of the Latter-day Saint community on public government in the United States is beyond the scope of this paper, but well documented elsewhere. See, for example, Quinn, D. Michael, The LDS Church's Campaign Against the Equal Rights Amendment, 20 J Mormon Hist 85 (1994)Google Scholar; Statement of the First Presidency on Basing of the MX Missile, LDS Church News 2 (9 May 1981); Williams, William Appelman, Backyard Autonomy, The Nation, front cover (5 09 1981)Google Scholar (discussing LDS opposition to MX missiles in Utah); Jonas, Frank J., Reapportionment in Utah and the Mormon Church, 46 Proceedings of the Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters, part 1, 19–20 (1969) (detailing church involvement in reapportionment battles)Google Scholar.

7. This physical separation also raised a question of secular jurisdiction over the Mormons as between the United States and Mexico. See Bliss, Robert S., The Journal of Robert S. Bliss with the Mormon Battalion, Utah Hist Q 128 (10 1931)Google Scholar (“to day the It of Jan a publick meeting was called to adopt Laws for our regulation for the time being or untill the question is settled between U.S. and Mexico & we know whose hands we shall fall into.”).

8. The most famous of whom was Emma Hale Smith, widow of the prophet Joseph Smith. See Newell, Linda King, Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith (U of Ill Press, 1994)Google Scholar.

9. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Doctrine and Covenants 20:1 (Deseret Books, 1991)Google Scholar [hereinafter Doctrine and Covenants].

10. See generally, Roberts, B.H., Comprehensive History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints vols 1–3 (Deseret News Press, 1930)Google Scholar.

11. Governor Boggs' Order of Extermination to Gen. John B. Clark, quoted in id at 1:479.

12. Id.

13. at 481, 483.

14. Id. at 486.

15. See, for example, Clark, Dan Elbert, The West in American History 468–78 (Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1937)Google Scholar.

16. Roberts at 3:279 (cited in note 10).

17. A stake is a unit of ecclesiastical geographical jurisdiction comprised of smaller units called wards. A stake is somewhat similar to diocese, a ward to a parish.

18. Journal History of the Church 4 (12 27, 1847)Google Scholar.

19. See id. For a discussion of the ordinances, see Morgan, Dale, The State of Deseret 17–18 (1987)Google Scholar. The people apparently ratified the ordinances on January 1, 1848. See Bliss at 128 (cited in note 7).

20. Pratt, Parley P., A Letter to the Queen of England, 11 15, 1841 in 3 Times and Seasons 593(1841)Google Scholar.

21. oseph Smith, April 15, 1844 in 5 Times and Seasons 510 (1844) (italics and emphasis in original).

22. Nelson, Marie H., Anti-Mormon Mob Violence and the Rhetoric of Law and Order in Early Mormon History, 21 Legal Studies Forum 353, 378 (1997)Google Scholar.

23. See, for example, Firmage, Edwin Brown and Mangrum, Richard Collin, Zion in the Courts: A Legal History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 1830–1900 (U of III Press, 1988)Google Scholar; Roberts, passim (cited in note 10).

24. Firmage and Mangrum at 371 (cited in note 23).

25. In presenting the polygamy example, I do not mean to reduce all of the conflicts between Latter-day Saints and the broader American community to this single dimension. That conflict, and the subsequent integration of Latter-day Saints into mainstream American society, is of course complex and multidimensional involving politics, economics, geography, and theology.

26. Celestial Marriage: A Revelation on the Patriarchal Order of Matrimony or Plurality of Wives, Seer, January, 1853 in 1 The Most Holy Principle 16 (Gems, 1970)Google Scholar, currently recorded as Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants (cited in note 9), without the early published title.

