Excommunication in the Church

[mercyngrace]

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).

Cal the verses leading up to these are explicitly regarding the unrepentant:

88And if thy brother or sister offend thee, thou shalt take him or her between him or her and thee alone; and if he or she confess thou shalt be reconciled.

89And if he or she confess not thou shalt deliver him or her up unto the church, not to the members, but to the elders. And it shall be done in a meeting, and that not before the world.

Confessing is part of the repentance process listed earlier in the chapter as confess and forsake. In other words, if a person confesses, we are to be reconciled. If they don't confess, they go before the church.

[mercyngrace]

It can definitely be part of the Excommunication process, but that does not mean that Excommunication is limited to solely that response. IIRC, there were excommunications during that historical time period where such things did not happen but rather were similar to those that happen today for those that were repentant.

PS: I do not consider the Topical Guide doctrinal and some of the footnotes are off as well.

I agree about the TG but I don't believe the sciptural language is murky here.

PS I meant "click" the link. My keyboard is acting up lately -or it could be my fingers Anywho - definitely don't LICK the link... that would be shocking...

[Calm]

Got to go do family stuff so am going to do one more post and then close for the night....

I don't believe what we label "Excommunication" is defined as solely "casting out" in the scriptures. I think "excommuncation" as used by Church leadership is applied to a continuum of actions the most extreme of which is "casting out". I believe this is demonstrated by comparing the actual actions to the scriptures.

Thus one should be careful on applying what is said in the scriptures to the entire spectrum of excommunication actions.

Hope this makes my position clear.

[mercyngrace]

Agreed, don't really see what difference this makes to any point any of us have made though.

It's the entire point!

My entire point is that repentance is the differentating factor not the gravity of the sin or the church's reputation. You can't say excommunication is part of the process of repentance but only for some people unless you define why it isn't for others. Thankfully the Lord has. And I've posted His words throughout this thread.

20Thou shalt not steal; and he that stealeth and will not repent shall be cast out.

21Thou shalt not lie; he that lieth and will not repent shall be cast out.

22Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else.

23And he that looketh upon a woman to lust after her shall deny the faith, and shall not have the Spirit; and if he repents not he shall be cast out.

24Thou shalt not commit adultery; and he that committeth adultery, and repenteth not, shall be cast out.

[mfbukowski]

It strikes me as odd that God would say our refusal to forgive on a personal level creates within us, the greater sin, but on an institutional level refusing to forgive one who actively seeks reconciliation with God is AOK.

Has anyone advocated this? I have never heard of such a thing in my life.

[todd520]

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 thought grevious sin must be combined with a refusal to repent, thus resulting in excommunication?

I didn't read anyone say they were always connected, in fact I would guess repentance usually prevents excommunication and rarely follows it.

Does anyone know how frequent the excommunicated return to the church?

[LDS Guy 1986]

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.

Yeah this is not how the process works, excommunication removes all ordinances and can permenately keep someone from the Church.

To be re-baptized after being excommunicated requires approval from the President of the Church, and good luck ever getting a temple recommend or callings.

Excommunication is a punishment for the unrepentant not the repentant, your argument is flawed also.

Israel broke it's covenant with God many times, he never excommunicated them and then had them start all over again, as soon as they humbled themselves before God and repented he forgave them and restored there blessings.

Your system is not very intelligent, the last thing one should do to a struggling brother or sister is put the burden of excommunication on them.

You do understand that excommunication in some places can result in friends and family disowning you (which is a terrible and evil thing to do) when people are struggling we need to lift them up not cast them down.

Excommunication is a last resort for those who are unrepentant only, with very few exceptions (murder is one of these exceptions, if you commit premeditated murder repentant or not your going to be excommunicated).

[LDS Guy 1986]

I thought grevious sin must be combined with a refusal to repent, thus resulting in excommunication?

I didn't read anyone say they were always connected, in fact I would guess repentance usually prevents excommunication and rarely follows it.

Does anyone know how frequent the excommunicated return to the church?

