Excommunication in the Church

[BookofMormonLuvr]

BofMLvr,

You're certainly entitled to your beliefs, but I will premptively give you a heads up, that you will not find support of this amoung the LDS. To them, the Church and God are nearly synonymous.

- Thanks.

- On many things I don't.... it's par for the course (being an "apostate" and all).

[David T]

FWIW, the point isn't about who is more "merciful". The point is about what the scriptures say about excommunication. And as of yet, no one has shown, other than the instances I pointed out, where we are told to cast out people who are repentant.

Here's a case in point. There was individual who had committed adultery. He was brought before a council, and expressing what appeared to be a repentant heart, was placed on formal probation, and given an outpouring of love. Eventually, all forms of probation ended.

A couple years later, he committed adultery again. He appeared, again, to express penitence in word and action, before the same bishop. After prayerful consideration and discussion, he left the room, and as a council, we read D&C 42:

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

25But he that has committed adultery and repents with all his heart, and forsaketh it, and doeth it ano more, thou shalt forgive;

26But if he doeth it again, he shall not be forgiven, but shall be cast out.

It states nothing about the nature of the second offense, whether repentant or not. According to this scripture, second act of adultery, you are cut off. Period.

We prayed. With he knowledge of this scripture fresh in our minds, and taking into consideration this individual's level of understanding and spiritual maturity, we still felt inspired NOT to convene an excommunication council, but to present conditional official disfellowshipment as what was needed to assist in the process in this particular case. The spirit strongly confirmed that this was correct.

This is where I'm coming from.

[David T]

BofMLvr,

You're certainly entitled to your beliefs, but I will premptively give you a heads up, that you will not find support of this amoung the LDS. To them, the Church and God are nearly synonymous.

As an active, full-fellowship LDS, I completely disagree with this.

[mercyngrace]

I can appreciate that, but i think your second post in this thread implied that it WAS about who was more merciful and Christ-like.

"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."

It seems that you made a judgement in that sentence about those who disagree with you on the subject.

If it helps anyone understand my posts better, almost all my posts in this thread have been a reply to the above statement and implications in it.

Those are implications you inferred, bluebell. There is nothing factually inaccurate about what I've written here. We excommunicate repentant people for the benefit of a community at large (and sometimes the body of saints) who would consider the extension of mercy a "slap on the wrist" or too light of a discipline. We do a lot of things out of respect for the sensibilities of people whose opinions are not necessarily aligned to Christ. To put it in NT terms, it's like refusing to eat perfectly good meat offered to idols out of respect for the for those who worship at their feet.

It's not that I don't see the value in that position. It's just that I've also seen the damage it sometimes causes.

And if you review the two sentences you've excerpted above, you'll notice my use of the word "we". I never raised myself up as a standard. In contrast, I included myself among those who might need to be less demanding of retribution and a little less offended by the extension of mercy.

[David T]

This board is lucky to have her, and would be well to ponder what she has to say.

I agree. And I think there is a lot of talking past each other, and straining at gnats, and assumptions being made about others' intentions.

[LDSToronto]

So here comes my question. Maybe someone who knows more about the inner workings of this process can enlighten me: Is it standard procedure for the stake president to make that sort of phone call, offering to help someone they'd just ex'd to begin the appeals process?

The stake president must inform anyone who has been subject to a disciplinary council, whether it is a council to readmit or a council to impose penalty, that they have the right to appeal the decision. The wording is on the council report and is standard. This is usually done twice - once verbally (though I've only ever see it done face-to-face when the subject of the council is read the decision) and once by means of formal letter.

H.

[Senator]

As an active, full-fellowship LDS, I completely disagree with this.

Glad to hear it!

[bluebell]

Those are implications you inferred, bluebell.

It's true, those are the implications that i inferred. I know i'm not the only one who inferred that so I don't think the inferrence is unreasonable but if it's wrong then now would be a great time to clarify.

Were you not inferring something about the church's level of mercy in regards to excommunicating to protect "innocent victims and the good name of the church" in that statement?

I sincerely don't know how else to read that statement except as a judgement about the mercilessness of those who would excommunicate in situations that you would not personally excommunicate if the choice was yours.

I'm not trying to argue or back you into a corner. I'm trying to respond to a statement as i understood it.

[Senator]

it is acknowledged that He is the final authority in eternal matters, not the church.

I understand that at some future date all things will get straighened out. But practically speaking, how does one differentiate between the two in the here and now?

[Calm]

I too am perplexed by the opposition shown to M&G who is advocating for more mercy and forgiveness. I think the vigorous defense of excommunication, and almost outright rejection of M&G position of offering more grace to the sinner, is a symptom of a jaded society, that is focused on justice, that has crept into the church.

Totally misrepresenting my own position here. My only concern with excommunication is that to ensure a full opportunity for repentance is given the individual, as long as that is met I would be happy with anything decided on by the court.

