Excommunication in the Church

[nicolasconnault]

I tend to agree that sometimes excommunication is required despite full repentance, when any other action may reasonably lead to significant damage to the good name of the Church or the faith of many members. However, after all due consideration, the ultimate decision rests entirely on the promptings of the Spirit.

[bluebell]

I tend to agree that sometimes excommunication is required despite full repentance, when any other action may reasonably lead to significant damage to the good name of the Church or the faith of many members. However, after all due consideration, the ultimate decision rests entirely on the promptings of the Spirit.

These are my feelings as well.

[mercyngrace]

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.

BB,

It went unacknowledged because I wasn't sure exactly how to respond and wanted to do so in the right spirit. I'm sorry that came across badly. It was well past midnight here and I didn't want to respond flippantly or with the wrong words. I'm still working my thought out, more for my sake than yours I suppose. But there shouldn't ever be a question in your mind about whether we are friends. That is always a given. Perhaps we can discuss if over tea.

MnG

[Calm]

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.

TThe reality is I've never made a judgment about what the outcome should be in a court, I don't talk to others in my wards or neighbourhoods about court proceedings. And people don't come and talk to me about it, so either I've been in wards that don't gossip or I've got some sign on my forehead that lights up 'not interested' when the topic occurs to someone else. That someone would use a comment of mine as a jumping off point to condemn such behaviour demonstrates just how bizarre the world can be sometimes.

The only way I know any details of either the court or the reasons leading up to it is because those who went through the discipline process came and talked to me about it....not that I asked them to. I don't believe I've ever had enough knowledge of all that was involved to be able to make an intellectual judgment and I certainly don't have the stewardship that would provide me with the spiritual guidance to do so....and I've never felt the need to ask for that guidance as I believe that the only role I need to be worried about is my own response to the need of others...that I am to forgive (if there is something for me to forgive) and to support (always), not to stand in judgment of them and I sincerely hope I am never in that position to do so.

I am happy with anything the court decides because that is their stewardship, not mine (this is not saying I assume that they get it right all the time either, it's saying it's not my business). It is not something that i pay attention to in any way save discussing here what is the purpose of courts and how they may be most effective in helping those involved.

PS: I am not trying to brag or anything here, this attribute is not out of any effort on my part, I've never been any different even as an 8th grade girl...most who I've been told tend to spend their time in gossip and criticisms of others, if it is happening around me, apparently I filter it out, so while it is not a 'fault' of mine, it is nothing to be proud of either...though I am grateful to whomever set things up this way as it's one less fault I need to overcome.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

These are my feelings as well.

So fully repentant person's should be ex'd in order to placate the sentiments of an unbelieving public or doubting members within? Is the church the Kingdom of God or a business?

[LDSToronto]

So fully repentant person's should be ex'd in order to placate the sentiments of an unbelieving public or doubting members within? Is the church the Kingdom of God or a business?

BoML, I think it's incumbent on the church not to give any sign that it supports or condones heinous crimes that harm others. Let's keep this practical and relevant and stay off the posthumous road. Simply, excommunication is a necessarily punitive act, at times, and failure to act this way would paint the church in a rather poor light, no?

H.

[bluebell]

So fully repentant person's should be ex'd in order to placate the sentiments of an unbelieving public or doubting members within? Is the church the Kingdom of God or a business?

It's the kingdom of God.

Excommunication should never be only to placate.

Yes, I think there could be valid reasons for a fully repenant person to be excommunicated.

[David T]

Part of repentance is restitution. In some cases, when the reputation of the Church and trustworthiness of its leaders is placed in question and damaged by an individual's actions, humble submission to swift excommunication is part of making restitution to help restore the good name and effectiveness of the Church and her mission.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

BoML, I think it's incumbent on the church not to give any sign that it supports or condones heinous crimes that harm others. Let's keep this practical and relevant and stay off the posthumous road. Simply, excommunication is a necessarily punitive act, at times, and failure to act this way would paint the church in a rather poor light, no?

H.

Whether or not it would is unimportant. If an individual has fully repented, the person is forgiven... period. Those who don't like it need to examine their own lives and stop focusing on the faults of others.

