Recent Excommunications

[JLHPROF]

A large number of semi-public recent excommunications seem to be generating much discussion and debate here and on social media.

I thought a simplistic anonymous poll might be interesting.

(Poll would only allow three names so I intentionally left the Calderwoods off since they post on this board and Denver Snuffer too, although I probably would have included him if there was space.)

 

I thought a summary poll of all the lengthy debating might be useful.

If enough people think this poll is improper post a comment and I will lock the thread.  I know that Church discipline isn't an issue of voting, but since there is SO much debate I was interested to see the board consensus, especially among those posters who actually follow these people on blogs and podcasts etc and understand their positions.

 

 

 

 

 

[Gray]

I personally think the only reason to excommunicate someone is if they pose some kind of tangible threat to the ward - for instance, sex offenders. 

 

So I'm not really sure how to vote. 

[JLHPROF]

I personally think the only reason to excommunicate someone is if they pose some kind of tangible threat to the ward - for instance, sex offenders. 

 

So I'm not really sure how to vote. 

 

I would think that would come under "overstepped" then.

[stemelbow]

I personally think the only reason to excommunicate someone is if they pose some kind of tangible threat to the ward - for instance, sex offenders. 

 

So I'm not really sure how to vote.

Similar here. Although I went ahead and answered the poll picking overstepped for Kate and Rock and selecting no opinion for Dehlin. As it is, I don't think excommunicating Dehlin was good for anyone, so I'd say it shouldn't have happened. But, with the way things are in the Church I can see that the Church felt like it had good grounding. The other two seemed to be over-steps in my view.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

KK = Right on.
JD = Right on.
RW = Overstepped

DS = Recent claims make it up in the air for me.
C&MC = Up in the air, leaning towards overstep

Edited June 5, 2015 by BookofMormonLuvr

[JLHPROF]

KK = Right on.

JD = Right on.

RW = Overstepped

DS = Recent claims make it up in the air for me.

C&MC = Up in the air, leaning towards overstep

 

A rep point for answering fully and honestly, not because I agree. 

[BookofMormonLuvr]

A rep point for answering fully and honestly, not because I agree. 

Understood. 

[JLHPROF]

It occurs to me that this same exercise could have been applied back in the days of the September Six.

[Buckeye]

I need an option for "I have an opinion, because I pretty much have an opinion on everything, but I'd rather not express it because it's not my place."

[Gray]

I would think that would come under "overstepped" then.

 

Except that that doesn't mean they didn't follow the rules currently in place. 

[HappyJackWagon]

Overstepped.

 

1- If they claim to simply remove membership of an undesireable that would be one thing, but claiming to nullify all eternal covenants and blessings goes to far. I don't buy it.

 

2- They sometimes abuse the process. Like the Bishop refusing to transfer KK records when she moves and notify her of a DC the day she is leaving wreaks of abuse. Or Waterman being called in for a DC before he's ever been counseled what is wrong and what he should do to fix it. Wrong.

 

 

ETA- And don't forget the Calderwoods. IMO that was the worst abuse and I think it was done to send a message to other's struggling with belief.

Edited June 5, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[The Nehor]

Not far enough. We need to make examples of them. Burning, firing squad, waterboarding, we need more!

[Duncan]

I personally think the only reason to excommunicate someone is if they pose some kind of tangible threat to the ward - for instance, sex offenders. 

 

So I'm not really sure how to vote. 

 

 

well, I think they should ex for adultery, rampant fornication, major crime (if you're importing stolen goods or cheating people out of their life savings. I saw a TV show once about teens lynching someone, they didn't die but I think garbage like that should warrant excommunication

[HappyJackWagon]

well, I think they should ex for adultery, rampant fornication, major crime (if you're importing stolen goods or cheating people out of their life savings. I saw a TV show once about teens lynching someone, they didn't die but I think garbage like that should warrant excommunication

Why not change the purpose of excommunication. Instead of VOIDING all covenants and blessings for eternity perhaps the church could simply view it as a removal of membership from the church. I'd feel a lot better about that. Still, there are some cases that certainly warrant any organization to separate themselves from a member.

 

Is there a revelation that explains that excommunication or "blotting out" the name removes all covenants and blessings as opposed to just removal of membership?

[Danzo]

well, I think they should ex for adultery, rampant fornication, major crime (if you're importing stolen goods or cheating people out of their life savings. I saw a TV show once about teens lynching someone, they didn't die but I think garbage like that should warrant excommunication

I all three were according to church policy and were justified but I would like to add a disclaimer that I did not participate in the process and that my information is limited.  I cannot see into the hearts of these individuals, but I support the stake high counsel and bishoprics in their duties to attempt to do so.

 

The key, I think, is the reaction of these individuals. I did not see any evidence of repentance (at least in the information that I have seen).  In the disciplinary councils that I have witnessed, the willingness to repent is a big consideration.

 

Also, unless they did it very differently than what I have seen in the past, these people should have seen it coming for a while (I could see it coming for a while on some of these people).  I have no personal knowledge of an instance where someone just taps you on the shoulder and says that you are excommunicated, there is usually many discussions with priesthood leaders before it happens.

[The Nehor]

Why not change the purpose of excommunication. Instead of VOIDING all covenants and blessings for eternity perhaps the church could simply view it as a removal of membership from the church. I'd feel a lot better about that. Still, there are some cases that certainly warrant any organization to separate themselves from a member.

 

Is there a revelation that explains that excommunication or "blotting out" the name removes all covenants and blessings as opposed to just removal of membership?

 

It is removing your covenants but those covenants and blessings are conditional and are already void anyways. What would be the point of keeping them?

