A Discussion About Excommunication And Disciplinary Councils

[Duncan]

Why don't they destroy the disciplinary records when a person dies?

 

i'd imagine they keep the SLC record around just in case. Plus too some people have been reinstated after death, but those are pretty few, a couple Apostles that I know of anyhoo

[Yirgacheffe]

i'd imagine they keep the SLC record around just in case. Plus too some people have been reinstated after death, but those are pretty few, a couple Apostles that I know of anyhoo

So what's in the record would stop someone from having grandparent baptized and all after they died?

[Duncan]

So what's in the record would stop someone from having grandparent baptized and all after they died?

 

I have no idea! I think that Elders John W. Taylor and someone else I forget, I wonder if their family and Pres. McKay who was involved in the original council had something to do with it, but speculation on my part. 

[awyatt]

Yes, without question, they should be done away with!

Under no circumstance - ever - should a group of human beings sit in judgement of, and/or presume to decide the eternal fate/salvation of another human being.

Ever!

Period!

Disciplinary councils do not decide the "eternal fate/salvation" of an individual; that would be the purview of God. Disciplinary councils only decide the status of the relationship between the individual and the Church.

If the individual believes in God and believes that the Church represents God or is doing God's work, then they no doubt believe that anything the council decides will factor into their repentance process, relative to the Church. (As a bishop, I would routinely explain to individuals that I could not forgive sins; only God could do that and the individual should seek His forgiveness. The only judgement I could pass was relative to the individual's relationship with the Church. I could also help them to repair their relationship with God, which was my ultimate desire for that person.)

If the individual believes in God but does not believe that the Church represents God or is doing God's work, then anything the council decides should present no problem to the individual.

If the individual no longer believes in God and believes the Church is an entirely man-made organization, then anything the council decides would have no efficacy at all.

-Allen

[name]

Hi Sleeper Cell

And what is wrong with “a group of human beings ... [sitting] in judgment of and/or presuming to decide the eternal fate/salvation of another human being?”

Other than it being extraordinarily arrogant, highly insulting and tremendously unkind to the one/ones sitting in the judgement seat.........nothing!

 

 

It is somewhat analogous to someone sitting in judgment on  the internal religious practices of a church to which he/she does not belong and which he/she obviously does not understand. And which he/she insists on interpreting in the worst possible light.

You have 1 out of 3 correct!

[name]

Yes we as a Church do.

That is very unfortunate!

Me personally? I continue to love them no matter what

That is wonderful!

but sometimes distance is the best option available.

I can't think of any examples where "distance" would be the best option for these types of things. 

 

 

We are supposed to show an increase in love towards those who we reprove regardless of church affiliation or lack there o

That's sounds great but how does one do that from a distance and/or by separation?

[name]

Hi again, Allen!

Disciplinary councils do not decide the "eternal fate/salvation" of an individual; that would be the purview of God. Disciplinary councils only decide the status of the relationship between the individual and the Church.

Help me?

If I may ask, can someone live eternally with God (AKA "eternal fate/salvation" no?) if they do not belong to the LDS fold and/or have not been deemed worthy of partaking in the LDS temple?

If the individual believes in God but does not believe that the Church represents God or is doing God's work, then anything the council decides should present no problem to the individual.

If the individual no longer believes in God and believes the Church is an entirely man-made organization, then anything the council decides would have no efficacy at all.

Understood.

Thanks for the discussion.

[Guest]

Hi Sometime!You would "disassociate" (detach/separate) from them?What if they don't "repent?"Are they forever removed from the receiving the love, friendship and support that they once enjoyed/valued from their very own LDS brothers and sisters?

The Church as an institution can never remove anyone from "Love and Fellowship". I have friends who have been ex'ed, we are still friends.

[Kenngo1969]

Hi again, Allen!

Help me?

If I may ask, can someone live eternally with God (AKA "eternal fate/salvation" no?) if they do not belong to the LDS fold and/or have not been deemed worthy of partaking in the LDS temple?

Understood.

Thanks for the discussion.

As Allen so capably points out (in a post that is deserving of far more than the single rep point I gave it) Exaltation (the term Mormons use for Eternal Life with God), ultimately, is a matter for God to decide.  As Allen said, the only thing human beings can decide is the nature of a human being's continuing earthly relationship with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  And whether an action taken against someone's membership status is the final step out of the Church or the first step back into the Church is entirely up to the (former) member.  We believe decisions regarding continued membership are made under God's inspiration and direction. However, if a mistake is made (since God, and not any of His servants, is the Ultimate Arbiter), God (as an Omnipotent, Omniscient Being) is fully capable of setting right anything that needs to be set right.  And while mortality is an important component of the learning experience that eventually determines one's eternal destiny, it is just that: a component.  Joseph Smith taught that learning the things necessary for us to receive our eternal inheritance will continue in the next life, and that it will be "a great while" after we have passed from this life before we have learned them.

[awyatt]

Help me?

If I may ask, can someone live eternally with God (AKA "eternal fate/salvation" no?) if they do not belong to the LDS fold and/or have not been deemed worthy of partaking in the LDS temple?

