Excommunication in the Church

[mercyngrace]

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.

For a truly remorseful person, I don't think excommunication even comes close to being a real consequence of their actions.

[bluebell]

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.

I do understand that you are not saying this, so i'm sorry if my words have not made my understanding of it clear.

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.

I'm simply saying that severing the covenant of a penitent person might be exactly what is needed for them to access it again.

[bluebell]

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

Of course.

It was never my intention to imply that excommunication should always be done in every case.

[bluebell]

For a truly remorseful person, I don't think excommunication even comes close to being a real consequence of their actions.

With the people that i have known, how someone responds to an excommunication shows whether or not they are truly remorseful. An excommunication will not hinder someone in their process back to the Lord in the least if they are truly humble and remoresful and sincere.

That has been my experience anyway.

[mercyngrace]

I do understand that you are not saying this, so i'm sorry if my words have not made my understanding of it clear.

I'm simply saying that severing the covenant of a penitent person might be exactly what is needed for them to access it again.

This looks like "repent and be cast out" to me.

[mercyngrace]

With the people that i have known, how someone responds to an excommunication shows whether or not they are truly remorseful. An excommunication will not hinder someone in their process back to the Lord in the least if they are truly humble and remoresful and sincere.

That has been my experience anyway.

I completely agree and pointed out earlier that this isn't about what the penitent seeks but what the church's role is.

[Calm]

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.

Totally disagree here that excommunication invalidates that particular covenant. Honestly, you seem to have a black and white theoretical picture of what excommunication is---that its actions occur for a certain set of reasons in a certain set of ways and therefore it has a very limited value----that does not resemble what I have observed personally or been told by others involved in the process or resembles how the leadership define and describe the process.

We also have a different view of repentance. It would appear that you see that there is a definite time where the repentant person having repented, laying his burden of the Lord, is no longer to be held accountable for his previous sin. OTOH, I see someone who is truly repentant accepting that his or her actions may have a lifetime effect on others and so is willing to continue to do whatever is necessary to put right what he has done wrong and not only be wiling to do so, but be grateful for the opportunity and see it as an act of mercy that he has this chance. There are consequences to one's behaviour that are obviously not going to go away even when one repents and is forgiven....such as a child born out of wedlock, I think it is highly likely that almost all consequences are long term in just the same way---we are so interconnected with others that our behaviours, especially ones that do serious harm to ourselves and others, create ripples that are only stilled by being confronted with eternity and the Infinite Atonement. Part of the purpose of mortality is learning what it would be like to have to live without the Atonement being responsible for one's own sins...thus allowing us to fully appreciate the Atonement when we receive the fullness of it in the Judgment. (This is not to suggest that we can't partake of the Atonement in the here and now, there is a difference between ourselves and the consequences of our actions, we can be changed through the Atonement on an individual basis, but I do not believe that in mortality the Atonement applies to the consequences of our behaviour except as the individual affected seeks out that blessing, nothing in the Scriptures would seem to indicate otherwise.)

I can understand the appeal of being able to say to oneself not only that chapter in my life is closed, but it is as if it was never written (since eternally speaking this is what repentance and forgiveness will achieve) so one does not have to deal with it anymore in at least spiritual ways but I believe a more spiritually mature attitude will be one of accepting the sin as part of one's life, not to define it, but simply to see it in its proper place and perspective in one's own life and in the lives of those around them. What better way not only not to repeat the experience (because one is wise enough to avoid those things that bring one to that opportunity to sin), but to remove all desire to sin....and beyond that, what better way to understand how to reach out and help those who may be on the same path to sin or who now need help to reverse their steps from that sin. I see part of that spiritual maturity as looking for opportunities to undo the wrongs in the world over and above what you have personally contributed to it. In the Law of Moses, restitution was often described as being 4 times the value of that which was taken. I think the Law of Christ one interprets restitution more in the line of 7 times 70, not though out of guilt but out of love and a desire to leave the world a better place. For scriptural examples we have Paul and the sons of Mosiah turning to missionary work in restitution for those they helped lead out of the faith. They did not approach the opportunity as one that had limits because they looked to restitution as an expression of love, not as punishment.

