Is excommunication enough sometimes?

[Robert F. Smith]

5 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

........................................................ a church leader can inform the the legal authorities if he suspects a serious crime.  

......................................................

If a bishop or stake president is aware of a continuing criminal act, he has the positive obligation to inform law enforcement -- despite confessional confidentiality.  If he fails to do due diligence, he leaves the Church open to civil lawsuit.

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

There is not much a church can do past excommunication.  Blood Enthronement is not legal, and the state is the only organization that can impose restitution, prison, or other punishments.  Even the state is limited by the law of the land, and due process must be followed.  However, a church leader can inform the the legal authorities if he suspects a serious crime.  

I would push back on the idea to ban or excommunicate a person for life.  To me that seems like an effort to negate the atonement of Christ.  No sin is too great for the Lord to forgive.

I get that but do you think that whether or not the atonement will work for someone, they could be banned for life and let someone on the other side figure it all out for them and let the atonement work there? Granted stuff like this is uber rare I hope! 

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, rpn said:

So you think God has a limit on how many times you can repent?     I am aware of someone who has been rebaptized five times over many years.  Each time the time between gets longer.   No God is  not going to prevent you from returning to Him no matter how many times you have to do it.  (now reinstatement of temple blessings is a different story).

Exceptions should be made when inspiration directs.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I get that but do you think that whether or not the atonement will work for someone, they could be banned for life and let someone on the other side figure it all out for them and let the atonement work there? Granted stuff like this is uber rare I hope! 

Given the rareness, it seems appropriate, imo, not to have a set guideline, but to examine each case on its own.

[katherine the great]

4 hours ago, Duncan said:

I guess that could happen!no chance of rebaptism. This is a true scenario, not this scenario. There was a lady in this city that had 6 babies, all died and were put into storage and they died there. the Prosecutors couldn't prove she gave birth to them, DNA somehow didn't work but she was was charged and convicted on something like illegal disposing of  human life  x 6 so she's in jail but not for as long as the prosecutors and society would like her to be. I think most people know that she probably gave birth to them or if she didn't she was indifferent to dead babies, were she to go to her storage unit and find someone else disposed of human life without her consent. So, assuming she was a member could she get rebaptized, even though she most likely but didn't get convicted for killing 6 babies? That's not what this situation i'm talking about but similar. It's a horrible thing to even think about and it seems like exing someone isn't enough but I get smac97's point though that you could be not repentant and not come back or have the holy spirit of promise make it valid, which may not happen who knows

It sounds to me like this is a severely mentally ill woman. She probably needs some serious psychotherapy before baptism is even considered.  

[ksfisher]

Double secret excommunication.

Edited August 13, 2017 by ksfisher

[Duncan]

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

Given the rareness, it seems appropriate, imo, not to have a set guideline, but to examine each case on its own.

that's true!

[Storm Rider]

5 hours ago, Duncan said:

It seems like my Mumsie knows everything and she earlier told me about this tragic incident in our Stake about 16 years ago now. I knew a bit of the story but not everything and I confirmed with someone else what she had told me. Long story short somebody was excommunicated for doing something really bad and it didn't stop there and that is where the other bad part of the story happened. I don't want to seem callous but do you think excommunication is enough for someone's behaviour? like they do something so bad but it seems like it isn't enough as a deterrent or punishment or what 

First of all, the purpose of excommunication is to assist a person who was faithful to recognize the error of their ways, to motivate them to repent, and to return to Christ. It has never been about punishment and it is never been a deterrent.  

What is worse in the eternal realms than to choose to leave the Kingdom of God?  

I think you are looking for something else - it is not found within the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

First of all, the purpose of excommunication is to assist a person who was faithful to recognize the error of their ways, to motivate them to repent, and to return to Christ. It has never been about punishment and it is never been a deterrent.  

What is worse in the eternal realms than to choose to leave the Kingdom of God?  

