Recent Excommunications

[Stargazer]

I voted No Opinion for all of them, even though I actually have an opinion for KK. 

 

I don't know enough about JD and RW's cases to have an opinion, but for KK, there seems to be enough information out there for me to posit how I might have decided the case, were I the bishop.  And KK needed to be excommunicated. 

 

That's my opinion, but if you disagree with me I won't argue with you.  I'm sure my opinion is just as valuable as yours.  I.e. valueless, under the circumstances.

[Danzo]

Excommunication is an outdated barbaric fear based act.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.

Fear? I have participated in disciplinary councils in the past, never have I felt fear has ever been a motivating factor. Maybe you have a different experience?

[Duncan]

Excommunication is an outdated barbaric fear based act.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.

 

 

he told us in 3 Nephi 18 to continue to minister to them and not cast them out of your churches, I think he meant literally. It's up to the individuals involved if they want to physically attend Church

[Teancum]

Bigot.

We are alike then!

[JLHPROF]

Excommunication is an outdated barbaric fear based act.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.

 

    Hahahaha.

 

Oh, you were serious?

You might want to read up on some last days/final judgement prophecies.

If I thought you would accept any Mormon teachings you might also want to read up on the premortal existence.

[JLHPROF]

Why not?

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

Or does it work only one way?

 

I would like to see all this people do right, and keep the commandments of God. I would like to see them fulfil their covenants, and live up to their vows and promises, and fulfil their obligations, for they have obligated themselves before God, and before angels, and before earthly witnesses, that they would do this.

What you have agreed to do, God will require you to perform, if it should be ten thousand years after this time. And when the servants of God speak to you, and require you to do a thing, the Lord God will fulfil His words, and make you fulfil His words he gave to you through His servants. Inasmuch as you have come into this Church, and made a covenant to forsake the world, and cleave unto the Lord, and keep His commandments, the Lord will compel you to do it, if it should be in ten thousand years from this time. These are my views, and I know it will be so. - Heber C. Kimball JD 2:151

[Danzo]

I would like to see all this people do right, and keep the commandments of God. I would like to see them fulfil their covenants, and live up to their vows and promises, and fulfil their obligations, for they have obligated themselves before God, and before angels, and before earthly witnesses, that they would do this.

What you have agreed to do, God will require you to perform, if it should be ten thousand years after this time. And when the servants of God speak to you, and require you to do a thing, the Lord God will fulfil His words, and make you fulfil His words he gave to you through His servants. Inasmuch as you have come into this Church, and made a covenant to forsake the world, and cleave unto the Lord, and keep His commandments, the Lord will compel you to do it, if it should be in ten thousand years from this time. These are my views, and I know it will be so. - Heber C. Kimball JD 2:151

So you don't think the priesthood can loose on earth and heaven, just bind? Edited June 7, 2015 by Danzo

[Sleeper Cell]

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.

 

 

While we are at it, why not change the purpose of baptism and simply view it as a membership initiation ritual into the church rather than as an eternal covenant?  Let’s get the church out of the eternal covenant making business, altogether.  The church could still encourage its members to make eternal covenants, while making it clear that such covenants should be made privately between the individual member and the Lord, without involving any church authority whatsoever.

 

On the other hand, if one still believes the church has the authority to act in God’s name to make eternal covenants, why is it unreasonable to believe the church has the authority to act in God’s name to revoke them? 

[why me]

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.

I think that he would. Paul certainly would. In the NT, excommunication is written about. And it is pretty clear what should happen to the person being exed. Not to mention other verses in the NT:

 

http://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Excommunication

 

We do live in different times though. But if a church follows the NT, it is pretty clear what should happen.

[why me]

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?

Of course, if I were excommunicated, I would probably agree with you. I think that very few people today are excommunicated for sexual sins. But for public apostacy I think that local leaders are taking a more tougher stance because of the impact of such public apostacy. The church must address the issue of social media. They allowed John Dehlin to get away with his apostacy for years and now the church is playing catch up because they know of the consequences of such public apostacies.

[Stargazer]

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?

 

Excommunication doesn't void anything.  It merely places everything into abeyance.

