A different church excommunicating member

[MustardSeed]

There’s a letter going around that is getting criticism for being cultish.  Here is that letter.  

I have long felt uncomfortable with excommunication- I’m glad we do it less now, and i’m certainly glad that we don’t announce it over the pulpit anymore.  But for some reason, I’m much more judgmental of this letter than I even am of my own church
I understand that there are people who become excommunicated who work very hard to be welcomed back in, who believe that the process is cleansing. I ask, is this really the only way?

In therapy, when one partner betrays the other partner, sometimes the person who has offended is asked to leave. There’s a separation while couple works on the relationship. However, in my practice, I encourage couples to stay together if their intention is to repair the relationship. I do not encourage physical separation. I do not encourage sexual separation. Likewise, I believe that repair can occur in the church without excommunication. And I respect that other people see it differently. I recognize that in the church my point of view is not popular.  

i wonder if like me, being an outsider to the religion that sent this letter challenges anyone else?  I guess I want to know how weird I in fact am. 😅

[Dario_M]

 

I'm really afrait for myself that i will get a letter like that one day...ever in my life, for something i may not do. But i hope it will never happen. I pray for that please lord don't get me excomunnicated. 🙏✝️

Edited March 17, 2023 by Dario_M

[ksfisher]

3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I ask, is this really the only way?

No, it is not the only way.  There are many different ways that a priesthood leader and a member can work together to return that member to the covenant path.  However, in extreme cases the best solution is to release that member from the covenants they have made with God.  This process, which has been called excommunication, is merciful.  It is a mercy to release a person who is not currently willing to keep covenants their obligation to keep them.  From what I have seen excommunication is only used as a last resort and then only with people who showed no desire to repent or whose sins were extremely grievous.

[HappyJackWagon]

13 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

No, it is not the only way.  There are many different ways that a priesthood leader and a member can work together to return that member to the covenant path.  However, in extreme cases the best solution is to release that member from the covenants they have made with God.  This process, which has been called excommunication, is merciful.  It is a mercy to release a person who is not currently willing to keep covenants their obligation to keep them.  From what I have seen excommunication is only used as a last resort and then only with people who showed no desire to repent or whose sins were extremely grievous.

Assuming this is the view of excommunication by the top church leaders, shouldn't we expect to see MANY more excommunications? If someone is unwilling to abide the WoW, or LoC, or attendance, or tithing etc. and shows no willingness to repent ...shouldn't the church mercifully release all of these individuals from their covenants? If Not, why not?

[Dario_M]

32 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

No, it is not the only way.  There are many different ways that a priesthood leader and a member can work together to return that member to the covenant path.  However, in extreme cases the best solution is to release that member from the covenants they have made with God.  This process, which has been called excommunication, is merciful.  It is a mercy to release a person who is not currently willing to keep covenants their obligation to keep them.  From what I have seen excommunication is only used as a last resort and then only with people who showed no desire to repent or whose sins were extremely grievous.

I don't find excommunication mercyfull at all. You simply just exclude somebody based on his lifestyle wich is non of anyone's business anyway. Only in really severe casus i find excommunication appropiate to use for somebody.

But other then that.... excommunication is basically just rejecting somebody for (mostely) no good reason. Somebody that is seeking for help but struggles. For the gospel. Or just for God himself. 

Edited March 17, 2023 by Dario_M

[bsjkki]

I view this in relationship with my not active kids. They do not follow gospel teachings. Do not believe in God. Their names are not ‘removed.’ Should they be? What would be best for them? They don’t want contact. In some ways, I believe they have not officially removed their names for my benefit. If they got an excommunication letter, I’m not sure what they would think. Would they care? Laugh? One more thing to resent? Relief?

[ksfisher]

17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Assuming this is the view of excommunication by the top church leaders, shouldn't we expect to see MANY more excommunications? If someone is unwilling to abide the WoW, or LoC, or attendance, or tithing etc. and shows no willingness to repent ...shouldn't the church mercifully release all of these individuals from their covenants? If Not, why not?

Most people who are unwilling to live the covenants they have made are also inactive.  I never seen bishops hunt down those people and drag them into a membership council.  The only occasion (and this is in my very limited view) that a council was held for someone who was completely inactive was when a bishop found out that that member had been sent to prison for child abuse.  I'm not aware of the outcome of the council.

I've also never seen anyone excommunicated for not living the Word of Wisdom, or attendance, or not paying tithing.  I would doubt that you have either.

