the september six

[Blink]

Why do you think that the September Six wouldn't have viewed the High Council as their peers? Does being a scholar somehow elevate one above the rest of the membership of the church?

#1 reason: there were no women on the panel of peers. .

Do you see all men as not your peers? The neighbour next door? The mailman? The guy in the car next to you? Your husband?

Must throw a wrench in relationships big time.

Do you have a chart at home outlining who belongs in what category to keep this all straight?

Let's take this to the logical outcome. Unless someone has a similar background, he or she is not your peer.

All female juries for female defendants. All male, etc. Wait, however. If the guy has a higher income than another, they aren't peers. So let's make that rich juries for rich defendants and poor juries for poor ones. All black juries for all black defendants, all white for the same. Society completely compartamentalized. Interesting idea. I believe it's called segregation.

I'm not sure where your comments come from, calmoriah. There are no women on the church disciplinary councils because there are no women leaders in the church. Thus half the population in the church was not represented.

I will not address the rest of your post because I am interested only in addressing church disciplinary councils as they relate to the Sept Six. I thought I had made that clear several posts ago.

[Blink]

IOW:

[Calm]

There are no women on the church disciplinary councils because there are no women leaders in the church. Thus half the population in the church was not represented.

I will not address the rest of your post because I am interested only in addressing church disciplinary councils as they relate to the Sept Six. I thought I had made that clear several posts ago.

Alright, let's keep it narrowed to the 6 and to their responses. How about quoting them instead of putting words in their mouths. You can then drop all the personal and broadbrushed conclusions.

But somehow I doubt that's what you intend to do.

=====

By your logic, only the women have something to complain about, not being represented by their peers and all. That was what--2 out of the six? So maybe we should only be talking about the September Two.

Will that satisfy you?

Or maybe it is the only the women and the nonHPs among the 6 that have something to complain about in your books.

Or is it only the women and the nonHPs and the HPs that have never served on the High Council that have something to complain about.

Or is it only the women and the nonHPs and the HPs that have never served on the High Council and the HPs that have served on the High Council but aren't doing so now, etc. etc.

And don't let's forget that they need to make sure that everyone has the same income, educational, and social background and same kind of pets and cable TV and car model because of course unless one person is exactly like another they can't be their peers.

Unfortunately you have let your personal opinion that you can't compete on the same level as the church leadership because you lack 'fill in the soup of the day discrimination label' replace the experience of actual participants.

Do you really think that most women and men coming before these courts feel that they aren't capable of being these guys' peers? What is it about the suit and tie that changes the neighbour next door whom you trade tools and favors with and whose kids play with your kids into some bogeyman of an authority figure for you?

Segregation of humanity into us vs. them groups is rather comforting, don't you think? You can be my peer, but you can't! Takes me back to kindergarten.

[Calm]

Sounds to me like the church applied some pretty strong pressure, which could be interpreted as unrighteous dominion.

Yet again serenity only presents solid logic based on reliable sources in her comments. Not a trace of personal prejudice and outright speculation there.

[juliann]

Sounds to me like the church applied some pretty strong pressure, which could be interpreted as unrighteous dominion.

Naahhhh....I think strong pressure should be interpreted as a massage! There would be just as much support for that position.

Is that an argument you want to raise? Where the church muzzles someone, essentially bribing them with a lesser sanction in return for their silence?

Hmmm....we have gone from massages, er...strong pressure...to muzzles. And bribes. Ohhh....silence. I think Serenity has watched too many S&M movies.

[Blink]

Alright, let's keep it narrowed to the 6 and to their responses. How about quoting them instead of putting words in their mouths. You can then drop all the personal and broadbrushed conclusions.

But somehow I doubt that's what you intend to do.

=====

By your logic, only the women have something to complain about, not being represented by their peers and all. That was what--2 out of the six? So maybe we should only be talking about the September Two.

Three woman: Maxine Hanks, excommunicated for her work surrounding goddess worship, Lavina Fielding Anderson, excommunicated for her work surrounding spiritual and ecclesiastical abuse, and Lynne Whitesides, disfellowshipped for her work with the Mormon Women's Forum. The other three were Avraham Gileadi, since rebaptised, D Michael Quinn, and Paul Toscano.

The rest of your post is incomprehensible to me. Is there a question in there somewhere?

[Calm]

So the peer thing is only an issue for the September 6, 5, 4, make that three. Got it.

The rest of your post is incomprehensible to me. Is there a question in there somewhere?

Well, that's certainly one way to avoid discussing something.

