Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • Nemesis

      Contact Us Broken   09/27/2016

      Users, It has come to our attention that the contact us feature on the site is broken.  Please do not use this feature to contact board admins.  Please go through normal channels.  If you are ignored there then assume your request was denied. Also if you try to email us that email address is pretty much ignored.  Also don't contact us to complain, ask for favors, donations, or any other thing that you may think would annoy us.  Nemesis
Duncan

Is excommunication enough sometimes?

Recommended Posts

Duncan    3,500

It seems like my Mumsie knows everything and she earlier told me about this tragic incident in our Stake about 16 years ago now. I knew a bit of the story but not everything and I confirmed with someone else what she had told me. Long story short somebody was excommunicated for doing something really bad and it didn't stop there and that is where the other bad part of the story happened. I don't want to seem callous but do you think excommunication is enough for someone's behaviour? like they do something so bad but it seems like it isn't enough as a deterrent or punishment or what 

Share this post


Link to post
The Nehor    13,511
1 minute ago, Duncan said:

It seems like my Mumsie knows everything and she earlier told me about this tragic incident in our Stake about 16 years ago now. I knew a bit of the story but not everything and I confirmed with someone else what she had told me. Long story short somebody was excommunicated for doing something really bad and it didn't stop there and that is where the other bad part of the story happened. I don't want to seem callous but do you think excommunication is enough for someone's behaviour? like they do something so bad but it seems like it isn't enough as a deterrent or punishment or what 

Other then banning someone from church activities and properties (I have seen this a few times when a person is dangerous)  the church cannot do much more then excommunicate.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
smac97    6,397
8 minutes ago, Duncan said:

It seems like my Mumsie knows everything and she earlier told me about this tragic incident in our Stake about 16 years ago now. I knew a bit of the story but not everything and I confirmed with someone else what she had told me. Long story short somebody was excommunicated for doing something really bad and it didn't stop there and that is where the other bad part of the story happened. I don't want to seem callous but do you think excommunication is enough for someone's behaviour? like they do something so bad but it seems like it isn't enough as a deterrent or punishment or what 

There are limits, divinely imposed, on the authority of the Church.  See D&C 134:10:

Quote

We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

Do you propose that something more than excommunication be meted out?  Like what?  And how would that mesh with obeying the law of the land, which does not give the LDS Church any authority to mete out discipline other than what is set forth above, and which we are generally commanded to obey per AoF 1:12 ("We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.")?

Personally, I am very grateful for the constraints that the Church has placed on itself.  Our society has plenty of secular laws and punishments for violating them.  I don't think the Church or any other religious group should be able to punish its members or anyone else beyond what is set forth above.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97

Share this post


Link to post
Duncan    3,500
4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There are limits, divinely imposed, on the authority of the Church.  See D&C 134:10:

Do you propose that something more than excommunication be meted out?  Like what?  And how would that mesh with obeying the law of the land, which does not give the LDS Church any authority to mete out discipline other than what is set forth above, and which we are generally commanded to obey per AoF 1:12 ("We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.")?

Personally, I am very grateful for the constraints that the Church has placed on itself.  Our society has plenty of secular laws and punishments for violating them.  I don't think the Church or any other religious group should be able to punish its members or anyone else beyond what is set forth above.

Thanks,

-Smac

I hear you but depending on the situation like what you did is bad enough that you can't come back in, what happens in the next life is somebody else's business but here and now, one and done. I get constraints as you don't want abuses happening but if somebody did something heinous enough, I dunno, and the legal aspect but people get out of jail and can get rebaptized and it's like nothing happened but for others the pain can still continue based on the person's behaviour. Each situation is unique too

Share this post


Link to post
Duncan    3,500
4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Well we could burn them at the stake but there are probably some ethical and legal problems in there somewhere.

make a ward picnic out of it:ph34r:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
smac97    6,397
10 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I hear you but depending on the situation like what you did is bad enough that you can't come back in,

I am not sure what you mean.  What sorts of misconduct do you think preclude re-baptism?

10 minutes ago, Duncan said:

what happens in the next life is somebody else's business but here and now, one and done.

So to clarify: You are not contrasting the Church's authority with that of secular government, you are instead suggesting that there are times when the Church should not allow a particular person to be re-baptized into the Church.  Is that correct?

10 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I get constraints as you don't want abuses happening but if somebody did something heinous enough, I dunno,

Something "heinous enough" to merit being permanently banned from rebaptism.  Is that your point?

10 minutes ago, Duncan said:

and the legal aspect but people get out of jail and can get rebaptized and it's like nothing happened

Well, no.  A few thoughts:

First, a person who is re-baptized into the Church will, as I understand it, have their records reflect that.  And if the basis of the prior excommunication/discipline was due to dangerous/predatory behavior, sexual abuse of children, for example, then the Church imposes essentially permanent restrictions on priesthood leaders extending to such an individual a calling which involves interaction with children (the restriction can be removed by a petition to the First Presidency, but I suspect such petitions are very rarely granted).  So I am not sure how you can say this amounts to "and it's like nothing happened."