I think you are looking for something else - it is not found within the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I am not looking for a lynch mob or anything but if someone can commit some heinous deed and sometimes it doesn't seem fair, but hopefully it'll be figured out in the next life

[sunstoned]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Depends on your definition of excommunication.  To some it means the turning over of them to the buffetings of Satan, to others it is only a self-imposed restraint on taking the Sacrament or in praying as voice for a church meeting, etc. -- part of a long process of repentance.

I was referring to the current church process/policy of excommunication.  I think the buffeting part would be a natural consequence of a persons actions.  None of us mortals that I am aware of have much sway over what Satan does or doesn't do.

[smac97]

 

4 hours ago, Duncan said:

well, if Pres. McKay were alive then he know for sure the Book of Mormon was historical! (I think he does) but the fact they went through a religious  conversion and it says there was love in the land, as per Alma 26.  it seems few had a problem with them then, although does it say they were baptized or rebaptized afer their conversion?

I was thinking more generally.  While we don't know the particulars, the people of Anti-Nephi Lehi / Ammonites had, prior to their conversion to the Savior, been extremely warlike (they committed "many murders," although apparently in some ignorance - see Alma 24:9-12), so much so that they became pacifists, even to the extent of letting themselves be slaughtered rather than take up arms in self-defense.

These people are counted among the most righteous exemplars in scripture.  So is Paul (who consented to the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:57–8:1), and Alma the Younger (who led away many from the Gospel), and Jonah (who, acting in his prophetic capacity, preached repentance to the people of Niniveh and was angered when they actually listened to him and repented), and Enos, and many, many others.

The whole point of the Gospel of Christ is to change us from our "natural man" proclivities.  We all of us sin in ways great and/or small.  But there are only two sins for which there is no forgiveness: murder (D&C 42:18 (The murderer "shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come") and blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.  Everything else falls within the parameters of the Atonement.

I know there is a temptation to condemn some great evil as being so terrible as to be unforgivable by God.  It is at these moments that I am grateful to have fairly clear counsel from latter-day prophets and apostles about the scope of repentance and forgiveness.

This does not mean that we don't take precautionary measures against those who have previously demonstrated dangerous or predatory tendencies.  But those measures are for this world, not forever.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

4 hours ago, rpn said:

Not true.  After re-baptism, records reflect original baptism date and ordinance dates (though since temple blessings have to be restored by a separate ordinance, it is possible that original temple ordinances don't show up until that ordinance is done).

Yes, I was aware of that.  But it is my understanding that the member's records still reflect the excommunication and the re-baptism (even if those portions are not visible to the local leaders).

Am I wrong?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Duncan]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

I was thinking more generally.  While we don't know the particulars, the people of Anti-Nephi Lehi / Ammonites had, prior to their conversion to the Savior, been extremely warlike (they committed "many murders," although apparently in some ignorance - see Alma 24:9-12), so much so that they became pacifists, even to the extent of letting themselves be slaughtered rather than take up arms in self-defense.

These people are counted among the most righteous exemplars in scripture.  So is Paul (who consented to the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:57–8:1), and Alma the Younger (who led away many from the Gospel), and Jonah (who, acting in his prophetic capacity, preached repentance to the people of Niniveh and was angered when they actually listened to him and repented), and Enos, and many, many others.

The whole point of the Gospel of Christ is to change us from our "natural man" proclivities.  We all of us sin in ways great and/or small.  But there are only two sins for which there is no forgiveness: murder (D&C 42:18 (The murderer "shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come") and blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.  Everything else falls within the parameters of the Atonement.

I know there is a temptation to condemn some great evil as being so terrible as to be unforgivable by God.  It is at these moments that I am grateful to have fairly clear counsel from latter-day prophets and apostles about the scope of repentance and forgiveness.

This does not mean that we don't take precautionary measures against those who have previously demonstrated dangerous or predatory tendencies.  But those measures are for this world, not forever.