Excommunication is not unusual in the LDS Church, I don't know any hard numbers (or even if they keep record of how many excommunications happen a year) but they do happen. Lots of excommunications stem from refusal to live the law of chastity.

You are right though you need to be unrepentant to face excommunication in most cases, of course the decision of if you are repentant or not lies in the judgement of the disciplinary council.

If you are unrepentant though you can almost guarantee that your going to be excommunicated.

[mercyngrace]

Has anyone advocated this? I have never heard of such a thing in my life.

When we excommunicate someone who is penitent, this is exactly what we are doing. We are institutionally withholding forgiveness.

There are times when such an action is warranted, and those times are specified in scripture and usually followed or preceded by a declaration about the unrepentant state of the one being cast out.

[Calm]

How does a council judge whether someone has completed the repentance process or not?

[blackstrap]

The bishop or stake president are the judges of whether or not a person is "penitent" We assume that they are in tune with the spirit and will judge righteously.If they judge that the person is NOT truly penitent then excommunication is a definite possibility.I assume that on occasion ,errors are made and a truly penitent person is exed. Mercyngrace seems to be saying that the latter outcome is quite common whereas I think it is quite rare.

If a man steals from me every day and comes confessing his guilt and says that he repents,then after a few days I will begin to doubt the sincerity of his repentance. I suppose that I could set up a better guard or perhaps smack him with a baseball bat when I catch him and then confess and ask forgiveness each time.

Consider what the Church does with an excommunicated person after they are rebaptised. All is not forgiven.The records are not expunged .There will always be certain callings that are off limits. Once burnt twice shy seems to be the policy.

[mercyngrace]

Mercyngrace seems to be saying that the latter outcome is quite common whereas I think it is quite rare.

I never said it was common. I simply said it happens.

Consider what the Church does with an excommunicated person after they are rebaptised. All is not forgiven. The records are not expunged. There will always be certain callings that are off limits. Once burnt twice shy seems to be the policy.

Indeed it does.

[mfbukowski]

When we excommunicate someone who is penitent, this is exactly what we are doing. We are institutionally withholding forgiveness.

There are times when such an action is warranted, and those times are specified in scripture and usually followed or preceded by a declaration about the unrepentant state of the one being cast out.

So if a repentant person requests excommunication we cannot do it?

That is what I was talking about before. Excommunication is part of the repentance process, and may be necessary FOR repentance.

If that's the case, then NOT excommunicating the individual prevents them from repenting.

It enables them to feel as if they have done their "penance" (as Catholics recognize as a necessary part of repentance)and put it behind them.

I have seen the joy they feel when the day finally comes when they know it is "over", complete, done, and they can come back into full fellowship or be re-baptized.

The entire reason we have that question in the TR interview - about if there are any transgressions which should have been confessed but have not- is precisely because people can totally repent but not forgive themselves. You would be surprised how often people will look you in the eye, swallow hard, and say "Well there is one thing......" The reason there IS "one thing" is because they have not experienced the final event in repentance - knowing for themselves that they are forgiven even after a lifetime of living perfect church standards after the transgression

That really is the purpose of church discipline- to allow people who have committed serious sins to know that they are forgiven.

And someone made a comment about having a temple recommend after church discipline- in my experience, they can be, and are, issued instantly along with the return to full fellowship- since by definition the person being disciplined has been living the church standards.

And yes, there are a few callings which one might be ineligible for after church discipline, but that is because of the nature of the transgression and the possibility that that person would possibly be tempted to re-commit past sins. Child molesters should not work in Primary obviously. Embezzlers should not be financial clerks.

It seems you don't see this aspect of church discipline. It can be a necessary part of the process itself, and so to say that someone who is "repentant" should not have to face it, misses that point. But maybe I am misunderstanding you.

[mfbukowski]

How does a council judge whether someone has completed the repentance process or not?

There is another council called to discuss that when it appears that the individual is ready.

[LeSellers]

There is one kind of sin for which being "penitent" (or repentant) is insufficient to escape excommunication. It is the commission of a felony. One is excommunicated, as I understand it, for grand theft or murder irrespective of how gravely he is saddened or repulsed by his act, how seriously he had tried to repay his victim, nor how remorseful he is.

