Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
JAHS

Handbook Update, Gay Marriage, Apostasy, Resignations... (Merged Thread)

Recommended Posts

It is a formal shunning. Membership is rescinded. This is a formal shunning but you are right that there is also an informal shunning that often occurs as members follow the example of the institutional shunning.

Under the definition you yourself quoted it is not shunning:

 

persistently avoid, ignore, or reject (someone or something) through antipathy or caution:

 

The Church does not, nor does it require its members to, "persistently avoid, ignore or reject" those who have been excommunicated. As has been pointed out to you, they are welcome to come to worship services and classes, and Church leaders are commanded to reach out to and "continue to minister" to them. This is not shunning.

 

You are fashioning your own construct and applying your own term ("institutional shunning") so as to lend credibility to your argument. It's not working.

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post

No one has yet said*, so it might as well be me, that this handbook revision makes it seem even yet less likely than it did before that the Church will one day come around, declare the law of chastity null and void and start validating and solemnizing homosexual behavior as temple marriage.

 

It has been a while since I've given a countdown reading on the John Dehlin 40-year prediction by which the above fantasy is supposedly to take place, so I'll do so now:

 

39 years, 3 months, 5 days, 3 hours, 51 minutes and 22 seconds.

 

*Edited to add: I see that Russell had already pointed out Dehlin's expectation appears even less likely now.

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post

Can you explain why excommunication isn't shunning?

 

If an excommunicated member raises their hand in a church class, are they more likely to be called on to speak, or be ignored?

When membership is rescinded, is there a reason that shouldn't be viewed as a rejection of the person within the community?

Are people who are excommunicated for "apostacy" not viewed cautiously by members as dangers to the community?

 

I've explained why I think excommunication is a form of shunning. I'd like a good explanation from someone who thinks it isn't.

 

I can see why you would feel that excommunication is a form of shunning.  But we are encouraged to love everybody and (hopefully) help them to return to full fellowship.  Elder D. Todd Christofferson is a good example of this.  His brother asked to be excommunicated from the church for being in a long-term gay relationship.  But his family continued to love him and fully include him in the family circle.  Now, after many years, he is working his way back to the church.  Unfortunately, it doesn't always happen this way.  But it can be done.  Also, have you heard about shunning in the Jehovah's Witnesses community?  They will all-out stop talking to you after you are shunned.   

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder if Mister Dehlin is going to amend his expectations. After all, this does not appear to be exactly the trajectory he was predicting for the Church.

Didn't see this until now, but I just gave a countdown reading on his 40-year prediction.

Share this post


Link to post

How on earth can you possibly ask how excommunication isn't shunning after people have explained it multiple times? I don't understand that.

Share this post


Link to post

Apostasy is a sin. It is the sin of rebellion.

Yes. We know rebellion against the LORD is a sin.

 

1 Sam 15:23

rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. 

 

Nothing in any of those verses listed under rebellion in the Guide to the scriptures says a thing about being disobedient to a human leaders DICTATES is a sin. A lot of not obeying Gods commandments are however.

 

In fact... I clicked on all of the "See Alsos" (Apostasy, Devil, Murmur, Sin) and saw not a single verse about it being a sin to to rebel or even murmur against human leaders. Yes the people murmured against Moses but it wasn't a SIN that they did it. God wasn't very happy about it but he didn't excommunicate them for doing it. I guess it could be argued that Miriam was disfellowshipped for a week or so and had to camp alone outside the encampment to fulfill the days of her cleansing from the Leprosy the Lord sent on her.

Lets face it... "Cutting off" or "Excommunicating" to BY was Blood atoning some one. That was the type of Excommunication Moses practiced too when 40 years went by and all the people who sinned at the Golden Calf altar died in the desert with out seeing the promised land. They weren't excommunicated for murmuring against Moses but they were killed for their Idolatry which was one of the SINS listed in the covenant they had made in Deuteronomy.

 

I think the brethren start exercising unrighteous dominion when they grab the Lords pruning hooks out of his hand and start pruning the trees in his garden all Josiahan reform style with reckless abandoned for merely questioning their judgment. Even one of the September six excommunications was reversed and the records expundged, So we know that excommunication can be a mistake sometimes.

 

How on earth can you possibly ask how excommunication isn't shunning after people have explained it multiple times? I don't understand that.

 

Because its part of the definition...

 

Excommunication is an institutional act of religious censure used to deprive, suspend, or limit membership in a religious community or to restrict certain rights within it, in particular reception of the sacraments. Some Protestants use the term disfellowship instead.

