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

[stemelbow]

Yes, the you must believe properly and then behave properly before we every consider you as belonging to our exclusive community has never sat well with me.  I'd love to see the belong thing in place without the other two at all.  It'd be pretty nice if there weren't levels of exclusiveness among us all, and we were able to see us as all in this together, but there's so many of us and so many ways to go about life I suppose it's inevitable.  

Quote

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." 

I'm not sure it's all that helpful to claim inclusion but in the same breath explain how the Church is exclusive, on the basis of Mormons considering themselves elite.  

[HappyJackWagon]

39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"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.

Telling them WHY they don't belong, doesn't mean they belong. If I tell Smac that he can't be a part of my club because I think his name is silly, I am telling him he doesn't belong in my club. Explaining why he doesn't belong doesn't change the fact that he doesn't belong.

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

I agree that we tell them we hope they "return" to the church so that they can belong again at some future date. But sharing that desire for future belonging doesn't mean they belong in the present.

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.

Yes, it is serious. It removes a person from the community of the church. That person no longer belongs and is no longer offered full fellowship.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

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

Not exactly. In my experience that is incorrect. I have always seen the priesthood leader express what the person needs to do to return to belonging in the church, and then offer assistance. It is then left in the hands of the excommunicant to some degree out of respect. IMO it would be inappropriate for a bishop to keep hounding someone he just excommunicated for meetings. Yet the bishop invites and remains open to the individual and may touch base on occasion.

[SouthernMo]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

IMO it would be inappropriate for a bishop to keep hounding someone he just excommunicated for meetings. Yet the bishop invites and remains open to the individual and may touch base on occasion.

This perspective is healthier than how it was explained to me.

Belonging is removed when leadership asks the excommunicant not to speak in church.

[smac97]

Just now, SouthernMo said:

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

Excommunication is, in some rare instances, a necessary thing.  It can sometimes be a part of the repentance process.  See here:

Quote

When excommunication from the Church is necessary, however, we must not regard the penalty as an end to all blessings and eternal possibilities. Even excommunication, serious as it is, can have the effect of restoring the proper perspective of the offender. Once deprived of Church membership, it is interesting to note how vitally important rebaptism becomes. The truly repentant excommunicated person will strive diligently to regain the waters of baptism. In the Church there are scores of members who have earned their way back into the Church through true repentance and who now stand on more firm ground than ever before in their lives. They have learned their lesson well. They are not likely to make the same mistake again; and surely the blessings of eternity are once again a possibility, thanks to the sanctifying influence of true repentance coupled with the miracle of forgiveness.

See also here:

Quote

The longer I live, the more profoundly grateful I am that the Lord has given us a plan to help us grow and progress. As part of this plan, He has given guidance on how we can overcome serious error and sin. His desire is that all his children return to him, that all partake of the precious fruit of eternal life. (See Ezek. 18:21–23.)

Both the Lord and his church stand ready with open arms to welcome back all who stray. The First Presidency has extended this special invitation:

“We are aware of some who are inactive, of others who have become critical and are prone to find fault, and of those who have been disfellowshipped or excommunicated because of serious transgressions.

“To all such we reach out in love. We are anxious to forgive. …

“We encourage Church members to forgive those who may have wronged them. To those who have ceased activity and to those who have become critical, we say, ‘Come back. Come back and feast at the table of the Lord, and taste again the sweet and satisfying fruits of fellowship with the Saints.’” (Church News, 22 Dec. 1985, p. 3.)

When members need to have certain blessings withheld, the Lord’s object is to teach as well as to discipline. So probation, disfellowshipment, and excommunication, when they become necessary, are ideally accompanied by eventual reinstatement and restoration of blessings.

...

The miracle of the gospel is that we all can repent. Church government calls for Church disciplinary councils. But the Lord’s system also calls for restoration following repentance. Disfellowshipment or excommunication is not the end of the story, unless the member so chooses. Rather, after excommunication, followed by full repentance, come additional steps, each one bringing great blessings: baptism, restoration of priesthood and temple blessings, further growth and participation in the kingdom, enduring in righteousness to the end.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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.