Second, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is all about giving hope to sinners.  Re-baptism allows even the most depraved of our brothers and sisters to have some hope.  It is therefore not our place to judge anyone in the ultimate sense.  "For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son."  (John 5:22).  This does not mean we are throwing our hands up and saying "it's like nothing happened."  We are simply seeking to do what the Lord has asked us to do (preach the Gospel and administer its saving ordinances), knowing that the ultimate arbitration of the efficacy of those ordinances is, proverbially speaking, above our pay grade.

Finally, the Restored Gospel includes a complete assurance that all of us will be judged in both justice and mercy.  So a re-baptism is only efficacious if it is sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise.  That, to me, is very comforting.  It places the burden of ultimate judgment where it rightly belongs.

10 minutes ago, Duncan said:

but for others the pain can still continue based on the person's behaviour. Each situation is unique too

I'm not sure what you mean here.  I personally know of situations where a person has committed serious offenses, but who have repented and made amends as best they could and have sought to return to full fellowship in the Church.  In some of these situations the aggrieved parties have not been fully capable of forgiving the penitent party.  Is the penitent, in your view, to therefore be forever precluded from repenting and re-establishing fellowship in the Church?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
strappinglad    1,979

Without further details , we are flailing for an answer. Perhaps you mean that the persons file would be permanently red flagged so that there was no chance for rebaptism at least in this life. I'm not sure what else the Church could do.

Share this post


Link to post
Duncan    3,500
2 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Without further details , we are flailing for an answer. Perhaps you mean that the persons file would be permanently red flagged so that there was no chance for rebaptism at least in this life. I'm not sure what else the Church could do.

I guess that could happen!no chance of rebaptism. This is a true scenario, not this scenario. There was a lady in this city that had 6 babies, all died and were put into storage and they died there. the Prosecutors couldn't prove she gave birth to them, DNA somehow didn't work but she was was charged and convicted on something like illegal disposing of  human life  x 6 so she's in jail but not for as long as the prosecutors and society would like her to be. I think most people know that she probably gave birth to them or if she didn't she was indifferent to dead babies, were she to go to her storage unit and find someone else disposed of human life without her consent. So, assuming she was a member could she get rebaptized, even though she most likely but didn't get convicted for killing 6 babies? That's not what this situation i'm talking about but similar. It's a horrible thing to even think about and it seems like exing someone isn't enough but I get smac97's point though that you could be not repentant and not come back or have the holy spirit of promise make it valid, which may not happen who knows

Share this post


Link to post
Duncan    3,500
13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am not sure what you mean.  What sorts of misconduct do you think preclude re-baptism?

So to clarify: You are not contrasting the Church's authority with that of secular government, you are instead suggesting that there are times when the Church should not allow a particular person to be re-baptized into the Church.  Is that correct?

Something "heinous enough" to merit being permanently banned from rebaptism.  Is that your point?

Well, no.  A few thoughts:

First, a person who is re-baptized into the Church will, as I understand it, have their records reflect that.  And if the basis of the prior excommunication/discipline was due to dangerous/predatory behavior, sexual abuse of children, for example, then the Church imposes essentially permanent restrictions on priesthood leaders extending to such an individual a calling which involves interaction with children (the restriction can be removed by a petition to the First Presidency, but I suspect such petitions are very rarely granted).  So I am not sure how you can say this amounts to "and it's like nothing happened."

Second, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is all about giving hope to sinners.  Re-baptism allows even the most depraved of our brothers and sisters to have some hope.  It is therefore not our place to judge anyone in the ultimate sense.  "For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son."  (John 5:22).  This does not mean we are throwing our hands up and saying "it's like nothing happened."  We are simply seeking to do what the Lord has asked us to do (preach the Gospel and administer its saving ordinances), knowing that the ultimate arbitration of the efficacy of those ordinances is, proverbially speaking, above our pay grade.

Finally, the Restored Gospel includes a complete assurance that all of us will be judged in both justice and mercy.  So a re-baptism is only efficacious if it is sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise.  That, to me, is very comforting.  It places the burden of ultimate judgment where it rightly belongs.

I'm not sure what you mean here.  I personally know of situations where a person has committed serious offenses, but who have repented and made amends as best they could and have sought to return to full fellowship in the Church.  In some of these situations the aggrieved parties have not been fully capable of forgiving the penitent party.  Is the penitent, in your view, to therefore be forever precluded from repenting and re-establishing fellowship in the Church?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

That's correct it should seem like sometimes and every situation is different if rebaptism was ruled out. Like if for example Charles Manson was a member and got exed, could be get out of jail (he'll never of course but if he did) get rebaptized, he did some awful stuff in his day. I agree with what you say about children but adults can go after adults, either violently, sexually etc. That's the hard part, if someone is repentant but the offended party hasn't forgiven them, I don't agree that they should hold up rebaptism but I think some validity of some kind should be granted to the offended party-how I don't know but in Canadian Courts they have this Victim impact statement that the offended party, family etc. can read in court and say how they feel about the situation, although I think they do that after a conviction otherwise it would be a moot thing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
smac97    6,397
2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

That's correct it should seem like sometimes and every situation is different if rebaptism was ruled out. Like if for example Charles Manson was a member and got exed, could be get out of jail (he'll never of course but if he did) get rebaptized, he did some awful stuff in his day. I agree with what you say about children but adults can go after adults, either violently, sexually etc. That's the hard part, if someone is repentant but the offended party hasn't forgiven them, I don't agree that they should hold up rebaptism but I think some validity of some kind should be granted to the offended party-how I don't know but in Canadian Courts they have this Victim impact statement that the offended party, family etc. can read in court and say how they feel about the situation, although I think they do that after a conviction otherwise it would be a moot thing to do.

