Member Excommunicated for Making a Single FB Post

[Storm Rider]

39 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I think the shoe just dropped.
A faith crisis brought on by Joseph's polygamous practices led to the conclusion "Joseph was a fraud".

You are correct - we have all discussed it and some of us are quite comfortable and others are still troubled.

Discussed it ad nauseum.  

Look at the staff and you will be saved.  Did the children of Israel look?  Some did, but others did not.  They refused to look because they, in their own mind, knew better.  Who was saved?  Clue:  it was not the people who chose not to express a small seed of faith and raise up their eyes and look upon the staff. 

[consiglieri]

44 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

 

Look at the staff and you will be saved.  

A perilous comparison to make when discussing Joseph Smith's plural marriage.

[Nemesis]

Everyone lay off the personal attacks and drive bys.  Have a discussion or we will close the thread.

 

nemesis 

[halconero]

Perhaps it's my own interpretation of the word "contempt," but at various times since I've been following this you've said things like wanting to "take perverse pleasure" in having a few "heads explode" over your post. You've said somewhat sarcastically in respond to others that "you trust what a Stake President says?" and that you "fart in their [those involved] general direction" (tongue in cheek and not all that serious? Definitely. Still demonstrative of a general trend of contempt for especially the stake president).

With regards to your right to record. Sure, it's your right. It's an American pass time to argue rights as a the basis for ethical behaviour. But was it right to exercise that right? If you had your phone out at the High Council, and your stake president was fully aware that your intention was to record the meeting and share it with John Dehlin as you stated you would online then I'll withdraw my previous words with full purpose. Sure, you could've still done it, and it would've been within your rights. Yet, just because something is a right doesn't mean it's inherently good, correct, or demonstrative of friendly character. Your intention of recording the meeting, and uploading it on a platform antagonistic towards the Church without the knowledge of this intent being told to the Stake President (correct me if I'm wrong, and I'll take your word at it) is demonstrative of this contempt.

None of us here is trying to dispute your right to post what you did. We're disputing the notion that the Church somehow overreacted in excommunicating you over one Facebook post. A post motivated not only by the desire to share an opinion, but also partially in the hopes of convincing others. That's fine if you do, but don't make it seem like the Church is overblowing this. Opinions and the preaching thereof do matter within the ecclesiastical context. Jesus once posed the question "what think ye of Christ?" In so doing he solicitated an opinion of eternal weight and consequences. Of course your post, the nature thereof, and your refusal to take it down matter within the ecclesiastical context.

Edited April 6, 2016 by halconero

[saemo]

On April 4, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Bruce said:

 

So, what was it I read? Since the Sunday School curriculum for 2013 was the D&C and Church History I decided to fulfill a longtime goal of digging deeper into Church History. I have a Kindle Fire and most of what I will now list was freely or inexpensively downloadable on that device

Apparently, you missed "Leaving The Saints", where Martha Beck goes into her experience of leaving Mormonism, and has the best description of what you have experienced.  That is, that there is an unwritten 11th commandment that all LDS members must obey:

Thou shalt not commit publicity. 

Breaking this commandment, will result in excommunication. 

Edited April 6, 2016 by saemo

[cinepro]

30 minutes ago, saemo said:

Apparently, you missed "Leaving The Saints", where Martha Beck goes into her experience of leaving Mormonism, and has the best description of what you have experienced.  That is, that there is an unwritten 11th commandment that all LDS members must obey:

Thou shalt not commit publicity. 

Breaking this commandment, will result in excommunication. 

No one who didn't read that book missed anything.

[Bernard Gui]

13 hours ago, Bruce said:

If I didn't tell them, who I know and love dearly, what makes you think I would deign tell you, a total stranger?

As for the post, it was different. It was meant for extended family and friends and I've expressed what my intent was. It's totally different than your scenario. My message was to people I knew, those who had heard something and those that knew me. My message was prefaced with multiple warnings to those who wouldn't be interested and shouldn't be interested. Sitting on a corner at GC with a signpost is simply not the same. Not the same intent. Not the same audience. Not the same warnings. A fool could see that.

But you don't.

