Excommunication in the Church

[Duncan]

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

[MorningStar]

Other reasons include protecting innocent victims and protecting the good name of the church. So apparently, we also excommunicate for the benefit of people whose sensibilities might be offended by the extension of mercy. You know, like when Christ refused to touch the leper because the Jews around the temple might be offended. Oh wait... that isn't how that happened is it?

So if I'm reading this post right, you think excommunicating a person for the sake of innocent victims or protecting the good name of the church isn't OK? I'm not following the leper comparison either. Jews weren't victimized by what Jesus did for lepers. Lepers didn't choose to be lepers. Child abusers choose to abuse children.

For the victims who are severely damaged by their perpetrators, this is more than a matter of their sensibilities being offended. To see them get off with a slap on the wrist is like being abused all over again.

[mercyngrace]

So if I'm reading this post right, you think excommunicating a person for the sake of innocent victims or protecting the good name of the church isn't OK? I'm not following the leper comparison either. Jews weren't victimized by what Jesus did for lepers. Lepers didn't choose to be lepers. Child abusers choose to abuse children.

For the victims who are severely damaged by their perpetrators, this is more than a matter of their sensibilities being offended. To see them get off with a slap on the wrist is like being abused all over again.

You're making the comment into something it isn't Morningstar. The reason I have steered clear of addressing your comments about your friend is because I'm not in the position to apply this general principle to the specific case of your friend and her abusive father.

IMO, excommunication should be based on the state of the sinner not the church's reputation or anyone else's need for retribution. And actually some Jews clearly considered what Jesus did in associating with and touching and being touched by the "unclean" a serious affront to their perception of "the church".

If excommunication is about satisfying justice for victims then it is punitive and has nothing to do with repentance. (Burton, The Meaning of Repentance) Repentance is supposed to be rehabilitative not retributive. (Hafen, Beauty for Ashes)

If excommunication is about protecting the church's reputation, then excommunication isn't about the sinner but about the honor of men.

If excommunication is about the sinner, then these other factors can not justifiably be the overriding reasons for excommunication.

edit: The assumption that seems to be made is that repentance is a slap on the wrist. Or that excommunication is the only consequence for serious offenses. That is wholly untrue. Civil laws exist as a recourse for many serious sins. There are also natural consequences like severed relationships, lost jobs, ruined mariages, etc. Exacting retribution is the domain of secular society. Bringing souls to Christ is the job of the church.

edit again :Again, I have never said that excommunication was never an option. I have only said that when one has repented, it is unneccessary. Determining who is penitent is a job that can only be done through the Spirit.

[MorningStar]

I'm not asking for commentary about the people I know and what should happen to them. I was just giving an example of why the victim's feelings alone might be a reason to excommunicate. I'm having trouble understanding why the church's policy is being called into question. Excommunication may lead to the sinner leaving the church completely, but lack of action may shake the faith of those hurt by the sinner. If a man were well known as an LDS bishop in his community and committed a crime using his position of trust, that could be damaging to those in the church and outside of it. As the article said, the person's experience and calling in the church may be taken into account too. Yes, we want the sinner to come back into full fellowship, but we also want the victims to remain in the church.

[Silver Girl]

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.

Actually the differentiating factor is not the individual... It is the will of the Lord...

I have been involved in two differernt disciplinary councils... I was the one being disciplined in one, and a family member was the one involved in the other... I was not excommunicated, though I was prepared for that outcome... My family member (who's sin was very serious, and resulted in a prision sentence of 10-30 years), was excommunicated...

I cannot tell you how strong the Spirit was in both of those meetings!! I know the Lord made His will known to the Bretheren presiding!!

Just My .02

Silver Girl

[mercyngrace]

Actually the differentiating factor is not the individual... It is the will of the Lord...

These aren't mutually exclusive, Silver Girl. It should be the will of the Lord concerning the individual.

[mercyngrace]

I'm not asking for commentary about the people I know and what should happen to them. I was just giving an example of why the victim's feelings alone might be a reason to excommunicate. I'm having trouble understanding why the church's policy is being called into question. Excommunication may lead to the sinner leaving the church completely, but lack of action may shake the faith of those hurt by the sinner. If a man were well known as an LDS bishop in his community and committed a crime using his position of trust, that could be damaging to those in the church and outside of it. As the article said, the person's experience and calling in the church may be taken into account too. Yes, we want the sinner to come back into full fellowship, but we also want the victims to remain in the church.

Morningstar, please please please don't misconstrue my feelings about this particular bit of policy with a lack of concern for victims or the church's good name. There should be almost no limit to the avenues available to help those who've been abused or injured through the pain and tragedy their experiences. I just disagree that this specific church proceeding is the vehicle for carrying out retribution or making reparations.

