Excommunication of Landon Brophy

[Pyreaux]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

Then if you don’t really care, it seems it is all about making sure the other guy isn’t happy. (I don’t understand your reasoning based on what you said…you are good with using both, but you are critical of others using Mormon…why is it a problem for them if not for you, so I am trying to be very clear on how it comes across, not attack you)

I care, just not out of fear or a rigid taboo, but I do agree it's overused and prefer to avoid using Mormon too repetitively, or at other times to avoid confusion over the denomination, I may use it interchangeably, which seems like a fairly normal thing. I'm critical when others say that I must call them Ex-Mormons if I'm a decent person. If I dare to use an alternative term and they pretend they don't even understand English ('Ex-LDS') to force me to comply. The power dynamics of compelled speech.

I use both terms casually. And it doesn't bother me when others use 'Mormon' either. I’m not the one policing their vocabulary, I'm resisting their attempt to police mine. Or that it's somehow a matter of courtesy. Choosing a completely neutral, vanilla descriptor like 'ex-LDS' inside a faithful forum isn't an attempt to make anyone unhappy. They are just unhappy contrarians trying to find any reason to be mad.

We all might not be naturally rigid people in real life, but the internet forum sandbox often demands that we play a defensive role.

Edited Sunday at 01:08 PM by Pyreaux

[Tony uk]

I vaguely remember when I joined this Dialogue, almost 2 years ago. Apart from introducing myself, for which I was warmly greeted, asking about appropriate terminology. So as not to cause any unnecessary concerns or offence. 

I find, that maybe or maybe not, it maybe easy for some people. To feel better, or to get comfort in their own position, to offend or belittle others, to feel they are gaining self approval for their own position.

I remember when I was younger, back in the early 1970's. The Island family came to the United Kingdom. The people presenting certain TV programmes would refer to the Osmond's as 'Mormons'. Being a very young child, and not being familiar with that term. I asked a adult family member, 'What's a Mormon's. The reply I vaguely remember getting, whas something about it being 'An American Thing '😳. Fortunately, as I got older, I learnt better, and now understand.

It becomes easier, unfortunately, for people who do not understand either, understand what little they know of others. To offend others, rather than understand another person's genuine attempt to become a better person.

If, by chance, I have actually offended anybody by this post, and anything that I have said. I genuinely apologise in advance.

[Stargazer]

On 5/29/2026 at 9:53 AM, Calm said:

redid it with ex-LDS.org and that didn’t come up (can you have a dash in an address?).

I believe this will answer your question with more information than you need or want. Yes, dashes are permitted. I've seen plenty of URLs with it. Generally, this is the list of allowable characters in a URL (after the protocol identifier -- http:// or https:// or ftps:// etc):

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789-._~:/?#[]@!$&'()*+,;=

Spaces are not permitted, as spaces, but can be encoded with the percent sign as a prefix followed by the hexadecimal value for "space" (from the ASCII table) like this: "%20". 

Of course it's more complicated than that. 

[Stargazer]

On 5/30/2026 at 6:23 PM, Tacenda said:

I think the church makes it worse when they ex communicate people for speaking out about the church.

When someone makes it very clear that they are an enemy of the Church by publicly and continually attacking its leaders, its beliefs and doctrine, then it seems obvious to me that they should not be allowed to do so from the congregation of the faithful. By NOT withdrawing their membership the Church might seem to tacitly approve their attacks. The Church is a voluntary association of faith with standards of behavior. When a member goes contrary to those standards, and refuse to even meet with the leadership to discuss their behavior, then why should they be permitted to continue to attack it as a member? 

On 5/30/2026 at 6:23 PM, Tacenda said:

Sure ex communicate evil people, but Landon and even Dehlin seem far fetched. Especially when Radiofree Mormon hasn't been ex'd why would that be? Unless he already took his name off of church records. Which wasn't so as long as I can remember. I no longer watch/listen to anything on Mormon Discussions, or it's been many months. And suing Dehlin is probably a bad move especially if it draws people to him.

Perhaps it draws people to him, but if it does draw people to him, the suit makes it clear to them that he is not using the term "Mormon" in a benign way, and is in fact an opponent of the Church. The suit is intended to make him stop using the term "Mormon" in a way that implies he's friendly when he is not. Once that object is obtained, fewer people will be "drawn" to him. 