I think what is being misunderstood and misrepresented is that those of us who are stating that excommunication allows for restitution is that our comments are being rephrased to make it appear that we think this is a required restitution as opposed to an opportunity that is made available on an as needed basis to fuflill repentance, not to substitute for it or to impose further tasks upon the individual.

It would seem to me the major difference between mng and bluebell's and my own position (as likely others I can't remember specifically) is that bluebell and I see repentance as potentially including more external behaviour, that the change of heart that occurs with repentance is most often brought about by action.

Just as faith without works is dead, so is repentance in my own view.

[Calm]

I can appreciate that, but i think your second post in this thread implied that it WAS about who was more merciful and Christ-like.

"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."

It seems that you made a judgement in that sentence about those who disagree with you on the subject.

If it helps anyone understand my posts better, almost all my posts in this thread have been a reply to the above statement and implications in it.

Same here, though I have the additional position that "casting out" does not equate to excommunication each and every time it occurs (as does my husband who had to participate in a number of courts and who has study and discussed the process with others in leadership.)

[mercyngrace]

It would seem to me the major difference between mng and bluebell's and my own position (as likely others I can't remember specifically) is that bluebell and I see repentance as potentially including more external behaviour, that the change of heart that occurs with repentance is most often brought about by action.

Just as faith without works is dead, so is repentance in my own view.

Probation and disfellowshipment allow for those external behavioral changes also.

It's not excommunication or nothing.

[mercyngrace]

It's true, those are the implications that i inferred. I know i'm not the only one who inferred that so I don't think the inferrence is unreasonable but if it's wrong then now would be a great time to clarify.

I've clarified repeatedly.

And the real irony is that while you were inferring what you did, I was receiving a PM from a former bishop on the board expressing his support for what I was saying. I won't quote him without his permission but essentially he found the spirit invariably came down on the side of not excommunicating the penitent and he read the scriptures just as I do.

So even though you may have found yours a reasonable inferrence, there were others who clearly understood what I meant.

[Calm]

Probation and disfellowshipment allow for those external behavioral changes also.

It's not excommunication or nothing.

This is getting somewhat frustrating (not angry or accusing here and certainly not feeling the least like showing my fangs that drip with venom lol, just feel like somehow my words aren't being printed on others' screen so that they end up guessing what I'm thinking....because their responses don't make sense to if they understood my points).

Please point out when I have ever stated or implied that 'it's excommunication or nothing' so I can tell what I am saying wrong. Half the time you seem to me to be responding to something I have not said or that your response was answered at least in part by what I said but you did not take it into consideration in your comments, but instead just continued to repeat your own position (which I agree with for the most part and only in the fine tuning would disagree leaving more options of behaviour being left open so that the needs of the individuals can be completely addressed).

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Miscommunication seems to be a two-way street here...

M&G has been accused several times, even after carefully clarifying, of taking the "If they say sorry, good enough." position- a position which she has not taken.

So I hope you would excuse her as she attempts to address your comments, as I am sure you would hope she would forgive any misrepresentation of her posts you may make.

[mercyngrace]

This is getting somewhat frustrating (not angry or accusing here and certainly not feeling the least like showing my fangs that drip with venom lol, just feel like somehow my words aren't being printed on others' screen so that they end up guessing what I'm thinking....because their responses don't make sense to if they understood my points).

Please point out when I have ever stated or implied that 'it's excommunication or nothing' so I can tell what I am saying wrong. Half the time you seem to me to be responding to something I have not said or that your response was answered at least in part by what I said but you did not take it into consideration in your comments, but instead just continued to repeat your own position (which I agree with for the most part and only in the fine tuning would disagree leaving more options of behaviour being left open so that the needs of the individuals can be completely addressed).

We should have (herb) tea. It feels very much like we have a lot in common.

Miscommunication seems to be a two-way street here...

M&G has been accused several times, even after carefully clarifying, of taking the "If they say sorry, good enough." position- a position which she has not taken.

So I hope you would excuse her as she attempts to address your comments, as I am sure you would hope she would forgive any misrepresentation of her posts you may make.

Thanks BOML - this is EXACTLY why I responded to Cal's post. I shouldn't have to repeat my posts but if you go back and count how many times I've been characterized as saying that repentance doesn't include a manifested change of heart or something more than "I'm sorry", you could be here a while. Pahoran even went so far as to suggest that "evidently" I would have supported too swift forgiveness for wrongs from over a century ago.

[bluebell]

I've clarified repeatedly.

And the real irony is that while you were inferring what you did, I was receiving a PM from a former bishop on the board expressing his support for what I was saying. I won't quote him without his permission but essentially he found the spirit invariably came down on the side of not excommunicating the penitent and he read the scriptures just as I do.

So even though you may have found yours a reasonable inferrence, there were others who clearly understood what I meant.

Yes, and from the PM's i've gotten there seem to be those of us who didn't.

Maybe we can compare how many is on each of our sides to find out who has won the debate?

[mercyngrace]

Yes, and from the PM's i've gotten there seem to be those of us who didn't.