[Calm]

BoMLr, for me this goes to the heart of the issue in exploring what responsibility in repenting does an individual have towards those they've harmed, even in a small way or by causing others to stumble in faith (reminds me of a few scriptures, but no time to find them). Can repentance take place if we choose not to do something more than we've already done? Is there a time when we can say "enough is enough...yes, I know that person is suffering because of me, but I've repented and been forgiven so now it's the Lord's burden and I do not need to make any more sacrifices'? Or would someone who is repentant---out of love for others and a desire to serve---continue to look for ways to help others heal from the past harm even as he has been healed and would he be willing to be the sacrifice when he sees it to be necessary or even just most effective or even maybe there just might be a chance it could be helpful?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

BoMLr, for me this goes to the heart of the issue in exploring what responsibility in repenting does an individual have towards those they've harmed, even in a small way or by causing others to stumble in faith (reminds me of a few scriptures, but no time to find them). Can repentance take place if we choose not to do something more than we've already done? Is there a time when we can say "enough is enough...yes, I know that person is suffering because of me, but I've repented and been forgiven so now it's the Lord's burden and I do not need to make any more sacrifices'? Or would someone who is repentant---out of love for others and a desire to serve---continue to look for ways to help others heal from the past harm even as he has been healed and would he be willing to be the sacrifice when he sees it to be necessary or even just most effective or even maybe there just might be a chance it could be helpful?

I do not believe it is necessary to brow-beat ourselves for our mistakes for the rest of our lives to try the earn the forgiveness of someone who may never feel inclined to forgive us. At some point they have the agency to accept our efforts at repentance and forgive or not. But to put our entire focus of our lives on how we can try to get someone to forgive us and heal is unhealthy on some level.

[LDSToronto]

Whether or not it would is unimportant. If an individual has fully repented, the person is forgiven... period. Those who don't like it need to examine their own lives and stop focusing on the faults of others.

I agree that anyone who demands excommunication needs to take a step back and re-examine their need for vengeance. But, let's use an example, shall we?

Suppose that a certain member had tortured and abused an 11 year old child. For whatever reason, the perpetrator feels godly sorrow, and fully repents of this act, never, ever does it again, apologizes sincerely to the victim, and has it confirmed by spiritual means that God has forgiven the perpetrator. This process takes about 10 years; the victim is now 21, and has previously been so fearful and psychologically damaged that telling an adult didn't appear to be rational choice to this victim. With the apology, the victim finally feels safe enough to come forward, reports the crime to the police and to the bishop, and feels relieved to not have to live in fear any longer. The police make the appropriate arrests and charges, the courts sentence the perpetrator, the perpetrator serves the sentence.

Now, the question is this - should the church hold a disciplinary council and excommunicate the perpetrator? Consider the outcomes of excommunication vs. not excommunication. What I hear you saying BoML, is that the church should not excommunicate in this case. I say, the church must.

Don't fiddle with the analogy, focus on the outcomes.

H.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I agree that anyone who demands excommunication needs to take a step back and re-examine their need for vengeance. But, let's use an example, shall we?

Suppose that a certain member had tortured and abused an 11 year old child. For whatever reason, the perpetrator feels godly sorrow, and fully repents of this act, never, ever does it again, apologizes sincerely to the victim, and has it confirmed by spiritual means that God has forgiven the perpetrator. This process takes about 10 years; the victim is now 21, and has previously been so fearful and psychologically damaged that telling an adult didn't appear to be rational choice to this victim. With the apology, the victim finally feels safe enough to come forward, reports the crime to the police and to the bishop, and feels relieved to not have to live in fear any longer. The police make the appropriate arrests and charges, the courts sentence the perpetrator, the perpetrator serves the sentence.

Now, the question is this - should the church hold a disciplinary council and excommunicate the perpetrator? Consider the outcomes of excommunication vs. not excommunication. What I hear you saying BoML, is that the church should not excommunicate in this case. I say, the church must.

Don't fiddle with the analogy, focus on the outcomes.

H.

No, I do not believe a church court should be convened in this case. The public humiliation of being arrested and sentenced coupled with his sincere repentance, and confirmation of forgiveness, make the matter over spiritually.

[David T]

No, I do not believe a church court should be convened in this case. The public humiliation of being arrested and sentenced coupled with his sincere repentance, and confirmation of forgiveness, make the matter over spiritually.