The word excommunication means putting a specific individual or group out of communion. In some religions, excommunication includes spiritual condemnation of the member or group. Excommunication may involve banishment, shunning, and shaming, depending on the religion, the offense that caused excommunication, or the rules or norms of the religious community. The grave act is often revoked in response to sincere penance, which may be manifested through public recantation, sometimes through the Sacrament of Confession, piety, and/or through mortification of the flesh.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication

Is this a case where the church is mincing words again? :rolleyes:

Edited by Zakuska

Share this post


Link to post

I can see why you would feel that excommunication is a form of shunning.  But we are encouraged to love everybody and (hopefully) help them to return to full fellowship.  Elder D. Todd Christofferson is a good example of this.  His brother asked to be excommunicated from the church for being in a long-term gay relationship.  But his family continued to love him and fully include him in the family circle.  Now, after many years, he is working his way back to the church.  Unfortunately, it doesn't always happen this way.  But it can be done.  Also, have you heard about shunning in the Jehovah's Witnesses community?  They will all-out stop talking to you after you are shunned.

The same with baptized Amish who leave the faith.

Share this post


Link to post

If excommunicated members were truly shunned then we wouldn't allow them in our chapels, or even in our buildings if we could help it.  We wouldn't send home teachers to them.  We wouldn't speak to them when we meet them walking to church.  Bishops and stake presidents wouldn't spend so much time working with them to help them come back.

Share this post


Link to post

This comes on the heels of Elder Ballard's talk at the World Conference of Families where he says that just as we shouldn't shun family, we shouldn't shun people who believe or act differently than we do. Excommunication is a pretty severe shunning.

In my ward, we have two excommunicated men who come to church nearly every Sunday and also participate fully in most aspects of the communal life of the congregation, attending social events, participating in priesthood service projects, commenting on the ward's Facebook page, etc. That's a pretty funny form of 'shunning'.

 

If an excommunicated member raises their hand in a church class, are they more likely to be called on to speak, or be ignored?

 

One of the aforementioned men attends my Gospel Principles class every week, sits on the front row, and participates like any other attendee. In fact, I love calling on him because he always has such good contributions. Clearly I and my ward need to better study the chapter on 'shunning' in the Church Handbook. Could you please remind us which chapter that is?

Edited by Hamba Tuhan

Share this post


Link to post

In my ward, we have two excommunicated men who come to church nearly every Sunday and also participate fully in most aspects of the communal life of the congregation, attending social events, participating in priesthood service projects, commenting on the ward's Facebook page, etc. That's a pretty funny form of 'shunning'.

 

 

One of the aforementioned men attends my Gospel Principles class every week, sits on the front row, and participates like any other attendee. In fact, I love calling on him because he always has such good contributions. Clearly I and my ward need to better study the chapter on 'shunning' in the Church Handbook. Could you please remind us which chapter that is?

That's the chapter that comes immediately after the one that describes how we are supposed to use our "BEE" lapel pins for surreptitious surveillance. The next chapter is the one that sets out the guidelines for recruiting and training of Danite hit squads.

This is your PM inbox, isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post

It also means that in most cases a person excommunicated for this reason will need First Presidency approval for rebaptism. If someone is excommunicated for "moral" reasons a Stake President and Bishop can approve rebaptism. If it's for apostacy, it generally requires first presidency approval.

 

Thus reinforcing the line between weakness and open rebellion. As Elder Scott (and others) have clearly taught, 'The joyful news for anyone who desires to be rid of the consequences of poor choices is that the Lord sees weaknesses differently than He does rebellion. Whereas the Lord warns that unrepented rebellion will bring punishment, when the Lord speaks of weaknesses, it is always with mercy'.

 

Trying to live the law of chastity but failing -- even repeatedly -- is a matter of weakness. Embracing and celebrating sinfulness by engaging in same-sex 'marriage' is an act of open rebellion against and public rejection of all that the Church of Jesus Christ teaches and holds dear.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan

Share this post


Link to post

It is a formal shunning. Membership is rescinded. This is a formal shunning but you are right that there is also an informal shunning that often occurs as members follow the example of the institutional shunning.

 

Are members of the church counseled to shun non-members?  No.  Just the opposite is encouraged and even commanded.  If excommunication is change a member to a non-member, how is that shunning- if we don't shun non-members?  We don't shun either- members or non-members.  

