Calm Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 Perhaps but in the early days of the church people did a lot of things we don't do today.And there are usually good reasons for why, usually because it has been clarified that something else can be done in place of a particular act.But the symbolic nature of the rebaptism act and what it meant (not just a renewal of what already existed) still remains. Rebaptism in the case of extreme sin against others and/or the Church has always been the standard.It would appear that in this one case it is felt necessary to make a distinction between a 'renewal' which is what the sacrament is and a 'restoration' of blessings. A sin that results in excommunication is likely to have caused a significant separation between that individual and the Spirit, to the point that the covenant with the Lord is no longer written on their hearts. In that case it makes sense to me for rebaptism to take place so that a full restoration of blessings can be restored.
mercyngrace Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 God allows for some consequences to be attached to any sinful behaviour that we cannot avoid even if on an eternal basis all is forgiven and as if it never happened. There are always consequences. That doesn't mean there must always be excommunication. And fwiw, I never defined penitence or repentance as simply saying "I'm sorry". Knowing the bitter is what drives one to repent. If one hasn't suffered godly sorrow then they haven't repented, regardless of their status in the church.
Calm Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 There are always consequences. That doesn't mean there must always be excommunication. And there isn't always excommunication. And fwiw, I never defined penitence or repentance as simply saying "I'm sorry". Sorry if the way I wrote that implied that you did.
mercyngrace Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 I guess I'm confused. Do you think excommunication should never be done if the person repents?I never say never. And if you reread my comments throughout the thread, I've even pointed to the exceptions explicitly listed in scripture.
mercyngrace Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 And there isn't always excommunication.No there isn't but that isn't the genesis of the conversation. Where I feel we go astray from the scriptures is in excommunicating a person who has already shown repentance. If repentance is already accomplished, then the purposes of excommunication are already served.I have not said in this thread that excommunication should never be used. Not once.
Calm Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 Where I feel we go astray from the scriptures is in excommunicating a person who has already shown repentance. I think the issue here is how we define "repentance". In my opinion, it is just not an internal state, but it requires some external behaviours as well, including restitution to those we have wronged/harmed directly and the community we have indirectly wronged/harmed. I see submitting oneself to the process of excommunication and all that it involves in one's return to full restoration of one's blessings as part of the restitution process. Leave out the excommunication and full repentance cannot occur in this lifetime (or at least as full as we are capable of in mortality).Like baptism itself that requires an outward expression of internal behaviours, the process of excommunication (I include the rebaptism and all that happens inbetween in this process) can be the outward expression of that repentance.I think this is appropriate because the LDS faith is all about making the inner man the same as the outer man, having Christ written on our countenance as well as our heart imo.
bluebell Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 No there isn't but that isn't the genesis of the conversation. Where I feel we go astray from the scriptures is in excommunicating a person who has already shown repentance. If repentance is already accomplished, then the purposes of excommunication are already served.I have not said in this thread that excommunication should never be used. Not once.I agree that if repentance is already accomplished, that is a different issue. I could be wrong, but i don't think anyone is talking about when repentance is finished.I know that i was talking about when excommunication happens while the person is in the repentance process.
mercyngrace Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 I think the issue here is how we define "repentance". In my opinion, it is just not an internal state, but it requires some external behaviours as well, including restitution to those we have wronged/harmed directly and the community we have indirectly wronged/harmed. I see submitting oneself to the process of excommunication and all that it involves in one's return to full restoration of one's blessings as part of the restitution process. Leave out the excommunication and full repentance cannot occur in this lifetime (or at least as full as we are capable of in mortality).The D&C defines the outward verification of repentance as "confess and forsake". (58:43)
Calm Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 The D&C defines the outward verification of repentance as "confess and forsake". (58:43)And excommunication is how that is done in some cases.PS: I added to my previous post, perhaps that makes my position clearer.
mercyngrace Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 I agree that if repentance is already accomplished, that is a different issue. I could be wrong, but i don't think anyone is talking about when repentance is finished.I know that i was talking about when excommunication happens while the person is in the repentance process.But if you define excommunication as part of the repentance process then we all need to be excommunicated. And yet, we aren't all excommunicated, which means excommunication isn't part of the repentance process. It is a means of bringing the unrepentant to repentance.
Calm Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 What do you see as the result of an excommunication of a repentant individual? What are the potential consequences of that excommunication?
bluebell Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 But if you define excommunication as part of the repentance process then we all need to be excommunicated. And yet, we aren't all excommunicated, which means excommunication isn't part of the repentance process. It is a means of bringing the unrepentant to repentance.I'm sorry if it wasn't clear, but i'm speaking of sins that are serious enough to where excommunication could be a consequence. I thought given the topic that it would be assumed i was only speaking of repentance of such serious sins and not repentance in general.Obviously not all sins are that serious but some are. And for those, excommunication is absolutely a part of the repentance process.
mercyngrace Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 And excommunication is how that is done in some cases.PS: I added to my previous post, perhaps that makes my position clearer.Cal, Please see my last comment to BB. Excommunication brings the unrepentant to repentance. It doesn't make restitution - the truly penitent will do all they can to make restitution regardless of church status and only Chist can make full restitution in any case. The whole point of church discipline is helping people come back to Christ. How does cutting someone off from Christ and the covenant, who has already returned to Him, help that individual?I've made the same argument you and others are making many times before. It's not that I don't understand what you are saying. I just don't see support in the scriptures for excommunicating a person who has already repented and the fact that the scriptures themselves differentiate between the repentance process and excommunication shows that the latter is not considered part of the former.
