Excommunication in the Church

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Well, you don't need to, but the Church will. Do you realize that in the case I described, the perpetrator would have an annotation made to their membership record, for life, stating that they are not allowed to be alone with children or hold any calling that involves children?

H.

As they should. But removing membership from someone who has fully repented before the Lord, been tried and sentenced in a court of justice, and received confirmation of forgiveness (as described in the scenario) is an unnecessary step. How much spiritual blood will be enough?

[Pahoran]

As they should. But removing membership from someone who has fully repented before the Lord, been tried and sentenced in a court of justice, and received confirmation of forgiveness (as described in the scenario) is an unnecessary step. How much spiritual blood will be enough?

"Spiritual blood?" Dramatic much?

The problem, BOML, is that the ostensibly penitent person's own "confirmation of forgiveness" is not accessible to the members of the disciplinary council. They need to hear the facts and seek their own confirmation as to what the Lord would want them to do in that instance.

Sometimes it will be to say "Go and sin no more," and sometimes it will be to reduce or remove their membership privileges for a time.

Now from time to time, mistakes will occur, but let's be clear on this point: anyone who takes it upon himself -- or herself -- to condemn either the Church or the members of the DC, when they did not sit in the room and are not privy to all the facts that were there heard, is himself -- or herself -- guilty of passing unrighteous judgement.

And it also seems to me that any genuinely repentant person will accept with meekness whatever disciplinary action the council chooses to take. If such a person starts complaining bitterly to all and sundry that they were hard done by, then I take that as evidence that they weren't fully repentant in the first place.

Regards,

Pahoran

[LDS Guy 1986]

"Spiritual blood?" Dramatic much?

The problem, BOML, is that the ostensibly penitent person's own "confirmation of forgiveness" is not accessible to the members of the disciplinary council. They need to hear the facts and seek their own confirmation as to what the Lord would want them to do in that instance.

Sometimes it will be to say "Go and sin no more," and sometimes it will be to reduce or remove their membership privileges for a time.

Now from time to time, mistakes will occur, but let's be clear on this point: anyone who takes it upon himself -- or herself -- to condemn either the Church or the members of the DC, when they did not sit in the room and are not privy to all the facts that were there heard, is himself -- or herself -- guilty of passing unrighteous judgement.

And it also seems to me that any genuinely repentant person will accept with meekness whatever disciplinary action the council chooses to take. If such a person starts complaining bitterly to all and sundry that they were hard done by, then I take that as evidence that they weren't fully repentant in the first place.

Regards,

Pahoran

On the same foot though unless an unforgivable sin has been committed a DC cannot say they judged by the direction of the Holy Ghost if the excommunicate someone that they know to be completely repentant. We are told to forgive the repentant and cast out the unrepentant in the D&C.

To excommunicate someone who is genuinely and truely repentant (with the exception of unforgivable sins)is not following the Holy Ghost and the DC will face the judgement they gave unto those they judged.

The sword cuts both ways here, and God is never a receptor of persons!

[Calm]

An article that demonstrates well imo on a practical level how church leaders see the excommunication process and how it should be used:

http://lds.org/ldsor...a____&hideNav=1

The description is extremely far from equating to anything that could be described in my mind as "casting out".

[Calm]

Here is another member who does not view "casting out" as equivalent to excommunication (but rather as a subset of excommunication, thus one who is cast out is excommunicated, but not necessarily someone who is excommunicated is "cast out").

After the initial administering of the sacrament, the Master specified that it was to be given only to those worthy to partake of it; however, he was very clear that members should not cast out the unworthy. (3 Ne. 18:28

[mfbukowski]

As they should. But removing membership from someone who has fully repented before the Lord, been tried and sentenced in a court of justice, and received confirmation of forgiveness (as described in the scenario) is an unnecessary step. How much spiritual blood will be enough?

Just a tad dramatic.

I would like to see evidence that this actually happens on a regular basis. If it does, it is a violation of policy and should be stopped. I think a letter to a GA would do the trick.

It's all fantasy as far as I can see.