27. William Clayton, February 1843 Hist Record 6:225-7 in 1 The Most Holy Principle at 1213 (cited in note 26).

28. The Latter-day Saints' legal battles included Reynolds v United States 98 US 145 (1879); Miles v United States 103 US 304 (1881); Clawson v United States 114 US 477 (1885); Murphy v Ramsey 114 US 15 (1885); Cannon v United States 118 US 355 (1886); Snow v United States, 118 US 346, on habeas corpus sub nom. In re Snow 120 US 274 (1887); In re Nielsen 131 US 176 (1889); Davis v Beason 133 US 333 (1890); Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v United States 136 US 1, modified 140 US 665 (1890), after remand 150 US 145 (1893); Bassett v United States 137 US 496 (1890); Cope v Cope 137 US 682 (1891); Chapman v Handley 151 US 443 (1894). See Randall Guynn and Gene C. Schaerr, The Mormon Polygamy Cases Sunstone, 11:5, 61 (1987), for a discussion of the constitutional legitimacy of Davis v Beason. Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v United States, and Reynolds.

29. Doctrine and Covenants, (cited in note 9) Official Declaration 1.

30. Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, 12 Stat 501, ch 126, §§ 2, 3 (1882); see also, Firmage and Mangrum at 131 (cited in note 23).

31. Edmunds Act, 22 Stat 30, ch 47, §§ 5, 8 (1882); see also, Firmage and Mangrum at 161 (cited in note 23). Jurors in Utah Territory were asked to sign an affirmation denying their participation in polygamy:

2 Messages of the First Presidency 342 (Bookcraft, Clark, James R., ed, 1965)Google Scholar.

32. Edmunds-Tucker Act, 24 Stat 635, ch 397, §§ 13-17 (1887); see also, Firmage and Mangrum at 197 (cited in note 23).

33. Doctrine and Covenants, (cited in note 9), Excerpts from Three Addresses by President Wilford Woodruff Regarding the Manifesto.

34. See Hardy, B. Carmon, Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage (U of Ill Press, 1992)Google Scholar; Bradley, Martha Sonntag, Changed Faces: The Official LDS Position on Polygamy, 1890-1990, 14:1Sunstone 26 (1990)Google Scholar; Quinn, D. Michael, LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages. 1890-1904, 18:1Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 9 (1985)Google Scholar; Cannon, Kenneth L. II, Beyond the Manifesto: Polygamous Cohabitation among LDS General Authorities after 1890, 46 Utah Hist Q 24 (1978)Google Scholar.

35. Tullis, F. LaMond, Mormons in Mexico: The Dynamics of Faith and Culture 54–55 (Utah State U Press, 1987)Google Scholar; Lehr, John C., Polygamy, Patrimony, and Prophecy: The Mormon Colonization of Cardston, 21:4Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 114 (1988)Google Scholar.

36. An Official Statement from the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Deseret News, 17 June 1933, Church Section reprinted in 3 The Most Holy Principles (cited in note 26) 468, 471 (1971).

37. See Evans, Richard L., These Are The Mormons 9 (1960)Google Scholar (“Excommunication is the penalty for practicing polygamy today.”); The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, General Handbook of Instructions 10–3 (1989)Google Scholar [hereinafter General Handbook (1989)] (noting that those who persist in practicing polygamy after counsel from their church leaders are subject to excommunication). The General Handbook is a compilation of policy instructions that guide church leaders in the performance of their duties. The church does not circulate it publicly, although it is available in some libraries. I reference its contents in this paper with permission.

While this article was in production, the LDS Church issued a new handbook of instruction for church leaders, the first in nearly ten years. See The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Church Handbook of Instructions (1998).

38. Doctrine and Covenants, (cited in note 9), Excerpts from Three Addresses by President Wilford Woodruff Regarding the Manifesto (emphasis added).

39. See, for example, Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v City of Hialeah, 508 US 520-69 (1993) (Souter, J. concurring) (citing various cases that rely on Reynolds v United States for the proposition that religious conduct may be regulated only when the conduct “poses some substantial threat to public safety, peace or order”); Employment Division v Smith, 494 US 872, 878 (1990) (relying on Reynolds v United States to uphold law penalizing sacramental use of peyote).