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

I think Judeo-Christian religious systems are characterized and identified by their beliefs and behaviors, and thus the cohesion of their membership depends on these. The secular Jew may be welcome in his neighborhood but if he shows disrespect in his synagogue, he will be less welcome there and may have it affect his standing in the community. The broader you get in defining the community, such as Jewish nationalism, “belonging” takes on greater importance. I don’t see the Church having a national identity, but more as a branch or denomination of Judaism (thus having as narrow a character and identity).

[SouthernMo]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Excommunication is, in some rare instances, a necessary thing.  It can sometimes be a part of the repentance process.  See here:

See also here:

Thanks,

-Smac

Agreed. But a side effect is that the sense of belonging is removed. 

[Calm]

People shouldn't assume that being made to feel welcomed is the same as feeling one belongs.  And there are levels of feeling of belonging, dependent to a great deal on the person themselves, so it is not a particularly off/on switch of have baptism, one feels like one belongs.  There are those who I know have felt instantly at home long before baptism. Took me until I was in my 30s in a Canadian ward to feel like I belonged in the sense of 'coming home' when I attended (baptized at 8, always active, but inherently shy even if also outgoing).  For some people, you can feel like an outsider even when everyone else is doing exactly what they should be doing to help you belong. 

I know many members who treat investigators and visitors as members of the community.  Sometimes this is what it takes for these to feel they belong, others it is more just feeling welcomed without any sense there is any binding with the community in spirit and they need a more formal process to move towards a greater sense of having a place there.

The people I knew well who were excommunicated expressed a sense of being an outsider before the formalities because of their choices.  Excommunication was part of the process to move back into the community because it was their acknowledgement that the community was involved in their healing/repentance process.  They were no longer alone, dealing on their own.

I can understand why this would not be the reaction for many, especially if excommunicated for apostasy.

Edited November 2, 2018 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

I was  looking for  a church with  these  beliefs and found it.  There it was- Alma 32 and Moroni 10:4 in one place.

I asked God and he said "10:4 good buddy- you found it!"

What kind of person would belong to a religion for fellowship reasons and THEN believe?

At  first  I did not even particularly like the people, just their beliefs and lifestyle.

Sounds totally weird  to me.  Rationalization.   "These people are nice to me so I should believe what they do"

Not for  me!

 

Edited November 2, 2018 by mfbukowski

[bluebell]

Someone probably said this already (I haven't read the entire thread yet), but it makes more sense to me that the Jewish people would practice a 'belong/believe' approach since Jewish is a lineage and not just a religion. You can be an atheist and still be fully and completely Jewish if that's your DNA. 

I don't know that it makes any sense for anyone else to approach it like that.

[smac97]

55 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Agreed. But a side effect is that the sense of belonging is removed. 

I think that is perhaps one of the intended effects.  Sometimes the consequences of sin need to be felt.  Better to have a "sense of belonging" temporarily affected in the here and now, as opposed to risking a permanent separation from loved ones because a person broke his covenants and failed/refused to repent.

D&C 76:79 speaks of those who attain the "Terrestrial" glory, but are not granted Celestial glory and all that comes with it (the perpetuation of family relationships).  The difference is that the former "are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus; wherefore, they obtain not the crown over the kingdom of our God."

The sense of community is important, but it is not paramount.  It is our relationship with God that predominates. 

• "Behold, blessed, saith the Lord, are they who have come up unto this land with an eye single to my glory, according to my commandments."  (D&C 59:1)
• "And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God."  (3 Nephi 11:33)
• "For he that receiveth my servants receiveth me; {a}nd he that receiveth me receiveth my Father; {a}nd he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father’s kingdom; therefore all that my Father hath shall be given unto him."  (D&C 84:36-38).
• "But, behold, the righteous, the saints of the Holy One of Israel, they who have believed in the Holy One of Israel, they who have endured the crosses of the world, and despised the shame of it, they shall inherit the kingdom of God, which was prepared for them from the foundation of the world, and their joy shall be full forever."  (2 Nephi 9:18)

Don't get me wrong.  The "community" aspect of the Church is extremely important.  But it is nevertheless but a means to an end.  What end?  Well...

Quote

4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.
8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.

(Ephesians 4)

And here:

Quote

16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

(Romans

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I was  looking for  a church with  these  beliefs and found it.  There it was- Alma 32 and Moroni 10:4 in one place.