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree with everything you say. The situation I am thinking of here back then, wasn't murder in the 1st degree sense but it's similar, someone died because of someone else's actions and the person got exed but not for that long despite the Stake President knowing about the death. It wasn't an accident or anything like that. It seems so almost wrong that that was all the Church could do to this person considering all the facts.

[ksfisher]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, I was aware of that.  But it is my understanding that the member's records still reflect the excommunication and the re-baptism (even if those portions are not visible to the local leaders).

Am I wrong?

Thanks,

-Smac

"If the member was not endowed before excommunication, Church headquarters or the assigned administrative office provides the ward a membership record that shows the dates of the member’s original baptism and other ordinances, with no reference to excommunication.
If the member was endowed before excommunication, Church headquarters or the assigned administrative office provides the ward a membership record that shows the member’s new baptism date. This record also includes the message “Restoration of Blessings Required.” After the member’s blessings are restored, Church headquarters or the administrative office provides another updated membership record that shows the dates of the member’s original baptism and other ordinances, including endowment (and current priesthood, if applicable), with no reference to excommunication."

Handbook 1 6.13.3

[thesometimesaint]

8 hours ago, Duncan said:

It seems like my Mumsie knows everything and she earlier told me about this tragic incident in our Stake about 16 years ago now. I knew a bit of the story but not everything and I confirmed with someone else what she had told me. Long story short somebody was excommunicated for doing something really bad and it didn't stop there and that is where the other bad part of the story happened. I don't want to seem callous but do you think excommunication is enough for someone's behaviour? like they do something so bad but it seems like it isn't enough as a deterrent or punishment or what 

The worst "punishment" we have is excommunication. It is for those members that won't conform to the requirements as a member in good standing. If a member no longer accepts church authority over them excommunication is no punishment.

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

"If the member was not endowed before excommunication, Church headquarters or the assigned administrative office provides the ward a membership record that shows the dates of the member’s original baptism and other ordinances, with no reference to excommunication.
If the member was endowed before excommunication, Church headquarters or the assigned administrative office provides the ward a membership record that shows the member’s new baptism date. This record also includes the message “Restoration of Blessings Required.” After the member’s blessings are restored, Church headquarters or the administrative office provides another updated membership record that shows the dates of the member’s original baptism and other ordinances, including endowment (and current priesthood, if applicable), with no reference to excommunication."

Handbook 1 6.13.3

If a person is excommunicated for a crime where he has to register as a sex offender, his or her records will also be flagged to indicate that he or she not be given a calling or put into situations where they will be alone with or have influence over children and probably any youth. I do not know the full details of exactly what is entailed. It is good to know that such actions are taken to ensure the safety of our youth from a person possibly falling into temptation once again, even though it may limit the possibilities for those who are really and sincerely repentant.

Now, as to just who should be forgiven and readmitted, we need to look to the scriptures for guidance. Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

Personally I am glad that I am not in a position to make such a judgment as to whether a person has truly repented. But I am not going to stand in judgment of someone that has been rebaptized either. I know of situations where this has happened and the result was the person left off going to church although the person did not lose a testimony. Just did not want to put up with the whispers and gossip that followed.

Glenn

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I was referring to the current church process/policy of excommunication.  I think the buffeting part would be a natural consequence of a persons actions.  None of us mortals that I am aware of have much sway over what Satan does or doesn't do.

The Roman Catholic rite once entailed "bell, book, and candle":

Quote

Quote

Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of the Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of all the saints, in virtue of the power which has been given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth, we deprive him and all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment.^[1]

After this recitation the priests would respond: Fiat, fiat, fiat ("So be it! So be it! So be it!") The bishop would then ring a bell, close a holy book, and he and the assisting priests would snuff out their candles by dashing them to the ground.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell,_book,_and_candle .

 

.

