"Believe, Behave, Belong" -- What is the proper sequence?

[smac97]

Wednesday evening I had a very nice, but abbreviated, discussion with my older brother.  He is a thoughtful fellow.  He is a very observant member of the Church, but he is also pragmatic about how the Church is doing.

 

My brother mentioned a concept of "Believe, Behave, Belong."  This is, he said, the model that the Church uses.  We invite people to first believe (e.g., take the missionary discussions, read the Book of Mormon, pray, etc.), then behave (start attending Church, obeying the Word of Wisdom, Law of Chastity, etc.), then belong (get baptized and formally join the community of the Saints).

 

My brother mentioned that he had spoken with a Jewish fellow who said that Jews generally use a different sequence, namely, a "Belong, then Behave/Believe" approach.  That is to say, the Jews consider each other part of the "Jewish" community regardless of their level of religious observance.  They "belong" to and in the "community" simply by being Jewish.  Whether they "Believe" and "Behave" is an optional, aspirational thing.  The Jewish fellow suggested that we as members of the Church might want to try the "Belong --> Belief --> Behave" approach.

 

A Protestant pastor, Mark Ashton, says something similar:

 

So what do you think?  Could this work?

 

A few thoughts:

 

1. I wonder if Jews can take this approach in large part because "Jewishness" is as much an race/ethnicity/culture as it is a religious affiliation (if not more so).  To be "Jewish" is to be part of a community, but not necessarily a community of faith.  In contrast, I think the Latter-day Saint social fabric is woven mostly from commonalities in belief and behavior, and the "culture" that springs therefrom.  If that is so, what sort of community would we have if faith ("Believe") and congruent conduct ("Behave") become merely optional or ornamental, as such things have for so many in the Jewish community?  

 

2. I wonder if the Jewish fellow was a bit optimistic in his assessment.  He is speaking of people who are born Jewish, whereas we as a Church are a proselytizing faith.  It's one thing to "belong" to a community you are born into, but fairly different to convert to it.  So do religiously observant Jews take a "Belong --> Believe --> Behave" approach to non-Jews?  Apparently not.  See here:

 

Quote

What does converting to Judaism actually entail? Here’s what you need to know:

Q: Do you really have to ask a rabbi multiple times for a conversion?

A: Judaism welcomes converts but doesn’t encourage proselytizing. According to tradition, a rabbi will turn a potential convert away three times before allowing him or her to begin the conversion process. The basic idea is that an observant Jewish lifestyle is a lot to take on, so when would-be converts ask multiple times, it shows their determination to make that commitment.

Also, as a historically persecuted group, Jews initially turn away potential converts in part to reflect on whether they’re willing to deal with anti-Semitism. As the Talmud puts it, the first thing to ask a potential convert is, “‘Why did you come to convert? Do you know that Israel at this time is afflicted, oppressed, downtrodden, and rejected, and that tribulations are visited upon them?” Not exactly an advertisement. That said, while all Jewish denominations don’t actively proselytize, some no longer first turn converts away.

Q: How long does it take to become Jewish?

A: Even conversion candidates themselves don’t always know. A recent survey of 439 Orthodox converts found that, for the majority, the most frustrating part of the conversion process was not having a clear timeline.

In general, regardless of Jewish denomination, a minimum of a year is required so the potential convert can experience a full cycle of Jewish holidays. During that time, conversion candidates study the Hebrew alphabet, Jewish law and the basic tenets of the faith until the rabbi mentoring them thinks they’re ready. But when the rabbi gives approval, the process still isn’t over. For a Conservative or Orthodox conversion, the potential convert then has to go to a beit din.

Q: A beit din? What’s that?

A: A beit din is a three-person Jewish court. The members of a beit din are usually rabbis but can also be laymen educated in Jewish law. They question conversion candidates until they have confidence in the person’s genuine desire to convert and level of Jewish knowledge. A Reform conversion does not always require a beit din, and leaves that decision and others to the discretion of the rabbi.

Q: OK, but isn’t there something about submerging in a pool?

A: Once the convert has gotten a beit din’s approval, the final step of the conversion process is submerging the entire body three times in a mikvah, a Jewish ritual bath, and reciting two blessings. A mikvah has to be either a natural body of water, such as a lake, or a special man-made pool. There are all kinds of nitty-gritty specifications for how to construct a mikvah, but the main thing is that it has to contain a certain amount of water directly from a natural source, such as rain. Many Jewish communities build their own mikvahs for the purpose of conversion and purification rituals.