I asked God and he said "10:4 good buddy- you found it!"

What kind of person would belong to a religion for fellowship reasons and THEN believe?

Quite a few people, actually.  I knew some people in Taiwan who joined the Church because they obeyed the Word of Wisdom and saw the benefits from it.  One older lady I recall shared her testimony of the Word of Wisdom almost every Fast Sunday.  

Is that sufficient?  No.  But it's a start.  And she was better off in the Church than not, even if her "testimony" was not necessarily centered on the Savior.  I hope that in time, she got there.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SouthernMo]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think that is perhaps one of the intended effects.  Sometimes the consequences of sin need to be felt.  Better to have a "sense of belonging" temporarily affected in the here and now, as opposed to risking a permanent separation from loved ones because a person broke his covenants and failed/refused to repent.

D&C 76:79 speaks of those who attain the "Terrestrial" glory, but are not granted Celestial glory and all that comes with it (the perpetuation of family relationships).  The difference is that the former "are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus; wherefore, they obtain not the crown over the kingdom of our God."

The sense of community is important, but it is not paramount.  It is our relationship with God that predominates. 

• "Behold, blessed, saith the Lord, are they who have come up unto this land with an eye single to my glory, according to my commandments."  (D&C 59:1)
• "And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God."  (3 Nephi 11:33)
• "For he that receiveth my servants receiveth me; {a}nd he that receiveth me receiveth my Father; {a}nd he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father’s kingdom; therefore all that my Father hath shall be given unto him."  (D&C 84:36-38).
• "But, behold, the righteous, the saints of the Holy One of Israel, they who have believed in the Holy One of Israel, they who have endured the crosses of the world, and despised the shame of it, they shall inherit the kingdom of God, which was prepared for them from the foundation of the world, and their joy shall be full forever."  (2 Nephi 9:18)

Don't get me wrong.  The "community" aspect of the Church is extremely important.  But it is nevertheless but a means to an end.  What end?  Well...

And here:

Thanks,

-Smac

Would you treat your children this way?

If they severely misbehave, would you kick them out of your family for a while (until they repent, and wait a necessary year)?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Quite a few people, actually.  I knew some people in Taiwan who joined the Church because they obeyed the Word of Wisdom and saw the benefits from it.  One older lady I recall shared her testimony of the Word of Wisdom almost every Fast Sunday.  

Is that sufficient?  No.  But it's a start.  And she was better off in the Church than not, even if her "testimony" was not necessarily centered on the Savior.  I hope that in time, she got there.

Thanks,

-Smac

But what this story demonstrates is that she believed first - at least in the word of wisdom- and perhaps did or did not "advance" from that point.

But the belief is what drew her in at first.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

Would you treat your children this way?

"This way" being . . .?

I don't understand your question.

I am generally a bit cautious in judging God's actions based on what I would do.  "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.  For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."  (Isaiah 55:8-9)

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

If they severely misbehave, would you kick them out of your family for a while (until they repent, and wait a necessary year)?

I'm not sure what you mean by "severely misbehave."

Thanks,

-Smac

[SouthernMo]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"This way" being . . .?

I don't understand your question.

I am generally a bit cautious in judging God's actions based on what I would do.  "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.  For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."  (Isaiah 55:8-9)

I'm not sure what you mean by "severely misbehave."

Thanks,

-Smac

You say (and back with some scripture) that excommunication is needed at some times.

I ask you - would you excommunicate your children from your family of they misbehave in a way that would get them excommunicated from the church.  What is that standard of misbehavior?  You decide. The important thing is to keep it constant between the two.

Excommunication is spiritual capital punishment. It supposedly “unseals” one from his/her family.  In practice, it also carries a stigma that creates separation and awkwardness.  It pulls god’s children apart on earth more than it brings us together.

I know what you’re saying about how your ways aren’t god’s ways. There is truth in that at times. But, I won’t worship a god who loves me less than my earthly parents do. If my earthly parents will always accept me, and my Heavenly Father won’t, then I’m not going to give him my love or respect.

I think excommunication is not of god. It’s a man-made tool designed to use fear and exclusion to prod the behavior wanted.

I’m really curious about your answer. If you think Excommunication is a good thing at times, are there circumstances in which you would excommunicate your kids from your family?  Your wife?  Grandkids?