Tell you what. Why waste your time here with all these people you can't understand.

Why don't you instead ask that bishop who is not your peer but only your leader about all the unrighteous dominion practices that are tied to the disciplinary courts and anything else that bothers you next time he comes to your house for your interviews.

[juliann]

The rest of your post is incomprehensible to me.

Here's a question for ya! Her post is incomprehensible? You are claiming that High Priests have a different gender than the congregation and she is incomprehensible?

Actually...that is two questions but math does not seem to be your strong suit. Want more?

[Benjamin McGuire]

Blink writes:

Did you have a reason for bringing up MJ, Ben? Because I don't see what MJ has to do with the Sept Six. Could you explain please?

Sure. You said: "In the legal system, the accused is tried by a jury of his peers." And I was pointing out that this is only marginally the case. This is perhaps the way that it should be, but comparing to idealistic viewpoints (which have no basis in reality) doesn't get us anywhere.

#1 reason: there were no women on the panel of peers.

And this is true of any church court - not just those which involve intellectuals. Obviously, given the fact that all six were excommunicated, it seems unlikely that this ends up being a significant factor however in the decision which was made.

The openness of the procedure should be decided by the accused, not the accuser. The church makes the decision for the accused, and overrides the wishes of the accused, if they want to make the procedure public.

I disagree with you. Particularly for those cases in which the accused wishes to be manipulative in participating in the process.

Says who? The church? I wonder if the S6 would agree with you?

Once more you are painting the S6 as being typical of those receiving church courts (when this is not the case). Do you think that those accused of adultery or other moral sins would agree with you?

Again, I will not discuss personal questions. This thread is about the Sept Six. Let's keep the comments in line with that.

Actually, I think its very relevant. Have you experienced personally the process which you are being so critical of? You don't have to answer the question. But I think for you to speak for others and to be critical of a process which you really have never participated in (making that assumption) doesn't add much weight to your criticisms. Obviously, not all of the S6 feel the way you do, and that point alone should be sufficient to make you reflect on your concerns.

Since this thread is about the Sept Six, I have no problem addressing the issue as it pertains to them and them alone. They documented their difficulties with the process. You marginalize their thoughts as insignificant or not representative of the process. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. They are entitled to theirs.

You are expanding this discussion far beyond the September 6. The moment you become critical of the disciplinary process as a whole, you lose the basis for trying to restrict the discussion to simply those individuals. Do you find the September 6 as being comprehensively representative of the process?

Yes, indeed. One. And only one. To me, that is significant. Had the discipline been less severe, would the others' eternal salvation still be intact?

Are you suggesting that their eternal salvation is not intact? What is the basis for that assumption?

Mr Palmer allowed the press to tell his story. The lesson learned has nothing to do with critics, and everything to do with positive PR for the church. Is the message then: Invite the press, open the doors, and the church will back down? Mr Palmer published a book (not just a paper, not just a speech) that questions the historicity of the Book of Mormon, which is bedrock doctrine for the church. He then invited the press to comment when he was called to a church disciplinary council. The church blinked, and did not excommunicate him, but allows his eternal salvation to remain intact. That is a far cry from the experience of the Sept Six, who did not have the press involved. Lesson learned: invite the press.

Once more we get this same line that "the church allows his eternal salvation to remain intact". This is garbage of course, because the church doesn't allow anything. The church does not get to say who has eternal salvation and who does not. Your insistence on this point is problematic to me because if you really and truly feel that the church has this power, then you have a very limited understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ. But to base your argumentation on this point, where I think many (if not most) practicing LDS would disagree with you, is making a very bad argument. Obviously, the interest of the church in Grant Palmer's situation was to 1) defuse his claims of being an "insider", and 2) to discredit the book as being anything by faith promoting.

Personally, I have been very vocal in public forums as to some of the specifics of why I think Palmer draws bad conclusions from the data he presents (he has no method of any value). So, from my perspective, the book isn't even a very good description of LDS historical issues. On the other hand, those kinds of responses do very little - they certainly haven't drawn comments from Mr. Palmer. And so I think that the church was justified in its actions. In fact, I would have felt the church would have been justified to threaten excommunication - and perhaps they did, although we aren't likely to know much about his disciplinary court.

Why do you see that as manipulating the church? Can God be manipulated? Or is that an earthly thing? If the church allowed the proceedings to be open to the public, there would be no manipulation possible, so your question would be moot.