mercyngrace Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 I'm sorry if it wasn't clear, but i'm speaking of sins that are serious enough to where excommunication could be a consequence. I thought given the topic that it would be assumed i was only speaking of repentance of such serious sins and not repentance in general.Obviously not all sins are that serious though. The further you move away from God, the further the trip back.You're clear - we just disagree And that's okay.I just posted this to Cal but I'll repeat because I think it's the most effective point I can make. The scriptures differentiate between the repentance process and excommunication which means that the latter is not part of the former. Otherwise section 42 wouldn't repeat numerous times that we only cast out those who do not repent. The scriptures say that if one repents we do not cast them out - if casting out is part of repenting then you can't do one and not the other. According to the scriptures you can do one and not the other hence they are not part and parcel of the same process regardless of the seriousness of the sin.edit: I should addd here that section 42 is talking about serious sins that currently affect church status.
mercyngrace Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 What do you see as the result of an excommunication of a repentant individual? What are the potential consequences of that excommunication?It doesn't matter what I see, Cal, it matters what the scriptures say.
Calm Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 How does cutting someone off from Christ and the covenant, who has already returned to Him, help that individual?Okay, I think I see the key point here.Where I think excommunication is appropriate for the repentant is when they have cut themselves off from the covenant through their actions. When sin has taken a person that far, I don't believe a renewal of the covenant through the sacrament is enough, rather there must be a restoration of the covenant. The excommunication process (the full process includes rebaptism imo) is preparing the person to receive that restoration and then restoring it.
Calm Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 You're clear - we just disagree And that's okay.I just posted this to Cal but I'll repeat because I think it's the most effective point I can make. The scriptures differentiate between the repentance process and excommunication which means that the latter is not part of the former. Otherwise section 42 wouldn't repeat numerous times that we only cast out those who do not repent. The scriptures say that if one repents we do not cast them out - if casting out is part of repenting then you can't do one and not the other. According to the scriptures you can do one and not the other hence they are not part and parcel of the same process regardless of the seriousness of the sin.You are equating "excommunication" with "casting out". Can I see how you connect the two through the scriptures since the actual term is not used in the scriptures?I tend to not judge something by its label, but by the actual behaviour involved. Excommunication may accompany "casting out", but I don't see excommunication as casting out in and of itself. It is never described that way in the policies of the Church, etc.
bluebell Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 You're clear - we just disagree And that's okay.I just posted this to Cal but I'll repeat because I think it's the most effective point I can make. The scriptures differentiate between the repentance process and excommunication which means that the latter is not part of the former. Otherwise section 42 wouldn't repeat numerous times that we only cast out those who do not repent. The scriptures say that if one repents we do not cast them out - if casting out is part of repenting then you can't do one and not the other. According to the scriptures you can do one and not the other hence they are not part and parcel of the same process regardless of the seriousness of the sin.I agree, we are simply in disagreement about what the scriptures are saying.
Calm Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 I equate the baptismal covenant to the marriage covenant in many ways. In marriage, if one's actions has brought one to the point where the marriage is null and void, even when one has repented of whatever brought one to that point, the marriage is not in force again...UNLESS the covenant itself is restored.Excommunication is the process through which there is a formal recognition that the baptismal covenant was broken and must be restored.
mercyngrace Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 Okay, I think I see the key point here.Where I think excommunication is appropriate for the repentant is when they have cut themselves off from the covenant through their actions. When sin has taken a person that far, I don't believe a renewal of the covenant through the sacrament is enough, rather there must be a restoration of the covenant. The excommunication process (the full process includes rebaptism imo) is preparing the person to receive that restoration and then restoring it.What specific sins require the excommunication process?That question is rhetorical because clearly there aren't any (except murder, iirc) otherwise there would be no need for church courts. We'd simply excommunicate based on the sin alone. Which we don't. According to the scriptures, the differentiating factor is supposed to be the individual.
Calm Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 90And if thy brother or sister offend many, he or she shall be achastened before many. 91And if any one offend aopenly, he or she shall be rebuked openly, that he or she may be bashamed. And if he or she confess not, he or she shall be delivered up unto the law of God.There appears to be no condition of repentance attached to these above actions. It turns out that these are the actions that I associate with excommunication rather than "casting out" which would be where the individual is delivered up unto the law of God (since they are no longer under the law of the Church at that point).
Calm Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 What specific sins require the excommunication process?... According to the scriptures, the differentiating factor is supposed to be the individual.Agreed, don't really see what difference this makes to any point any of us have made though.
mercyngrace Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 You are equating "excommunication" with "casting out". Can I see how you connect the two through the scriptures since the actual term is not used in the scriptures?I tend to not judge something by its label, but by the actual behaviour involved. Excommunication may accompany "casting out", but I don't see excommunication as casting out in and of itself. It is never described that way in the policies of the Church, etc.From LDS.orgD&C 42:37And it shall come to pass, that he that sinneth and repenteth not shall be acast out of the church, and shall not receive again that which he has bconsecrated unto the poor and the needy of my church, or in other words, unto me
Calm Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 From LDS.orgD&C 42:37And it shall come to pass, that he that sinneth and repenteth not shall be acast out of the church, and shall not receive again that which he has bconsecrated unto the poor and the needy of my church, or in other words, unto me
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.