[Tacenda]

20 hours ago, Stargazer said:

When someone makes it very clear that they are an enemy of the Church by publicly and continually attacking its leaders, its beliefs and doctrine, then it seems obvious to me that they should not be allowed to do so from the congregation of the faithful. By NOT withdrawing their membership the Church might seem to tacitly approve their attacks. The Church is a voluntary association of faith with standards of behavior. When a member goes contrary to those standards, and refuse to even meet with the leadership to discuss their behavior, then why should they be permitted to continue to attack it as a member? 

Perhaps it draws people to him, but if it does draw people to him, the suit makes it clear to them that he is not using the term "Mormon" in a benign way, and is in fact an opponent of the Church. The suit is intended to make him stop using the term "Mormon" in a way that implies he's friendly when he is not. Once that object is obtained, fewer people will be "drawn" to him. 

I guess, I'd just like the church to be far from how the Danites were. I want the church, I'm still a member, to keep being the awesome organization they've been. I think they should just let their light shine, and look away. Love their enemies so to speak. 

[Tacenda]

On 5/31/2026 at 3:57 AM, Tony uk said:

I vaguely remember when I joined this Dialogue, almost 2 years ago. Apart from introducing myself, for which I was warmly greeted, asking about appropriate terminology. So as not to cause any unnecessary concerns or offence. 

I find, that maybe or maybe not, it maybe easy for some people. To feel better, or to get comfort in their own position, to offend or belittle others, to feel they are gaining self approval for their own position.

I remember when I was younger, back in the early 1970's. The Island family came to the United Kingdom. The people presenting certain TV programmes would refer to the Osmond's as 'Mormons'. Being a very young child, and not being familiar with that term. I asked a adult family member, 'What's a Mormon's. The reply I vaguely remember getting, whas something about it being 'An American Thing '😳. Fortunately, as I got older, I learnt better, and now understand.

It becomes easier, unfortunately, for people who do not understand either, understand what little they know of others. To offend others, rather than understand another person's genuine attempt to become a better person.

If, by chance, I have actually offended anybody by this post, and anything that I have said. I genuinely apologise in advance.

I've never, not once, seen you offend anyone, quite the opposite is true. ❤️

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I guess, I'd just like the church to be far from how the Danites were. I want the church, I'm still a member, to keep being the awesome organization they've been. I think they should just let their light shine, and look away. Love their enemies so to speak. 

The Danites went for direct action -- physically. Just removing a rebellious member from membership doesn't quite rise to the level of Danite.

And the Church definitely still loves Mr. Brophy. And will welcome him back with great warmth as soon as he repents.

[Tony uk]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I've never, not once, seen you offend anyone, quite the opposite is true. ❤️

Many thanks for your kind words. I think being on this Dialogue, and communicating with the good people here, as been a great help to me. 

[Stargazer]

If one wants to see something interesting in regards to Catholicism that bears a slight, very slight resemblance to this issue with Mr. Brophy, check out Ready To Harvest's recounting of the situation with a semi(?) breakaway group called the Society of St Pius X (SSPX). The video is HERE if you want to be enlightened over this. I guess Ready to Harvest's question is "Will SSPX Schism?" Apparently, previous Popes have excommunicated officials of SSPX (later un-excommunicating them), whose reactions seemed to come down to accepting the authority of the pope while ignoring the excommunication: "No, you didn't. You just think you did."

In short, SSPX was founded back in 1970 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. He was not happy with the results of Vatican II, to include the Mass and other ordinances said in local languages, instead of Latin. I guess there are more issues in play, but that's at least one of them. The society has over 700 priestly members, and a total of 1,482 members (this means officials of various sorts). Several religious institutes, mostly based in France, are associated with the society. Globally, there are an estimated 600,000 people who attend SSPX Masses.

Someone in the video's comment section quoted a line from "The Last Samurai" -> "I am surprised to learn that the word Samurai means, 'to serve', and that Katsumoto believes his rebellion to be in the service of the Emperor."