[smac97]

15 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

You say (and back with some scripture) that excommunication is needed at some times.

Yes.  And the various scriptures that speak of excommunication / discipline / "casting out," / etc. need to be accounted for.

Quote

I ask you - would you excommunicate your children from your family of they misbehave in a way that would get them excommunicated from the church.  

I do not understand your question.  "Excommunicate [my] children?"  I don't know what this means.  But I would venture to say: No, I would not.  "I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men."  (D&C 64:10)

Quote

What is that standard of misbehavior?  You decide.

No, I don't.  God does.  It is not within my stewardship to judge the destiny of any other person.  I leave that to God.

Quote

The important thing is to keep it constant between the two.

Again, I don't know what you mean here.  Excommunication is plainly within the purview of those in authority in the Church.  "Behold, I give unto you power, that whatsoever ye shall seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven; and thus shall ye have power among this people."  (Helaman 10:7)

However, there is no corollary as to my children.  I have no authority to "excommunicate" them from my family.  Nor do I have the desire to do so.  The two situations ("excommunication" from the Church versus cutting off a child from one's family), therefore, are quite different from each other.  The former can happen under divine mandate, I don't think the latter can.

Quote

Excommunication is spiritual capital punishment.

Not really.  "Capital punishment" is irreversible.  Excommunication is virtually never irreversible.

Moreover, excommunication is authorized in scripture, even mandated in some circumstances:

• 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 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 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 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."
• 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."

Again, these mandates must be accounted for.

Quote

It supposedly “unseals” one from his/her family.  

If done properly, there is no "supposedly" about it.  "Behold, I give unto you power, that whatsoever ye shall seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven; and thus shall ye have power among this people."  (Helaman 10:7)

If you believe the Church has the power to "seal," you must also admit that it has the power to "loose" or unseal.

Quote

In practice, it also carries a stigma that creates separation and awkwardness.  

A minor consideration, in the grand scheme of things.  What really matters is whether the individual repents and returns to his/her covenants.  But for two types of sin, a person can always be restored to full fellowship and re-gain all blessings lost/suspended through excommunication.

Have you ever heard of Amasa Lyman?  John D. Lee?  Do you know what these two men have in common?

Quote

It pulls god’s children apart on earth more than it brings us together.

Why do you think Jesus Christ provided for excommunication, then?  Why did He bestow His servants with both power to seal and power to loose?

Quote

I know what you’re saying about how your ways aren’t god’s ways. There is truth in that at times. But, I won’t worship a god who loves me less than my earthly parents do. If my earthly parents will always accept me, and my Heavenly Father won’t, then I’m not going to give him my love or respect.

I'm not sure you know what I'm saying.  "For now we see through a glass, darkly."  (1 Cor. 13:12.)  You acknowledge that God's ways may not be "our ways," but you then proceed to disregard this and speak as if you or I is in a position to judge God and find His judgment defective or evil.  Simply put, we can't do that.  We lack the perspective and intelligence and righteousness.

This can be a hard thing to bear, but it is important.  Consider, for example, Nephi's words regarding the destiny of his people:

Quote

4 Wherefore, all those who are proud, and that do wickedly, the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of Hosts, for they shall be as stubble.
5 And they that kill the prophets, and the saints, the depths of the earth shall swallow them up, saith the Lord of Hosts; and mountains shall cover them, and whirlwinds shall carry them away, and buildings shall fall upon them and crush them to pieces and grind them to powder.
6 And they shall be visited with thunderings, and lightnings, and earthquakes, and all manner of destructions, for the fire of the anger of the Lord shall be kindled against them, and they shall be as stubble, and the day that cometh shall consume them, saith the Lord of Hosts.
7 O the pain, and the anguish of my soul for the loss of the slain of my people! For I, Nephi, have seen it, and it well nigh consumeth me before the presence of the Lord; but I must cry unto my God: Thy ways are just.

I urge you to consider that last bit: "But I must cry unto my God: They ways are just."  God is perfect, we are not.  God's judgments are per se just.  Ours may or may not be.