40. Doctrine and Covenants (cited in note 9), at § 42:37 and § 41:5, “He that receiveth my law and doeth it, the same is my disciple; and he that saith he receiveth it and doeth it not, the same is not my disciple, and shall be cast out from among you.”

41. Id at § 42:18-27.

42. Id at § 42:80-83.

43. Id at § 107:72. Currently, a bishop is the leader of a local congregation but in the early days of the church, he had specific and distinct responsibility for temporal affairs. Id at § 107:68 (holding a bishop responsible for “administering all temporal things”).

44. Id at §§ 102:2, 107:78.

45. Id at § 107:79.

46. Id at § 102:13.

47. Id at § 102.14

48. Id.

49. Id at § 102:17.

50. Id at § 102:18.

51. Id at § 102:19.

52. Id at § 102:20-21.

53. Id at § 102:23.

54. Id at § 102:26.

55. Id at § 42:78, 81, 84-86.

56. Id.

57. See Firmage and Mangrum at 322-70 (cited in note 23). Dredge, C. Paul, Dispute Settlement in the Mormon Community: The Operation of Ecclesiastical Courts in Utah in 4 Access to Justice-The Anthropological Perspective, Patterns of Conflict Management: Essays in the Ethnography of Law 191 (Sijthoff and Noordhoff: aan den Rijn, Alphen, Koch, K.F., ed, 1979)Google Scholar; Stephen J. Sorenson, Civil and Criminal Jurisdiction of LDS Bishop's and High Council Courts, Task Papers in L.D.S. History, n 17, Appendix B-Summary of Trials in LDS Church Courts, 1847-52, 46 (April 1977). Throughout this paper, I have relied on secondary sources for information on church court cases in earlier Latter-day Saint history as current access to the LDS church's historical archives is extremely limited.

58. See, for example, Firmage and Mangrum at 341 (cited in note 23) (awarding damages in contract case), 357 (awarding damages in defamation case), 361 (imposing “39 lashes on his bare back” for horse theft); Morgan at 16 (cited in note 19) (imposing alternative punishments of $10 fine or ten lashes for theft). Morgan also notes that Latter-day Saint church courts imposed corporal punishment rather than imprisonment for criminal offenses because no jails existed. Id.

59. Roberts at 3: 427 (cited in note 10).

60. Id.

61. Id.

62. Stansbury's Report to the Government on the Survey of Great Salt Lake 1300-1, Executive Document #3, special session, March 1851, in Roberts, 3:451-2 (cited in note 10).

63. Roberts at 3:501 (cited in note 10).

64. Sorenson, Appendix B at 46 (cited in note 57); Firmage and Mangrum at 322-70, 357 (cited in note 23).

65. Firmage and Mangrum at 357 (cited in note 23) (disfellowshipping individual who refused to pay damages for slander and apologize publicly).

66. Young, Brigham, 3 J Discourses 236 at 238–41 (1856)Google Scholar.

67. For cases, see, for example, Firmage and Mangrum at 261-67 (cited in note 23).

68. Taylor, John, 20 J Discourses 106 (1880)Google Scholar. Presidents of the LDS Church serve for life. John Taylor became the third president of the church after Brigham Young's death.

69. While church members may turn to their ecclesiastical leaders for counseling with marital difficulties, Latter-day Saint church courts do not entertain requests for civil or ecclesiastical divorce. Rather, when she wishes to remarry in a LDS temple, a civilly divorced woman makes a request for a cancellation of her previous sealing (for example, Latter-day Saint temple marriage for time and eternity) to the First Presidency, the highest ecclesiastical officers in the church. See General Handbook (1989) at 6-5 (cited in note 37).

