Recent Excommunications

[why me]

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

Not really. If one is free to say what they said outside the church, why not be free to say it inside the church? Should the church have signs posted in wards that one must follow the 'party line' inside the church but not outside? It would be only logical that if a member is permitted to say what she thinks outside the church in a blog that she could also say it inside the church too. One cannot have boundaries for outside or inside. All must be the same.

[Danzo]

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.

 

I think you may be projecting more than what is actually happening.  When you are exed, you are in the same position, covenant-wise as someone who has not been baptized and not been sealed.  In fact, you are in a better position than someone who hasn't been formally exed, but has seriously broken their covenants. The exed person, like the nonmember has only to enter in to the convents and they will have all of the blessings of the covenant .  Sure there is a little bit more admin process for the exed person to reenter in to the covenants, but it isn't eternity.  

Edited June 5, 2015 by Danzo

[cinepro]

 

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.

 

Yeah, what about the Calderwoods and Taylor Knuth-Bishop?  And the Van Allen's who seem to be headed in that direction?

Edited June 5, 2015 by cinepro

[The Nehor]

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.

 

If it is enough guilt and shame to convince them to repent and return then it is all worth it.

[pogi]

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. 

 

You mean keep the eternal blessings with no consequences for my actions, no tithing, no callings, etc., etc...where do I sign up?  

Edited June 5, 2015 by pogi

[JLHPROF]

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.

 

When the final judgement happens I think we will find a lot of people who have been told their covenants are invalid will receive their blessings and a lot of people who think their covenants are valid will find out they aren't.

Now, I don't necessarily mean people like those in this poll, but in general I think any incorrect excommunications will be overturned and those who should have been ex'd and weren't will not have their blessings.  God is nothing if not perfectly just and merciful.

[JLHPROF]

Yeah, what about the Calderwoods and Taylor Knuth-Bishop?  And the Van Allen's who seem to be headed in that direction?

 

I already addressed why I didn't include the Calderwoods - the poll only allowed for 3 names.  As for the Van Allens I think that rejecting Church scripture publicly and repeatedly merits some kind of response from the Church.

 

And this is the first I'd heard of Knuth-Bishop, but a quick google indicates an unavoidable outcome in that case.  And that one won't be an overstep in any way.

[Mystery Meat]

So I am a bit surprised by the results actually. I answer all three the same (the third option), but if I had to order (based on information) from most justifed to least I would go: Dehlin, Waterman then Kelly. I am surprised that so many people think that Rock's excommunication was somehow overstepping. 

[Mystery Meat]

I already addressed why I didn't include the Calderwoods - the poll only allowed for 3 names.  As for the Van Allens I think that rejecting Church scripture publicly and repeatedly merits some kind of response from the Church.

 

And this is the first I'd heard of Knuth-Bishop, but a quick google indicates an unavoidable outcome in that case.  And that one won't be an overstep in any way.

 

Yeah, I hate to use the phrase "has it coming" but Knuth-Bishop will surprise no one (although the council should have happened over a month ago, so for all we know he already has been).

[Avatar4321]

I've seen no reason to believe the local leaders made any mistakes. If they did I have no doubt any correction will be made.

[Teancum]

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

Well I am all for a constitutional amendment banning religious fanaticism like you display .

[Freedom]

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. 

Do you have any doctrinal support for this position? So if I commit adultery with a non-member I am ok because I do not pose  threat to my ward? Or if I embezzle millions of tax dollars I am ok because nobody in my congregation was affected? 

[JAHS]

Policy of course plays a role in the disciplinary process, but revelation plays a big role in the decision, sometimes perhaps regardless of what policy dictates. Therefore I suppose the third choice  "it is not my place to pass any judgement at all" is probably the only logical choice for all three.

[HappyJackWagon]

I think you may be projecting more than what is actually happening.  When you are exed, you are in the same position, covenant-wise as someone who has not been baptized and not been sealed.  In fact, you are in a better position than someone who hasn't been formally exed, but has seriously broken their covenants. The exed person, like the nonmember has only to enter in to the convents and they will have all of the blessings of the covenant .  Sure there is a little bit more admin process for the exed person to reenter in to the covenants, but it isn't eternity.  

Please explain this to me.

 

1- Why is someone who has been exed better off than someone who hasn't been but "deserves" to be? Neither are under God's covenant and neither will receive the eternal blessings.

[Freedom]

Please explain this to me.

 

1- Why is someone who has been exed better off than someone who hasn't been but "deserves" to be? Neither are under God's covenant and neither will receive the eternal blessings.

Unto whom much is given much is required. Those who have made the greater covenants are under the greater condemnation. There is also the power of facing a genuine consequence. If the doctrines of the church are not enforced then there is no church. You are arguing that a person who breaks the law is not better off when caught and brought to justice. It would be better for everyone, so your argument goes, if nobody ever faces a consequence for their actions because they are being separated from the freedom of a democratic society. 

[HappyJackWagon]

Unto whom much is given much is required. Those who have made the greater covenants are under the greater condemnation. There is also the power of facing a genuine consequence.

The person who made the covenant, broke the covenant, had the covenant nullified has still been given the same knowledge by which he will be judged. Wiping the covenant away doesn't mean the knowledge ceases to exist, therefore the person would still be held to a standard of their understanding.

[Danzo]

Please explain this to me.

1- Why is someone who has been exed better off than someone who hasn't been but "deserves" to be? Neither are under God's covenant and neither will receive the eternal blessings.

1. The exec person is no longer under covenant and therefore not facing further condemnation for not keeping them.

2. There is certainty for him as his status before the church and he or she knows what is needed to return to full fellowship and Communion.

3. The exed person now has fewer steps to take before their repentance is complete.

[Danzo]

The person who made the covenant, broke the covenant, had the covenant nullified has still been given the same knowledge by which he will be judged. Wiping the covenant away doesn't mean the knowledge ceases to exist, therefore the person would still be held to a standard of their understanding.

Not sure if this is correct. Mere knowledge isn't the same as being an actual party to a covenant. Edited June 6, 2015 by Danzo

[Calm]

And much knowledge has a spiritual requirement such that if one refuses to accept communication from the Spirit, one loses the ability to better comprehend.

Think of it like have trig classes in high school but ignoring all things save basic math since then. You had the knowledge but don't now. Would someone who understood there was no reason to maintain that knowledge hold you accountable for it?

[JLHPROF]

1. The exec person is no longer under covenant and therefore not facing further condemnation for not keeping them.

 

I don't believe that at all.

 

 

2. There is certainty for him as his status before the church and he or she knows what is needed to return to full fellowship and Communion.

 

Ok, this is fine.

 

 

3. The exed person now has fewer steps to take before their repentance is complete.

 

I don't believe that either.

[Jeanne]

Well..I figure if the church wants you to through this process..ex..then the rest is between the exed and God.

[Danzo]

I don't believe that at all

Why not?

If priesthood can place people under covenant, why can't it release people from covenant?

Or does it work only one way?

[Freedom]

The person who made the covenant, broke the covenant, had the covenant nullified has still been given the same knowledge by which he will be judged. Wiping the covenant away doesn't mean the knowledge ceases to exist, therefore the person would still be held to a standard of their understanding.

I don't think the word covenant means what you think it means. If you have a binding contract to install my roof and refuse to do it, I can take you to court. If the contract is void, no amount of knowledge on your part will render you liable. 

[The Nehor]

Well I am all for a constitutional amendment banning religious fanaticism like you display .

Bigot.

[Monster]

Excommunication is an outdated barbaric fear based act. I can not picture Jesus kicking people out of his church for such trivial things as these individuals did.