Also consider Alma's counsel to his son, Corianton, in Chapters 39-42.  Some wonderful stuff in there about the justice of God.  Also consider Mosiah 27:31:

Quote

Yea, every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess before him. Yea, even at the last day, when all men shall stand to be judged of him, then shall they confess that he is God; then shall they confess, who live without God in the world, that the judgment of an everlasting punishment is just upon them; and they shall quake, and tremble, and shrink beneath the glance of his all-searching eye.

In short, I think our ability to perceive what is "just" and "fair" is blinkered and finite.  The day will come when we, like Nephi, will acknowledge that God is perfect, both in His mercy and in His justice.

God loves us more than we can comprehend.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."  (John 3:16)

"Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not.  For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; {b}ut if they would not repent they must suffer even as I; {w}hich suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men."  (D&C 19:13-19)

To suggest that God loves us less than our earthly parents is to err in our understanding of God.  I think this is why Joseph Smith said: 

Quote

Let us here observe that three things are necessary for any rational and intelligent being to exercise faith in God unto life and salvation.

First, the idea that he actually exists;

Secondly, a correct idea of his character, perfections, and attributes;

Thirdly, an actual knowledge that the course of life which one is pursuing is according to His will. For without an acquaintance with these three important facts, the faith of every rational being must be imperfect and unproductive. But with this understanding, it can become perfect and fruitful, abounding in righteousness unto the praise and glory of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

I encourage you to reconsider what you consider to be God's "character, perfections, and attributes" (Him being unjust or arbitrary in His judgments is not among these).

Quote

I think excommunication is not of god. It’s a man-made tool designed to use fear and exclusion to prod the behavior wanted.

Then you reject the scriptures that speak of it, and authorize it, and even mandate it in certain (fairly limited) circumstances.

Have you ever participated in a disciplinary council as a member of a bishopric, or as a member of a stake presidency and high council?  I have.  Several dozen times over now.  And yet not a one of these has resulted in an excommunication.  Nobody wants to do it.  But there are times when it is necessary.  Hence the scriptural mandate we have regarding it.

Quote

I’m really curious about your answer. If you think Excommunication is a good thing at times,

I'm not sure I'd characterize excommunication as a "good" thing.  It can be a necessary thing, though.

Quote

are there circumstances in which you would excommunicate your kids from your family?  Your wife?  Grandkids?

Again, I don't know what this means.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 3, 2018 by smac97

[SouthernMo]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, I don't know what this means. 

If your kids sinned really badly, would you kick them out of your family?  You answered it already, and quoted D&C 64:10

If you believe this scripture literally any leader who excommunicates or disciplines anyone else is disobeying this “revelation.”

But, I’m sure you’ll tell me that some men have been called to act in God’s place. So, they bear the burden of having to receive the revelation that some must be excommunicated. They don’t have to forgive, do they?

Why not apply this logic to fathers, then?  Aren’t you entitled to receive revelation and act in God’s name for your family?  So why not act as you believe god would, and cut your sons and daughters who transgress off. Unseal them from you!

So why not take your fatherly duties seriously, and cut your (hypothetical) unrighteous kids out of the family?  By doing so, you’d only be following god’s teachings and example, right?

Of course not!  This is not the way of god. And I repeat - if god really is this way, I will not worship him. 

Edited November 3, 2018 by SouthernMo

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

 

I see it as a threaded spiral leading upwards. We can enter the spiral at any one of those tracks and then proceed toward the Tree of Life with modifications and improvements of all three as we get closer. We are all somewhere along the spiral, even those who have drifted off into forbidden paths. They can reenter if they desire it.

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Not exactly. In my experience that is incorrect. I have always seen the priesthood leader express what the person needs to do to return to belonging in the church, and then offer assistance. It is then left in the hands of the excommunicant to some degree out of respect. IMO it would be inappropriate for a bishop to keep hounding someone he just excommunicated for meetings. Yet the bishop invites and remains open to the individual and may touch base on occasion.

At the stake and ward levels, I have seen the stake president and bishop set up regular interviews at the conclusion of the council with the purpose of having the person return to the Church in full fellowship. I have watched the process be completed when the person is repentant, but I have also observed some who don't come back. 

Edited November 3, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Robert F. Smith]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

 

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).