70. See General Handbook (1989) at 10–4 (cited in note 37)Google Scholar.

71. See id at 10-3.

72. Doctrine and Covenants at § 134:10 (cited in note 9).

73. Bush, Lester E., Excommunication and Church Courts: A Note from the General Handbook of Instructions, 14:2Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 74, 77 (1981)Google Scholar.

74. Official Declaration, December 12, 1889 reprinted in 3 Messages of the First Presidency at 85 (cited in note 31).

75. Firmage and Mangrum at 267 (cited in note 23).

76. Smith, Joseph F., Winder, John R., Lund, Anthon H., The Kingdom of God (12 1903)Google Scholar reprinted in 4 Messages of the First Presidency at 82 (cited in note 31).

77. Firmage and Mangrum at 267 (cited in note 23).

78. Talmage, James E., Judiciary System of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 22 Improvement Era 499 (04 1919)Google Scholar.

79. See The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Instructions to Bishops and Counselors, Stake and Ward Clerks, n 13, 43–44 (1921)Google Scholar.

80. See The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Handbook of Instructions for Bishops and Counselors, Stake and Ward Clerks, n 14, 75 (1928)Google Scholar.

81. See The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, General Handbook of Instructions 52(1983)Google Scholar.

82. See The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, General Handbook of Instructions 8–2 (1985)Google Scholar.

83. See General Handbook (1989) at 10-1 (cited in note 37). Compare with General Handbook (1983) at 51 (cited in note 81).

84. See id.

85. See id.

86. See id.

87. Taylor, John & Cannon, George Q., Epistle of the First Presidency dated July 24, 1885 reprinted in 3 Messages of the First Presidency at 6 (cited in note 31)Google Scholar.

88. Id.

89. Id.

90. Symposium, Golden Spike, The Golden Spike (Utah State Hist Soc'y, 1973)Google Scholar.

91. See, for example, Strack, Don, Ogden Rails: A History of Railroads in Ogden, Utah from 1869 to Today (1997)Google Scholar; Williams, John Hoyt, A Great and Shining Road: The Epic Story of the Transcontinental Railroad (Time Books, 1988)Google Scholar; Smith, Hyrum Jenkins, History and Results of Operation of the Salt Lake and Utah Railroad (1939)Google Scholar.

92. See, for example, Cannon, Brian Q., Change Engulfs a Frontier Settlement: Ogden and its Residents Respond to the Railroad, 12 J Mormon Hist 15 (1985)Google Scholar.

93. See, General Handbook (1989) at 10-1 to 10–3 (cited in note 37)Google Scholar.

94. See Bush at 77 (cited in note 73).

95. See id at 78.

96. See General Handbook (1989) at 10–1 (cited in note 37)Google Scholar.

97. See id at 10-2.

98. See id.

99. A church leader who receives a confidential confession in a counseling role may use that confession in a church disciplinary action only if the individual consents. See id at 10-1.

100. See General Handbook (1989) at 10–5 (cited in note 37)Google Scholar.

101. See id at 10-6, 10-7.

102. See id at 10-7.

103. See id.

104. See id.

105. See id.

106. See id.

107. See id.

108. See id.

109. See id. Dallin H. Oaks, a member of the church's First Quorum of the Twelve and a former member of the Utah Supreme Court, identifies two situations where the ecclesiastical rule regarding a sustaining vote may differ. First, “[w]hen a disciplinary council acts upon evidence in a manner comparable to a civil or criminal court, [for example, revelation assists the council in weighing the evidence] the presiding officer is the judge and his decisions do not have to be sustained unanimously by the other members of the council.” The Lord's Way 242 (Deseret Book Co., 1991)Google Scholar. In contrast, “[i]f a disciplinary council were to rely upon revelation to provide its finding of guilt, they could do so only in compliance with the procedure established for the action of priesthood councils generally.… In other words, if the disciplinary council relies on revelation to provide any element of proof not present in the evidence before the council, all members of the council must be united as to that element.” Id at 243.