He will have to go to prison. And he will not be a member of the Church while he is there.

Lehi

[Calm]

The entire reason we have that question in the TR interview - about if there are any transgressions which should have been confessed but have not- is precisely because people can totally repent but not forgive themselves. You would be surprised how often people will look you in the eye, swallow hard, and say "Well there is one thing......" The reason there IS "one thing" is because they have not experienced the final event in repentance - knowing for themselves that they are forgiven even after a lifetime of living perfect church standards after the transgression

Very good point and explanation, imo.

People tend to learn best when learning involves a concrete aspect. Being able to experience and then point to an unusual event as the end of the process for an 'unusual' (serious) act is necessary, imo, for most people to emotionally feel things are set right and probably especially necessary for those who have seriously sinned due to the distance they put between themselves and the Spirit at least while they were committing the sin.

I find the ritual of excommunication to be very psychologically appropriate for those who are truly wanting to resolve their issues.

I would wonder about someone who had an overall negative reaction to excommunication even when it was likely an inappropriate overreaction (except in the case where the serious sin was not actually committed but those involved in the discipline believed the lie). Part of the repentance process is humbling oneself and thinking one is above censure---that one has done enough and no more should be asked on one (in this matter)---might be a sign of a lack of true humility and acceptance of the seriousness of one's sin.

I think it would be better to talk about specifics about what a person did and responded because speaking generically seems to be leading to confusion over where people are 'drawing the line' and why.

[MorningStar]

I think even if a person is truly sorry, there are some sins so horrible, part of restitution is showing the victim that you are accepting such a hefty consequence. For every person who leaves because they were excommunicated, how many people leave because their abuser's crime was treated so lightly? With my friend's dad, he raped his daughter for so long. He spent 10 years doing it and not repenting and the only reason he stopped was that she got old enough to defend herself. The only reason he ever confessed it was because she finally told her mother and she confronted him, then admitted it. However truly remorseful he might have been later, lack of consequences caused his son a great deal of pain and shook his faith.

[mercyngrace]

You've written a lot here and some of it regards statements that I didn't make so I'll go point by point.

So if a repentant person requests excommunication we cannot do it?

I never said this. If a person asks to be excommunicated, then I have to wonder why they feel the need for this action. Do they not know that God can forgive them without excommunication? Do they need a public acknowledgement? On some level we all feel the need to pay for our sins but the life-altering truth of the atonement is that none of us can. People are changed by the love of God. Clearly one who can't forgive themself needs more exposure to God's love, not an excuse to punish himself.

That is what I was talking about before. Excommunication is part of the repentance process, and may be necessary FOR repentance.

This is where we disagree. As I wrote earlier, I see excommunication as a means to lead the sinner to repentance not as a means to repent. God sent Jonah to Ninevah to call the city to repentance. Once Ninevah repented, He called off the destruction. He didn't go ahead and destroy the city just to prove a point or so that whichever people of Ninevah survived could feel like they'd done penance.

If that's the case, then NOT excommunicating the individual prevents them from repenting.

It enables them to feel as if they have done their "penance" (as Catholics recognize as a necessary part of repentance)and put it behind them.

The atonement is our penance. That's the good news. What God asks of us is a CHANGE. A change of heart, a change of mind, a change of life. That's repentance.

I have seen the joy they feel when the day finally comes when they know it is "over", complete, done, and they can come back into full fellowship or be re-baptized.

I have no doubt. I've seen it, too. But the rebaptism is an outward token of an inward change. If the token brings more joy than the change, there's a fundamental misunderstanding anyway.

The entire reason we have that question in the TR interview - about if there are any transgressions which should have been confessed but have not- is precisely because people can totally repent but not forgive themselves. You would be surprised how often people will look you in the eye, swallow hard, and say "Well there is one thing......" The reason there IS "one thing" is because they have not experienced the final event in repentance - knowing for themselves that they are forgiven even after a lifetime of living perfect church standards after the transgression

That really is the purpose of church discipline- to allow people who have committed serious sins to know that they are forgiven.