Perhaps it would have been more prudent to share such sensitive personal matters through a private email or a personal message rather than through a public Facebook post. Even with frequent warnings, it's still a public venue available to anyone, not just to the family. In fact, multiple adamant warnings could very well entice innocent onlookers to continue reading to see what all the ruckus was about. Honking the horn repeatedly while speeding down a busy street doesn't absolve one from injuries one may cause.

Earlier you quoted scriptures to chastise posters who disagreed with or judged you. There is also a scripture about calling people fools.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[cdowis]

22 hours ago, consiglieri said:

How are you doing in the self-awareness category?

Thank you for being worried about me, for caring.

Anyway, I am acutely aware of my faults,  and makes me very grateful for the Atonement.  

 

[bluebell]

20 hours ago, Bruce said:

The statement, in my opinion, indicates an ability to justify ones own actions without regard for consistency or the idea of right vs wrong. It's a free license. All I have to do after an action usually deemed wrong is to say that in the current circumstance it is right. If I am in a position of authority, who would argue?

I'll just add that I don't accept this concept myself. I believe what's right is right, what's wrong is wrong. There is a grey area between, as well.

Isaiah 5:20

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"

It seems pretty straightforward to me.

Going 50 mph in a car is sometimes moral, and sometimes immoral, depending on conditions. Abortion can be moral or immoral depending on conditions.   Sex is sometimes moral, and sometimes immoral depending on conditions. The same words can be said morally or immorally depending on conditions. etc. etc. etc.

[Johnnie Cake]

I'm pretty sure Bruce has left the building.  Irrespective of where you register on the belief spectrum, Excommunication is the equivalent of the Mormon Death Penalty with an immediate walk to the executioners chair.  It's a harsh, socially catastrophic expulsion of any Mormon from their tribe.  Particularly for a multi-generational Mormon like Bruce, being excommunicated is painful...yes even for someone who calls JS a fraud.

I would have hoped for a more compassionate and understanding welcome for Bruce, whether he got his just deserts or not is debatable, but what should not be up for debate is the cost to Bruce and his family brought on by a system that places the needs of the organization ahead of the needs of the individual.  Excommunication as a instrument of rejection and a tool of shunning and exclusion is a tool long past its usefulness and should be thrown in the rubbish bin of history. Surely, the church could come up with a more loving and compassionate means to maintain its boundaries.

[thesometimesaint]

6 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I'm pretty sure Bruce has left the building.  Irrespective of where you register on the belief spectrum, Excommunication is the equivalent of the Mormon Death Penalty with an immediate walk to the executioners chair.  It's a harsh, socially catastrophic expulsion of any Mormon from their tribe.  Particularly for a multi-generational Mormon like Bruce, being excommunicated is painful...yes even for someone who calls JS a fraud.

I would have hoped for a more compassionate and understanding welcome for Bruce, whether he got his just deserts or not is debatable, but what should not be up for debate is the cost to Bruce and his family brought on by a system that places the needs of the organization ahead of the needs of the individual.  Excommunication as a instrument of rejection and a tool of shunning and exclusion is a tool long past its usefulness and should be thrown in the rubbish bin of history. Surely, the church could come up with a more loving and compassionate means to maintain its boundaries.

So actions should have only positive consequences? If I put my hand in a fire. I should pullout an ice cream cone.

Edited April 6, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I'm pretty sure Bruce has left the building.  Irrespective of where you register on the belief spectrum, Excommunication is the equivalent of the Mormon Death Penalty with an immediate walk to the executioners chair.  It's a harsh, socially catastrophic expulsion of any Mormon from their tribe.  Particularly for a multi-generational Mormon like Bruce, being excommunicated is painful...yes even for someone who calls JS a fraud.

I would have hoped for a more compassionate and understanding welcome for Bruce, whether he got his just deserts or not is debatable, but what should not be up for debate is the cost to Bruce and his family brought on by a system that places the needs of the organization ahead of the needs of the individual.  Excommunication as a instrument of rejection and a tool of shunning and exclusion is a tool long past its usefulness and should be thrown in the rubbish bin of history. Surely, the church could come up with a more loving and compassionate means to maintain its boundaries.

I agree with most of what you say, but I still think excommunication is the most appropriate response for extreme cases, such as sexual abuse. 