[bluebell]

Morningstar, please please please don't misconstrue my feelings about this particular bit of policy with a lack of concern for victims or the church's good name. There should be almost no limit to the avenues available to help those who've been abused or injured through the pain and tragedy their experiences. I just disagree that this specific church proceeding is the vehicle for carrying out retribution or making reparations.

If that was the only purpose, then i think most people would agree with you. I think though that you might be negating how important restitution is as a part of repentance.

If restitution is a part of repentance, then repentance cannot be complete without that occurring in some fashion. From that perspective, someone can't be finished with the repentance process who has not dealt with the results of his sins on others and done all possible to allievate them.

If excommunication can help someone to restore, even a tiny bit, what they took for their victims and thus help them in the repentance process, then it shouldn't be discounted as retributive but necessary.

[mercyngrace]

If that was the only purpose, then i think most people would agree with you. I think though that you might be negating how important restitution is as a part of repentance.

If restitution is a part of repentance, then repentance cannot be complete without that occurring in some fashion. From that perspective, someone can't be finished with the repentance process who has not dealt with the results of his sins on others and done all possible to allievate them.

If excommunication can help someone to restore, even a tiny bit, what they took for their victims and thus help them in the repentance process, then it shouldn't be discounted as retributive but necessary.

IMO, excommunication does not make restitution. No amount of inflicting suffering on your offender repairs the damage done to you.

In my own experience the only thing that can restore, and this is proportionate to the offense, is the empowering act of forgiveness.

[bluebell]

IMO, excommunication does not make restitution. No amount of inflicting suffering on your offender repairs the damage done to you.

The scriptures speak of how the Lord punishes people because the blood of the innocent cry for that punishment. I think it would be a mistake to underestimate the relationship between those who have been wronged and the one doing the wronging (pretty sure that's not a word but it works )

Also, we aren't talking about 'inflicting suffering' upon someone. That's never the purpose of excommunication. If someone sees excommunication as the way that suffering is inflicted upon the sinful then they don't understand the process correctly.

In my own experience the only thing that can restore, and this is proportionate to the offense, is the empowering act of forgiveness.

You're assuming that the restoration is done soley to benefit the one harmed. I don't think God would require it if it didn't also help the one who sinned.

[mercyngrace]

The scriptures speak of how the Lord punishes people because the blood of the innocent cry for that punishment. I think it would be a mistake to underestimate the relationship between those who have been wronged and the one doing the wronging (pretty sure that's not a word but it works )

Once a person repents, they are no more among "the wicked" and the Savior intercedes to plead on their behalf. At that point, His suffering and ability to succor is what brings about restitution.

Also, we aren't talking about 'inflicting suffering' upon someone. That's never the purpose of excommunication. If someone sees excommunication as the way that suffering is inflicted upon the sinful then they don't understand the process correctly.

Suffering is the ony alternative to repentance. D&C 19.

You're assuming that the restoration is done soley to benefit the one harmed. I don't think God would require it if it didn't also help the one who sinned.

Nope. I'm not assuming that. But I think this conversation, as engaging as it has been, has been going nowhere for a long time. We just disagree about the fundamental purpose of the proceeding. And every other point of discussion stems from there.

[bluebell]

Once a person repents, they are no more among "the wicked" and the Savior intercedes to plead on their behalf. At that point, His suffering and ability to succor is what brings about restitution.

Of course. But restitution is a requirement for those who want to repent.

Suffering is the ony alternative to repentance. D&C 19.

Suffering is part of repentance. 2 Cor. 7:10

"One man said,

[mercyngrace]

Suffering is part of repentance. 2 Cor. 7:10

Even if you equate godly sorrow and suffering, the former is described as leading to repentance. Why does an already repentant person need to start over?

Bluebell, you are probably right that I've come on too strong and for that I apologize. Can you show where in the scriptures the Lord says repent and be cast out?

edit: I've already listed the example of murder and section 42 mentions repeated adultery, iirc. In the latter case, clearly repentance was never accomplished since there was no "forsaking".

[Calm]

IMO, excommunication does not make restitution. No amount of inflicting suffering on your offender repairs the damage done to you.

It is not about making the other suffer, if that were so then excommunication of the one who harmed you would likely lead to it taking longer to heal as it would promote anger and negative feelings.

OTOH, knowing that someone has gone before a court, has made a confession in such a public setting to the wrong that was done to you the victim, has acknowledged that he is responsible for great pain and suffering that the victim has experienced, may still be experiencing and likely will continue to have to deal with the consequences for some time in mortality can help move a victim a great way toward a sense of validation, allowing that individual to let go of inappropriate guilt feelings, help them move past feeling that they have little or no value to others and other emotional obstacles victims have to deal with as they heal and move out of the attitude of victimhood into a more balanced, realistic and eventually whole sense of self.