Let's see. Palmer got a boost in sales for his book because of his publicity (which he created) in response to his anticipated disciplinary court. Perhaps we should simply start there. The publicity started long before Palmer actually showed up for his court. Therefore, the openess of the court is largely irrelevant to the question of whether or not Palmer was attempting to manipulate the church or to coerce them. I am still unconvinced by your arguments that having an open court is anything positive at all.

If nothing else, the church should have the right to protect itself and its members. Even if that means excommunicating someone who will eventually receive celestial glory.

Ben

[USU78]

I had said: "Palmer himself told TV crews that (at least part of) the price of not being excommunicated was keeping quiet after his hearing. I guess you missed the news stories last month."

To which the nictitating one replied: "Sounds to me like the church applied some pretty strong pressure, which could be interpreted as unrighteous dominion. Is that an argument you want to raise? Where the church muzzles someone, essentially bribing them with a lesser sanction in return for their silence?"

I think I've stumbled into a Monty Python bit: "An argument isn't just gainsaying." "It can be." "No it can't."

How is finding the appropriate pennence for the penitent unrighteous? Reread section 121. Nobody's muzzling anybody. Palmer had and has the right to declare GBH the anti-Christ on the 6:00 news. If he wants to retain his voluntary membership in this voluntary organization, however, he has to keep his trap shut about the process.

No. You're not paying attention. You're doing a Michael Palin imitation.

[Blink]

Blink writes:

Did you have a reason for bringing up MJ, Ben? Because I don't see what MJ has to do with the Sept Six. Could you explain please?

Sure. You said: "In the legal system, the accused is tried by a jury of his peers." And I was pointing out that this is only marginally the case. This is perhaps the way that it should be, but comparing to idealistic viewpoints (which have no basis in reality) doesn't get us anywhere

Are you equating the S6 with MJ, and saying because MJ apparently in your eyes has no peers, then the S6 had no peers either? Or is what you're saying that MJ is a celebrity, so his panel of peers should be composed of celebrities? And since the S6 were intellectuals, then their panel of peers should have been composed of intellectuals? I am really not following your line of thinking with MJ, unless you're saying celebrities don't have peers.

#1 reason: there were no women on the panel of peers.

And this is true of any church court - not just those which involve intellectuals. Obviously, given the fact that all six were excommunicated, it seems unlikely that this ends up being a significant factor however in the decision which was made.

How do you know the lack of female participation is not significant? That seems to be an assumption without basis. The only reason I brought up the gender issue is to point out that half of the S6 were female and since we have no female leaders in the church, they were unrepresented on the High Council and thus had no representation at their church disciplinary council either.

The openness of the procedure should be decided by the accused, not the accuser. The church makes the decision for the accused, and overrides the wishes of the accused, if they want to make the procedure public.

I disagree with you. Particularly for those cases in which the accused wishes to be manipulative in participating in the process.

If the church has nothing to hide in these proceedings, they have nothing to fear from any manipulation by the accused.

Says who? The church? I wonder if the S6 would agree with you?

Once more you are painting the S6 as being typical of those receiving church courts (when this is not the case). Do you think that those accused of adultery or other moral sins would agree with you?

That is why I stated that the accused should be the one to determine if the proceeding is closed, not the accuser. If someone who is accused of adultery chooses to make their proceeding private, then the choice should be theirs. If someone accused of apostacy chooses to make their proceeding open, then the choice should be theirs. With an open procedure, the accused can have their own counsel, can be supported by their friends and family. The secrecy surrounding the procedure contributes heavily to the charge of unrighteous dominion and ecclesiastical abuse. It's in the church's best interest to allow the accused the option of an open procedure.

Again, I will not discuss personal questions. This thread is about the Sept Six. Let's keep the comments in line with that.

Actually, I think its very relevant. Have you experienced personally the process which you are being so critical of? You don't have to answer the question. But I think for you to speak for others and to be critical of a process which you really have never participated in (making that assumption) doesn't add much weight to your criticisms. Obviously, not all of the S6 feel the way you do, and that point alone should be sufficient to make you reflect on your concerns.

Obviously I did not sit on the panels for any of the Sept 6, so any experience of my own is not pertinent to this discussion.

Why does all of the S6 have to echo my thoughts about the matter in order for me to be correct about the procedure? I'm not following you on that. They are all individuals. Why do you think they have to be united, when their situations were different? They were not all excommunicated for the same apostacy. Heavenly Mother and the historicity of the BoM are completely different doctrines.

Since this thread is about the Sept Six, I have no problem addressing the issue as it pertains to them and them alone. They documented their difficulties with the process. You marginalize their thoughts as insignificant or not representative of the process. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. They are entitled to theirs.