[Danzo]

Why not change the purpose of excommunication. Instead of VOIDING all covenants and blessings for eternity perhaps the church could simply view it as a removal of membership from the church. I'd feel a lot better about that. Still, there are some cases that certainly warrant any organization to separate themselves from a member.

 

Is there a revelation that explains that excommunication or "blotting out" the name removes all covenants and blessings as opposed to just removal of membership?

 

Usually (especially if it is done right) all of the breaking of the covenants has occurred before the council has convened.  The council is just formalizing what has already happened.

[JLHPROF]

Usually (especially if it is done right) all of the breaking of the covenants has occurred before the council has convened.  The council is just formalizing what has already happened.

 

In which case they are not nullifying the covenant, but instead judging that it is already nullified.

An subtle but significant difference.  It is quite one thing to recognize a covenant has been broken and declare it void as opposed to declaring a covenant void as a matter of discipline.  One is natural consequence, the other a punishment.

[why me]

It would certainly be an interesting church if kate and others were allowed to stand at the podium and preach women having the priesthood and how the leaders got it all wrong. Or John talking about why gays should be married in the temple and how the leaders got it all wrong. Or Rock and his ideas. Or in priesthood, we can have some bishops who agree with kate give a lesson on why women should hold the priesthood and why gays and lesbians should be married in the temple etc. And how church policy is wrong and how the leaders are now uninspired. Ultimate freedom would be an interesting concept.

 

We can have debates in sacrament meetings about church doctrine and what doctrine the church should have and not have. Or a debate about chasity and why it is outdated. All this would be interesting and exciting. But it would create a church of craziness and it would destroy the community. So, what should the church do? I suppose that they should keep exing the members who come out against church doctrine and policy. Social media can be a powerful tool for destroying the social harmony of the church if left unchecked. And if I were an ex member with an axe to grind, I would certainly want the community and its social cohesion destroyed.

[HappyJackWagon]

Usually (especially if it is done right) all of the breaking of the covenants has occurred before the council has convened.  The council is just formalizing what has already happened.

Then why do they make a special point  to let the person know the baptismal and temple covenants and blessings are void? If it's already a done deal, why make the point of saying, "If you are excommunicated it will mean ....."

[HappyJackWagon]

It would certainly be an interesting church if kate and others were allowed to stand at the podium and preach women having the priesthood and how the leaders got it all wrong. Or John talking about why gays should be married in the temple and how the leaders got it all wrong. Or Rock and his ideas. Or in priesthood, we can have some bishops who agree with kate give a lesson on why women should hold the priesthood and why gays and lesbians should be married in the temple etc. And how church policy is wrong and how the leaders are now uninspired. Ultimate freedom would be an interesting concept.

 

We can have debates in sacrament meetings about church doctrine and what doctrine the church should have and not have. Or a debate about chasity and why it is outdated. All this would be interesting and exciting. But it would create a church of craziness and it would destroy the community. So, what should the church do? I suppose that they should keep exing the members who come out against church doctrine and policy. Social media can be a powerful tool for destroying the social harmony of the church if left unchecked. And if I were an ex member with an axe to grind, I would certainly want the community and its social cohesion destroyed.

But none of these people have had these conversations in church. They are speaking outside of church to people who self-select to listen. They have no power to force anyone to listen or believe what they are saying. So your comparison is way off. Isom stated that members could have discussions in church regarding SSM and female ordination and that it would be appropriate to do so, but these people didn't even go that far, yet they were X'd. It's a very punitive and hostile approach to dissent

[Danzo]

Then why do they make a special point  to let the person know the baptismal and temple covenants and blessings are void? If it's already a done deal, why make the point of saying, "If you are excommunicated it will mean ....."

 

Order in the kingdom.  

 

Often people are not sure of their exact status until the council makes the decision.   Also finality, if it were left up to individuals to decide based on what they feel at the moment, there would be a lot of confusion. as to whether one can go to the temple, hold callings, etc.   Someone has to make the call and the would be the bishop or stake president.

[Danzo]

In which case they are not nullifying the covenant, but instead judging that it is already nullified.

An subtle but significant difference.  It is quite one thing to recognize a covenant has been broken and declare it void as opposed to declaring a covenant void as a matter of discipline.  One is natural consequence, the other a punishment.

 

When done right (humans don't always do everything right) excommunication should be a natural consequence, not a punishment.

[HappyJackWagon]

Order in the kingdom.  

 

Often people are not sure of their exact status until the council makes the decision.   Also finality, if it were left up to individuals to decide based on what they feel at the moment, there would be a lot of confusion. as to whether one can go to the temple, hold callings, etc.   Someone has to make the call and the would be the bishop or stake president.

I don't think so. It's punitive.

 

It is easily explained that since you are no longer a member of the church you no longer hold callngs or qualify for a temple recommend. The end. It's rubbing salt in the wound when they explicitly tell people, your baptismal covenants are null and void. You are no longer sealed to your spouse and children. You will be alone for eternity. What a load of guilt and shame.

[Danzo]

But none of these people have had these conversations in church. They are speaking outside of church to people who self-select to listen. They have no power to force anyone to listen or believe what they are saying. So your comparison is way off. Isom stated that members could have discussions in church regarding SSM and female ordination and that it would be appropriate to do so, but these people didn't even go that far, yet they were X'd. It's a very punitive and hostile approach to dissent

 

There is a difference between the church and church buildings.  The church is not contained in specific buildings.  There is no inside or outside of church just inside and outside meetinghouses. My conversations outside of meetinghouses can be just as much or more conversations 'in church' as conversations that take place in a meetinghouse.