Sort of. In LDS theology, the only thing required for "living with God" (i.e., in the Celestial Kingdom) is baptism. Obviously, if someone has been excommunicated, then it is as if they were never baptized. In other words, they are no longer bound by the baptismal covenant, and without that covenant in place, they cannot enter into the Celestial Kingdom.

That is where repentance comes into play. The person can repent and be re-baptized in the Church. In other words, he or she can again signify that they are willing to accept the covenants attendant to baptism and to live by them. That door is always open (except in the instance of murder or the vanishingly small possibility of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost), and it is up to the individual to enter through that open door.

-Allen

[name]

Hey Allen,

Thanks for the replies and double thanks for the kind manner you have chosen to reply! (Appreciated)

In LDS theology, the only thing required for "living with God" (i.e., in the Celestial Kingdom) is baptism. Obviously, if someone has been excommunicated, then it is as if they were never baptized. In other words, they are no longer bound by the baptismal covenant, and without that covenant in place, they cannot enter into the Celestial Kingdom.

I'm confused!

In an above reply to me, you told me that "disciplinary councils do not decide the eternal fate/salvation of an individual."

(BTW: This is not on topic for this thread but I was under the impression that there were others things (other than being baptized in the LDS church) that are required to enter the Celestial Kingdom and dwell with God for all eternity.)

[thesometimesaint]

That is very unfortunate!

That is wonderful!

I can't think of any examples where "distance" would be the best option for these types of things. 

 

 

That's sounds great but how does one do that from a distance and/or by separation?

 

Why? The lists of sins that can result in being ex'd is rather short and most involve crime with significant jail time if prosecuted by the state. Deliberately teaching false doctrine is not a crime, but in order to protect the Church from the unscrupulous we do disassociate from therm.

 

If someone is beating the heck out of me. Distance is the best option. When distance isn't possible self defense come in real quick.

 

Letters. telephone, third party involvement, in this day and age E-mail, Facebook, etc., etc., etc..

[ERayR]

Hi Sleeper Cell

Other than it being extraordinarily arrogant, highly insulting and tremendously unkind to the one/ones sitting in the judgement seat.........nothing!

 

 

 

Other than it being extraordinarily arrogant, highly insulting and tremendously unkind to the one/ones sitting in the judgement seat....whose testimonies are being affected and destroyed by the ones being judged.....nothing!

 

[name]

Other than it being extraordinarily arrogant, highly insulting and tremendously unkind to the one/ones sitting in the judgement seat....whose testimonies are being affected and destroyed by the ones being judged.....nothing!

Wow!

My response? I have nothing!

[awyatt]

I'm confused!

In an above reply to me, you told me that "disciplinary councils do not decide the eternal fate/salvation of an individual."

 

I'm sorry for the confusion. Let's see if I can clarify...

 

Our salvation (or, if you prefer, our eternal fate) is between us, individually, and God. Period. That is LDS doctrine.

 

Now, the entire purpose of the Church is to provide an authoritative framework through which priesthood ordinances--which are required for salvation--can be administered to God's children. Those ordinances always consist of the individual accepting covenants that indicate the person's willingness to live by God's laws. The ordinances are made freely available, provided that the person agrees to abide by the "rules," if you will.

 

The idea of "rules" should not surprise anyone. There are requirements listed throughout scripture, in all dispensations, that must be lived up to by God's children in order for Him to be "bound," or to live up to His end of the covenant.

 

In the LDS Church, the baptismal covenant is only withheld, as a result of revelation, from murderers or from those who blaspheme against the Holy Ghost. For all other individuals, the covenant is freely given, upon conditions of repentance. In other words, the person must exhibit that they have repented of their sins in order to receive the covenant.

 

If, after baptism, a person chooses to not live up to the covenant, then ecclesiastical leaders try to work with the individual to help them do so. If the person rejects such correction and persists in not living up to their covenants, then the ecclesiastical leaders can, on behalf of the Church, impose discipline on the individual in order to help him or her repent. In the most extreme instances--including if the person continues to refuse repentance--then the person can be excommunicated and, thereby, be removed from his or her covenants entirely.

 

That does not mean, however, that the person is damned or that the person's "eternal fate" is sealed. What it means is that the person still has the opportunity to repent, but can do so from a position of not being encumbered by covenants to which the person was not measuring up. The door back into the covenant relationship (through baptism) is always open, except in those two instances I already mentioned. It is entirely up to the person whether he or she takes advantage of that open door.

 

Now, those who administer the Church can make mistakes; there is no promise or expectation of infallibility. If mistakes are made (and I'm sure there have been some), then those mistakes can either be corrected by later leaders--which has been done from time to time--or they can be corrected by God, who is the final judge. It is, after all, between God and the individual that salvation and our eternal fate is determined.

 

I hope that helps clarify.

 

-Allen

[name]

Allen,

Yes, that does offer clarity to the LDS position.

Thanks for taking the time to elaborate.