And for me that is the sign of the truly repentant.

To be truly repentant, one must have the desire to provide restitution as fully as possible...which as you stated is ultimately impossible though we differ on how much excommunication might achieve in that area, you seeming to feel little if any effect if the person has already recognized his wrong and been through the repentance process, myself I am open to it have little to great effect depending on the individuals involved even when all directly involved have repented and forgiven, because there are still those indirectly wronged that can be part of the restitution aspect of repentance.

Having that desire to 'repay' or 'rebuild' will not disappear, imo, when one is forgiven as one understands the consequences of one's behaviour do not disappear or can be erased when dealing with mortal men so when the opportunity arises, someone who has truly repented will be grateful for that opportunity to provide some form of restitution whatever it may be even if it is not required by justice or mercy. Ultimately as one arrives at full and true repentance, the desire to repair is a desire born out of love, not guilt and it is not interpreted as inherently a hardship but a blessing.

I am not saying here that excommunication should be SOP (except as instructed in the scriptures which IIRC is for murder). It should only be used when it will be effective in its purpose---that purpose and effectiveness will depend on the individuals involved, both those directly and indirectly---and I agree that only the Spirit will be the one to give that direction. That is the purpose of the Council and if done properly, the loudest voice there will be the Spirit. (I am not disagreeing that there are inappropriate measures taken from time to time, that emotion or tradition might overwhelm the voice of the Spirit, I am disagreeing that this is what must have happened if excommunication occurs in the case of the truly penitent.)

It seems to me in protesting that excommunication is inappropriate in certain cases that you see occurring (this claim, btw, appears to make a big assumption that you know who has been truly penitent) you are limiting the ways the Spirit might influence those in the Council.

--------

There are also several assumptions that seem to me to be embedded in your argument that I haven't seen demonstrated as correct (though they may be), one of which is that excommunication (loss of membership) is the exact equivalent of "casting out" rather than "casting out" being part of the set of actions excommunication may include. If that assumption is wrong, it would seem to me your claim that your position is scripturally supported fails at the onset.

[Calm]

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.

And where did I say excommunication must be the outcome? I have specifically stated that even excommunication can include a range of disciplinary actions, including actual casting out (refusal of the blessing of association with the community).

The only "must" that I believe I have seen is in your statement that the truly penitent must not be cast out since that is reserved for those who are not repentant. And then you more or less state one must accept excommunication as the equivalent of casting out even though this does not resemble how the excommunication process occurs in most cases (only those few who actively work against the Church or who are more or less boasting of their sin are 'cast out').

[Bob Crockett]

Excommunication is a NT mandate for those "which trouble you." Gal 5:12. Paul, in his inimitable way, uses this reference to castration as some sort of weird pun. "I would they were even cut off which trouble you."

[mercyngrace]

Totally disagree here that excommunication invalidates that particular covenant. Honestly, you seem to have a black and white theoretical picture of what excommunication is---that its actions occur for a certain set of reasons in a certain set of ways and therefore it has a very limited value----that does not resemble what I have observed personally or been told by others involved in the process or resembles how the leadership define and describe the process.

That may be how I've presented it here but that isn't an accurate portrayal of how I see the process. I responded to a point with which I actually agree on page one:

The purpose of an excommunication is to give the unrepentent an unmistakable sign that they need to change. If you are repentent and on your way towards full activity in the Church you have nothing to fear from Church discipline.

Only noting that this is not always the case. That we do, in fact, excommunicate penitent people and sometimes for reasons that have nothing to do with their repentance process. And as noted there, this bothers me.

We also have a different view of repentance. It would appear that you see that there is a definite time where the repentant person having repented, laying his burden of the Lord, is no longer to be held accountable for his previous sin.

It only appears this way in this discussion because an administrative line of demarcation is required when talking about a person's relationship to the church. There is a definite date of baptism and of excommunication.