[MustardSeed]

I understand what fisher is saying, but I suspect I understand it due to lifelong familiarity with the concept of excommunication.  
 

I also feel that when someone has separated themselves from God, and they feel a desire to commune, that the sacrament and the temple are needed more by the sinner than otherwise.  
 

I really feel icky about this letter.  I understand the “cult” criticism.  I think there is another way.

[ksfisher]

9 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

I don't find excommunication mercyfull at all

Perhaps if you understood the process more you might.

9 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

You simply just exclude somebody

It is more than just simply excluding someone.  It is releasing someone from the obligations pertaining to the covenants they have made with God.

 

11 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

based on his lifestyle wich is non of anyone's business anyway.

Church leaders, such as bishops and stake presidents, have been called by God and given a stewardship to care for the members of their flock.  In that calling they are a personal representative of the Savior and act in His stead.  I don't think you believe that how you or I act is no business of the Savior's.

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I also feel that when someone has separated themselves from God, and they feel a desire to commune, that the sacrament and the temple are needed more by the sinner than otherwise.  

The Savior and the leaders of His church work very hard to bring those who have repented back into full fellowship.  The time period that a person is not asked to partake of the sacrament of attend the temple can be thought of as a safe space given to that person in preparation for the time when they will be able to worthily participate in gospel ordinances.

 

[MustardSeed]

8 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I don't think you believe that how you or I act is no business of the Savior's.

It might appear that way but I believe Dario loves the Savior and it’s likely he believes that the Savior accepts his homosexuality and will make exceptions for him due to the unfairness of man.  I personally see lots of problems with promiscuity and hope that Dario might trade that lifestyle for another as he grows in the gospel of the Savior. (Not the homosexuality, but the promiscuity.) 

 

I like what you’re saying though- *what if we were to reword it to something else that refers specifically to a release from the covenant? What if we called it what it is, “covenant release?”

“Excommunication“ in my mind suggests more of a social status. Thus, it looks more punitive I think than it needs to.

 

*edited to laugh, as if we get to vote  😕

Edited March 17, 2023 by MustardSeed

[Dario_M]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

Perhaps if you understood the process more you might.

I don't think that i need to, because i allready fully understand how the process goes. It has been explained to me several times. So...uhm. 

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

It is more than just simply excluding someone.  It is releasing someone from the obligations pertaining to the covenants they have made with God.

Well...that is on God to decide i find. But feel free to think your own thoughts about that. 😌 i don't wanna make to much a fuss about this whole subject actually. 

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

Church leaders, such as bishops and stake presidents, have been called by God and given a stewardship to care for the members of their flock.

They are still imperfect humans though. They can make mistakes like anyone else. And they can even make a mistake on the moment they are planning to excomunnicate somebody. Humans are humans

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

 In that calling they are a personal representative of the Savior and act in His stead.  I don't think you believe that how you or I act is no business of the Savior's.

Yes it is the business of God indeed. I'm agree with you. And the business of that specific person as well offcourse. 

God bless. ✝️

[Dario_M]

  Something went wrong here.✝️

Edited March 17, 2023 by Dario_M

[Dario_M]

13 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

It might appear that way but I believe Dario loves the Savior and it’s likely he believes that the Savior accepts his homosexuality and will make exceptions for him due to the unfairness of man.  I personally see lots of problems with promiscuity and hope that Dario might trade that lifestyle for another as he grows in the gospel of the Savior. (Not the homosexuality, but the promiscuity.) 

 😕

No i'm not gonna change my ways. Maybey a civil marriage but that's about it. Further then that the party will not go. 

Edited March 17, 2023 by Dario_M

[ksfisher]

14 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I like what you’re saying though- *what if we were to reword it to something else that refers specifically to a release from the covenant? What if we called it what it is, “covenant release?”

That could work. 

 

15 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

“Excommunication“ in my mind suggests more of a social status. Thus, it looks more punitive I think than it needs to.

Agreed. 

[ksfisher]

10 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

Well...that is on God to decide i find.

Except that God has, until the second coming, given that authority to His servants here on earth.

 

11 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

They are still imperfect humans though. They can make mistakes like anyone else. And they can even make a mistake on the moment they are planning to excomunnicate somebody. Humans are humans

You're correct, church leaders can, and have, made mistakes.  God has chosen to act though imperfect beings.  That part always amazes me.

[RAD DAD]

4 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

There’s a letter going around that is getting criticism for being cultish.  Here is that letter.  