During this whole process, was the individual lying to his ecclesiastical leaders on Temple Recommend questions? Being extended calls to positions that would place him in contact with minors?

The safety of others, and the Good Name and trustworthiness of the Church and its leader, believe it or not, are very important to it being able to accomplish properly its work, and do in fact need to be taken into consideration. That is the Nephi/Laban principle.

Part of repentance is fulfilling one's legal obligations. If one has not submitted to legal authority for his crimes, it is a sign he has not fully repented up to that point. He did not turn himself in - he needed to be caught.

This is actually something that is very much taken into consideration when a disciplinary council is convened - was the person caught, or did he voluntarily confess without any outside forcing of the issue.

[LDSToronto]

No, I do not believe a church court should be convened in this case. The public humiliation of being arrested and sentenced coupled with his sincere repentance, and confirmation of forgiveness, make the matter over spiritually.

OK. Let me ask this, then, BoML: how should the general public view the church if it acted this way? What about it's detractors?

H.

[David T]

From the current CHI:

The purposes of Church discipline are (1) to save the souls of transgressors, (2) to protect the innocent and (3) to safeguard the purity, integrity, and good name of the Church.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

During this whole process, was the individual lying to his ecclesiastical leaders on Temple Recommend questions? Being extended calls to positions that would place him in contact with minors?

The safety of others, and the Good Name and trustworthiness of the Church and its leader, believe it or not, are very important to it being able to accomplish properly its work, and do in fact need to be taken into consideration.

Part of repentance is fulfilling one's legal obligations. If one has not submitted to legal authority for his crimes, it is a sign he has not fully repented up to that point. He did not turn himself in - he needed to be caught.

This is actually something that is very much taken into consideration when a disciplinary council is convened - was the person caught, or did he voluntarily confess without any outside forcing of the issue.

I stand by my position based on the story outlined. I know it is easy to make certain people the "boogey-man", but I refuse to do so.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

OK. Let me ask this, then, BoML: how should the general public view the church if it acted this way? What about it's detractors?

H.

General Public- anyway they choose to. The repentance process is between the man and the Lord, no between the man and him. The general public doesn't determine whether the man is forgiven or not. Should we take a public poll whenever we want to rebaptize someone?

Detractors- will be detractors no matter what course of action the church chooses.

[David T]

When one violates the trust of the Church and his leaders, part of restitution is between the organization. Remaining around while being a legal predator and lying about serious legal matters to obtain a recommend or further falsely gain trust and sensitive access to individuals and services is, in fact, serious, and generally will need to be addressed.

General Public- anyway they choose to. The repentance process is between the man and the Lord, no between the man and him. The general public doesn't determine whether the man is forgiven or not. Should we take a public poll whenever we want to rebaptize someone?

Detractors- will be detractors no matter what course of action the church chooses.

[LDSToronto]

I stand by my position based on the story outlined. I know it is easy to make certain people the "boogey-man", but I refuse to do so.

Well, you don't need to, but the Church will. Do you realize that in the case I described, the perpetrator would have an annotation made to their membership record, for life, stating that they are not allowed to be alone with children or hold any calling that involves children?

H.

[David T]

for purposes of clarifying what the actual current policy is, here is an excerpt from the relevant section from the current (2010) CHI:

--

A person who is excommunicated is no longer a member of the Church. Excommunication Is the most severe Church disciplinary action. As directed by the Spirit, it may be necessary for:

1. Members who have committed serious transgressions, especially violations of temple covenants

2. Members. who have been disfellowshipped and have not repented and for whom excommunication seems to offer the best hope for reformation

3. Members whose conduct makes then a serious threat to others and whose Church membership facilitates their access to victims

4. Church leaders or prominent members whose transgressions significantly impair the good name or moral influence of the Church in the community that is aware of the transgression

Excommunication is mandatory for murder and is almost always required for incest.

---

[mfbukowski]

for purposes of clarifying what the actual current policy is, here is an excerpt from the relevant section from the current (2010) CHI:

--

A person who is excommunicated is no longer a member of the Church. Excommunication Is the most severe Church disciplinary action. As directed by the Spirit, it may be necessary for:

1. Members who have committed serious transgressions, especially violations of temple covenants

2. Members. who have been disfellowshipped and have not repented and for whom excommunication seems to offer the best hope for reformation

3. Members whose conduct makes then a serious threat to others and whose Church membership facilitates their access to victims

4. Church leaders or prominent members whose transgressions significantly impair the good name or moral influence of the Church in the community that is aware of the transgression

Excommunication is mandatory for murder and is almost always required for incest.