It sounds like converting to Judaism is very much a "Believe --> Behave --> Belong" process.

3. Something like 40+% of Israeli Jews are "secular," and less than half of American Jews believe in God.  Is there such thing as a "secular Latter-day Saint?"  

 

4. My wife just left a few days ago to take her first ever trip to the UK (with her sister).  On Sunday they will be attending church services somewhere in London.  They will find an immediate community there.  I had similar experiences when I was in the military.  There was a strong sense of community and cohesion, but it arose almost entirely from religious observance.  I spent a year at a military language school on a small military base in Monterey, California.  There was a designated corner on the base where the members of the Church met to catch a ride (those of us who lacked transportation).  The local ward would always send an empty van to pick us up (4-7 of us).  Several of us arrived early at the spot early so that we could chat and catch up.  Then we got in the van and went to church together.  We also had periodic firesides and FHE meetings.  These things were very edifying and comforting for us.  We are young and far from home, so it felt great to re-connect with fellow members of the community.  But again, that connection came through commonality in terms of belief and observance.  Without this commonality, what unique affinity do we have?  What sort of "community?"  

 

5. I am grateful that we are taught to be kind and inclusionary to all, as we are literally all brothers and sisters.  However, the Gospel provides an added element of social cohesion.  Members of the Church are brothers and sisters in the Gospel.  We are bound together with ties stronger than what we see in the "family of man."  Joseph Smith taught: "Take away the Book of Mormon and the revelations, and where is our religion?  We have none."  To me, Joseph's use of "religion" seems to be referencing a religious community.  That being so, can we really have a cohesive international community of Saints without a concerted emphasis on "Believe" and "Behave?"

 

6. To some extent, it seems like we may already be doing this.  The "Believe, Behave, Belong" paradigm in the Church is not particularly onerous.  Take some missionary discussions to find out what we believe, read the Book of Mormon, pray about it, commit to the basics, then get baptized.  So our paradigm appears to be "Believe (the most basic stuff, as the rest of it will come with time), Behave (start on the commitments that are most difficult, such as regular Church attendance, Word of Wisdom, Law of Chastity, Law of Tithing), Belong (get baptized in a matter of weeks or a few months of starting the process)."  In other words, we are trying to get people to the "Belong" part as quickly as possible, and then we encourage a build-up of the "Believe" and "Behave" bits.

 

7. The very lown number of excommunications is, I think, evidence of the effort the Church is putting into the "Belong" part of this paradigm.  We are only excommunicating those whose behavior is fundamentally incompatible with the covenants associated with baptism.  We don't ritually shun (as is seen, for example, among the Jehovah's Witnesses, some Jewish communities, and Scientology), nor do we "out" people who are struggling with their faith or observances.  We regularly exhort members to return to the community.

 

Thoughts?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[pogi]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

6. To some extent, it seems like we may already be doing this. 

That was my thought when reading this.

In church jargon, this is called "fellowshipping."  We are supposed to actively fellowship and minister to our non-member friends by inviting them to participate in church community activities.  A sense of social belonging helps "build relationships of trust" which is fertile ground for planting the seed of belief. 

Edited November 2, 2018 by pogi

[Analytics]

On the one hand, I see your point. When people stop believing, they will typically, probably, stop going through the motions and stop being part of the community. And if you do sincerely believe, why wouldn't you go? (That said, we both probably know doubters who go to church and believers who are quite inactive).

But on the other hand, people don't form beliefs in a vacuum. The missionaries don't tell you to study everything independently and once you've objectively come to believe, tell you to start behaving a certain way and after you to that, will you finally be introduced to and embraced by the community. Rather, they know from experience that you should bring a member to the discussions early and often. If somebody likes the members and wants to join the community, believing is a lot more likely. That is why so many people are "converted to the missionary rather than to the church." They feel socialized and welcomed while their missionary friend is in the area, but when he is transferred the bond to the community is broken and the belief quickly evaporates.

The field of Social psychology has a lot to say about this. Most people are Mormon (or whatever else they happen to be) because they were raised in that community. The community came years before they were able to even begin to independently evaluate the group's truth claims. People will then only consider other truth claims from the social context of who belongs to what group.