 

This is demonstrated by the results of reinstatement.  It is true that a person who has been excommunicated is no longer a member of the church.  But upon re-baptism the member's original baptismal date is restored in church records.  If the member was endowed and/or a priesthood holder, then both that endowment and priesthood ordination are restored by means of a special ordinance called "restoration of blessings", which is authorized by the First Presidency, and performed by either a General Authority or if the First Presidency directs, by the stake president.  The original dates of endowment and ordination are reinstated.  If a man was a High Priest before, then he will be a High Priest again.  Only ordinations to the office of bishop, seventy or patriarch are not restored in this manner.

[Stargazer]

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 ....."

 

Because all these things are of none effect.  How could it be otherwise?  You've broken your covenants, and until you repair the situation by repentance, the covenants are no longer in effect.  The Lord is very clear about this:

 

Doctrine and Covenants 82:10 - I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise.

 

I'd say this is clear enough for anyone.

 

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.

OK, fine, have it your way, it's punishment.  Boo hoo.  Do you need to have the concept or definition of "consequence" explained in detail?  Every act has a consequence, whether it be good or bad.  My wife's first husband committed multiple acts of adultery while stationed in Korea for a year.  When he came home and his actions were discovered he was excommunicated.  He probably wouldn't have been excommunicated if he had exhibited any remorse or desire to repent, but he didn't, and then to top it off he proceeded to divorce her. 

 

And you don't even know what you're talking about, anyway.  Sealings of husbands and wives actually do survive excommunication.  But as per my previous comment, these sealings are in abeyance and are restored upon "restoration of blessings".  This applies to the sealing of the children as well.  However, the sealing between a husband and wife can be cancelled upon request, generally the wife's.  What do you imagine happens to the sealing of children to the now no-longer-sealed husband and wife?  I have a letter in my possession, which was signed by President Spencer W. Kimball.  He states that in the event of a cancellation of sealing between husband and wife, the sealings of the children are not affected.  They continue to have the right to eternal parentage regardless of what happens to either or both parents.

 

So, let's look at what KK has done.  She has created an organization to demonstrate against the Church's doctrine regarding the priesthood.  She has been teaching her own doctrine in opposition to the Church's doctrine.  She rejected attempts by those in authority in the Church to get her to repent and stop doing these things.  She refused to back down, and appears to have used those attempts to call her to repentance as fodder for her public relations.  This is nothing less than full-on apostasy.  If she rejects the authority of the Church to hold and teach its doctrines, and instead tries to use demonstrations and protests to force the Church to change, then she has effectively rebelled against the covenants she has made.  And you think the Church should just let her continue as if she's done nothing worthy of correction?  She has already tossed her covenants aside; the excommunication is merely a formality.  If she were as concerned as you are about the status of her sealing to her husband and her kids, then she would not have gone down the road she went down.  She demonstrated very clearly that she did not care about the guilt or the shame.

 

If we don't qualify ourselves for the CK by obedience and valiance, then we will have selected ourselves into a lesser glory.  It's what Father knew would happen, that we wouldn't all qualify for that glory.  And as for the matter of being "alone for eternity", that's a misstatement.  Nobody in the Terrestrial or Telestial kingdoms will be joined in marriage to anyone.  Even the Celestial Kingdom will contain persons who are not married (except the third level of the CK, which DOES require an eternal sealing).  That is not being "alone", by any stretch of the imagination.  Those in that condition will have close friendships with others, and the companionship of the Holy Ghost at the very least.  Those who inherit those kingdoms will not regard their reward as unjust, but will praise God for it.  These are still Kingdoms of Glory, and nothing we have here can even begin to approach the magnitude of the blessings we will enjoy there.  Actions have consequences. 

Edited June 7, 2015 by Stargazer

[mikegriffith1]

If anything, the Church showed a great deal of patience in dealing with these folks. 

[Teancum]

If anything, the Church showed a great deal of patience in dealing with these folks.

Yep. Should have kicked them all out sooner. That's what you would have done had you been their bishop or stake president right?

[JLHPROF]

So you don't think the priesthood can loose on earth and heaven, just bind?

 

No, of course the priesthood can loose as well as bind.

But, for example, when I enter the waters of baptism I covenant to take upon me the name of Christ.  This ordinance/covenant is created through the action of the priesthood and by my acknowledgement (amen) of agreement to the terms.

 

If I abide by those terms the priesthood has no right to declare the covenant invalid.  If the priesthood observes that I have not lived by those terms they have the right to declare the covenant invalid and withhold any blessings they give connected with that covenant.