Maybe we can compare how many is on each of our sides to find out who has won the debate?

I didn't bring the discussion up to win anything, bluebell.

[Calm]

Perhaps it would help if I gave an real life example of the type of situations I am thinking of. I have a dear friend who became involved in an adulterous relationship. She confessed of her own free will and was, as far as I could tell, truly repentant of what she had done and how she had harmed not only herself and and family, but the extended ward family as well. She intellectually understood the process of repentance and forgiveness and knew all the right things to do and she found from what I could see forgiveness as well, but she did not know the Atonement deep down in the core of her soul (this emotional obstacle was probably the main reason she let herself get seduced in the first place). This led to her not being able to deal effectively with an enormous burden of guilt which in turn led to resentment and other emotional issues.

Saying to her "Go and sin no more" was not enough because she didn't see that as fixing what was broken, putting right what had been twisted wrong. OTOH, the excommunication process gave her the time to step back, to learn to be reliant on God and the Spirit in a new way, to look at the Gospel and its blessings in a new way and it provided an external structure that allowed her to internally absorb what being forgiven actually meant when it came to the consequences of her actions. Excommunication was not "casting out" in her case, but a "setting apart" for a time to allow her compass to stop the spin that her sin had set in motion and which even forgiveness had not been able to fully slow down and set right.

In this case if they had judged her need solely by whether or not she was truly penitent, they would have neglected her personal desire for something more...something that disfellowship or probation was not enough to invoke within her (since she 'knew' she was going to be excommunicated because that is what she 'deserved' in her own view, anything less would have been seen by her as an empty gesture.)

[LDSToronto]

Totally misrepresenting my own position here. My only concern with excommunication is that to ensure a full opportunity for repentance is given the individual, as long as that is met I would be happy with anything decided on by the court.

MnG, if I read her posts correctly, advocates that excommunication is not necessary for the penitent. But, for all the problems I have with the church, I think that excommunication is called for in some instances, even when the offender has repented in full. In cases of child or spousal abuse, sexual abuse, incest, or other despicable crimes in which grievous harm was caused, I believe that the church has a responsibility to disassociate itself from such offenders. As an organization that promotes good in the world, providing shelter to such can be equated with tolerance for such actions. Excommunication, thus, is perfectly fine, in my opinion, for punitive purposes. Not a popular stance, I suppose, but then again, I've never been accused of taking a popular stance.

Is it the morally right thing to do? I get queezy thinking about it, because fundamentally I understand the nature of the gospel so I know what the answer should be. But given the church's position as a social institution, it would be very detrimental for it to take on the burden of defending the most base crimes.

Now, I want to make one thing clear, and it's the reason I jumped in at this point in the thread. Calmoriah states she'd be happy with anything the court decides provided the opportunity for repentance is available. I'm not going to suggest that Calmoriah is being judgmental, but her reply did spark some memories of disciplinary councils I've participated in. I've had my share of members approach me and demand justice for this offence and that offence. I've had high councilors tell me that entire wards are clucking about Brother So-and-So who hasn't had a council yet for his homosexuality/lying ways/cheating heart/etc/etc/etc. So, to my point - while I agree that excommunication is necessary to show that the Church takes a hard stance against certain atrocities, I thoroughly disagree that satisfying gossipy and judgmental members should ever have an ounce of influence on whether a person is excommunicated.

H.

[Calm]

Miscommunication seems to be a two-way street here...

It generally is.

M&G has been accused several times, even after carefully clarifying, of taking the "If they say sorry, good enough." position- a position which she has not taken.

That has not been an issue in any of my posts, IIRC. It certainly wasn't what I was thinking of when I was writing my comments.

I would like to point out that no one has accused her of being venomous though.

[bluebell]

I didn't bring the discussion up to win anything, bluebell.

I'm sorry, i thought you brought it up to prove your point. I guess i didn't understand your reasons if that wasn't one of them.

For the record, if i've misunderstood you, then i'm sorry. As i said in my unacknowledged PM to you last nigt, I haven't taken our disagreement at all personally and still very much count you as a friend.

I hope you haven't taken it personally either.

[Calm]

We should have (herb) tea. It feels very much like we have a lot in common.

As long as it's ginger or peach tea (most other teas taste like dirt to me for some reason, my tastebuds are usually more welcoming of natural, simple tastes than the synthetic kind...but not when it comes to herb tea).

[bluebell]

It generally is.That has not been an issue in any of my posts, IIRC. It certainly wasn't what I was thinking of when I was writing my comments.

I would like to point out that no one has accused her of being venomous though.

Likewise-As i have also said more than once, i am under no impression in the least that MnG believes repentance to be an instantaneous thing. If anyone has gotten that from my posts, then they have misunderstood.

[bluebell]

As long as it's ginger or peach tea (most other teas taste like dirt to me for some reason, my tastebuds are usually more welcoming of natural, simple tastes than the synthetic kind...but not when it comes to herb tea).

I'm a fan of orange myself.