Share this post


Link to post

So if a member were to marry someone of the same sex and therefore be excommunicated for apostasy, they would still be welcome to come to church as any non-member would, but if they wanted to be reinstated and return to good standing, they would have to first get a divorce and then get First Presidency permission. I guess this could possibly happen some time in the future, but probably not often.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, that certainly undermines the assertion that "there is no such thing as a same-sex marriage." If you can get ex'd for it, it exists.

The Family: A Proclamation to the World sets forth the definition and purposes of marriage according to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints quite well.  It's been awhile since I have perused the Handbook, but I would be shocked if The Proclamation were not used as one of its source documents.

Share this post


Link to post

Because its part of the definition...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication

Is this a case where the church is mincing words again? :rolleyes:

 

You are seriously going to argue that part of the definition of excommunication is shunning based on this quote?

 

"may involve banishment, shunning, and shaming, depending on the religion,"

 

May want to look at that first word again.

Share this post


Link to post

You are seriously going to argue that part of the definition of excommunication is shunning based on this quote?

 

"may involve banishment, shunning, and shaming, depending on the religion,"

 

May want to look at that first word again.

 

And the last four...

Share this post


Link to post

Just out of curiosity, how often does this happen?  If an inactive member is baptized into another church, is a disciplinary council held?  It sounds like it, if it is mandatory, but I'm wondering about the actual practice.

The only time I've known it to happen was when the person began to actively practice anti-Mormonism at the same time and some of these (few) would use their Mormon membership to boost the credibilty of their claims...which were usually bogus.

Not saying exmormons always make bogus claims, talking about a very limited set here.

Share this post


Link to post

So if a member were to marry someone of the same sex and therefore be excommunicated for apostasy, they would still be welcome to come to church as any non-member would, but if they wanted to be reinstated and return to good standing, they would have to first get a divorce and then get First Presidency permission. I guess this could possibly happen some time in the future, but probably not often.

I agree it probably won't be very common.

But given the famously short lifespans of homosexual relationships, it's not at all beyond the bounds of possibility.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree it probably won't be very common.

But given the famously short lifespans of homosexual relationships, it's not at all beyond the bounds of possibility.

 

I'm more inclined to write that given the boundless goodness of God and the far-reaching power of the Atonement, it's not at all beyond the bounds of possibility.

Share this post


Link to post

Just out of curiosity, how often does this happen?  If an inactive member is baptized into another church, is a disciplinary council held?  It sounds like it, if it is mandatory, but I'm wondering about the actual practice.

 

In practice an inactive member has a much great leeway without ever having an excommunication court being called.  Issues of serious immorality can occur, etc., often go unnoticed.  Does this make sense?

Share this post


Link to post

In practice an inactive member has a much great leeway without ever having an excommunication court being called.  Issues of serious immorality can occur, etc., often go unnoticed.  Does this make sense?

 

Yes, because the main purpose of a disciplinary council is to help a person enjoy once again the full blessings of the Gospel. When it comes to inactive members, we have to start by getting them back in the first place.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan

Share this post


Link to post

No one has yet said*, so it might as well be me, that this handbook revision makes it seem even yet less likely than it did before that the Church will one day come around, declare the law of chastity null and void and start validating and solemnizing homosexual behavior as temple marriage.

It has been a while since I've given a countdown reading on the John Dehlin 40-year prediction by which the above fantasy is supposedly to take place, so I'll do so now:

39 years, 3 months, 5 days, 3 hours, 51 minutes and 22 seconds.

*Edited to add: I see that Russell had already pointed out Dehlin's expectation appears even less likely now.

I don't see it as a simple trajectory. And I doubt Dehlin would alter his prediction based on this.

As I mentioned previously, I would expect a continued and strengthened message against gay marriage... Like this and April 2015 gen con.

The dissonance has to come to a head, create more of a conflict, before such a revelation could be considered or sought.

Share this post


Link to post

You are seriously going to argue that part of the definition of excommunication is shunning based on this quote?

 

"may involve banishment, shunning, and shaming, depending on the religion,"

 

May want to look at that first word again.

I thought the last four words were more relevant.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't see it as a simple trajectory. And I doubt Dehlin would alter his prediction based on this.

As I mentioned previously, I would expect a continued and strengthened message against gay marriage... Like this and April 2015 gen con.

The dissonance has to come to a head, create more of a conflict, before such a revelation could be considered or sought.

How do you honestly expect this to ever happen? Two people of the same sex cannot have children together whether now or in the eternities. The Church was established and the priesthood restored to create Eternal families now and in the Eternities. It goes against the entire purpose of the restoration.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...