You are expanding this discussion far beyond the September 6. The moment you become critical of the disciplinary process as a whole, you lose the basis for trying to restrict the discussion to simply those individuals. Do you find the September 6 as being comprehensively representative of the process?

I find the S6 as being representative of the process in regards to apostacy, yes. Don't you? Since none of them were excommunicated for other offenses, their processes as it involved people who publish outside the standards of the church seems fairly representative.

Yes, indeed. One. And only one. To me, that is significant. Had the discipline been less severe, would the others' eternal salvation still be intact?

Are you suggesting that their eternal salvation is not intact? What is the basis for that assumption?

I base that assumption on my understanding that membership in Christ's church is absolutely necessary for anyone's eternal salvation, else they will be damned for eternity. Why else would we baptise the dead? Why else do we send out our fleets of missionaries, if not to do God's bidding to help save the world? Do you think that membership in Christ's church is necessary for eternal salvation? Excommunicating someone for apostacy essentially pushes them into Outer Darkness, since they knew the law and they chose to break it. Is that not the very definition of Son/Daughter of Perdition? To violate the covenants made in the temple? What other reason is there for excommunicating someone, if not to cut them off from God? Take away their endowment, take away the gift of the Holy Ghost, take away their baptism? Is that not what excommunication is?

Mr Palmer allowed the press to tell his story. The lesson learned has nothing to do with critics, and everything to do with positive PR for the church. Is the message then: Invite the press, open the doors, and the church will back down? Mr Palmer published a book (not just a paper, not just a speech) that questions the historicity of the Book of Mormon, which is bedrock doctrine for the church. He then invited the press to comment when he was called to a church disciplinary council. The church blinked, and did not excommunicate him, but allows his eternal salvation to remain intact. That is a far cry from the experience of the Sept Six, who did not have the press involved. Lesson learned: invite the press.

Once more we get this same line that "the church allows his eternal salvation to remain intact". This is garbage of course, because the church doesn't allow anything. The church does not get to say who has eternal salvation and who does not. Your insistence on this point is problematic to me because if you really and truly feel that the church has this power, then you have a very limited understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ. But to base your argumentation on this point, where I think many (if not most) practicing LDS would disagree with you, is making a very bad argument.

Ben, there is no reason to join the LDS church if you don't believe that membership has eternal consequences. If we don't think we need the ordinances of baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost, or endowment, there is no reason to think the LDS church is any different than any other church. If there is nothing unique about the church, why do we sent out armies of missionaries to baptise the living and why do we worry so much about the dead? Because we think membership in the LDS church is vital to our eternal salvation and the eternal salvation of all that have ever lived. So yes, excommunication and the resulting expulsion from membership in the church is a big deal. I wonder why you think membership in the church doesn't effect your eternal salvation.

Obviously, the interest of the church in Grant Palmer's situation was to 1) defuse his claims of being an "insider", and 2) to discredit the book as being anything by faith promoting.

Grant Palmer is still an "insider", you know, so your contention that that is the reason for his church court looks kinda strange. In return for his silence, Bro Palmer was granted disfellowshipment rather than excommunication. He cut a deal. The church allowed him to keep his membership in return for him allowing a closed procedure and sparing the church any embarrassment. Several things can be learned from his experience, including how to pressure the church into backing down.

And so I think that the church was justified in its actions. In fact, I would have felt the church would have been justified to threaten excommunication - and perhaps they did, although we aren't likely to know much about his disciplinary court.

Highly unlikely, since he allowed the church to muzzle him in return for keeping his membership.

Why do you see that as manipulating the church? Can God be manipulated? Or is that an earthly thing? If the church allowed the proceedings to be open to the public, there would be no manipulation possible, so your question would be moot.

Let's see. Palmer got a boost in sales for his book because of his publicity (which he created) in response to his anticipated disciplinary court. Perhaps we should simply start there. The publicity started long before Palmer actually showed up for his court. Therefore, the openess of the court is largely irrelevant to the question of whether or not Palmer was attempting to manipulate the church or to coerce them. I am still unconvinced by your arguments that having an open court is anything positive at all.

A boost in sales of how much? So you think he told the press about his church disciplinary council, so he could squeeze more money out of the gullible public? In an open court, the church would have been protected from that kind of manipulation, and would have been able to lay out for the public all the heinous crimes that Bro Palmer committed. His evil would have been apparent to all.