 

The same for the marriage covenant.  When I was put under covenant of marriage I committed to do certain things and the covenant was sealed by the priesthood.  If I continue to do those things I covenanted the priesthood has no right to cancel that particular covenant.  If they can show that covenant has been broken they have every right to declare the covenant void (as "judges in Israel") and withhold any blessings that are under their control and authority.

 

The same applies to all covenants.  It comes down to who chooses to break the covenant.  The priesthood cannot break a covenant on my behalf (punitive) but they can declare an already broken covenant to be loosed/invalid (judgement).

[Monster]

Fear? I have participated in disciplinary councils in the past, never have I felt fear has ever been a motivating factor. Maybe you have a different experience?

I say fear based because why act unless you are afraid they are undermining your authority or something. Should have just ignored them, that is what the church usually does. There are 10,000 other members that think and feel like them. the church just created martyrs. Are they going to go aft ever last doubter and cast them out? Is it a church of inclusion or exclusion?

[why me]

 Are they going to go aft ever last doubter and cast them out? Is it a church of inclusion or exclusion?

One can doubt. No problem. However, when one comes out against the teachings of the church or gets other members to  doubt and attempts to convince others of one's doubts so that they will also doubt, it becomes a different matter. No church can have a church of doubters. What kind of church would that be? A church of doubters who attempt to strenghen each other's edoubts?

 

For years, the church let John Dehlin get away with his MS chapters and conferences both of which attempted to get people to doubt or leave the church are a case in point. They should have exed or disfellowshiped John years ago. He set a precedent for others to go public and attempt to cast doubt or disbelief. But this only my humble opinion.

[Stargazer]

I say fear based because why act unless you are afraid they are undermining your authority or something. Should have just ignored them, that is what the church usually does. There are 10,000 other members that think and feel like them. the church just created martyrs. Are they going to go aft ever last doubter and cast them out? Is it a church of inclusion or exclusion?

 

Doubt all you want.  Question all you want.  But when you start using your doubts and your questions to infect others, when you start using them to develop your own doctrines and begin to develop disciples after your own heart, and when you start demanding of the Church that it accept your teachings, then you have moved from doubting and questioning to open opposition.  And you think that the Church should just stand there and allow you to oppose it while remaining a member in good standing?  You bring up the word "fear" and "undermining authority" as if you're trying to turn rebellion into a virtue, as if the poor benighted LDS Church is afraid of its own shadow and needs to get a grip.  Monster, the Church has a grip.  It was given that grip by the Lord.  If you don't believe it, then that's your affair.  And if you don't believe it, then why are you even bothering to discuss it here?  Unless John Dehlin and Sis. Kelly are dear friends of yours and you want to defend them?  In that case, you might better have jumped in long ago and advised them to get a grip.  They've clearly lost theirs.

 

I have a suggestion for those who want to develop and promulgate their own private doctrine as if it were the Lord's.  Start your own Church!  It's traditional!  If that's too daunting, then join the Unitarian-Universalist church: you can participate with them and believe anything you want to believe. 

[HappyJackWagon]

Doubt all you want.  Question all you want.  But when you start using your doubts and your questions to infect others, when you start using them to develop your own doctrines and begin to develop disciples after your own heart, and when you start demanding of the Church that it accept your teachings, then you have moved from doubting and questioning to open opposition. 

 

I have a suggestion for those who want to develop and promulgate their own private doctrine as if it were the Lord's.  Start your own Church!  It's traditional!  If that's too daunting, then join the Unitarian-Universalist church: you can participate with them and believe anything you want to believe. 

I know. Just leave people. Seriously. Get out, ok. I don't want your virus infecting others.

 

 

If you're going to doubt or promulgate your personal understanding and interpretation of the gospel you don't belong in the church.

Except ...everyone does that so the church may become empty; a white sepulchre full of dead man's bones.

Edited June 8, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[rockpond]

I have a suggestion for those who want to develop and promulgate their own private doctrine as if it were the Lord's.

 

(Bold added by me.)

 

If this is what you think that Dehlin, Kelly, and Waterman were trying to do, you might want to go back and review what they were saying & writing.

[Stargazer]

I know. Just leave people. Seriously. Get out, ok. I don't want your virus infecting others.

 

 

If you're going to doubt or promulgate your personal understanding and interpretation of the gospel you don't belong in the church.