Edited August 13, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Darren10]

21 hours ago, Duncan said:

It seems like my Mumsie knows everything and she earlier told me about this tragic incident in our Stake about 16 years ago now. I knew a bit of the story but not everything and I confirmed with someone else what she had told me. Long story short somebody was excommunicated for doing something really bad and it didn't stop there and that is where the other bad part of the story happened. I don't want to seem callous but do you think excommunication is enough for someone's behaviour? like they do something so bad but it seems like it isn't enough as a deterrent or punishment or what 

The Church excommunicates to protect the integrity of the Church. By excommunication, the Church can legitimetly say that it condemns certain sins and behaviors and not allow the purveyors of these sin and bad behaviors to officially represent the Church. A Church disciplinary counsel is convened to address the culprit directly and in that setting church leaders are to admonish chrislike behavior from the sinner. They are to do so charitably and lovingly. While leaders are to hope in Christ that the isnner repents and changes his or her way, it is the sinner who must choose to do so. Hopefully the disciplinary counsel was a vehicle for the sinner to feel Christ's love for him or her and to allow that love to enter into his or her heart and to flourish into righteous acts. 

I do not find church disciplinary steps such as deciding disfellowship or excommunicate a member as a reliable mathematical metric to result in good behavior. 

Edited August 13, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

10 hours ago, Duncan said:

I guess that could happen!no chance of rebaptism. This is a true scenario, not this scenario. There was a lady in this city that had 6 babies, all died and were put into storage and they died there. the Prosecutors couldn't prove she gave birth to them, DNA somehow didn't work but she was was charged and convicted on something like illegal disposing of  human life  x 6 so she's in jail but not for as long as the prosecutors and society would like her to be. I think most people know that she probably gave birth to them or if she didn't she was indifferent to dead babies, were she to go to her storage unit and find someone else disposed of human life without her consent. So, assuming she was a member could she get rebaptized, even though she most likely but didn't get convicted for killing 6 babies? That's not what this situation i'm talking about but similar. It's a horrible thing to even think about and it seems like exing someone isn't enough but I get smac97's point though that you could be not repentant and not come back or have the holy spirit of promise make it valid, which may not happen who knows

DANG! 

And here I was under he impression that people in Canada behaved better than they do here in the United States.

[Duncan]

3 hours ago, Darren10 said:

DANG! 

And here I was under he impression that people in Canada behaved better than they do here in the United States.

we have our moments! people believe she is the mother of those babies but they couldn't prove they were born alive and were hers but they got her on disposing of a body x 6 so at least she's in jail

[rpn]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes, I was aware of that.  But it is my understanding that the member's records still reflect the excommunication and the re-baptism (even if those portions are not visible to the local leaders).

Am I wrong?

All I can tell you is that my leaders have never known that I was disfellowshipped or excommunicated until I told them I had.  And I've been in some 10 wards since then.    I therefore think you are wrong.

[Bobbieaware]

16 hours ago, Duncan said:

It seems like my Mumsie knows everything and she earlier told me about this tragic incident in our Stake about 16 years ago now. I knew a bit of the story but not everything and I confirmed with someone else what she had told me. Long story short somebody was excommunicated for doing something really bad and it didn't stop there and that is where the other bad part of the story happened. I don't want to seem callous but do you think excommunication is enough for someone's behaviour? like they do something so bad but it seems like it isn't enough as a deterrent or punishment or what 

In days of yore, some of the churches of an earlier day endorsed hanging, drawing and quartering as a punishment that delivered maximum suffering for the sinner and maximum deterrent effect upon those who witnessed its administration.

Edited August 13, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[Bernard Gui]

14 hours ago, USU78 said:

Break out the comfy chair!!

No one expects the Mormon Inquisition. 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, rpn said:

All I can tell you is that my leaders have never known that I was disfellowshipped or excommunicated until I told them I had.  And I've been in some 10 wards since then.    I therefore think you are wrong.

As a ward clerk I received several new move-in member records with instructions for the new bishop to contact the previous bishop.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

In days of yore, some of the churches of an earlier day endorsed hanging, drawing and quartering as a punishment that delivered maximum suffering for the sinner and maximum deterrent effect upon those who witnessed its administration.

Ah for the olden days when men were men.