As I was (originally) simply answering a question that you posed in your OP, I will gladly give you the last word in our recent and pleasant exchange.

Thanks again!

[Stargazer]

Uh...yes.  Just like we rely on a new convert's complete truthfulness when they have their baptismal interview.  Unless there is child sexual abuse involved or some overwhelming reason this person cannot be entrusted in certain callings, I think it's inappropriate to keep a detailed account of their previous sin.  I'm an archaeologist and can just see these documents ending up in some kind of public collection someday.

 

Katherine, when I was ward clerk we had a former member reactivate and she wanted to come back into full fellowship.  She said she had asked for her name to be removed from the Church's records.  Our bishop treated the matter that way, and then after she had been coming to Church again for a full year, had her rebaptized.  When the new baptism record was sent in to SLC, the bishop got a somewhat peeved letter from the Membership department informing him that this sister had been excommunicated, and the proper procedure would have been for the excommunicating bishopric to convene a DC, and based on our bishop's recommendation, make a recommendation that she be rebaptised.  But instead of requiring that things be done over properly, they gave our bishop a "pass"  on the matter, but NEXT TIME, please contact SLC FIRST, before making assumptions.

 

This sister had not in fact lied about the matter.  She had sent her then current bishop a letter asking to have her name removed, but that bishop had instead held a DC that she refused to attend, and she was excommunicated.  She had misunderstood what was going on, and thought the DC and the letter she got from her then bishop was the direct result of the name-removal request.  The DC was held because there had been wrongdoing on her part that needed to be addressed.  That's why.

[Stargazer]

i'd imagine they keep the SLC record around just in case. Plus too some people have been reinstated after death, but those are pretty few, a couple Apostles that I know of anyhoo

 

My wife's first husband was excommunicated and never rejoined the Church in life (though he wanted to, health problems got in the way).  After his death his own LDS relatives had him re-baptized and reinstated in full fellowship.  I don't think this is as uncommon as you might think.  SLC may in fact do so automatically -- it seems that this would be the merciful thing to do.

[Yirgacheffe]

 

 

This sister had not in fact lied about the matter.  She had sent her then current bishop a letter asking to have her name removed, but that bishop had instead held a DC that she refused to attend, and she was excommunicated. 

I thought they couldn't do this.

[Stargazer]

I thought they couldn't do this.

 

Do what?  Excommunicate someone?  Excommunicate someone who refused to show up to the DC?

 

The sister sent her bishop a letter requesting name removal.  But the bishop had already determined that a DC needed to be held because of publicly known behavior that merited disciplinary action.  He sent her notification of the DC, and she failed to attend -- for whatever reason -- and she was excommunicated.  As it turned out, the sister in fact believed that the outcome of the DC was the outcome of her name removal request.  

[smac97]

Katherine, when I was ward clerk we had a former member reactivate and she wanted to come back into full fellowship.  She said she had asked for her name to be removed from the Church's records.  Our bishop treated the matter that way, and then after she had been coming to Church again for a full year, had her rebaptized.  When the new baptism record was sent in to SLC, the bishop got a somewhat peeved letter from the Membership department informing him that this sister had been excommunicated, and the proper procedure would have been for the excommunicating bishopric to convene a DC, and based on our bishop's recommendation, make a recommendation that she be rebaptised.  But instead of requiring that things be done over properly, they gave our bishop a "pass"  on the matter, but NEXT TIME, please contact SLC FIRST, before making assumptions.

 

This sister had not in fact lied about the matter.  She had sent her then current bishop a letter asking to have her name removed, but that bishop had instead held a DC that she refused to attend, and she was excommunicated.  She had misunderstood what was going on, and thought the DC and the letter she got from her then bishop was the direct result of the name-removal request.  The DC was held because there had been wrongdoing on her part that needed to be addressed.  That's why.

My understanding was that dissociation from the Church via a request for name removal is functionally equivalent to an excommunication. That is, the individual who removed their own name must obtain First Presidency approval to be re-baptized (just like someone who has been excommunicated).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Stargazer]

My understanding was that dissociation from the Church via a request for name removal is functionally equivalent to an excommunication. That is, the individual who removed their own name must obtain First Presidency approval to be re-baptized (just like someone who has been excommunicated).

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Yes, name-removal is functionally similar to excommunication, but the readmission process is a bit different.

 

FP approval to be rebaptized is not required in the case of excommunication, except for certain specified transgressions (such as murder, apostasy, embezzlement of church funds, etc).  Rebaptism after name-removal likewise does not require FP approval, unless the person committed those certain specified transgressions either before or after name-removal.

Edited July 10, 2014 by Stargazer

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, name-removal is functionally similar to excommunication, but the readmission process is a bit different.

 

FP approval to be rebaptized is not required in the case of excommunication, except for certain specified transgressions (such as murder, apostasy, embezzlement of church funds, etc).  Rebaptism after name-removal likewise does not require FP approval, unless the person committed those certain specified transgressions either before or after name-removal.

So... First Presidency approval for readmission is not required in either instance unless certain specified transgressions were involved.

 

Sounds to me like the process is the same.