Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

A different church excommunicating member


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:
Quote

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.

But why not.

For the same reason we do not have capital punishment for jaywalking.

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If it's merciful to remove covenants that a person isn't keeping, why not extend that mercy to every covenant breaker?

I think because "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."  (Rom. 3:23.)

There are, it seems, gradations of "sin," with some being more serious than others.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 hour ago, pogi said:

So the person is not accountable for violating the covenant in the first place?  I have never heard that taught before, do you have a source? 

I have also not heard this.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I have always been taught really scary things about covenant breakers with lots of fear based teachings about those apostates who are excommunicated or leave the church. 

That's interesting.  My experience has been quite different.  The Church is far more "encouraging" than it is condemnatory in how it teaches the importance of obedience to God.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Is the moral of the story to make sure you get ex'd if you are on your way out of the church?

I think the "moral" is the repent.    If someone refuses to repent, and instead persists in a state of ongoing, deliberate serious rebellion and sin, then the extreme sanction of membership removal may be both appropriate and necessary.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Does actively having ones records removed have the same effect in terms of removing covenants and accountability for violating those covenants, as passively being excommunicated does? 

Ultimately, yes.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment

In society too there is a sort of excommunication of sorts, aka going to jail-for how long depends on what you did and your attitude to what you were found guilty of. Obviously there are people in jail who actually didn't do it and hopefully those situations will be rectified, and they and as the church does has an appeal process. At any rate, in our stake right now a young man, not active, was found guilty of second degree murder and he is awaiting sentencing. Society is saying, how do we know he won't kill again? murder is a horrible thing to do to someone and their family, for all anyone knows he could do it ten times in the next two months and if he wasn't stopped could keep doing it. Society has a court/trial system with evidence and lawyers and we don't have this, for the most part, vigilante justice way of handling people. IMO the Church has to do something with people that have clearly acted inappropriately either in the church or to society. I doubt that young man would be exed as he wasn't active so it would serve no purpose but if it did it would give him the chance to start over again when he has paid his debt to society. We all know that Christ paid for the sins of the young man and knows how to succor the family of the deceased

Link to comment
4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Thanks,

-Smac

Thank you for the time that you put into responding to my interest.
 

I don’t have your cutting and pasting and replaying skills, so rather than addressing every little part, I will limit my response to the following: 

I would rather not go into the weeds, identifying what I mean by cultish. I trust that we all know what I’m talking about.

yes, I am referring to the social impact of “excommunication ”. Im also referring to the possible value in using the resources as a source of strength during repentance that are often taken away.  I absolutely see a need for the repentance process. I think there might be better ways to do it then the way we do it now.

I most certainly am judging this other church. I stand in judgment. It is certainly something I can take a look at it. Thank you.

I take it that the way things are with regards to excommunication pleases you and I can accept that. Thank you for your feedback.

Edited by MustardSeed
Link to comment
1 minute ago, MustardSeed said:

I would rather not go into the weeds, identifying what I mean by cultish. I trust that we all know what I’m talking about.

I surmised that you intended it to disparage the religious group, hence my request for clarification.

Candidly, I don't like "cultish," as it seems to be code for "any religion I don't like."  Here, I assume you meant something akin to that, or to this:

Quote
 
  1. relating to or characteristic of a small group of people having religious beliefs regarded by others as strange or as imposing excessive control over members.
    "weird cultish beliefs"
     
  2. relating to a person or thing that is popular or fashionable among a particular group or section of society.

Our faith has 16 million members (not exactly "a small group of people").

Our religious beliefs are "strange" to some/many of those not of our faith, but the same can be said for pretty much all religious groups and their beliefs, so "regarded by others as strange" doesn't help much.

The last bit, "imposing excessive control over members," seems to be the gist of it.

1 minute ago, MustardSeed said:

yes, I am referring to the social impact of “excimmunication”. I absolutely see a need for the repentance process. I think there might be better ways to do it then the way we do it now.

Could you elaborate?  What is it about the current policies and procedures for discipline that you think could be improved?

1 minute ago, MustardSeed said:

I most certainly am judging this other church. I stand in judgment. It is certainly something I can take a look at it. Thank you.