Of course there will always be the fiercely independent type who really cares about "the truth" and will study things out and believe what his brain tells him is true. But such people are relatively rare. We are primarily social creatures--not truth-seeking ones.

Edited November 2, 2018 by Analytics

[Mystery Meat]

I think the answer and reality is a bit more nuanced. I think the model of Belong->Believe->Behave is quite noble and what we should be striving for in terms of how we treat people who are either not members of the Church or who are otherwise members, but not believing (in one degree or another). We treat them well. We are kind and compassionate. We don't make them feel ostracized. We love them and serve and include them. This is the ideal.

But, what does it mean to belong? Should everyone be baptized? Should everyone be able to attend the temple? Should everyone be allowed to serve a mission? To me the answer to that is no. Covenants are not without meaning and importance. My sense is that some folks, particularly NOMs and similar types, would want to define belong to include the ability to be baptized and attend the temple regardless of their beliefs and/or behaviors. But as I believe (and I think the Church does too) covenants are more than just social or cultural niceties, I don't think they can be extended to those who do not believe and who are (at the very least) not trying to behave. There will be some who do not "belong" in the Celestial Kingdom in the next life. Certain levels of belief and behavior that are required.

I guess when it comes to how we treat people, we should treat everyone as they belong and welcome to be counted among us. But not all blessings can be extended without meeting certain belief and behavior thresholds.

[rockpond]

I think we're meant to be in a constant cycle of believe/behave... we gain some form of belief and it prompts us to behave accordingly.  That behavior in turn strengthens our testimony and causes us to believe more fully.  That increased belief further strengthens resolve to improve behavior and on and on it goes.

Belong should be independent of that cycle as we welcome all regardless or their level of belief or how they are living the gospel.

I think any of the three could come first in an individual's spiritual journey.  The order your brother mentioned is certainly the model we ask investigators to follow.  But a child born to an active Latter-day Saint family probably feels a sense of belonging early on.  Behavior is modeled and taught from birth.  Belief likely comes last.

[HappyJackWagon]

I like the Belong-Belief-Behave paradigm and I think that is largely what many people are seeking. I like the idea that belief and behavior are aspirational and not conditional.

Like Judaism, I believe Mormonism is bigger than simple adherence to the religion. There are Mormons who aren't orthodox or orthopraxy but still identify with Mormonism because of their history and/or culture. The believe-behave-belong paradigm places great emphasis on conditions for belonging. You can belong IF you ...  That's not necessarily wrong, but it can certainly be a turn off for many people who want to be a part of the Mormon community but don't quite fit the conditions.

 

[Gray]

Jewishness doesn't have a lot to do with any specific beliefs. Righteousness in Judaism is about behavior, not belief. Christianity made it about belief, because it became theologically important for Christians to accept the divinity of Jesus.

But even then, there is a great deal of difference between Orthodox Judaism and Reform Judaism, and the behaviors that adherents are expected to follow.

The LDS church, by comparison, is a single denomination with a standardized set of teachings and expectations. If one were to look at all branches of the LDS Movement, you'd see a lot more diversity.

And as you say, Jewishness is as much an ethnicity as it is a religion, so it follows that there is a lot of diversity of approaches. Mormonism is almost like an ethnicity too. Maybe give it another few thousand years.

Edited November 2, 2018 by Gray

[Jeanne]

The very concept is why I am not a member.  One has to believe, behave to belong.  I wanted more than that from friends, neighbors and a community.  I wanted to belong because I am who I am.  I flunked.

[pogi]

7 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I flunked.

They flunked if you feel like you did not belong. 

 

Edited November 2, 2018 by pogi

[smac97]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

I like the Belong-Belief-Behave paradigm and I think that is largely what many people are seeking. I like the idea that belief and behavior are aspirational and not conditional.

I think they can and should be both.  Aspirational and, to some extent, "conditional."  Membership in a community of faith would seem to require some measure of faith and congruent behavior.

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

Like Judaism, I believe Mormonism is bigger than simple adherence to the religion.

So do I.  But for me, the "adherence to the religion" is the lion's share of the value of what the Church has to offer.  To again quote Joseph Smith: "Take away the Book of Mormon and the revelations, and where is our religion?  We have none."

The Church has activities and socialization and a feeling of community.  But these are all the means to the end.  There are, after all, all sorts of organizations that facilitate activities and socialization and such.

So the "end" is where the value lies, even if the "means" to it have a disproportionate influence on our attentions.