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I'm pretty sure Bruce has left the building.  Irrespective of where you register on the belief spectrum, Excommunication is the equivalent of the Mormon Death Penalty with an immediate walk to the executioners chair.  It's a harsh, socially catastrophic expulsion of any Mormon from their tribe.  Particularly for a multi-generational Mormon like Bruce, being excommunicated is painful...yes even for someone who calls JS a fraud.

I would have hoped for a more compassionate and understanding welcome for Bruce, whether he got his just deserts or not is debatable, but what should not be up for debate is the cost to Bruce and his family brought on by a system that places the needs of the organization ahead of the needs of the individual.  Excommunication as a instrument of rejection and a tool of shunning and exclusion is a tool long past its usefulness and should be thrown in the rubbish bin of history. Surely, the church could come up with a more loving and compassionate means to maintain its boundaries.

Just to clarify, excommunication is only the equivalent of that if the person is unwilling to repent.  And in most cases (maybe not all), it is spiritually better for the person to be excommunicated than to remain bound by covenants they are (or have) flagrantly broken.

[cdowis]

19 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I'm pretty sure Bruce has left the building.  Irrespective of where you register on the belief spectrum, Excommunication is the equivalent of the Mormon Death Penalty with an immediate walk to the executioners chair.  It's a harsh, socially catastrophic expulsion of any Mormon from their tribe.  Particularly for a multi-generational Mormon like Bruce, being excommunicated is painful...yes even for someone who calls JS a fraud.

Yeah, that makes sense for the world which views the church as a social club, rather than a religious organization lead by Christ through His prophets.  But the Lord has made it quite clear that this is necessary both for the church, and also for the individual himself.  It was an act of kindness, giving him the opportunity for repentance, rather than to pretend that "all is well in Zion" which would eventually lead to his spiritual death.  

It provides an opportunity to him to decide to return home.

NOTE:  "spiritual suicide" is not the excommunication.  The excommunication is an attempt at resuscitation.

Edited April 6, 2016 by cdowis

[CA Steve]

5 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

So actions should have only positive consequences? If I put my hand in a fire. I should pullout an ice cream cone.

Fire does not have any volition, so the analogy really is not applicable. Local leadership has a lot of latitude and the result here could have been quite different,

I am not saying his FB post should not have resulted in some form of church action, just that excommunication was, from what I can tell, unnecessary.

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I'm pretty sure Bruce has left the building.  Irrespective of where you register on the belief spectrum, Excommunication is the equivalent of the Mormon Death Penalty with an immediate walk to the executioners chair.  It's a harsh, socially catastrophic expulsion of any Mormon from their tribe.  Particularly for a multi-generational Mormon like Bruce, being excommunicated is painful...yes even for someone who calls JS a fraud.

If that is the case, then perhaps it was a bit on the less-than-tactful side to invite strangers to publicly weigh in on such a painful circumstance.

And perhaps it was also less-than-tactful to invite Bruce to participate in such a less-than-tactful discussion.  To be blunt, I think you started this thread hoping to raise a stink, and you more or less succeeded.  And I also suspect you subsequently invited Bruce to this forum so as to foment rancor and harsh words.  If so, you more or less succeeded in that, too.

I'm open to correction, of course.  But that's how this thread looks.  And if that is what went down, then that it shameful.  Bruce was apparently injured by his excommunication, and you appear to have come along with salt and lemon juice and ground glass to pour into his wounds.

Quote

I would have hoped for a more compassionate and understanding welcome for Bruce, whether he got his just deserts or not is debatable, but what should not be up for debate is the cost to Bruce and his family brought on by a system that places the needs of the organization ahead of the needs of the individual. 

Not buying it.  As I said previously: "It seems like this thread is an attempt to provoke members of the Church to, in the absence of both sufficient facts and stewardship, either A) rise up and prematurely and ignorantly and inappropriately judge the fellow who was excommunicated, or B) rise up and prematurely and ignorantly and inappropriately judge the local priesthood leaders involved in the excommunication process."

This thread isn't about a "compassionate and understanding welcome."  This thread was about stirring the pot.  Provoking people into anger and judgmentalism.  Fomenting anger, even rage.

Mission accomplished, kiddo.

Quote

Excommunication as a instrument of rejection and a tool of shunning and exclusion is a tool long past its usefulness and should be thrown in the rubbish bin of history. Surely, the church could come up with a more loving and compassionate means to maintain its boundaries.

The Church doesn't shun or exclude excommunicated persons.