We have already seen the policy on excommunication and this scenario is NOT policy.

[bluebell]

Here is another member who does not view "casting out" as equivalent to excommunication (but rather as a subset of excommunication, thus one who is cast out is excommunicated, but not necessarily someone who is excommunicated is "cast out").

http://lds.org/ldsor...a____&hideNav=1

---

I have gone through every example in the scriptures using the phrase "cast out" and in each case where context is enough to judge, it includes a physical separation, completely removing someone or something from direct contact. Considering how we not only allow but encourage most excommunicated members to join with us physically, emotionally, and spiritually and only limit their participation in certain essential ways, scriptural usage of "cast out" seems to me to follow the concept of "casting out" being a subset of excommunication, not the equivalent act.

If someone disagrees with this claim I would like to see a scripture occurence where "casting out" occurred and yet there was direct contact maintained in the context being described.

PS: if your solution is to point to something that says "casting out" means "excommunication, remember that I don't disagree with this definition. What I disagree with is that "excommunication" specifically means "casting out".

I think that makes sense Cal. I don't see that excommunication and casting out in the sense that the scriptures use the word are always synonomous(sp?).

[mfbukowski]

"Spiritual blood?" Dramatic much?

Lol!

See above- I hadn't seen this when I posted!

[TAO]

I agree with you on this 100% the only guaranteed excommunication is for murder (I would throw in also denying the Holy Ghost but this extremely rare) this is because murder is unforgivable. To intentionally kill the innocent is unforgivable once cannot be saved from such conduct, so excommunication is required.

No, it's not quite unforgivable... it is just very hard to be forgiven for. In fact, I think it depends on your degree of knowledge... but for someone knowledgeable, you might end up like David.

I know it's not that much different... but there are people out there, who I think, committed under a lesser degree of knowledge, who will be able to obtain repentance if they try very very hard.

[inquiringmind]

No, it's not quite unforgivable... it is just very hard to be forgiven for. In fact, I think it depends on your degree of knowledge... but for someone knowledgeable, you might end up like David.

How exactly did David end up?

Is he lost?

[mercyngrace]

PS: if your solution is to point to something that says "casting out" means "excommunication, remember that I don't disagree with this definition. What I disagree with is that "excommunication" specifically means "casting out".

So are you saying that the usage of "cast out" in D&C 42 is or is not a reference to excommunication?

The reason I ask is because the Institute Manual referencing this section completely replaces the term "cast out" with excommunicate, and this is the scriptural basis I used for saying penitent people should receive a lesser form of discipline. See the relevant section here:

D&C 42:18

[David T]

since the disciplinary council is specifically about the sinner.

From the CHI:

The purposes of Church discipline are (1) to save the souls of transgressors, (2) to protect the innocent and (3) to safeguard the purity, integrity, and good name of the Church.

Other elements, such as 2 and 3, are also what the disciplinary council is specifically about.

[mercyngrace]

From the CHI:

The purposes of Church discipline are (1) to save the souls of transgressors, (2) to protect the innocent and (3) to safeguard the purity, integrity, and good name of the Church.

Other elements, such as 2 and 3, are also what the disciplinary council is specifically about.

Yes. I mentioned those other aspects and their source on page one of the thread. There's never been any question about the church policy on the matter. The question has always been whether those elements override repentance.

[TAO]

How exactly did David end up?

Is he lost?

He lost his exaltation. He can't reside in the highest level of the celestial. Where he is at, I do not know... just not exalted. Perhaps he is in the terrestrial.

[MorningStar]

To clarify my thoughts on this thread:

1. I don't think excommunication is a black and white issue or that it is the only form of church discipline.

2. Excommunication might be the "rock bottom" some people need to get them over that hurdle. They might feel remorse, but powerless to actually give up what they are doing, which is a very important part of repentance. Like an addict, some people have to lose something very precious to them before they can change. Or maybe they don't realize how precious it is until they have lost it. I really appreciated the article and how it described it as a cleansing process for the person.

3. I don't think all people who do (fill in the blank) should automatically be excommunicated (except for murder). There are a lot of factors to consider.