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

There are Mormons who aren't orthodox or orthopraxy but still identify with Mormonism because of their history and/or culture.

And we can and should extend the hand of fellowship to them.  Always.

But at the end of the day, for me it is the keeping of covenants that matters.  "And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity..."  (D&C 132:7).

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

The believe-behave-belong paradigm places great emphasis on conditions for belonging. You can belong IF you ...  That's not necessarily wrong, but it can certainly be a turn off for many people who want to be a part of the Mormon community but don't quite fit the conditions.

It seems like "but don't quite fit" = "but aren't quite willing to meet the conditions."

It's not like joining the Church is akin to trying out for the NFL or the Navy Seals.  It's not a meritocracy.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think they can and should be both.  Aspirational and, to some extent, "conditional."  Membership in a community of faith would seem to require some measure of faith and congruent behavior.

So do I.  But for me, the "adherence to the religion" is the lion's share of the value of what the Church has to offer.  To again quote Joseph Smith: "Take away the Book of Mormon and the revelations, and where is our religion?  We have none."

The Church has activities and socialization and a feeling of community.  But these are all the means to the end.  There are, after all, all sorts of organizations that facilitate activities and socialization and such.

So the "end" is where the value lies, even if the "means" to it have a disproportionate influence on our attentions.

And we can and should extend the hand of fellowship to them.  Always.

But at the end of the day, for me it is the keeping of covenants that matters.  "And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity..."  (D&C 132:7).

It seems like "but don't quite fit" = "but aren't quite willing to meet the conditions."

It's not like joining the Church is akin to trying out for the NFL or the Navy Seals.  It's not a meritocracy.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Extend the hand of fellowship...always? How does excommunication fit into that? Do we extend fellowship whilst simultaneously telling them they don't belong?

So would you list it as Behave-believe-belong?

 

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Extend the hand of fellowship...always?

Yes.

Quote

How does excommunication fit into that?

I don't understand your question.  We can extend the hand of fellowwhip, while also limiting membership in the Church as necessary to comply with the clear mandate we have on that subject:

• D&C 50:8-9 - "But the hypocrites shall be detected and shall be cut off, either in life or in death, even as I will; and wo unto them who are cut off from my church, for the same are overcome of the world. Wherefore, let every man beware lest he do that which is not in truth and righteousness before me."
• D&C 64:34-37 - "Behold, the Lord requireth the heart and a willing mind; and the willing and obedient shall eat the good of the land of Zion in these last days. And the rebellious shall be cut off out of the land of Zion, and shall be sent away, and shall not inherit the land. For, verily I say that the rebellious are not of the blood of Ephraim, wherefore they shall be plucked out. Behold, I, the Lord, have made my church in these last days like unto a judge sitting on a hill, or in a high place, to judge the nations."
• D&C 104:6-10 - "For I, the Lord, am not to be mocked in these things. And all this that the innocent among you may not be condemned with the unjust; and that the guilty among you may not escape; because I, the Lord, have promised unto you a crown of glory at my right hand. Therefore, inasmuch as you are found transgressors, you cannot escape my wrath in your lives. Inasmuch as ye are cut off for transgression, ye cannot escape the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption. And I now give unto you power from this very hour, that if any man among you, of the order, is found a transgressor and repenteth not of the evil, that ye shall deliver him over unto the buffetings of Satan; and he shall not have power to bring evil upon you."
• D&C 51:1-2 - "Hearken unto me, saith the Lord your God, and I will speak unto my servant Edward Partridge, and give unto him directions; for it must needs be that he receive directions how to organize this people. For it must needs be that they be organized according to my laws; if otherwise, they will be cut off."
• D&C 63:60-64 - "Behold, I am Alpha and Omega, even Jesus Christ. Wherefore, let all men beware how they take my name in their lips. For behold, verily I say, that many there be who are under this condemnation, who use the name of the Lord, and use it in vain, having not authority. Wherefore, let the church repent of their sins, and I, the Lord, will own them; otherwise they shall be cut off. Remember that that which cometh from above is sacred, and must be spoken with care, and by constraint of the Spirit; and in this there is no condemnation, and ye receive the Spirit through prayer; wherefore, without this there remaineth condemnation."
• D&C 133:63 - "And upon them that hearken not to the voice of the Lord shall be fulfilled that which was written by the prophet Moses, that they should be cut off from among the people."
• D&C 85:11 - "And they who are of the High Priesthood, whose names are not found written in the book of the law, or that are found to have apostatized, or to have been cut off from the church, as well as the lesser priesthood, or the members, in that day shall not find an inheritance among the saints of the Most High."
• D&C 1:14 - "And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people."
• D&C 134:10 - "We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship."
• Alma 1:24 - "The hearts of many were hardened, and their names were blotted out."
• 3 Ne. 18:31 - "If he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people."
• D&C 42:24 - "Adulterers who do not repent shall be cast out."
• D&C 42:28 - "He that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out."
• D&C 41:5 - "He that receiveth my law and doeth it, the same is my disciple; and he that saith he receiveth it and doeth it not, the same is not my disciple, and shall be cast out from among you."
• Helaman 12:25 - "And I would that all men might be saved. But we read that in the great and last day there are some who shall be cast out, yea, who shall be cast off from the presence of the Lord."
• 3 Nephi 14:15 - "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."