 Many Mormons are born in the covenant (BIC), and particularly in the intermountain West, are actually part of a kind of ethnic culture (scan the faces of MOTAB and you will see a very Western European and British Isles racial group).  Socio-political views in common in that region (Old Deseret) are so strong that Mormons from elsewhere may find it somewhat foreign, even odd.  Indeed, one survey many years ago found that Mormons and non-Mormons in Utah had more in common with one another than with Mormons from other areas (say California).  If the issue of "belief" were so important, that would not be possible.

Multi-generational Mormons consider themselves "Mormon" in some way from their first glimmerings of awareness, regardless of their beliefs.  Like Jews they exhibit a way of life more than a religion.

Quote

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

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

I............................... Is there such thing as a "secular Latter-day Saint?"  

If you use the word "Mormon," perhaps so.  The word "saint" has other implications.  There are and have been many cultural Mormons -- who do not believe in the religion as such, but love the culture.

Quote

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

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

.Only an Orthodox Jewish conversion has legal status in the State of Israel.  Otherwise, the conversion is null and void there.  Conservative, Reform, or Reconstructionist Jewish conversions are not honored.

Conversions to Judaism require the interrogation by a rabbinic board, circumcision (for men), and baptism by immersion. Under rabbinic law, one is a Jew if his mother was a Jew.  One is a Levite or Cohen only if his father was such, and his mother was at least a multi-generational Jew (7 generations of non-converts).

Even secular Jews who ignore dietary and other laws, often participate in Jewish rites (marriages, funerals, festivals, weekly kaddish, etc.), and consider themselves an authentic part of the Jewish community.

Edited November 3, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[smac97]

10 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

If your kids sinned really badly, would you kick them out of your family?  

No.

And "kick them out of your family" is quite a different proposition from "excommunication."

Quote

You answered it already, and quoted D&C 64:10

If you believe this scripture literally any leader who excommunicates or disciplines anyone else is disobeying this “revelation.”

Not at all.  A bishop who convenes a disciplinary council is not acting in his individual capacity, but is functioning as a judge in Israel.    The bishop acting in his individual capacity is required to forgive.  He can (and should) do that.  But a bishop acting as a judge in Israel is required to pass righteous judgment on the individual.

As I understand it, a bishop acting in a representative capacity lacks authority to declare forgiveness of sins.  See here:

Quote

Here is an excerpt from The Miracle of Forgiveness (pp. 263-264) that may be useful to consider:

Bishops Remove Penalties, Not Sins

 

Although there are many ecclesiastical officers in the Church whose positions entitle and require them to be judges, the authority of those positions does not necessarily qualify them to forgive or remit sins.  Those who can do that are extremely few in this world.

 

The bishop, and others in comparable positions, can forgive in the sense of waiving the penalties. In our loose connotation we sometimes call this forgiveness, but it is not forgiveness in the sense of "wiping out" or absolution. The waiver means, however, that the individual will not need to be tried again for the same error, and that he may become active and have fellowship with the people of the Church. In receiving the confession and waiving the penalties the bishop is representing the Lord. He helps to carry the burden, relieves the transgressor's strain and tension, and assures to him a continuation of Church activity.

 

It is the Lord, however, who forgives sin. This point, and the position of the bishop and comparable officers in the matter, was brought out in the following instruction given to bishops of the Church by President J. Reuben Clark on April 5, 1946:

 

...

 

There is in the Church... the power to remit sins, but I do not believe it resides in the bishops. That is a power that must be exercised under the proper authority of the priesthood and by those who hold the keys that pertain to that function. Woo back every sinner. Forgive them personally. The Lord has said that. Do all you can, but short of that formal remission the matter then rests between the transgressor and the Lord, who is merciful, who knows all of the circumstances, who has no disposition but to aid his children, give them comfort, guide them, and help them. But the Lord has said, "I cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance." So we leave it with him, and our prayers go with the prayers of the transgressor that God will forgive him, but the path of the sinner was never smooth and I believe never will he.

 

...

 

Let it be said in emphasis that even the First Presidency and the Apostles do not make a practice of absolving sins. They waive penalties in the course of their ministrations. Thus the forgiveness or waiver of penalty is not something to be taken idly or thoughtlessly and is not to be given for a mere token effort or trial, but only for a genuine, wholehearted repentance.