I get that you are standing in judgment.  I don't understand why (except perhaps the "public repentance" part).

1 minute ago, MustardSeed said:

I take it that the way things are with regards to excommunication pleases you and I can accept that. Thank you for your feedback.

I don't know what you mean by membership councils "pleasing" me.  As I said, such disciplinary matters are not "comfortable."  I don't think they are supposed to be.  My point was that they are necessary.

I wrote this back in 2014:

Quote

A member of my ward, who is also a personal friend of mine, was recently sentenced to 1-15 years in prison for some very serious crimes to which he had plead guilty. I attended the sentencing hearing, during which some of the details of his crimes were discussed in open court. I observed my friend and saw that he was very distressed. If called upon to describe that hearing, I think he would describe it as "traumatic, brutal and humiliating." However, the judge who conducted the hearing did so with decorum, civility, respect and compassion. The judge discussed the facts of the case, both the thoroughly unpleasant nature of my friend's crimes and the various efforts my friend had been making in the months leading up to the hearing to correct his behavior and make amends. The judge acknowledged these efforts, but then found that the severity of the crimes involved required more than merely parole (which is what my friend had hoped to get). The judge then sentenced him, but then also spent a few minutes giving him counsel and advice regarding what he should do while in prison (be a model prisoner, participate in therapy programs, write to family often, etc.). In other words, the judge treated him with kindness and decency even while in the very act of sentencing him to prison.

I think that many (most?) disciplinary councils are like this, and that priesthood leaders generally conduct such councils with the intent to find the truth, to treat the individual with kindness and love, and to discern the will of God.
...
My friend who was sentenced to prison left a wife and four children behind. The judge knew that when he sentenced my friend to prison. But the judge felt that the nature of my friend's admitted crimes required prison time. Frankly, I have a hard time faulting the judge for that conclusion. I can imagine that the decision to send a married father of four to prison weighed heavily on the judge. I think we can likewise surmise that priesthood leaders in the LDS Church are cognizant of the potential ramifications of disciplinary actions on "the innocent."

And from 2021:

Quote

In sum:

  • A) The vast majority of discipline in the Church is informal, involving only the bishop and the individual.
  • B) There are circumstances in which even serious misconduct will not necessarily require a council.
  • C) Where a council is to be convened, the vast majority of them will now be held at the ward level, in which only four or five people are involved (the bishop, two counselors, ward clerk, and mayby the EQP or RSP).
  • D) Stake-level councils only take place where 1) the man or woman has been endowed, and 2) the misconduct is such that the withdrawal of the individual's membership is "likely." 
  • E) Where a council is to be convened at the stake level, most will involve only 4-6 people (the stake president, two counselors, stake clerk, and maybe the individual's bishop or EQP and/or RSP).

I have not participated in disciplinary proceedings for some years.  I am glad of that.  The stake-level matters were particularly difficult, as there were more people involved.  I am glad the numbers are being pared down.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
2 hours ago, pogi said:

So the person is not accountable for violating the covenant in the first place?  I have never heard that taught before, do you have a source?  I have always been taught really scary things about covenant breakers with lots of fear based teachings about those apostates who are excommunicated or leave the church.  Is the moral of the story to make sure you get ex'd if you are on your way out of the church?    Does actively having ones records removed have the same effect in terms of removing covenants and accountability for violating those covenants, as passively being excommunicated does? 

Local man finds one weird trick to get out of eternal damnation, God hates it!

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

That's interesting.  My experience has been quite different.  The Church is far more "encouraging" than it is condemnatory in how it teaches the importance of obedience to God.

 I never said that the church is more "condemnatory" in how it teaches obedience.  I agree that overall the church is far more encouraging.  My comment, in context, was about how leaders often speak of covenant breakers and how they don't shy from using fear in that regard. 

Quote

Keeping those promises will also bring eternal happiness. Not keeping them will bring sorrow to you and to those you love—and even losses beyond your power to imagine. …

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2019/05/the-power-of-sustaining-faith-excerpts?lang=eng

That is the culture I grew up in when breaking covenants was addressed.   As gut wrenchingly fearful as that is, that quote is soft-ball compared to what I have heard from Elder Bednar and others.  That stuff is straight out of the how to create a cult-like people handbook.  