Fellowshipping and excommunication are not an either/or proposition.

Quote

Do we extend fellowship whilst simultaneously telling them they don't belong?

Virtually every letter formalizing an excommunication encourages the individual to return to fellowship in the Church.

We don't tell them "they don't belong."  We tell them that their behavior is not congruent with a covenant relationship with God, and we encourage them to repent.

Quote

So would you list it as Behave-believe-belong?

Not sure yet.  Still trying to sort this out.

Maybe I would list it as:

Believe
Behave
Belong

All three simultaneously, with faith ("Believe") being the most important.  My association with other members of the Church is secondary to my association with God.  Faith comes first for me.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 2, 2018 by smac97

[CV75]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

My brother mentioned that he had spoken with a Jewish fellow who said that Jews generally use a different sequence, namely, a "Belong, then Behave/Believe" approach.  That is to say, the Jews consider each other part of the "Jewish" community regardless of their level of religious observance.  They "belong" to and in the "community" simply by being Jewish.  Whether they "Believe" and "Behave" is an optional, aspirational thing.  The Jewish fellow suggested that we as members of the Church might want to try the "Belong --> Belief --> Behave" approach.

I think the saints take the view that all belong to the family of God (we are all His children); we invite all to believe in that and behave accordingly. I don't see these a linear or prioritized, but part of an integrated "round".

[SouthernMo]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

That was my thought when reading this.

In church jargon, this is called "fellow-shipping."  We are supposed to actively fellowship and minister to our non-member friends by inviting them to participate in church community activities.  A sense of social belonging helps "build relationships of trust" which is fertile ground for planting the seed of belief. 

It is already part of what we do, but it’s culturally behind believe and behave.

Watch even on this forum how often some will ask “do you believe in the prophet or not?” as part of a debate.

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think the saints take the view that all belong to the family of God (we are all His children); we invite all to believe in that and behave accordingly.

In the abstract, yes.  But the "community" offered by the Church involves more than that.  It is more visible.  More distinct and discrete.  

I am an American.  I was born into it.  I live here.  But I also previously served in the U.S. military.  During that time, the military "community" involved considerably more than simply being an American.  I volunteered.  I took an oath.  I put on the uniform.  I received the training.  I agreed to submit to the lawful orders of those in my chain of command.  I agreed to go into harm's way if ordered to do so.  I agreed to serve.  So while I feel an affinity for all Americans, I felt an added measure of it for Americans who are or have been in the Armed Forces.  

Similarly, I am part of the "family of God."  As you say, we are all His children.  But I am also a member of His Church.  I volunteered.  I entered into a covenant.  I agreed to submit to the appropriately-exercised authority of those in authority.  I agreed to serve.  So while I feel an affinity for all of humanity, I feel an added measure of it for those who have joined the Lord's Church.

22 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I don't see these a linear or prioritized, but part of an integrated "round".

It's only "linear or prioritized" in the sense that the three Bs are presented in a smorgasbord, take-what-you-want-and-leave-the-rest kind of way.

A secular Jew may feel some affinity with other Jews, even if he utterly or mostly rejects the "Believe" and "Behave" aspects of being Jewish.

Can the Church function this way?  Is there a cohesive community of faith where faith and congruent behavior are merely optional, take-what-you-want-and-leave-the-rest sort of things?

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

17 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

It is already part of what we do, but it’s culturally behind believe and behave.

Watch even on this forum how often some will ask “do you believe in the prophet or not?” as part of a debate.