What applies to the limited scope of this discussion about church status can't really be broadened beyond those limits. If I implied an extension, it was unintentional.

[bluebell]

This looks like "repent and be cast out" to me.

Only if you think of repentance as an act and not a process and only if you define 'penitent' as those who have already repented and don't include those who want to repent.

From that point of view it looks like, 'if you are willing to repent, we will do everything that we can to help you attain the forgiveness you seek'.

[mercyngrace]

And where did I say excommunication must be the outcome? I have specifically stated that even excommunication can include a range of disciplinary actions, including actual casting out (refusal of the blessing of association with the community).

The only "must" that I believe I have seen is in your statement that the truly penitent must not be cast out since that is reserved for those who are not repentant. And then you more or less state one must accept excommunication as the equivalent of casting out even though this does not resemble how the excommunication process occurs in most cases (only those few who actively work against the Church or who are more or less boasting of their sin are 'cast out').

I didn't mean to suggest you said anything Cal. I was explaining my position. I think we are having a difficulty with semantics, though. The way I read Elder Ballard's message excommunication is a single action that is the maximum allowable institutional response. There is a range of disciplinary action however. If you have been using the word excommunication to mean "church discipline" then we have been using it differently.

Decisions of the council are to be made with inspiration. A council can reach one of four decisions: (1) no action, (2) formal probation, (3) disfellowshipment, or (4) excommunication.

Excommunication is the most severe judgment a Church disciplinary council can take. Excommunicated persons are no longer members of the Church. Therefore, they are denied the privileges of Church membership, including the wearing of temple garments and the payment of tithes and offerings. They may attend public Church meetings, but, like disfellowshipped persons, their participation in such meetings is limited.

My use of the term excommunicaton has been specificaly a reference to this action. Not to disfellowshipping, formal probation, or a lack of action.

Regarding my "musts";

- I have stated multiple times now that there are exceptions to the "who repenteth not" guideline of the scriptures.

- And, while I know you've already said that the scripture study guides are not doctrinal, the verses linked to Excommunication in the scripture guide use this language of "cast out" and "blot out".

Clearly, I am not alone in equating these terms.

And notice that these descriptions of those whose names are blotted out are hard-hearted and unrepentant.

Excommunication

See also Apostasy; Rebellion.

The process of excluding a person from the Church and taking away all rights and privileges of membership. Church authorities excommunicate a person from the Church only when he has chosen to live in opposition to the Lord

[mercyngrace]

Only if you think of repentance as an act and not a process and only if you define 'penitent' as those who have already repented and don't include those who want to repent.

From that point of view it looks like, 'if you are willing to repent, we will do everything that we can to help you attain the forgiveness you seek'.

BB, in terms of a person's membership status in the church, repentance must be looked at as something finite otherwise we wouldn't know when to baptize, excommunicate, or allow rebaptism. There has to be a point at which, recognizing intent matters even if restitution may take a lifetime, we say "it is finished". Otherwise, someone who had committed a serious sin against another might never be allowed back into the church.

[rpn]

Excommunication may not be intended to be rejection, but it surely feels that way. Yes, I think it is possible for a TR holding person who abuses their spouse to be excommunicated, and more likely if the person is convicted of a felony. But I also don't think that people are being excommunicated very much for anything short of repeated (and I do mean repeated --- I know of people who haven't been excommunicated for serial adultery while holding a TR, so the world appears to have changed in church discipline during the last 20 years). What I would tell a person who was wondering about that would be. If you worry about coming to the place where you are willing to do whatever the Lord requires to make things square with Him and the church, you will be able to accept whatever happens in the disciplinary counsel. So spend your emotional energy getting yourself to that place that any price is worth paying if you can just be square with Him.

[bluebell]

BB, in terms of a person's membership status in the church, repentance must be looked at as something finite otherwise we wouldn't know when to baptize, excommunicate, or allow rebaptism. There has to be a point at which, recognizing intent matters even if restitution may take a lifetime, we say "it is finished". Otherwise, someone who had committed a serious sin against another might never be allowed back into the church.