4. We have some differing interpretations of scriptures here. I don't agree that the church is going against the scriptures when excommunicating for the reasons given. We are a church of continuing revelation. I trust the apostles on this and from personal experience, the reasons given are important. I keep thinking of the scripture that it is better to have a millstone hung around your neck than to offend a child.

5. Any member of the church who makes the kind of mistake that would get them excommunicated is absolutely aware of the possibility and they made the conscious choice to behave in that way anyway. They should be prepared for things not to go in the way they hope and hopefully the Spirit will be followed.

6. A person shouldn't desire excommunication for another out of revenge. My father-in-law knew a woman who left because her husband slept with a prostitute. He was excommunicated, but she was angry because she wanted the church to say that he could never come back, which is unreasonable. Being traumatized by the person's participation in the church is something I consider a different issue and not something I would consider unforgiving or vengeful.

[mfbukowski]

So are you saying that the usage of "cast out" in D&C 42 is or is not a reference to excommunication?

The reason I ask is because the Institute Manual referencing this section completely replaces the term "cast out" with excommunicate, and this is the scriptural basis I used for saying penitent people should receive a lesser form of discipline.

This could be the basis for the confusion. That is why I asked for your source. This does NOT correspond to what the Handbook says.

I think what we have here is an old manual which has not yet been brought up to date with present policy, and is the cause of all this confusion.

[mercyngrace]

To clarify my thoughts on this thread:

1. I don't think excommunication is a black and white issue or that it is the only form of church discipline.

2. Excommunication might be the "rock bottom" some people need to get them over that hurdle. They might feel remorse, but powerless to actually give up what they are doing, which is a very important part of repentance. Like an addict, some people have to lose something very precious to them before they can change. Or maybe they don't realize how precious it is until they have lost it. I really appreciated the article and how it described it as a cleansing process for the person.

3. I don't think all people who do (fill in the blank) should automatically be excommunicated (except for murder). There are a lot of factors to consider.

4. We have some differing interpretations of scriptures here. I don't agree that the church is going against the scriptures when excommunicating for the reasons given. We are a church of continuing revelation. I trust the apostles on this and from personal experience, the reasons given are important. I keep thinking of the scripture that it is better to have a millstone hung around your neck than to offend a child.

5. Any member of the church who makes the kind of mistake that would get them excommunicated is absolutely aware of the possibility and they made the conscious choice to behave in that way anyway. They should be prepared for things not to go in the way they hope and hopefully the Spirit will be followed.

6. A person shouldn't desire excommunication for another out of revenge. My father-in-law knew a woman who left because her husband slept with a prostitute. He was excommunicated, but she was angry because she wanted the church to say that he could never come back, which is unreasonable. Being traumatized by the person's participation in the church is something I consider a different issue and not something I would consider unforgiving or vengeful.

I agree with almost everything you've said here, MS.

Two points I want to clarify -

Re: #4: I understand why the natural reaction is to consider the absolute worst imaginable crime as the justification for exceptional rules but as styro's comment shows, (presuming I understood what he said) we're talking about penitent people getting ex'ed for much less than incest or molestations. According to what he wrote, he just got a divorce against the counsel of his priesthood leader.

Re: #6: I just want to be clear that when I referred to offending people's sensibilities, I was not thinking about people being vengeful or spiteful. I was thinking about the fact that we might consider offending our detractors above saving a transgressor. I'm sure this will be the unpopular opinion but I actually think the church's reputation would be enhanced (whether or not there is an excommunication) by reaching out publicly to high-profile transgressors and showing forth an increase of love to them and their families. Ask yourself what you think of the Amish? I know the analogy is imperfect but consider how mesmerized we were when these people who had been so violated reached out to care for their offenders.

[mercyngrace]

This could be the basis for the confusion. That is why I asked for your source. This does NOT correspond to what the Handbook says.