Ya, I think we have some work to do on that front.  I think shunning and unrighteous judgment is alive and well in the culture of the church in many areas. 

I'd say that's true in most cultures though. 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Yes.

I don't understand your question.  We can extend the hand of fellowwhip, while also limiting membership in the Church as necessary to comply with the clear mandate we have on that subject:

• D&C 50:8-9 - "But the hypocrites shall be detected and shall be cut off, either in life or in death, even as I will; and wo unto them who are cut off from my church, for the same are overcome of the world. Wherefore, let every man beware lest he do that which is not in truth and righteousness before me."
• D&C 64:34-37 - "Behold, the Lord requireth the heart and a willing mind; and the willing and obedient shall eat the good of the land of Zion in these last days. And the rebellious shall be cut off out of the land of Zion, and shall be sent away, and shall not inherit the land. For, verily I say that the rebellious are not of the blood of Ephraim, wherefore they shall be plucked out. Behold, I, the Lord, have made my church in these last days like unto a judge sitting on a hill, or in a high place, to judge the nations."
• D&C 104:6-10 - "For I, the Lord, am not to be mocked in these things. And all this that the innocent among you may not be condemned with the unjust; and that the guilty among you may not escape; because I, the Lord, have promised unto you a crown of glory at my right hand. Therefore, inasmuch as you are found transgressors, you cannot escape my wrath in your lives. Inasmuch as ye are cut off for transgression, ye cannot escape the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption. And I now give unto you power from this very hour, that if any man among you, of the order, is found a transgressor and repenteth not of the evil, that ye shall deliver him over unto the buffetings of Satan; and he shall not have power to bring evil upon you."
• D&C 51:1-2 - "Hearken unto me, saith the Lord your God, and I will speak unto my servant Edward Partridge, and give unto him directions; for it must needs be that he receive directions how to organize this people. For it must needs be that they be organized according to my laws; if otherwise, they will be cut off."
• D&C 63:60-64 - "Behold, I am Alpha and Omega, even Jesus Christ. Wherefore, let all men beware how they take my name in their lips. For behold, verily I say, that many there be who are under this condemnation, who use the name of the Lord, and use it in vain, having not authority. Wherefore, let the church repent of their sins, and I, the Lord, will own them; otherwise they shall be cut off. Remember that that which cometh from above is sacred, and must be spoken with care, and by constraint of the Spirit; and in this there is no condemnation, and ye receive the Spirit through prayer; wherefore, without this there remaineth condemnation."
• D&C 133:63 - "And upon them that hearken not to the voice of the Lord shall be fulfilled that which was written by the prophet Moses, that they should be cut off from among the people."
• D&C 85:11 - "And they who are of the High Priesthood, whose names are not found written in the book of the law, or that are found to have apostatized, or to have been cut off from the church, as well as the lesser priesthood, or the members, in that day shall not find an inheritance among the saints of the Most High."
• D&C 1:14 - "And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people."
• D&C 134:10 - "We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship."
• Alma 1:24 - "The hearts of many were hardened, and their names were blotted out."
• 3 Ne. 18:31 - "If he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people."
• D&C 42:24 - "Adulterers who do not repent shall be cast out."
• D&C 42:28 - "He that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out."
• D&C 41:5 - "He that receiveth my law and doeth it, the same is my disciple; and he that saith he receiveth it and doeth it not, the same is not my disciple, and shall be cast out from among you."
• Helaman 12:25 - "And I would that all men might be saved. But we read that in the great and last day there are some who shall be cast out, yea, who shall be cast off from the presence of the Lord."
• 3 Nephi 14:15 - "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."

Fellowshipping and excommunication are not an either/or proposition.

Virtually every letter formalizing an excommunication encourages the individual to return to fellowship in the Church.

We don't tell them "they don't belong."  We tell them that their behavior is not congruent with a covenant relationship with God, and we encourage them to repent.

Not sure yet.  Still trying to sort this out.

Maybe I would list it as:

Believe
Behave
Belong

All three simultaneously, with faith ("Believe") being the most important.  My association with other members of the Church is secondary to my association with God.  Faith comes first for me.

Thanks,

-Smac

If they have the ability to Return to fellowship it must mean that they lose fellowship. Excommunication is more serious that "disfellowshipment". We absolutely tell them they don't belong because they are actually removed from membership of the church. Sure, they can still attend church and go to activities, but it as someone who is lesser than the members. Someone who is not in full fellowship.