As it is, it's the church that comes off as acting in its own selfish interest, hiding behind a wall of secrecy, muzzling an accused who cared more about his eternal salvation than he did about opening the procedure. Personally, unlike you, I think Bro Palmer acted in the only way he could, assuming he believes in the gospel as taught by the church.

If nothing else, the church should have the right to protect itself and its members. Even if that means excommunicating someone who will eventually receive celestial glory.

Excommunicated people will eventually receive celestial glory? I thought the concept behind excommunication was to separate them from God. Maybe we should have a thread about what excommunication really means.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Blink writes:

Are you equating the S6 with MJ, and saying because MJ apparently in your eyes has no peers, then the S6 had no peers either? Or is what you're saying that MJ is a celebrity, so his panel of peers should be composed of celebrities? And since the S6 were intellectuals, then their panel of peers should have been composed of intellectuals? I am really not following your line of thinking with MJ, unless you're saying celebrities don't have peers.

No. What I am saying is that the way that you are approaching the notion of "peers" isn't upheld in our legal system as you suggested that it was.

What is a peer? Obviously, within a theological construct where all mankind is essentially the same, it doesn't matter who you put into that disciplinary court, they are peers of the accused. It is you who are trying to establish a tighter definition, and are suggesting that this tighter definition is necessary. In our legal system, there is a process (like the current one in the MJ trial) where the prosecution and the defense are both trying very hard to get a jury which will (they hope) be pre-disposed towards whichever outcome they are looking for. The LDS church doesn't allow for this kind of wrangling. What you have is what you get. Were I to voice a concern relevant to the issues you address here, it is not about the makeup of that disciplinary council but rather about the ability of the accused to have a voice. Which is a separate and quite distinct issue.

How do you know the lack of female participation is not significant? That seems to be an assumption without basis. The only reason I brought up the gender issue is to point out that half of the S6 were female and since we have no female leaders in the church, they were unrepresented on the High Council and thus had no representation at their church disciplinary council either.

In this specific case, unless you are making the assumption that females would be more likely to "acquit" (so to speak), everyone was treated exactly the same way. If women had been present and participating, and all the men were excommunicated and the women were not, would that be significant to you? Realistically speaking, the women were represented exactly in the same fashion as the men were. It isn't that they were not represented. The question is why you think that having women on the disciplinary council would have changed the outcome in any significant fashion.

If the church has nothing to hide in these proceedings, they have nothing to fear from any manipulation by the accused.

Not so.

That is why I stated that the accused should be the one to determine if the proceeding is closed, not the accuser. If someone who is accused of adultery chooses to make their proceeding private, then the choice should be theirs. If someone accused of apostacy chooses to make their proceeding open, then the choice should be theirs. With an open procedure, the accused can have their own counsel, can be supported by their friends and family. The secrecy surrounding the procedure contributes heavily to the charge of unrighteous dominion and ecclesiastical abuse. It's in the church's best interest to allow the accused the option of an open procedure.

And I believe that a blanket policy is the best approach. This is also true when the accuser wishes to have their privacy respected. (Consider for example the issues around the Kobe Briant trial in recent history). For what I consider obvious reasons, I find your argument here to be largely without real merit.

Why does all of the S6 have to echo my thoughts about the matter in order for me to be correct about the procedure? I'm not following you on that. They are all individuals. Why do you think they have to be united, when their situations were different? They were not all excommunicated for the same apostacy. Heavenly Mother and the historicity of the BoM are completely different doctrines.

But they were all excommunicated for apostacy. And this kind of excommunication is outlined (along with procedure and other details) in the Church Handbook of Instruction.

I find the S6 as being representative of the process in regards to apostacy, yes. Don't you? Since none of them were excommunicated for other offenses, their processes as it involved people who publish outside the standards of the church seems fairly representative.

Actually, I don't find them representative at all (especially not when we consider the historical accounts of apostacy related excommunications). And certainly they aren't representative of church courts in general, which are not usually held because of instruction to do so at the non-local level.

I base that assumption on my understanding that membership in Christ's church is absolutely necessary for anyone's eternal salvation, else they will be damned for eternity.

Well, then (in my opinion) your understanding is wrong.

Ben, there is no reason to join the LDS church if you don't believe that membership has eternal consequences.

Sure there is. Certainly there are a number of dissenters who feel that their membership is of value regardless of whether they believe the "Church is true" or not.

If we don't think we need the ordinances of baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost, or endowment, there is no reason to think the LDS church is any different than any other church.

Once more, I disagree with you. But this is going far enough beyond any reasonable scope of this discussion as to require a new thread.

I wonder why you think membership in the church doesn't effect your eternal salvation.