 

Also, here is a Facebook post which addresses this point.  The post purports to be quoting general authorities, but the specific quotation below appears to be from the writer of the post, not from a GA.  Nevertheless, I think the point is worth considering:

 

Regarding the authority of priesthood leaders to remit sins, Doctrine and Covenants 132:46 ties this authority with the sealing keys. "And  verily, verily, I say unto you, that whatsoever you seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever you  bind on earth, in my name and by my word, saith the Lord, it shall be eternally bound in the heavens; and whosesoever sins you remit on earth shall be remitted eternally in the heavens; and whosesoever sins you retain on earth shall be retained in heaven."  So the only Priesthood leaders that have the authority on earth to remit sins is the Priesthood office that holds the sealing keys, meaning The First Presidency.  But even they don’t do it often.

 

In other words, I can "forgive" another person as for myself, but that's it.  Whether the Lord has forgiven them is not within my purview to decide or declare.  It apparently is also not within the purview of a bishop, or even a stake president.  The remittance of sins is apparently paired with the sealing power, and bishops and stake presidents do not have those keys.

Quote

But, I’m sure you’ll tell me that some men have been called to act in God’s place.

I believe that, yes.  

"What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."  (D&C 1:38)

"And he [God] gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; {f}or the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: {t}ill we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ."  (Ephesians 4:11-13)

"And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.  Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?"  (1 Cor. 12:28-29)

And so on.

Quote

So, they bear the burden of having to receive the revelation that some must be excommunicated. They don’t have to forgive, do they?

I think you are conflating things here.  A bishop acting as a bishop should be guided by revelation.  And that revelation can be that a person should be excommunicated.  Separation from the body of Christ is an unpleasant, but sometimes necessary, thing.  There are many, many scriptural provisions about it, and even mandates requiring it in some circumstances (I provided some examples in my previous post).

I encourage you to consider these passages.  You do not seem to be accounting for them.

Quote

Why not apply this logic to fathers, then?  

For a number of reasons:

First, there is no provision in the Gospel for a father to "excommunicate" a child from the family.  That's not a thing.  There is excommunication from the Church, which entails loss of membership and blessings.

Second, a parent lacks authority (by virtue of the priesthood or any other way) to "excommunicate" a child from the family.

Third, "excommunication" from the Church and personal "forgiveness" are not opposites of each other.  

Quote

Aren’t you entitled to receive revelation and act in God’s name for your family?  So why not act as you believe god would, and cut your sons and daughters who transgress off. Unseal them from you!

See above.

You seem to be presenting this scenario as a rhetorical gimmick.  I don't think it works.  There is no such thing as a parent "unsealing" their children.  

Quote

So why not take your fatherly duties seriously, and cut your (hypothetical) unrighteous kids out of the family?  By doing so, you’d only be following god’s teachings and example, right?

Of course not!  This is not the way of god.

I'm not sure what you mean by "this."

Excommunication is undeniably part of the Gospel  This really isn't a "reasonable minds can disagree" sort of thing.  "Behold, I give unto you power, that whatsoever ye shall seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven; and thus shall ye have power among this people."  (Helaman 10:7)

Again, why do you think Jesus Christ provided for excommunication?  Why did He bestow His servants with both power to seal and power to loose?

Quote

And I repeat - if god really is this way, I will not worship him. 

Again, I encourage you to reconsider what you consider to be God's "character, perfections, and attributes."  God being unjust or arbitrary in His judgments is not among these.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 3, 2018 by smac97

[pogi]

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

There it was- ...Moroni 10:4...

I asked God and he said "10:4 good buddy- you found it!"

Whoa!  Talk about a sign! 😁

[SouthernMo]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No.

And "kick them out of your family" is quite a different proposition from "excommunication."

Not at all.  A bishop who convenes a disciplinary council is not acting in his individual capacity, but is functioning as a judge in Israel.    The bishop acting in his individual capacity is required to forgive.  He can (and should) do that.  But a bishop acting as a judge in Israel is required to pass righteous judgment on the individual.

As I understand it, a bishop acting in a representative capacity lacks authority to declare forgiveness of sins.  See here:

In other words, I can "forgive" another person as for myself, but that's it.  Whether the Lord has forgiven them is not within my purview to decide or declare.  It apparently is also not within the purview of a bishop, or even a stake president.  The remittance of sins is apparently paired with the sealing power, and bishops and stake presidents do not have those keys.