I much prefer Elder Uchtdorfs approach:

Quote

Historically, fear has often been used as a means to get people to take action. Parents have used it with their children, employers with employees, and politicians with voters.

Experts in marketing understand the power of fear and often employ it. This is why some advertisements seem to carry the implicit message that if we fail to buy their breakfast cereal or miss out on the newest video game or cell phone, we run the risk of living a miserable life, dying alone and unhappy.

We smile at this and think we would never fall for such manipulation, but we sometimes do. Worse, we sometimes use similar methods to get others to do what we want.

My message has two purposes today: The first is to urge us to contemplate and consider the extent to which we use fear to motivate others—including ourselves. The second is to suggest a better way.

The Problem with Fear
First, let us address the problem with fear. After all, who among us has never been compelled by fear to eat better, wear a seat belt, exercise more, save money, or even repent of sin?

It is true that fear can have a powerful influence over our actions and behavior. But that influence tends to be temporary and shallow. Fear rarely has the power to change our hearts, and it will never transform us into people who love what is right and who want to obey Heavenly Father.

People who are fearful may say and do the right things, but they do not feel the right things. They often feel helpless and resentful, even angry. Over time these feelings lead to mistrust, defiance, even rebellion.

Unfortunately, this misguided approach to life and leadership is not limited to the secular world.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2017/04/perfect-love-casteth-out-fear?lang=eng

 

 

 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
7 hours 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.

 

4 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Right.  The person is still accountable for the sin, but it is as if they had never made the covenant.  The person then has time to repent and hopefully recommit themselves to living the gospel and return to the covenant path.

Hadn't thought about this before. What is the thing that is worse about breaking covenants than not being under obligation to keep them either because you never had them or because you were released from them?  What punishment?  Like if you would normally go to the Terrestrial kingdom do you go to the Telestial when breaking the covenant, but once you get excommunicated/released you go back to Terrestrial? Or do you get 20 lashes when you break a covenant, but only 10 if you are released?

I don't mean to sound flippant about this.  I'm just trying to understand how the state or punishment is worse for you if you break covenants versus if you never made them.  I get the concept, but just what is the thing that is worse for you.

Edited by Rain
Link to comment
Quote

Experts in marketing understand the power of fear and often employ it. This is why some advertisements seem to carry the implicit message that if we fail to buy their breakfast cereal or miss out on the newest video game or cell phone, we run the risk of living a miserable life, dying alone and unhappy.

Maybe they are right. I haven’t eaten breakfast cereal in years and I expect to die alone and unhappy. Save me breakfast cereal company!

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I didn’t know that.  So much better!  I wonder why “they” changed it? 

"The language in Chapter 32: Repentance and Church Membership Councils was adjusted to have a more ministerial tone and be more precise and clear. Terminology that had a legalistic tone was removed. "

 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, ksfisher said:

It is releasing someone from the obligations pertaining to the covenants they have made with God.

Not looking for a debate or trying to prove you wrong, but do you have any documentation or a source for this?

I've heard it many times, but have never been able to find anything in the scriptures or from an authoritative source to back it up. In fact, my old stake president used to say the exact opposite. I'd love for it to be true, but haven't found a lot of reason to think it is.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, smac97 said:

The calling comes from the First Presidency, who seeks input and counsel from local leaders (typically the stake presidency).

Thank you. Finaly somebody that gives me some important info i should know.🤩 I just wanna know all of this. I'm also looking into the Doctrine's and Covenands that my missionaris send me through whatsapp. I just need to know it.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Nobody is suggesting otherwise.  But "God Himself" has delegated authority to His servants on the earth, including authority to administer discipline.  That is, I think, the point being made here.

I may hope....may hope🙏... that there is somebody out there, or here on the forum....on the WORLD that understands ME and MY point. 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

We are all walking by faith, not by sight.  2 Cor. 5:7.  

Perhaps you are conflating "proof" with "evidence"?  There is plenty of the latter.