Part of the healing process in therapy is often confronting one's abuser in some way. While doing so on a personal private one to one basis can be very helpful (especially if the abuser admits the wrong and does not try to diminish the consequences), it can be even more emotionally and spiritual cleansing to know that others have been witnesses. Victims need to know that others believe them, not only believe them but are willing to support them and take steps in the matter. Having a formalized process with which both the accused and the victim are aware of what it entails, what one can expect from it is a very effective way to promote healing for the victim.

A truly repentant individual will be willing to sacrifice his own comfort and privileges and even blessings in order to help his victim heal and obtain back the peace and strength he has taken from him or her. He will likely, imo, see it as part of the process of his repentance, not just something he has to do for the other guy that has no real effect on himself because he's already moved on past that need. If this process is something that the victim needs to heal, then I see it as an essential part of the restitution process. To deny this opportunity to the victim to protect oneself is a sign to me that individual is not truly repentant after all, that it is a repentance that does not go down to the very roots of his or her soul as would be if s/he were willing to do anything asked if there was the slightest possibility it would help those harmed (including the community that s/he and the victim or victims belonged to as a betrayal of an individual is a betrayal of that community as well, imo).

[mercyngrace]

OTOH, knowing that someone has gone before a court, has made a confession in such a public setting to the wrong that was done to you the victim, has acknowledged that he is responsible for great pain and suffering that the victim has experienced, may still be experiencing and likely will continue to have to deal with the consequences for some time in mortality can help move a victim a great way toward a sense of validation, allowing that individual to let go of inappropriate guilt feelings, help them move past feeling that they have little or no value to others and other emotional obstacles victims have to deal with as they heal and move out of the attitude of victimhood into a more balanced, realistic and eventually whole sense of self.

Excommunication is not the only means to this ends, Cal.

Part of the healing process in therapy is often confronting one's abuser in some way. While doing so on a personal private one to one basis can be very helpful (especially if the abuser admits the wrong and does not try to diminish the consequences), it can be even more emotionally and spiritual cleansing to know that others have been witnesses. Victims need to know that others believe them, not only believe them but are willing to support them and take steps in the matter. Having a formalized process with which both the accused and the victim are aware of what it entails, what one can expect from it is a very effective way to promote healing for the victim.

I agree. The formalized experience is in itself an ackowledgement. It need not end in excommunication for there to be a formal process that requires the offender to claim culpability.

A truly repentant individual will be willing to sacrifice his own comfort and privileges and even blessings in order to help his victim heal and obtain back the peace and strength he has taken from him or her. He will likely, imo, see it as part of the process of his repentance, not just something he has to do for the other guy that has no real effect on himself because he's already moved on past that need. If this process is something that the victim needs to heal, then I see it as an essential part of the restitution process. To deny this opportunity to the victim to protect oneself is a sign to me that individual is not truly repentant after all, that it is a repentance that does not go down to the very roots of his or her soul as would be if s/he were willing to do anything asked if there was the slightest possibility it would help those harmed (including the community that s/he and the victim or victims belonged to as a betrayal of an individual is a betrayal of that community as well, imo).

The preumption here is that the offender is the one seeking mercy. It should be the church trying to help the offender, who if repentant likely feels unworthy, to accept mercy.

At least, that's my take.

[Calm]

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

I think this is incorrect. Forgiveness does not automatically entail the removal of consequences of one's behaviour. Excommunication isn't about 'paying off our debt' to justice either, though it can hold that role for some. Excommunication is about taking time to truly comprehend the magnitude of what we risk when we sin, what we must do to keep ourselves from temptation. Because one is basically back to square one, it can be a time to reevaluate not only the priorities of one's life, but also the practices of that life. One can no longer function spiritually on 'auto-pilot'...which is usually from what I've seen how good people fall into the traps of sin---because they've stopped paying attention to the essentials and just assume that those are being taken care of by their usual routines (but when something becomes spiritually routine, it loses its spirituality the same way that routine passion is hardly truly passionate). Excommunication is a time to put one's spiritual house in order, stripping away the clutter that eventually ends up masking the Spirit, allowing one to focus on what really matters in the Gospel, one's relationship with God and fellowmen.

Forgiveness should, imo, include giving the individual the fullest opportunity to repair the damage done to himself and others as well as helping the individual grow in ways that if temptation occurs again, he will be strong enough not to fall back into sin. The period of time spent without the blessings of membership (as opposed to being allowed to continue in association) can provide a great lesson about the essential blessings we receive through membership in God's Church in ways that nothing else can (I've drawn this conclusion after listening to those who have been excommunicated discuss what it's done for them as well as observing them as they've gone through the process). When we have seriously sinned (and any sin that brings the potential of excommunication is a very serious sin indeed), we have gone down the path the wrong way a long way and to not only find our way back, but to stay squarely on the path toward home we need to make sure our landmarks are clearly marked and visible at all times. Living without some of those landmarks for a time is one way to heighten our awareness of them greatly.