I'm sorry but i'm not sure what you are saying exactly.

[stYro]

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]

I'm sorry but i'm not sure what you are saying exactly.

Simply put, bb, it means that regardless of whether you consider repentance a process (as I do) or an act, for the purposes of church discipline there has to be some recognizable endstate in order for the discipline to be complete.

The underlying problem is that these extra reasons for excommunication being explicitly stated, allow for implementation problems including unnecessary excommunication. It's just like when the Mosaic law allows for an eye to be taken for an eye. We may read that as the maximum allowable punishment but other Christians read it as the required punishment. Whether that reading is right or wrong is irrelevant, the fact remains that tying the punishment to the crime in such a way allows for misapplication of the underlying principle which in the church, in our day, is reclaiming the sinner.

I got a phone call two weeks ago about this very issue. A bishop was convinced that he had to exact the fullest allowable consequence on a brother through church discipline because of some wording in the CHI. He was willing to override the spirit to complete what he felt was the letter of the law.

The new church handbooks and accompanying broadcasts are emphasizing a flexible, spirit driven approach. The fact the the books are smaller and have been whittled down to principles rather than containing an excess of dos and don'ts is encouraging and shows that the general leadership of the church sees the same problem that I see. Too much emphasis on the letter and often a misreading of the same. Hopefully, as we continue to progress as a people, we will see this trend expanded upon.

From the first page of this thread, I said that excommunicating a repentant sinner was non-scriptural and I've provided scriptural evidence to that end, to include scriptures that point out the exceptions to this general principle. I also said that codifying reasons for excommunication outside of the state of the sinner was troublesome. And as we have seen throughout the thread, this is true. The reasons justifying excommunication of a penitent person have ranged from "it helps them repent" to "they really want to be excommunicated" to "they need to pay penance" to "the victims need justice or validation". While these are important considerations making them the most important consideration remains unsupported by scripture and has created the tradition that penitent people need to be excommunicated as opposed to receiving some other measure of censure through church discipline.

[bluebell]

Thanks for posting this, Bluebell. I am really impressed that once the return process is complete, all reference to the excommunication is removed from the records. I could never pass the re-baptism interview because of my beliefs, but am still extremely impressed that, for those who can, their detour from the path is not held against them. What a magnificent object lesson, even for those to whom it never applies.

Way to go, Mormon church!

I know, i thought that was really cool as well and a testimony to exactly how the church views excommunication and it's purpose.

[bluebell]

Simply put, bb, it means that regardless of whether you consider repentance a process (as I do) or an act, for the purposes of church discipline there has to be some recognizable endstate in order for the discipline to be complete.

I completely agree.

From what i've read, the end state that the church looks at is the life.

[mercyngrace]

From what i've read, the end state that the church looks at is the life.

That is not always the case. Often there is an arbitrary time period set. Other times, the time frame is dependent on circumstances that are completely unrelated to the person's repentance process.

[mfbukowski]

While these are important considerations making them the most important consideration remains unsupported by scripture and has created the tradition that penitent people need to be excommunicated as opposed to receiving some other measure of censure through church discipline.

For what it's worth, I have never seen this happen in practice, and I am very sorry that you apparently have. I don't know how, practically speaking, we can prevent those who make mistakes in administering "justice" from doing so.

In other words, humans will be humans. So how do we fix it?

Edit:

The way it is written appears to give equal weight to all these considerations.

So we correct the way it is written. WHERE is this "writing"?

[mercyngrace]

PS Policies and practices change. It' a fact. They are not all doctrinal and many are rooted in secular culture (facial hair, earrings, white shirts, etc). Most of the time in recorded religious history the Church was living well below the actual doctrine of the gospel. Our time is no different. We keep laws because of the hardness of our own hearts or of the world around us. Sometimes the way we practice our religion shows where we have room to grow. I wouldn't hang my testimony on current practices or policies because I know that many of them are preparatory.