I know two different individuals who sat in the bishop's office and heard the bishop say "The Lord has already forgiven you. Go and sin no more." By their accounts, it was every bit as satisfying.

And someone made a comment about having a temple recommend after church discipline- in my experience, they can be, and are, issued instantly along with the return to full fellowship- since by definition the person being disciplined has been living the church standards.

And yes, there are a few callings which one might be ineligible for after church discipline, but that is because of the nature of the transgression and the possibility that that person would possibly be tempted to re-commit past sins. Child molesters should not work in Primary obviously. Embezzlers should not be financial clerks.

Not my comments - and I have no qualms with what you've written here.

It seems you don't see this aspect of church discipline. It can be a necessary part of the process itself, and so to say that someone who is "repentant" should not have to face it, misses that point. But maybe I am misunderstanding you.

I see it and as I said earlier to Cal, I've made all these same arguments you're making in the past. But we aren't performing a psychological experiment with church members. This isn't about helping people feel better with the false doctrine that excommunication pays some price toward their sins. The true doctrine is that Christ alone carried the weight of our sins and He alone can heal the brokenness in our lives. They need to be brought to Christ not turned away from Him.

The whole reason excommunication works for the unrepentant, when it does, is that it helps them recognize the absence of Christ in their lives. A penitent person already feels the awful bitterness of that lack. What a penitent person needs is the assurance that they are clean.

You are saying they get that by being cast out and born again through rebaptism. I am saying that this is not neccessary and can be accomplished just as the Savior did with the woman who had an issue of blood - by simply taking the person by the hand and saying "Thy faith (unto repentance) hath made thee whole."

[mercyngrace]

...And he will not be a member of the Church while he is there.

Lehi

Incorrect.

[bluebell]

Consider what the Church does with an excommunicated person after they are rebaptised. All is not forgiven.The records are not expunged .There will always be certain callings that are off limits. Once burnt twice shy seems to be the policy.

"After the rebaptism of a person who has not been endowed in the temple, his or her membership record shows the original baptism date, with no reference to the excommunication. A man who previously held the priesthood but was not endowed should generally be ordained to his former priesthood office. Again, his membership record will show his original ordination date, with no reference to excommunication.

A person who was endowed in the temple before being excommunicated may regain priesthood and/or temple blessings only through the ordinance of restoration of blessings. This is a special ordinance performed by a General Authority as directed by the First Presidency. Afterwards, a new membership record is created, showing the original dates of baptism, endowment, sealing, and (if applicable) priesthood ordinations

[LeSellers]

he will not be a member of the Church while he is [in prison].

Incorrect.

Based on what?

Lehi

[bluebell]

Yeah this is not how the process works, excommunication removes all ordinances and can permenately keep someone from the Church.

To be re-baptized after being excommunicated requires approval from the President of the Church, and good luck ever getting a temple recommend or callings.

From Elder Ballard's talk on excommunication, which seems to be the official church statement on the process.

"Church disciplinary action is not intended to be the end of the process

[mercyngrace]

Based on what?

Lehi

Personal knowledge of three such cases.

edit: I know for sure about the membership status of three. The others I am unsure about as I don't ask and they don't tell.

[LeSellers]

he will not be a member of the Church while he is [in prison].

Incorrect.

Based on what?

Personal knowledge of three such cases.

You know three murderers or thieves?

Interesting, but not authoritative.

I freely admit that my information is decades old and that things may have changed, but I don't see how or why.

Lehi

[mercyngrace]

You know three murderers or thieves?

Interesting, but not authoritative.

I freely admit that my information is decades old and that things may have changed, but I don't see how or why.

Lehi

You related the status to felony conviction. And yes.

I will be standing on the Lord's right hand side when He says "in prison and ye visited me".

You will recognize me by my avatar. Feel free to wave.

edit: Okay, I meant that last line to be funny, not a conversation killer.... I actually look nothing like my avatar...