Thanks,

-Smac

You re welcome,

💗Dario.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, pogi said:

So the person is not accountable for violating the covenant in the first place?  I have never heard that taught before, do you have a source?  I have always been taught really scary things about covenant breakers with lots of fear based teachings about those apostates who are excommunicated or leave the church.  Is the moral of the story to make sure you get ex'd if you are on your way out of the church?    Does actively having ones records removed have the same effect in terms of removing covenants and accountability for violating those covenants, as passively being excommunicated does? 

I refuse to see God as accountant  ;)

That's as bad as a tax collector!

"You're on time out FOREVER"!!!

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

“No one expects the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition!”

“Cut! Okay, this isn’t working. We need something with a shorter and punchier name.”

That’s why we shortened it to the Holy Office. Its current boring name is the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, rchorse said:

Not looking for a debate or trying to prove you wrong, but do you have any documentation or a source for this?

I've heard it many times, but have never been able to find anything in the scriptures or from an authoritative source to back it up. In fact, my old stake president used to say the exact opposite. I'd love for it to be true, but haven't found a lot of reason to think it is.

Wh would you need to be rebaptized if the covenant was still in place?

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Calm said:

Wh would you need to be rebaptized if the covenant was still in place?

To become a member of the church again. Also, baptism is the only ordinance that's repeated. All the rest are just done through a blessing to restore everything. 

Again, I'm not looking to prove anyone wrong. I've just never seen any actual evidence that excommunication releases one from covenants made. I would love to see it if it exists.

I personally don't have a firm opinion one way or the other. I've heard priesthood leaders say it both ways.

Link to comment
17 hours ago, smac97 said:

For the same reason we do not have capital punishment for jaywalking.

Is it a “punishment” at the level of “capital punishment” or an act of “mercy”?  I keep hearing both.

Is violating temple covenants akin to jaywalking? I was taught that if we don’t keep our temple covenants we, and our loved ones, will suffer and have losses beyond what we are capable of even imagining.

lots of mixed messages going around - excommunication is not a punishment but is an act of mercy, vs it is like capital punishment.  Then we have violating temple covenants being akin to jay walking, vs it  (the consequences) being worse than we can possibly imagine.

 

 

 

Link to comment
On 3/17/2023 at 5:02 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

The latest Handbook (and for several years now) specifically says that none of them, and porn use (other than child porn and if it severely affects a marriage) and masturbation should not result in a membership council.

Link to comment

When one has their membership removed, they no long have the gift of the Holy Ghost (which does matter, see Parley P. Pratt's quote on the subject), and the Atonement no longer closes the gap between their personal best and objective perfection (which is why/how baptism is a saving ordinance).   Some of those who've been disciplined in that way welcome the feelings that rebaptism brings (early saints got rebaptized as part of repentance multiple times).   And yes if one is going to continue to sin against light at least it is not as a member.  But I  don't buy the protection from anything.   IME it felt completely like punishment for something I already know God had forgiven me for doing, having returned to the faith and lived the commandments fully for more than a year before I was then excommunicated.   Mortals just aren't very good at knowing others the way the Lord does.

Edited by rpn
Link to comment
2 hours ago, rpn said:

When one has their membership removed, they no long have the gift of the Holy Ghost (which does matter, see Parley P. Pratt's quote on the subject), and the Atonement no closes the gap between their personal best and objective perfection (which is why it is a saving ordinance.   Some of those who've been disciplined in that way welcome the feelings that rebaptism brings (early saints got rebaptized as part of repentance multiple times).   And yes if one is going to continue to sin against light at least it is not as a member.  But I  don't buy the protection from anything.   IME it felt completely like punishment for something I already know God had forgiven me for doing, having returned to the faith and lived the commandments fully for more than a year before I was then excommunicated.   Mortals just aren't very good at knowing others the way the Lord does.

If you don't mind me asking, did you notice any appreciable difference in your closeness with the Lord or Spirit after you were excommunicated?  Did you feel a loss with the removal of the gift of the Holy Ghost, or did you continue to have that communion knowing that God had already forgiven you?

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...