So in addition to deliberately provoking people into anger and judgmentalism, and further injuring Bruce, you are now bearing false witness.  Not cool.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 6, 2016 by smac97

[Boanerges]

12 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I'm pretty sure Bruce has left the building.  Irrespective of where you register on the belief spectrum, Excommunication is the equivalent of the Mormon Death Penalty with an immediate walk to the executioners chair.  It's a harsh, socially catastrophic expulsion of any Mormon from their tribe.  Particularly for a multi-generational Mormon like Bruce, being excommunicated is painful...yes even for someone who calls JS a fraud.

I would have hoped for a more compassionate and understanding welcome for Bruce, whether he got his just deserts or not is debatable, but what should not be up for debate is the cost to Bruce and his family brought on by a system that places the needs of the organization ahead of the needs of the individual.  Excommunication as a instrument of rejection and a tool of shunning and exclusion is a tool long past its usefulness and should be thrown in the rubbish bin of history. Surely, the church could come up with a more loving and compassionate means to maintain its boundaries.

I also read boards like NOM, and it's not entirely clear that excommunication is all that devastating for some. For those who don't believe the church really has any power or influence over eternity (whether you believe they're right or wrong) and who may not have long and/or deep familial connections to the tribe, excommunication can be "meh." Likewise, I believe there are those who desire excommunication because then they have been voted off the island as opposed to quitting. In some odd way excommunication seems to play better in some families than resignation does.

That said, I do mostly agree with what you say. For those to whom it does matter it would seem there might be better ways to deal with some matters and excommunication does seem a bit archaic or Machiavellian.

In Bruce's particular case, and this is only my opinion, I believe he full well expected and wanted excommunication. I don't totally disagree with Bruce, and I don't believe Joseph Smith was anywhere near as perfect or infallible as he is sometimes portrayed. My son's soccer coach has something he will yell out to the team every once in awhile: "Right message, wrong tone." While I won't say Bruce's is the right message, at least on this board it was wrong tone. There's a huge difference in my faithful questioning and doubts and making a statement that JS is a fraud and then refusing to retract it.

[thesometimesaint]

7 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Fire does not have any volition, so the analogy really is not applicable. Local leadership has a lot of latitude and the result here could have been quite different,

I am not saying his FB post should not have resulted in some form of church action, just that excommunication was, from what I can tell, unnecessary.

Any member of the Church that publicly claims JS is a fraud is playing with fire. Not as much as you are proposing. The local leadership can't ignore it. They must meet with the member making the public claim, and give counsel. How the member responds to that counsel determines the local leaders response. Refusal to admit error and repent will result in excommunication. Priesthood holders are more not less responsible for their actions.

[halconero]

41 minutes ago, Boanerges said:

I also read boards like NOM, and it's not entirely clear that excommunication is all that devastating for some. For those who don't believe the church really has any power or influence over eternity (whether you believe they're right or wrong) and who may not have long and/or deep familial connections to the tribe, excommunication can be "meh." Likewise, I believe there are those who desire excommunication because then they have been voted off the island as opposed to quitting. In some odd way excommunication seems to play better in some families than resignation does.

That said, I do mostly agree with what you say. For those to whom it does matter it would seem there might be better ways to deal with some matters and excommunication does seem a bit archaic or Machiavellian.

In Bruce's particular case, and this is only my opinion, I believe he full well expected and wanted excommunication. I don't totally disagree with Bruce, and I don't believe Joseph Smith was anywhere near as perfect or infallible as he is sometimes portrayed. My son's soccer coach has something he will yell out to the team every once in awhile: "Right message, wrong tone." While I won't say Bruce's is the right message, at least on this board it was wrong tone. There's a huge difference in my faithful questioning and doubts and making a statement that JS is a fraud and then refusing to retract it.

Yes, he wanted to be excommunicated. He said multiple times during the experience that it was preferable to resigning, as it would enable him to demonstrate to his still believing wife that he didn't leave, but was kicked out. Saying this makes me feel icky though, despite the fact that this was less a case of me spying, and more of one where I happened to be following the same thread on a public forum.

That said, I think I need to take a break from the subreddit there. The Rancor tends to get dialed up a notch around Conference time, and it's spiritually tiring.