Except ...everyone does that so the church may become empty; a white sepulchre full of dead man's bones.

 

You don't seem to understand what I'm saying.  There is nothing wrong with doubting, and not with questioning, either.  But when you change from doubting and questioning to teaching what amounts to private interpretations and attempting to co-opt church organization to promulgate your own doctrine, and trying to force the church to accept your doctrines, then you have crossed a line and need to either leave to start your own church, or repent.

 

If you don't see this, then I don't know how else to explain it.

[Stargazer]

(Bold added by me.)

 

If this is what you think that Dehlin, Kelly, and Waterman were trying to do, you might want to go back and review what they were saying & writing.

 

Like I said, I don't know much about Dehlin, never heard of Waterman before this thread, but I have reviewed what Kelly was saying and trying to do, and that is exactly what she was doing: trying to force the church to accept her doctrine, by way of organizing, demonstrating, and teaching false doctrine as if it were the Lord's.  And refusing to heed counsel to stop doing it. 

 

There have been others in the past who have done so, including such luminaries as Sidney Rigdon.  In Rigdon's church, interestingly enough, there were eventually female priesthood holders, including the last President of the Rigdonite church, who was a woman, Jane Post.

[Meadowchik]

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. 

 

That doesn't seem like the purpose of excommunication.

 

For example, you could be required to call the police or find a way to physically remove a person from the ward meeting, without excommunicating.  You could excommunicate while still having that person join the meetings as we do now.  excommunication is about covenants, it's not about our society with members and non-members.  I personally believe, very strongly in fact, that we as a church are commanded to include as many who will in our circle of loving society, regardless of whether they chose baptism.

[rockpond]

Like I said, I don't know much about Dehlin, never heard of Waterman before this thread, but I have reviewed what Kelly was saying and trying to do, and that is exactly what she was doing: trying to force the church to accept her doctrine, by way of organizing, demonstrating, and teaching false doctrine as if it were the Lord's.  And refusing to heed counsel to stop doing it. 

 

There have been others in the past who have done so, including such luminaries as Sidney Rigdon.  In Rigdon's church, interestingly enough, there were eventually female priesthood holders, including the last President of the Rigdonite church, who was a woman, Jane Post.

 

From the Ordain Women mission statement (on their website, bold added):

 

Based on the principle of thoughtful, faith-affirming strategic action, Ordain Women aspires to create a space for Mormon women to articulate issues of gender inequality they may be hesitant to raise alone. As a group we intend to put ourselves in the public eye and call attention to the need for the ordination of Mormon women to the priesthood. We sincerely ask our leaders to take this matter to the Lord in prayer.

[HappyJackWagon]

You don't seem to understand what I'm saying.  There is nothing wrong with doubting, and not with questioning, either.  But when you change from doubting and questioning to teaching what amounts to private interpretations and attempting to co-opt church organization to promulgate your own doctrine, and trying to force the church to accept your doctrines, then you have crossed a line and need to either leave to start your own church, or repent.

 

If you don't see this, then I don't know how else to explain it.

No, I think I understand exactly what you're saying. One of the many problems with your approach is it sets you or others up as the judge of when another person's understanding is orthodox enough. Like I said before, we ALL share thoughts and opinions, dare I say we all TEACH things that may be inconsistent in some way with the official doctrines or statements of church leaders. I'll also point out that people can err on the side of being too liberal (this is the group I think you're aiming your judgement towards) but it can just as easily err on the side of fundamentalism/literalism.

 

When you hear someone teach in quorum or a lesson that people must partake of the sacrament with their right hand, it's a fundamentalist overreach and false doctrine.

 

When you hear someone teach that we KNOW Christ was born on April 6th it is a fundamentalist/literalist overreach.

 

When you hear someone teach, as was often taught in the past, that blacks were less valiant in the premortal life, it is a false doctrine.

 

Fortunately we can repent of false understandings and teachings as we come to greater enlightenment but not because someone else tells us we must.

 

 

These are silly, simple examples but illustrate that both sides can err in understanding. This is inevitable. It's part of living within a community. We learn to live with and understand different types of peoples with different experiences and beliefs. If someone is uncomfortable with a little diversity in thought they might want to question whether or not THEY are in the right place.

Edited June 10, 2015 by HappyJackWagon