I didn't say this did I. Either I was unclear, or you are inferring much more from my comments than I am willing to assert. I do not believe that the church can determine who will or will not enter into the Kingdom. I do believe that there is a great deal of value (spiritual and otherwise) in being a member.

A boost in sales of how much? So you think he told the press about his church disciplinary council, so he could squeeze more money out of the gullible public? In an open court, the church would have been protected from that kind of manipulation, and would have been able to lay out for the public all the heinous crimes that Bro Palmer committed. His evil would have been apparent to all.

You know, at some point, your speculations aren't even worth arguing about. Perhaps if you answered a few of my questions we might have some basis on which to discuss this point.

Excommunicated people will eventually receive celestial glory? I thought the concept behind excommunication was to separate them from God. Maybe we should have a thread about what excommunication really means.

Absolutely, since it also appears that you have developed an understanding of excommunication which is not in line with the teachings of LDS leaders over the meaning and nature of excommunication.

The whole issue of who is manipulating who, and why, is largely of no consequence while you have what I view as a completely erroneous viewpoint of the church's (as an organization) role in salvation. You seem to be viewing this as the church using "salvation" as a club with which to beat members into submission. I recommend that you read the section in the Church Handbook of Instruction - it does contain information there on why the church excommunicates individuals.

Ben

[Blink]

I recommend that you read the section in the Church Handbook of Instruction - it does contain information there on why the church excommunicates individuals.

As far as I know, the CHI is not available to non-leaders. Has that changed? Or are you advocating that I read something that is not readily available to me?

If you think membership in the church is not required for the CK (which is what I mean when I say "eternal salvation"), then you're right. We have different ideas of what purpose the church serves and 'way different ideas of what excommunication means in the eternities. We have no common ground on which to discuss this.

[Scott Gordon]

Just as a friendly reminder,

I'm not singling anyone our here, but I have seen this behavior on this thread.

The object of this message board is to have a friendly discussion. It isn't to wear someone down with questions. Certainly, we can ask for clarifications on things, and you can ask questions, but if you have several questions within one post, you might want to go back and rethink your post.

We like posters here who will add to the discussion, and not just create work for the participants or create mulitiple topics in one post.

Besides, a long string of questions can be interpreted as simply being a hostile or harrassing post and could put you on moderation, or you could even be removed.

And now back to your regular posting in progress....

Scott

[John Russell]

I recommend that you read the section in the Church Handbook of Instruction - it does contain information there on why the church excommunicates individuals.

As far as I know, the CHI is not available to non-leaders. Has that changed? Or are you advocating that I read something that is not readily available to me?

If you think membership in the church is not required for the CK (which is what I mean when I say "eternal salvation"), then you're right. We have different ideas of what purpose the church serves and 'way different ideas of what excommunication means in the eternities. We have no common ground on which to discuss this.

You're right. The CHI is not generally available.

Excommunication does sever an individual from the Church, and terminates all covenants. However, this is a necessary component of repentance in some cases, as continued living in violation of active covenants will only further serve to condemn the individual and isolate him/her from God. A simplified analogy that comes to mind is the closure of the credit account in the case of someone who frequently overcharges to prevent them from digging a deeper hole; except in the case of excommunication, all of the overcharges are forgiven after the person puts his or her life in order and returns. Excommunication gives the individual the opportunity to right the ship and to have those covenants and blessings restored if and when the individual is prepared to live them. This is why we should continue to love and help excommunicated members (I suspect that someone will now launch into LDS hypocrisy for jettisoning excommunicants in practice, but I hope not), and why Stake Presidents and Bishops are to continue working with excommunicants (to the extent that they are able to do so). Membership in God's Kingdom requires the entering into those covenants that allow us to become as He is. But we don't know when everyone will finally receive those covenants (or if they will). An excommunicated member may return to those covenants in this life, or later. They still have an opportunity to enter the CK.

[Calm]

You're right. The CHI is not generally available.

However, there are many bishops that will allow you to look at it if you have a specific questions. I've never had any problem with reading it myself.

[John Russell]

You're right. The CHI is not generally available.

However, there are many bishops that will allow you to look at it if you have a specific questions. I've never had any problem with reading it myself.

True. It isn't a secret document. But, there are other public sources that discuss the bases for excommunication or other disciplinary actions in the Church, and the process involved, and one need not even leave the computer desk. For example:

M. Russell Ballard,

[Blink]

Excommunication does sever an individual from the Church, and terminates all covenants.

Thank you. I was beginning to think I'd misunderstood the whole reason for the church's existence.