So are you suggesting that even while the church officially removes fellowship from an excommunicated person, that members should always extend personal fellowship to the excommunicated person. I definitely agree with that. But I'm surprised to hear you suggest that excommunication does not remove institutional fellowship from an excommunicated person. It does exactly that.

Edited November 2, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If they have the ability to Return to fellowship it must mean that they lose fellowship.

"Fellowship" is a broad spectrum.  It's not an all-or-nothing kind of thing.

Quote

Excommunication is more serious that "disfellowshipment".

Yes.

Quote

We absolutely tell them they don't belong because they are actually removed from membership of the church.

We also absolutely tell them why they are being removed from the membership of the Church.

We also absolutely tell them that we hope they return to the Church through repentance.

Quote

Sure, they can still attend church and go to activities, but it as someone who is lesser than the members. Someone who is not in full fellowship.

Yes.  Full fellowship in the Church has privileges and benefits.

Quote

So are you suggesting that even while the church officially removes fellowship from an excommunicated person, that members should always extend personal fellowship to the excommunicated person. I definitely agree with that.

I'm glad we can agree on that.

Quote

But I'm surprised to hear you suggest that excommunication does not remove institutional fellowship from an excommunicated person. It does exactly that.

I am not saying that excommunication is not serious.  It is.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 2, 2018 by smac97

[cinepro]

What does it mean to "belong" to the LDS Church?

We have about five single members or families in our ward who no longer attend (I don't know if they've formally removed their names from the rolls).  But they usually show up to our ward Halloween, Christmas and 4th of July activities.  And when they do, I always talk to them, and lots of other people do to.  But they never attend Sunday services.

Do they "belong" to the community, even though they probably don't believe or behave that way? 

[SouthernMo]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

C'mon.  "Fellowship" is a broad spectrum.  It's not an all-or-nothing kind of thing.

Yes.

We also absolutely tell them why they are being removed from the membership of the Church.

We also absolutely tell them that we hope they return to the Church through repentance.

Yes.  Full fellowship in the Church has privileges and benefits.

I'm glad we can agree on that.

I am not saying that excommunication is not serious.  It is.

Thanks,

-Smac

When I was excommunicated, I was told that bishops and stake presidents are instructed not to reach out to the excommunicant individual. They can take meeting if the excommunicant requests it.

Is that true policy, or just the position of my stake president and bishop?  If so, that policy indicates that unless one believes and behaves, belonging is removed (by policy).

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, cinepro said:

What does it mean to "belong" to the LDS Church?

In a de minimis sense, it means having your name on the rolls of the Church.  

7 minutes ago, cinepro said:

We have about five single members or families in our ward who no longer attend (I don't know if they've formally removed their names from the rolls).  But they usually show up to our ward Halloween, Christmas and 4th of July activities.  And when they do, I always talk to them, and lots of other people do to.  But they never attend Sunday services.

We have a number of individuals and families who also meet that description.

7 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Do they "belong" to the community, even though they probably don't believe or behave that way? 

I'd say so.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

When I was excommunicated, I was told that bishops and stake presidents are instructed not to reach out to the excommunicant individual. They can take meeting if the excommunicant requests it.  Is that true policy, or just the position of my stake president and bishop?

I've never heard this.

3 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

 If so, that policy indicates that unless one believes and behaves, belonging is removed (by policy).

Not sure what this means.  One has to really misbehave to be excommunicated.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SouthernMo]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not sure what this means.  One has to really misbehave to be excommunicated.

True. But the hierarchy is clear. If you don’t behave, belonging is removed. To a lesser extent, if you don’t believe, belonging is removed.

It doesn’t have to be that way.

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Quote

Not sure what this means.  One has to really misbehave to be excommunicated.

True. But the hierarchy is clear. If you don’t behave, belonging is removed.

If you really really don't behave, and refuse to repent, belonging is removed.

4 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

To a lesser extent, if you don’t believe, belonging is removed.

Not really.  Apostasy is a lot more than "I don't believe."

4 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

It doesn’t have to be that way.

I don't think it is "that way."

Thanks,

-Smac

[SouthernMo]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

7 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

 

If you really really don't behave, and refuse to repent, belonging is removed.

Plenty of people who are excommunicated are repentant. I was. Belonging was removed.