110. See id.

111. See id.

112. See also notes 49-53 above, and accompanying text. Bishops' courts have jurisdiction over women and male members of the church who do not hold the Melchizedek priesthood. High council courts have jurisdiction where excommunication of male members of the church who hold the Melchizedek priesthood appears likely and may also hear difficult cases. See id at 10-5, 10-6.

113. See id; see also Doctrine and Covenants at 102:17 (cited in note 9).

114. See id at 10-8.

115. See id at 10-10.

116. See id at 10-1.

117. See id at 10-7, 10-9.

118. See id at 10-3.

119. See id.

120. Doctrine and Covenants at § 58:18 (cited in note 9).

121. See notes 40-41 above, and accompanying text.

122. John 8:11.

123. Luke 15:7.

124. See General Handbook (1989) at 10-7, 10–9 (cited in note 37)Google Scholar.

125. See id at 10-1.

126. Wright, David, The Wright Excommunication Documents, 17:5Sunstone 65, 75 (1994) (quoting letter from ecclesiastical leader)Google Scholar.

127. See General Handbook (1989) at 10–9 (cited in note 37)Google Scholar.

128. See id at 10-2.

129. See id at 10-8, 10-9.

130. See id.

131. First Presidency Announcement, Ensign 107 (11 1989)Google Scholar.

132. Church Court Action Clarified, Ensign 79–80 (03 1980)Google Scholar.

133. Id at 80.

134. Id at 79.

135. Statement Released by First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, Ensign 75 (01 1994)Google Scholar.

136. Id.

137. Id.

138. Certainly, it would be useful for the purposes of this paper to have a broader perspective on how individual Latter-day Saints experience LDS disciplinary councils. However, the logistical and ethical issues involved in conducting a broad survey of individuals subject to LDS ecclesiastical discipline are daunting. First, identifying an appropriate sample for either quantitative or qualitative research is problematic. Official Latter-day Saint church membership records are not readily available. While a researcher could visit Mormon congregations to identify members, the sample would then be biased towards individuals actively participating in the LDS community and would most likely exclude individuals who have withdrawn from it, including perhaps those whose experiences with Latter-day Saint church courts were less than ideal.

The lack of access to historical church court cases, (cited in note 57), — which I presume would be less sensitive because the participants are no longer alive and thus public knowledge of their potential transgressions could not inhibit the repentance process or embarrass them — underscores the difficulties in doing current research. In fact, when I have mentioned in casual conversation that I was writing a paper on church courts, some individual Latter-day Saints have expressed concern that confidentiality might be compromised even when no specific individual case was at issue. Even some librarians who provided research assistance into public documents have responded with concerns about confidentiality. Latter-day Saints just don't talk publicly much about church courts. A review of the past twenty-five years of the church's official monthly publication for adults reveals only two articles by church authorities dedicated to disciplinary councils themselves. See Simpson, Robert L., Courts of Love, Ensign 48 (07 1972)Google Scholar; Ballard, M. Russell, A Chance to Start Over: Church Disciplinary Councils and the Restoration of Blessings, Ensign 12 (09 1990)Google Scholar; A few other articles mention church courts in passing or in conjunction with the joy and relief a disciplined person felt on returning to full fellowship in the church. See, Withheld, Name, Returning to the Fold, Ensign 54 (09 1997)Google Scholar; Anonymous, Yearning to Return, Ensign 22 (08 1990)Google Scholar; Gait, Gaye, I've Been Cleared for Rebaptism, Ensign 39 (04 1990)Google Scholar; Anonymous, A Painful Way to Grow,” Ensign 16 (12 1987)Google Scholar; Packer, Boyd K., Principles, Ensign 6 (03 1985)Google Scholar.

Moreover, while I paraphrase the general handbooks of instruction in this paper with permission, the handbooks contain a notice that they were prepared solely for church leaders to administer the affairs of the church. See, for example, General Handbook (1989), at iii (cited in note 37). The General Handbook is not generally available to church members except men who serve in certain priesthood leadership positions, although it can be found in a few libraries.