So I'm assuming it's fair to say that excommunication, because it severs all covenants and terminates membership in the church, essentially cancels the [former] member's eternal salvation. And if they died at that point, their eternal blessings and exaltation would be adversely effected. And therefore, taking that step of excommunicating someone is a very serious step, and judging someone that harshly is a very serious thing.

My point: God does not condescend to leave his throne on high and sit on church disciplinary councils, so the margin of error is considerably more than nil. Men sit on those councils. And men, all men, have been known to be wrong. So... erring on the side of caution, men should not withdraw, cancel, terminate or sever another's eternal salvation, except in the face of absolute knowledge that such an action is prudent and needed. And since apostacy is always subjective, and since the entire church is in apostacy according to a recent prophet, the excommunication of members for apostacy is an overreaching action on the part of the church.

"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. (John 8:7)" is a lesson we can all benefit from, if we will.

[John Russell]

Excommunication does sever an individual from the Church, and terminates all covenants.

Thank you. I was beginning to think I'd misunderstood the whole reason for the church's existence.

So I'm assuming it's fair to say that excommunication, because it severs all covenants and terminates membership in the church, essentially cancels the [former] member's eternal salvation. And if they died at that point, their eternal blessings and exaltation would be adversely effected. And therefore, taking that step of excommunicating someone is a very serious step, and judging someone that harshly is a very serious thing.

You didn't read all of my comments. It does NOT cancel the eternal salvation of the excommunicated individual, but I'm not sure what more can be said to clarify this issue for you. A number of us have participated in disciplinary councils and know what a great weight rests upon the presiding authorities there. But I also have felt a very powerful spirit in those same councils testifying to correctness of the outcome, and I do know that there IS a spiritual condescension and that it is intimately linked to the Atonement. Church disciplinary councils cannot be compared with secular legal proceedings. Nor are they a matter for casting stones, but rather for the removal of them. The objective is to do everything possible to foster the repentance and salvation of the individual, and to help them re-embark or re-center on the path of discipleship.

[Blink]

John, at 1:20 pm you said:

Excommunication does sever an individual from the Church, and terminates all covenants.

Now you say:

It does NOT cancel the eternal salvation of the excommunicated individual...

If excommuncation severs an individual's church membership and terminates all covenants, then that cancels their eternal salvation from that point on, if I understand the whole process correctly. How is that different from what you said at 1:20 this afternoon?

Returning, getting rebaptized, temple covenants restored, etc is not part of the excommunication process; it is part of another process altogether and is not a given in any case. For 5 of the Sept 6, they were excommunicated, their covenants cancelled, their membership terminated. Their eternal salvation was declared null and void. They have started no other process, so their excommunication is terminal and remains so to this day.

You connect the excommunication process with another process (call it repentence or whatever). I do not see the two processes as connected. They are two separate processes which some people, certainly not all, go through at some point in their lives. Not everyone who is excommunicated goes through the other process, so how can they be connected for everyone going through the excommunication process?

[John Russell]

John, at 1:20 pm you said:

Excommunication does sever an individual from the Church, and terminates all covenants.

Now you say:

It does NOT cancel the eternal salvation of the excommunicated individual...

If excommuncation severs an individual's church membership and terminates all covenants, then that cancels their eternal salvation from that point on, if I understand the whole process correctly. How is that different from what you said at 1:20 this afternoon?

Returning, getting rebaptized, temple covenants restored, etc is not part of the excommunication process; it is part of another process altogether and is not a given in any case. For 5 of the Sept 6, they were excommunicated, their covenants cancelled, their membership terminated. Their eternal salvation was declared null and void. They have started no other process, so their excommunication is terminal and remains so to this day.

You connect the excommunication process with another process (call it repentence or whatever). I do not see the two processes as connected. They are two separate processes which some people, certainly not all, go through at some point in their lives. Not everyone who is excommunicated goes through the other process, so how can they be connected for everyone going through the excommunication process?

Excommunication is absolutely linked to repentance, and only truncates the individual's eternal growth to the extent that the excommunicant allows it. If an excommunicant chooses not to repent, then s/he has chosen to separate the processes and reduce the opportunities for becoming a celestial being. The choice is theirs. Returning to the covenants is the hoped-for endpoint of the excommunication process, but obviously not everyone will avail themselves of the opportunity. No one is excommunicated without having the path back explained to them, and the door remains open. If one dies prior to having those blessings restored to them, their salvation is in the hands of God. Only God knows where they are in their eternal trajectory, and when they have had sufficient opportunity to fully accept or reject.