I have long felt uncomfortable with excommunication- I’m glad we do it less now, and i’m certainly glad that we don’t announce it over the pulpit anymore.  But for some reason, I’m much more judgmental of this letter than I even am of my own church
I understand that there are people who become excommunicated who work very hard to be welcomed back in, who believe that the process is cleansing. I ask, is this really the only way?

In therapy, when one partner betrays the other partner, sometimes the person who has offended is asked to leave. There’s a separation while couple works on the relationship. However, in my practice, I encourage couples to stay together if their intention is to repair the relationship. I do not encourage physical separation. I do not encourage sexual separation. Likewise, I believe that repair can occur in the church without excommunication. And I respect that other people see it differently. I recognize that in the church my point of view is not popular.  

i wonder if like me, being an outsider to the religion that sent this letter challenges anyone else?  I guess I want to know how weird I in fact am. 😅

The letter you gave, just like the letters of excommunication that our church gives out, has nothing to do with excommunication per se; rather, it is all about compliance and ensuring that one does not deviate from the road that they have made a promise to stay on. The purpose of the letter is to intimidate the recipient into providing full conformity to the brethern and to remind them who is in actual charge of their lives. In addition to this, the letter is worded in such a way that it will cause you to feel fear in the expectation that you will either abide by the requirements of your covenant or face the consequences. Fear is a potent driver of human behaviour.

[The Nehor]

Oh boy, the letter goes with the badly translated “appearance of evil” approach. So you may not have done anything wrong but it is easy for someone to think you have done something wrong and that, in itself, is wrong. It is a blank check to behave like the biblical Pharisees in the interest of making sure everyone looks clean.

[The Nehor]

Also odd that the letter is two years old.

[MustardSeed]

26 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Also odd that the letter is two years old.

Odd why

[Dario_M]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Except that God has, until the second coming, given that authority to His servants here on earth.

No God didn't. Another human did that. And maybey you didn't know this yet. But i'm going to tell you a little secret. Pssssst: bishops and presidents also sometimes lie about thinks

(like me myself also do (i'm not a Bishop or President though) about the LOC for example).

They can also twist thinks if they want too. It doesn't happen aften. But it happends. People represent something, some kind of power and responsibility, but can lied a totaly differend secret lifstyle next to it. A lifestyle that goes against the authority that those people have in the LDS church. That's how some people work. It is what it is. Those thinks happen okay.

I represent a Mormon for example. And i am a Mormon btw let that be clear!. BUT i'm not that rollmodel Mormon that my church thinks of me. Because i lie about some thinks. I'm actually not a good rolmodel at all. And i have lied about some thinks. 

And i'm sure that some bishops and presidents will do the same surely. I find it naive of you...that you think that Bishops and Stake Presidents always do the right thing and stands above humans. They are also just normal humans. They also just poop and pie like every human being does.

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

You're correct, church leaders can, and have, made mistakes.  God has chosen to act though imperfect beings.  That part always amazes me.

It amazes you? Why?? 

Edited March 17, 2023 by Dario_M

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, Dario_M said:

 

I'm really afrait for myself that i will get a letter like that one day...ever in my life, for something i may not do. But i hope it will never happen. I pray for that please lord don't get me excomunnicated. 🙏✝️

My advice, and it may be bad advice, is to not go to your bishop about your homosexuality. Stay clear, keep it to yourself. You've shown the love you have for the church and the Saviour does too. If it were me I'd just enjoy all the benefits that keep you going at the rate that makes you happy. It sounds like you may have been doing that. 

Edited March 17, 2023 by Tacenda

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Dario_M said:

They are still imperfect humans though. They can make mistakes like anyone else. And they can even make a mistake on the moment they are planning to excomunnicate somebody. Humans are humans

All discipline is supposed to lead the member to Christ, and should be handled with that in mind.

The reputation of the church is another consideration but should be secondary imo.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

However, in extreme cases the best solution is to release that member from the covenants they have made with God. This process, which has been called excommunication, is merciful.  It is a mercy to release a person who is not currently willing to keep covenants their obligation to keep them.

What does that mean exactly?  Is it as if they never made a covenant in the first place and are not held accountable for violating the covenants they made?  I'm not sure I understand. 

Edited March 17, 2023 by pogi

[MustardSeed]

11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

All discipline is supposed to lead the member to Christ, and should be handled with that in mind.

The reputation of the church is another consideration but should be secondary imo.

IME the process we use can sometimes do the opposite.  I’m wondering if there might be a better way to accomplish leading members back to Christ.