I believe that, yes.  

"What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."  (D&C 1:38)

"And he [God] gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; {f}or the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: {t}ill we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ."  (Ephesians 4:11-13)

"And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.  Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?"  (1 Cor. 12:28-29)

And so on.

I think you are conflating things here.  A bishop acting as a bishop should be guided by revelation.  And that revelation can be that a person should be excommunicated.  Separation from the body of Christ is an unpleasant, but sometimes necessary, thing.  There are many, many scriptural provisions about it, and even mandates requiring it in some circumstances (I provided some examples in my previous post).

I encourage you to consider these passages.  You do not seem to be accounting for them.

For a number of reasons.  

First, there is no provision in the Gospel for a father to "excommunicate" a child from the family.  That's not a thing.  There is excommunication from the Church, which entails loss of membership and blessings.

Second, a parent lacks authority (by virtue of the priesthood or any other way) to "excommunicate" a child from the family.

Third, personal "forgiveness" and "excommunication" are not opposites of each other.  

See above.

You seem to be presenting this scenario as a rhetorical gimmick.  I don't think it works.  There is no such thing as a parent "unsealing" their children.  

I'm not sure what you mean by "this."

Excommunication is undeniably part of the Gospel  This really isn't a "reasonable minds can disagree" sort of thing.  "Behold, I give unto you power, that whatsoever ye shall seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven; and thus shall ye have power among this people."  (Helaman 10:7)

Again, why do you think Jesus Christ provided for excommunication?  Why did He bestow His servants with both power to seal and power to loose?

Again, I encourage you to reconsider what you consider to be God's "character, perfections, and attributes."  God being unjust or arbitrary in His judgments is not among these.

Thanks,

-Smac

I appreciate a few things about your responses. You are thorough. You are well thought out, and back up whatever you can. You don’t seem to get emotional or take offense at perspectives different than yours.

Let me be very clear: I agree - there is no question in my mind that scripturally, there are repeated provisions for excommunication (of one name or another).

But - having been excommunicated myself and seen others go through this, I have not seen for myself net ‘good’ come from the process. It is hard for me to support a practice for which the “fruits thereof” have over the long run driven individuals away from fundamental church principles.

Also - it’s hard for me to fathom a god who holds his children to a level of forgiveness that he is not willing or able to keep himself. I don’t have the faith to see that.

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I appreciate a few things about your responses. You are thorough. You are well thought out, and back up whatever you can. You don’t seem to get emotional or take offense at perspectives different than yours.

Thank you.

Quote

Let me be very clear: I agree - there is no question in my mind that scripturally, there are repeated provisions for excommunication (of one name or another).

I agree.  But you also have said: "I think excommunication is not of god."  That's the part I do not understand.

Quote

But - having been excommunicated myself and seen others go through this, I have not seen for myself net ‘good’ come from the process.

I have.  I have a good friend who was excommunicated, but has returned to full fellowship.  His excommunication was a "reset" for him.  It gave him time and space to reconsider his relationship with the Church and with God.  

Of course, an excommunication can also cause bitterness and anger.  

And then there are circumstances in which excommunication is not really intended to create a "net 'good,'" but is instead intended to mitigate or stop harm.  Harm to the individual, harm to others, harm to the Church.

Excommunication is a very rare thing.

Quote

It is hard for me to support a practice for which the “fruits thereof” have over the long run driven individuals away from fundamental church principles.

I think we'd need to talk about particulars, as generalities are too much of a mixed bag.  There are plenty of stories of people appreciating the value of excommunication.  Plenty about people resenting excommunicaiton, too.

Quote

Also - it’s hard for me to fathom a god who holds his children to a level of forgiveness that he is not willing or able to keep himself. I don’t have the faith to see that.

I'm not sure what this means.  God is perfect.  He is both omniscient and benevolent and merciful and just.  He is situated to judge righteously and perfectly.  We are not so situated.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 3, 2018 by smac97

[SouthernMo]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I agree.  But you also have said: "I think excommunication is not of god."  That's the part I do not understand.

I don’t believe that because something is written in scripture that it is pure revelation from god. There can be errors in scripture, I think.