[Blink]

Excommunication is absolutely linked to repentance, and only truncates the individual's eternal growth to the extent that the excommunicant allows it. If an excommunicant chooses not to repent, then s/he has chosen to separate the processes and reduce the opportunities for becoming a celestial being. The choice is theirs. Returning to the covenants is the hoped-for endpoint of the excommunication process, but obviously not everyone will avail themselves of the opportunity. No one is excommunicated without having the path back explained to them, and the door remains open. If one dies prior to having those blessings restored to them, their salvation is in the hands of God. Only God knows where they are in their eternal trajectory, and when they have had sufficient opportunity to fully accept or reject.

Obviously, we view excommunication differently. I see it as the end. You don't.

Since this thread is about the S6, from what I've read, I'd say 5 out of the 6 agree with me, while 1 agrees with you.

[John Russell]

Excommunication is absolutely linked to repentance, and only truncates the individual's eternal growth to the extent that the excommunicant allows it.  If an excommunicant chooses not to repent, then s/he has chosen to separate the processes and reduce the opportunities for becoming a celestial being.  The choice is theirs.  Returning to the covenants is the hoped-for endpoint of the excommunication process, but obviously not everyone will avail themselves of the opportunity.  No one is excommunicated without having the path back explained to them, and the door remains open.  If one dies prior to having those blessings restored to them, their salvation is in the hands of God.  Only God knows where they are in their eternal trajectory, and when they have had sufficient opportunity to fully accept or reject.

Obviously, we view excommunication differently. I see it as the end. You don't.

Since this thread is about the S6, from what I've read, I'd say 5 out of the 6 agree with me, while 1 agrees with you.

That's fine. I don't really care who agrees with me. The simple truth is that you and those 5 have chosen to make it a separate issue when, in fact, it is not. What you do or do not believe in this regard fails to change the matter. I'm pleased that at least one of the 7 of you gets it. Hopefully the rest of you will understand it in the near future. Exaltation isn't a matter of scoring a certain number of points, or getting all of the right partners to sign your dance card.

[Blink]

Exaltation isn't a matter of scoring a certain number of points, or getting all of the right partners to sign your dance card.

To whom or what does this refer: "...getting all the right partners to sign your dance card"?

If by "signing your dance card" you mean the importance of performing the accepted ordinances with proper authority of the priesthood as most of us have been taught since childhood, then the church apparently thinks getting all the right partners is pretty important. In which case, exaltation is indeed a matter of getting all the right partners to sign your dance card.

When that exaltation is taken away via what might be a wrongful action on the part of a church disciplinary council (factoring in the ease of unrighteous dominion of which Joseph wrote and the difficulty in proving something as subjective as apostacy), it's small comfort that God can put the exaltation back in place. No wonder some of those who think their excommunication was incorrect do not take the suggestion to return to the fold: they have faith that God will fix that which men have screwed up.

[Calm]

This is bizarre reasoning.

On this basis, if someone refused to do proxy baptism for an individual long dead, they'd never get into the CK. Or all those poor souls that we have no records of are doomed to wander on the CK borders perpetually sighing of 'might have beens' if only someone had bother to scribble their genealogical data on some rock and placed it in a noticable spot. Or at least they suffer excruciatingly while they wait for all that paperwork to be done and the signatures on placed on the dotted line from the information that God dredges up out of his personal memory or off of those books of rememberance he keeps in the back office.

What Blink seems to be refusing to accept is who is really in charge of all this ordinance work and that it means something more than a petty official holding up for extortion the paperwork of a visa allowing someone to cross a border into the promised land.

Plus there is a small issue of timing. As in when eternal exaltation kicks in full strength.

"Small comfort" that God decides what happens with our eternal salvation and exaltation? I can see a recovery group in the CK sitting around and helping each other move through the pain of having their eternal salvation put on hold because someone lost the paperwork somewhere or typed an T for that R initial. And let's not forget the numerous individuals kicked out of the Church and set on the road to Hell by the leadership on an unrighteous power trip.

Unfortunately for this lovely little fantasy, since judgment day is the same for all, this is only a fantasy. No one's eternal salvation is going to take place one day sooner or later because of someone else's interference. It happens in God's time, not man's.

And then there's the other minor point about just who is actually responsible for one's eternal exaltation--as in the implications of moral agency and accountability along with the entire gospel of the Atonement. Blink has winked away the major doctrines of the LDS faith with her "small comfort" and insistence of paperwork being equivalent somehow to one's spiritual state of being.