Just a thought.

[mercyngrace]

For what it's worth, I have never seen this happen in practice, and I am very sorry that you apparently have. I don't know how, practically speaking, we can prevent those who make mistakes in administering "justice" from doing so.

In other words, humans will be humans. So how do we fix it?

Clarification would be a good start. As this thread shows, active, believing LDS with good hearts come at the issue from all angles. This, to me, shows an institutional lack of clarity.

As I mentioned earlier, some think the process is about retribution, others about rehabilitation, and still others about penance. Some say it is required for repentance, but only for some people and in some circumstances. And in spite of posting a myriad of scriptures which uphold my position, I'm getting asked whether or not I support the brethren. Doesn't that seem to you like we could administratively tidy the issue up some?

edit: I just saw your edit - if the conversation I had a few weeks back is an indicator, it needs to be clarified in the CHI for leaders and the doctrine clearly needs to be clarified among members as well when we cover relevant scriptures in classes and such.

FWIW, I think we are moving in the right direction, I just don't think we've arrived. When I was an adolescent, teenagers were being routinely exed in my stake. You don't see that today.

[Pahoran]

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.

That doesn't follow. Sorry.

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?

You're right; that's not how anything happened. It is also not meaningfully analogous to anything the Church does.

Mercy, you need to disabuse yourself of the notion that what you assume the scriptures to mean exactly equates to what the scriptures say. As, for instance, when you take passages describing how individuals need to deal with those who have sinned against them, and errantly assume that these passages legislate for the institutional Church.

The fact is that the purpose of excommunication is twofold: (1) to facilitate repentance, and (2) to protect the Church. Both of these only apply when an offence is entirely contrary to a person's sacred covenants, and has the effect of abrogating those covenants.

And while it is almost certainly the case that wrong judgements have been made from time to time, and will likely happen again, it is not the case that the Church is in error. I recommend you stop trying to steady the ark.

In the early days of the Church, great harm was done when Church leaders were too willing to accept quick protestations of repentance on the part of people who just as quickly reverted. Evidently you approve. Two examples of these were D. Philastus Hurlbut and John C. Bennett. Not only would a more extended period of repentance have protected the Church and its members from those men, it might even have helped them on the path to real repentance.

Regards,

Pahoran

[mercyngrace]

Mercy, you need to disabuse yourself of the notion that what you assume the scriptures to mean exactly equates to what the scriptures say. As, for instance, when you take passages describing how individuals need to deal with those who have sinned against them, and errantly assume that these passages legislate for the institutional Church.

Pahoran, I appreciate your correction but the verses I'm citing from section 42 are about the church's response as an institution.

The fact is that the purpose of excommunication is twofold: (1) to facilitate repentance, and (2) to protect the Church. Both of these only apply when an offence is entirely contrary to a person's sacred covenants, and has the effect of abrogating those covenants.

Are you saying then, that other than in the specific cases listed in scripture, a penitent person should be excommunicated?

And while it is almost certainly the case that wrong judgements have been made from time to time, and will likely happen again, it is not the case that the Church is in error. I recommend you stop trying to steady the ark.

I don't consider voicing my opinion about a policy on an online forum designed for these very kinds of dscussions to be steadying the ark, Pahoran. I consider it to be the absolute appropriate place to discuss issues surrounding the church. It's not like I'm witing letters to the COB or giving sacrament mtg talks on this.

In the early days of the Church, great harm was done when Church leaders were too willing to accept quick protestations of repentance on the part of people who just as quickly reverted. Evidently you approve. Two examples of these were D. Philastus Hurlbut and John C. Bennett. Not only would a more extended period of repentance have protected the Church and its members from those men, it might even have helped them on the path to real repentance.

Why do you presume this? Where have I once said no discipline is the right answer or that quick protestation of penitence suffices? I haven't. Not once.

In this thread, I've been accused of thinking in black and white terms but the reality is that I've never said this was an all or nothing matter. There is a spectrum of disciplinary options.