---

Thanks for posting that. We needed several pages back-

I think it is important to realize that murder is the only offense for which excommunication is required, and is recognized as the most serious action which can be taken, and is to be used by discretion and most importantly, AS DIRECTED BY THE SPIRIT.

Anything like "revenge excommunication" against a penitant individual, I would argue even one who has committed incest, is definitiely not mandatory nor in my opinion, is it necessarily in the best interests of the repentant individual.

Again, the key words are "as directed by the Spirit".

In my experience, this is the way excommunication has always been handled. It is reserved for those who are openly defiant or not repentant in the slightest.

[nicolasconnault]

Whether or not it would is unimportant. If an individual has fully repented, the person is forgiven... period. Those who don't like it need to examine their own lives and stop focusing on the faults of others.

Members whose sin leads to excommunication are almost certainly aware of that consequence, just as they are aware that if their sin is illegal and they are caught, there will be legal proceedings. They choose to ignore these consequences. The purpose of repentance is not to remove the consequences of our actions, except the eternal damnation that is attached to their perpetration. Forgiveness wipes out the guilt and the sin, not its consequences. Excommunication, in some cases, is one of the appropriate consequences of sin, and should be applied even after full repentance.

Besides, most sins that lead to excommunication take a long time to fully repent of, if for no other reason that one of the conditions of repentance is the forsaking of the sinful behaviour.

I also add that, for some members who thus sin, excommunication is precisely what they expect, and their own repentance can be impeded if they do not receive that consequence. I know of at least one person who committed a significant sin, expected to be excommunicated, but wasn't, and who soon returned to his sinful behaviour because he felt that the punishment was not appropriate and made the sin appear trivial. To his leaders, he had appeared fully repentant.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Thanks for posting that. We needed several pages back-

I think it is important to realize that murder is the only offense for which excommunication is required, and is recognized as the most serious action which can be taken, and is to be used by discretion and most importantly, AS DIRECTED BY THE SPIRIT.

Anything like "revenge excommunication" against a penitant individual, I would argue even one who has committed incest, is definitiely not mandatory nor in my opinion, is it necessarily in the best interests of the repentant individual.

Again, the key words are "as directed by the Spirit".

In my experience, this is the way excommunication has always been handled. It is reserved for those who are openly defiant or not repentant in the slightest.

I agree with you on this 100% the only guaranteed excommunication is for murder (I would throw in also denying the Holy Ghost but this extremely rare) this is because murder is unforgivable. To intentionally kill the innocent is unforgivable once cannot be saved from such conduct, so excommunication is required.

You are also correct any Church Discipline should never be done as a revenge form of punishment, but as a most serious action taken to correct grossly improper behavior resulting from extremely serious sins (in most cases I would expect one would also have to be non repentant also) and is only to be invoked under the direct guidance of the Holy Ghost.

[Calm]

I do not believe it is necessary to brow-beat ourselves for our mistakes for the rest of our lives to try the earn the forgiveness of someone who may never feel inclined to forgive us. At some point they have the agency to accept our efforts at repentance and forgive or not. But to put our entire focus of our lives on how we can try to get someone to forgive us and heal is unhealthy on some level.

And that is only tangentially related to what I said. The parts about "entire focus" or 'browbeating ourselves' have nothing to do with what I said.

Helping others heal from the harm we have done them involves a whole lot more than just helping learn to forgive us.

I personally would hope that we all have the desire to help others overcome whatever handicaps they possess in their lives, including those handicaps that were created through others' sinful actions. This desire to be of service to others would, I believe, be heightened in someone who had learned to regret causing pain and suffering in others, as demonstrated scripturally in the lives of the Alma and the sons of Mosiah and Paul. Also if our sins caused others to partake of certain sins as well, then I think we would probably have an awareness of that sin and its effect on others and that would likely be an area we would be committed to helping others in...again like Alma, etc. where having first been the cause of many losing faith and leaving the Church, their actions were directly focused on bringing people to or back into the fold of the Gospel.