[Calm]

The presumption here is that the offender is the one seeking mercy. It should be the church trying to help the offender, who if repentant likely feels unworthy, to accept mercy.

And going through a formalized process of penitence is an excellent way imo and experience to help the offender feel worthy of that mercy and as important to understand what that mercy really is and how it affects his life externally, internally and eternally.

[mercyngrace]

Cal,

If forgiveness comes through the covenant of coming unto Christ, and we invalidate that covenant, we withhold, hopefully only temporarily, the promise of the covenant.

[mercyngrace]

And going through a formalized process of penitence is an excellent way imo and experience to help the offender feel worthy of that mercy and as important to understand what that mercy really is and how it affects his life externally, internally and eternally.

I agree with you Cal, where I disagree is that excommunication must be the outcome of the process. As has already been pointed out, there is a range of disciplinary actions.

[bluebell]

Even if you equate godly sorrow and suffering, the former is described as leading to repentance. Why does an already repentant person need to start over?

As I understand it, no one who disagrees with you thinks they need to start over.

What we are asserting is that for certain sins and individuals, repentance can't be finished without them going through the process of excommunication.

I don't see it as a need for them to start over, but a need for them to finish the process.

Bluebell, you are probably right that I've come on too strong and for that I apologize. Can you show where in the scriptures the Lord says repent and be cast out?

Since that's not my position, it's not anything that i feel the need to prove through scripture.

I don't believe anyone who has repented needs to be cast out. I believe that sometimes being cast out is part of the process of repentance and that repentance cannot be complete without it.

My reference for this belief are the teachings of the church on the subject here.

I don't believe that Elder Ballard is unaware of the scriptures that you have referenced, yet he and the church feel that they are fulfilling the will of the Lord by the excommunication process they have set forth, despite those scriptures.

To me that implies that a different interpretation of those scriptures than the one you are using is also valid.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Thank you M&G for so eloquently stating my thoughts throughout this discussion.

[bluebell]

Cal,

If forgiveness comes through the covenant of coming unto Christ, and we invalidate that covenant, we withhold, hopefully only temporarily, the promise of the covenant.

That's the process that has been set forth though.

We ask converts to repent before they make a covenant with Christ. If repentance was only beneficial while someone was within that covenant, that such a process wouldn't make any sense.

If repentance is an important part of accessing that covenant for a convert, or for restoring it for someone who has sinned seriously and damaged the relationship though, then it makes sense to do things in the order that we do.

It makes sense to bring certain individuals outside of it, or back to the beginning in other words, so that they can gain full access to the covenant again.

[mercyngrace]

My reference for this belief are the teachings of the church on the subject here.

I don't believe that Elder Ballard is unaware of the scriptures that you have referenced, yet he and the church feel that they are fulfilling the will of the Lord by the excommunication process they have set forth, despite those scriptures.

To me that implies that a different interpretation of those scriptures than the one you are using is also valid.

Actually, he provides several options other than excommunication which can be applied to the penitent.

[MorningStar]

Morningstar, please please please don't misconstrue my feelings about this particular bit of policy with a lack of concern for victims or the church's good name. There should be almost no limit to the avenues available to help those who've been abused or injured through the pain and tragedy their experiences. I just disagree that this specific church proceeding is the vehicle for carrying out retribution or making reparations.

I don't feel at all that you don't have concern for the victims or the church's good name. I think it's important to understand why the church takes those things into account when deciding whether excommunication is the appropriate action to take and I was a little shocked by your sarcasm regarding that. Some sins are far more serious than others and the repentance process is a lot longer and harder. There is no restitution for rape or adultery. You can't take either of those back and it will take a long time to determine whether they have given up the sin. I think excommunication is useful in helping the person repent completely. If they are truly remorseful, desperate to help their victims heal, taking that consequence is a start.

[mercyngrace]

It makes sense to bring certain individuals outside of it, or back to the beginning in other words, so that they can gain full access to the covenant again.

BB,

I've never said excommunication was completely off the table. Not once. (In fact, I've pointed this out already.) When I read your comments, it seems as though you believe I think excommunication should never happen. I have not ever said this nor do I believe it. What I have said repeatedly is that when a person is penitent, in other words, they have already turned back to the Lord and seek reconciliation, excommunication is unnecessary. There are other options available at that point that do not require a complete severing of the covenant.