What are your thoughts about the people of Anti-Nephi Lehi?

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
Duncan    3,500
9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What are your thoughts about the people of Anti-Nephi Lehi?

Thanks,

-Smac

well, if Pres. McKay were alive then he know for sure the Book of Mormon was historical! (I think he does) but the fact they went through a religious  conversion and it says there was love in the land, as per Alma 26.  it seems few had a problem with them then, although does it say they were baptized or rebaptized afer their conversion?

Share this post


Link to post
rpn    1,206
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

First, a person who is re-baptized into the Church will, as I understand it, have their records reflect that.

Not true.  After re-baptism, records reflect original baptism date and ordinance dates (though since temple blessings have to be restored by a separate ordinance, it is possible that original temple ordinances don't show up until that ordinance is done).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Kenngo1969    4,487
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Well we could burn them at the stake but there are probably some ethical and legal problems in there somewhere.

I was thinking "Firing Squad," but, you know, same deal. :huh::unknw: 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Calm    20,739
47 minutes ago, rpn said:

Not true.  After re-baptism, records reflect original baptism date and ordinance dates (though since temple blessings have to be restored by a separate ordinance, it is possible that original temple ordinances don't show up until that ordinance is done).

There must be a way they track them, however, since if they get excommunicated again, it becomes more difficult and either two or three times, iirc, they are not allowed to be reinstated again.

Share this post


Link to post
USU78    2,876

Break out the comfy chair!!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
bsjkki    994

Is the ward entitled to know if one of their members is a registered sex offender? What about other crimes? When should ward members know or not know if someone was excommunicated? Should all substitutes in primary have to be cleared by the Bishop? 

Share this post


Link to post
Duncan    3,500
12 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Is the ward entitled to know if one of their members is a registered sex offender? What about other crimes? When should ward members know or not know if someone was excommunicated? Should all substitutes in primary have to be cleared by the Bishop? 

good questions, some people are very open about their life and stuff, especially now with social media

Share this post


Link to post
rpn    1,206
Quote

it becomes more difficult and either two or three times, iirc, they are not allowed to be reinstated again.

So you think God has a limit on how many times you can repent?     I am aware of someone who has been rebaptized five times over many years.  Each time the time between gets longer.   No God is  not going to prevent you from returning to Him no matter how many times you have to do it.  (now reinstatement of temple blessings is a different story).

Share this post


Link to post
rpn    1,206

Sometimes, the first a bishop knows about a registered sex offender in his congregation is when some ward member tells him.   Since I know that statistically speaking my congregation is far more at risk from dastardly deed of people who aren't registered, than the ones who are, and further that people get on the registry for things like peeing in the park if the wrong people happen to be there and for being 18 and 1 day and sexually doing consensual play with their 16 year old girlfriend that her parent insisted on having prosecuted against the girlfriend's will, meaning that being on the list isn't a good way to determine who is a danger anyway.  

More importantly, if every congregation honors the two deep leadership every time, and parents teach their children that they do not have to do anything a grownup tells them to do except their parents and no one should be touching their private parts or speaking to them about private or sexual things, or asking for their help, and no matter what a grownup says, they can always tell the parent or a teacher  or someone they trust, the risk goes waaaay down, even if it should turn out that a sexual predator  attends their sacrament meetings.   (When bishops are made aware, they usually assign the person an permanent escort while on church property.)

Share this post


Link to post
sunstoned    757
4 hours ago, Duncan said:

It seems like my Mumsie knows everything and she earlier told me about this tragic incident in our Stake about 16 years ago now. I knew a bit of the story but not everything and I confirmed with someone else what she had told me. Long story short somebody was excommunicated for doing something really bad and it didn't stop there and that is where the other bad part of the story happened. I don't want to seem callous but do you think excommunication is enough for someone's behaviour? like they do something so bad but it seems like it isn't enough as a deterrent or punishment or what 

There is not much a church can do past excommunication.  Blood Enthronement is not legal, and the state is the only organization that can impose restitution, prison, or other punishments.  Even the state is limited by the law of the land, and due process must be followed.  However, a church leader can inform the the legal authorities if he suspects a serious crime.  

I would push back on the idea to ban or excommunicate a person for life.  To me that seems like an effort to negate the atonement of Christ.  No sin is too great for the Lord to forgive.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Robert F. Smith    10,596
4 hours ago, ALarson said:

Excommunicating a person from the church does not cut them "off from God".  

Depends on your definition of excommunication.  To some it means the turning over of them to the buffetings of Satan, to others it is only a self-imposed restraint on taking the Sacrament or in praying as voice for a church meeting, etc. -- part of a long process of repentance.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×