139. Anonymous, A Painful Way to Grow at 16 (cited in note 138).

140. Simpson at 48 (cited in note 138).

141. Name Withheld at 55 (cited in note 138).

142. Simpson at 48 (cited in note 138).

143. Douglas D. Alder, Excommunication: Fear and Forgiveness, 8:4 Sunstone 30 (1983).

144. Decker, J. Edward, Church Courts/Another View, 5:5Sunstone 3 (1980)Google Scholar.

145. Allred, Janice, Defense of Janice Allred, 18:1Sunstone 80, 81 (1995)Google Scholar.

146. Id. See also, 2 Case Reports of the Mormon Alliance 156-7 (Lavina Fielding Anderson & Janice Merrill Allred, eds, 1996) for Janice Allred's discussion of freedom of expression and conscience issues in connection with her excommunication.

147. Wright at 68 (cited in note 126).

148. Id.

149. 1 Case Reports of the Mormon Alliance 294 (Alliance, Mormon, Anderson, Lavina Fielding & Allred, Janice Merrill, eds, 1995)Google Scholar. Of course, the Supreme Court has made essentially the same point as the church leader in this case: “Internal ecclesiastical procedure need not meet any ‘constitutional concept of due process.’” Hadnot v Shaw, 826 P2d 978, 988 (citing Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v Milivojevich, 426 US 696, 713 (1976)).

150. Similarly, in 1986, two Oklahoma women, Jeanne Hadnot and Suzette Ellis, sued the LDS church for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy when local church leaders excommunicated them. Hadnot, 826 P2d at 978. With many issues regarding the plaintiffs’ failure to comply with procedural and evidentiary rules as the backdrop, the court found no factual questions that would preclude summary judgment against them. Plaintiffs did not raise a sufficiently material question regarding the church's alleged public communication of the ecclesiastical charge against them. Id at 985. Nor did plaintiffs contend that they had voluntarily withdrawn from membership in the LDS church, a move that would have severed the church's authority to “prescribe and follow disciplinary ordinances without fear of interference by the state.” Id at 984, 987, 988 (citing Guinn v Church of Christ of Collinsville, 775 P2d 776 (Okla 1989)). The court recognized that “[t]he Free Exercise Clause prohibits civil courts from inquiring into any phase of ecclesiastical decisionmaking-its merits as well as procedure.” Id at 988. The ecclesiastical abstention doctrine has come into play in a number of cases where plaintiffs have appealed to the secular court to right wrongs they perceived in ecclesiastical discipline. See, for example, EG. v MacDonnell, 696 A2d 697 (NJ 1997) (directing trial court to conduct a hearing to determine if it could decide plaintiffs tort allegations against clergyman who announced her sexual misconduct to congregation without the court entangling itself it church doctrine); Korean Presbyterian Church of Seattle Normalization Committee v Lee, 880 P2d 565 (Wash App 1994) (holding that ecclesiastical abstention doctrine precluded recovery where plaintiffs brought action against church for announcing excommunications to the congregation).

151. Excommunicated Man Sues Church, 10:2 Sunstone 34(1985).

152. Id at 34.

153. Defamation Suit Dropped, 10:3Sunstone 54 (1985)Google Scholar.

154. 819 F2d 875 (9th Cir 1987).

155. Id.

156. Guinn v Church of Christ of Collinsville, 775 P2d 766 (Okla 1989). In fact, Norman Hancock decided to sue the LDS church after he heard about the initial damage award Marian Guinn received in this case. Excommunicated Man Sues Church at 34 (cited in note 151).

157. See id at 777.

158. Id at 776.

159. Id at 775.

160. See General Handbook (1989) at 10–5, 8-4 (cited in note 37)Google Scholar.

161. See id at 8-4.