He didn't fire the top brass and bring in his own team either. He motivated and energized those who had nearly taken the entity under in the first place.

I found this astonishing and still do. He fired very few people overall even though he literally managed hundreds over a significant period of time.

He told me that sometimes you simply had to fire people, there was no choice. He said if you have an employee that is engaged openly, or covertly, in outright sabotage you MUST fire them.

It's the same way with the Church. Those openly, or covertly, engaged in outright sabotage must have their membership withdrawn.

Having Church membership withdrawn

Recent headlines have thrust this issue once more into the public's agenda.

The article states:

A disciplinary hearing was held Sunday at a chapel in Derby, Kan., over what a March 21 letter called Helfer’s “repeated, clear, and public opposition to the Church, its doctrine, its policies, and its leaders.”

This begs a couple of questions. If you are against a particular organization, why do you want to remain a member of it? What's more, why would the organization want to retain you as a member?

Nutty news coverage always infers that the Church is somehow wrong for disciplining one of its own. No reasonable person can argue that an entity shouldn't be allowed to set conditions for membership and employ its own disciplinary procedures.

Hoping for evenhanded coverage of the press is pointless these days. I've argued before that it isn't a stretch for members to believe media coverage is biased and slanted given how we KNOW coverage of us is biased and slanted.

Please educate yourself on the essentials

Since membership councils are confidential, those trying to skew what happens at them and especially at their own have pretty much free rein.

The media usually rushes to champion any one individual or group it thinks is being oppressed whether its true or not. It's certainly clear in the most recent incident.

Stephen Daley, LDS stake (regional) president in Derby, wrote in a letter on Wednesday that while members may hold diverse opinions on a number of topics, Helfer “cannot be a member in good standing when you have demonstrated a pattern of clear and deliberate opposition to the Church, its doctrine, its policies, and its leaders.”

“Your professional activities played no part in the decision of the council,” he wrote. “Rather, as stated in my prior letter to you, the sole purpose of this council was to consider your repeated, clear and public opposition to and condemnation of the church, its doctrines, its policies and its leaders.”