I think what we have here is an old manual which has not yet been brought up to date with present policy, and is the cause of all this confusion.

mfb - you are the best peacemaker ever but the CHI is brand new as is the Institute manual and the D&C manual (2001) does address baptism approval through the FP for murderers. And I'm not sure how out-of-date we consider D&C 42. Actually, iirc, the new institute manual further down in that section speaks more to murder and likely mentions the newer practice but since that wasn't the topic I was addressing I didn't cut and paste that bit.

Dang me for getting caught up in this thread again ... this board really is an addiction.

[David T]

mfb - you are the best peacemaker ever but the CHI is brand new as is the Institute manual. And I'm not sure how out-of-date we consider D&C 42. Actually, iirc, the new institute manual further down in that section speaks more to murder and likely mentions the newer practice but since that wasn't the topic I was addressing I didn't cut and paste that bit.

Dang me for getting caught up in this thread again ... this board really is an addiction.

?? When did the new D&C manual come out? Is it linked to online? Where are you cutting and pasting from? I'm only seeing the old edition (written in 1981, slightly updated in 2001) available both on institute.lds.org and on store.lds.org

[mercyngrace]

?? When did the new D&C manual come out? Is it linked to online? I'm only seeing the old edition available both on institute.lds.org and on store.lds.org

Is there a head smacking emoticon that I'm just not seeing? I got mixed up between the BOM and D&C institute manuals - IIRC, I used both of them in the comment mfb excerpted and was thinking of the wrong one. The BOM is new, the D&C is from 2001, iirc. No the new one isn't out yet. Unfortunately, that doesn't really change my response about the manual not being outdated because rebaptism for murder with FP approval is mentioned in the manual.

[Calm]

Not going to respond to individual posts as life is a bit complicated right now and I don't want to make my head spin anymore than it is right now so am keeping things simple.

I think it is clear from the comparison of the CHI usage of excommunication and various ensign and other comments about how we are to treat excommunicated individuals that the usage of "cast off" is problematic, especially if one uses the identical context that is obvious in the scriputures in pretty much all of the 161 appearances of the term "cast off"("casting out" in the scriptures almost always being used to describe a physical/spiritual removal where there is no further contact such as casting out of demons, casting out and trodding underfoot, etc.). The only way to logically solve these contradictions is to assume that "cast off" is a subset of excommunication, that excommunications may include "casting off", but "casting off" is not considered essential, necessary, etc. to excommunication.

If my logic is correct, then it is problematic to use scriptures dealing specifically with "casting off" to condemn or support what occurs in excommunications in general as "casting off" scriptures would only apply to the extreme cases where the individual is banished from the spiritual community.

If one chooses to use any manual to defend the equating of the definition of "casting out" with "excommunication" then one has to explain why other manuals---especially those specifically designed to address the excommunication topic---do not equate the practice of "casting out" as described in the scriptures with the practice of "excommunication" as it takes place in our day and age since the latter case is the practical demonstration of scriptural interpretation of the brethren, imo. Policy is the living interpretation of scripture, it is one thing for policy to add something to scripture, it is another for it to contradict it. If policy appears to contradict doctrine, then I would suggest that we need to seriously examine whether it is the doctrine that is contradicted or our personal interpretation of that doctrine.

Just a statement of my position, no need to respond.

okay, couldn't resist just a bit of specificness with the quotes---since "casting off" is a subset of "excommunication" it is correct to say that someone who has not repented is excommunicated because casting out is one form of excommunication. That however does not logically require that "not repenting" is a requirement for all forms of excommunication anymore than saying that since someone who drives without a driver's license is going to get legally in trouble implies that anyone who is legally in trouble has been driving without a license nor does it imply that if one person is thrown in jail because they are legally in trouble, all people who are legally in trouble must also be thrown in jail if one is consistent in applying the law...because the law dealing with traffic or other violations has a variety of ways it can be implemented (iow, one should not assume the subset equals the overall set either in causes or effects).

As far as the institute manual directly substituting the word...if it was standard practice to not only equate the words, but the actions which the words are labels for, then that reference would be more impressive to me. However since the direct equivalences occur only one or two times in all the publications of the Church, I find it less than persuasive.