[CA Steve]

24 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Any member of the Church that publicly claims JS is a fraud is playing with fire. Not as much as you are proposing. The local leadership can't ignore it. They must meet with the member making the public claim, and give counsel. How the member responds to that counsel determines the local leaders response. Refusal to admit error and repent will result in excommunication. Priesthood holders are more not less responsible for their actions.

Can you provide a reference that local leadership are required to excommunicate everyone who makes a single public statement which they will not retract, that Joseph Smith is a fraud.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I'm pretty sure Bruce has left the building.  Irrespective of where you register on the belief spectrum, Excommunication is the equivalent of the Mormon Death Penalty with an immediate walk to the executioners chair.  It's a harsh, socially catastrophic expulsion of any Mormon from their tribe.  Particularly for a multi-generational Mormon like Bruce, being excommunicated is painful...yes even for someone who calls JS a fraud.

I would have hoped for a more compassionate and understanding welcome for Bruce, whether he got his just deserts or not is debatable, but what should not be up for debate is the cost to Bruce and his family brought on by a system that places the needs of the organization ahead of the needs of the individual.  Excommunication as a instrument of rejection and a tool of shunning and exclusion is a tool long past its usefulness and should be thrown in the rubbish bin of history. Surely, the church could come up with a more loving and compassionate means to maintain its boundaries.

I listened to his court of love, I'm pretty naive I thought the leaders were aware of his recording it at first.  In the recording, he mentions how difficult it is.  He is now like a newborn, he has to start all over again in his belief, 61 years down the tubes...not his words, but the jist of it.  In the recording, he comes off as very legit.  

Edited April 6, 2016 by Tacenda

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Excommunication is the equivalent of the Mormon Death Penalty with an immediate walk to the executioners chair. 

Now this is just silly!

Are you sure you have been a Mormon very long?

In every ward I have been in, there have been people who have been re baptized after being excommunicated, as well as people who still attend after being excommunicated.

We don't kick them out of the building or stop them from partaking the green jello salad at the ward socials.

I have never been told to stop interacting with someone who has been excommunicated.

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I'm pretty sure Bruce has left the building.  Irrespective of where you register on the belief spectrum, Excommunication is the equivalent of the Mormon Death Penalty with an immediate walk to the executioners chair.  It's a harsh, socially catastrophic expulsion of any Mormon from their tribe. 

Which is not anything close to death.  I have known a number of members who have been excommunicated who ave come back to the Church.  Known a number who have not but are stll higly involved in families.  Others who have distance put between them and former friends and even family and yet appear to be functioning nicely on their own.

Don't really see much of that with the death penalty in my experience.

[Tacenda]

55 minutes ago, Boanerges said:

I also read boards like NOM, and it's not entirely clear that excommunication is all that devastating for some. For those who don't believe the church really has any power or influence over eternity (whether you believe they're right or wrong) and who may not have long and/or deep familial connections to the tribe, excommunication can be "meh." Likewise, I believe there are those who desire excommunication because then they have been voted off the island as opposed to quitting. In some odd way excommunication seems to play better in some families than resignation does.

That said, I do mostly agree with what you say. For those to whom it does matter it would seem there might be better ways to deal with some matters and excommunication does seem a bit archaic or Machiavellian.

In Bruce's particular case, and this is only my opinion, I believe he full well expected and wanted excommunication. I don't totally disagree with Bruce, and I don't believe Joseph Smith was anywhere near as perfect or infallible as he is sometimes portrayed. My son's soccer coach has something he will yell out to the team every once in awhile: "Right message, wrong tone." While I won't say Bruce's is the right message, at least on this board it was wrong tone. There's a huge difference in my faithful questioning and doubts and making a statement that JS is a fraud and then refusing to retract it.

He states in the DC that he didn't want excommunication.  

[Mars]

11 minutes ago, halconero said:

Yes, he wanted to be excommunicated. He said multiple times during the experience that it was preferable to resigning, as it would enable him to demonstrate to his still believing wife that he didn't leave, but was kicked out. Saying this makes me feel icky though, despite the fact that this was less a case of me spying, and more of one where I happened to be following the same thread on a public forum.

That said, I think I need to take a break from the subreddit there. The Rancor tends to get dialed up a notch around Conference time, and it's spiritually tiring.

i can't do /r/exmormon, either.  i try, but...  it's just not my thing.