 

[3DOP]

22 hours ago, Stargazer said:

If one wants to see something interesting in regards to Catholicism that bears a slight, very slight resemblance to this issue with Mr. Brophy, check out Ready To Harvest's recounting of the situation with a semi(?) breakaway group called the Society of St Pius X (SSPX). The video is HERE if you want to be enlightened over this. I guess Ready to Harvest's question is "Will SSPX Schism?" Apparently, previous Popes have excommunicated officials of SSPX (later un-excommunicating them), whose reactions seemed to come down to accepting the authority of the pope while ignoring the excommunication: "No, you didn't. You just think you did."

In short, SSPX was founded back in 1970 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. He was not happy with the results of Vatican II, to include the Mass and other ordinances said in local languages, instead of Latin. I guess there are more issues in play, but that's at least one of them. The society has over 700 priestly members, and a total of 1,482 members (this means officials of various sorts). Several religious institutes, mostly based in France, are associated with the society. Globally, there are an estimated 600,000 people who attend SSPX Masses.

Someone in the video's comment section quoted a line from "The Last Samurai" -> "I am surprised to learn that the word Samurai means, 'to serve', and that Katsumoto believes his rebellion to be in the service of the Emperor."

 

Hi Stargazer. I couldn't pass this up. I don't expect much interest. If the internet swallows it, okay.

That wasn't a bad summary of the situation of the Society of St. Pius X. I won't bore you with all the corrections I would make. I will focus only on the issue of full and partial communion.

At the Council, the Church wanted to recognize that in a certain respect, those groups which had broken away from Rome centuries before, have given evidence of fruitful graces of God, which should be recognized. The Council simultaneously expressed the ongoing responsibility of the Church to persuade these "separated brethren" to join in the unity of the Catholic Church.

In my opinion, this is where the distinction between full and partial communion is legitimate. The Catholic Church has no wish to minimize the value of "mere Christianity". In the explanation of the truth about salvation only through Christ and His Church, the Church does not believe or teach and never has taught that only visibly enrolled members of the Catholic Church can be saved. 

Full communion is not necessary for a soul to be saved. Of course we think it is less likely, but partial communion is necessary. This idea has developed gradually over time as a means of recognizing two truths that have been proposed since ancient times. First, that we have hope for the salvation of all who have died; and secondly, that no one is saved outside of the Catholic Church. 

Written from my back deck, in clear view of the towers of the Immaculata, the largest SSPX church in the world,

3DOP 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 8 hours ago by 3DOP

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Full communion is not necessary for a soul to be saved. Of course we think it is less likely, but partial communion is necessary. This idea has developed gradually over time as a means of recognizing two truths that have been proposed since ancient times. First, that we have hope for the salvation of all who have died; and secondly, that no one is saved outside of the Catholic Church. 

To me this is a reasonable and logical approach to reconciling those two truths and the evidence that there are those who do good outside the Catholic faith and the natural desire to have hope of salvation for others.

I think the LDS belief of being able to perform proxy temple ordinances may be seen as equivalent to offering full communion to all who desire it, thus resolving the question of salvation for those not in full membership with the LDS faith.  We keep it open for even those who get excommunicated in mortality allowing God to judge whether they rejected him and his promises and covenants or not (I personally don’t see how anyone mortal can comprehend what that rejection amounts to, so I think if there is anyone who won’t get their actual chance to choose God after death but have taking that step already in mortality, it surely will be just the few who had the most complete knowledge a mortal can have, which would likely require them being fully in at some point to receive that witness, and then turned their hearts intentionally away from God as Lucifer did).

[3DOP]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

To me this is a reasonable and logical approach to reconciling those two truths and the evidence that there are those who do good outside the Catholic faith and the natural desire to have hope of salvation for others.

I think the LDS belief of being able to perform proxy temple ordinances may be seen as equivalent to offering full communion to all who desire it, thus resolving the question of salvation for those not in full membership with the LDS faith.  We keep it open for even those who get excommunicated in mortality allowing God to judge whether they rejected him and his promises and covenants or not (I personally don’t see how anyone mortal can comprehend what that rejection amounts to, so I think if there is anyone who won’t get their actual chance to choose God after death but have taking that step already in mortality, it surely will be just the few who had the most complete knowledge a mortal can have, which would likely require them being fully in at some point to receive that witness, and then turned their hearts intentionally away from God as Lucifer did).

Amen, cal. I think both of our churches are on the same page in this regard. In other ways, we are, to be honest, radically different. Still, a sign of hope, especially since "love believeth all things."

Mr. Pollyanna