A different church excommunicating member

[rpn]

11 hours ago, pogi said:

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?

I had had profound experiences with Heaven that confirmed They actually knew me, by name, in every moment of my life growing up.    When I was excommunicated, my friends said "you don't have to do things in a calling, you get a ten percent pay raise because you can't pay tithing/fast offerings, you get Sundays free and you can't be punished any more, so why aren't you celebrating".   It wasn't until much of the way through the year before I recognized that it took longer to figure things out, friendships were less deep, colors were not as bright, memory was challenged,  reading and understanding took more work, music didn't make my heart sing, being in nature no longer had the healing power it had had, enjoyment was dampened.    When I found the Pratt quote,  it made perfect sense.   For me, it wasn't like turning on or off a light switch.    And after I was rebaptized/confirmed, it has never been a light switch type experience.   The influence of the Holy Ghost for me isn't outwardly so obvious, it's just inherent, with that gift of constant companionship in how my mortal body works and lives.

[MustardSeed]

46 minutes ago, rpn said:

I had had profound experiences with Heaven that confirmed They actually knew me, by name, in every moment of my life growing up.    When I was excommunicated, my friends said "you don't have to do things in a calling, you get a ten percent pay raise because you can't pay tithing/fast offerings, you get Sundays free and you can't be punished any more, so why aren't you celebrating".   It wasn't until much of the way through the year before I recognized that it took longer to figure things out, friendships were less deep, colors were not as bright, memory was challenged,  reading and understanding took more work, music didn't make my heart sing, being in nature no longer had the healing power it had had, enjoyment was dampened.    When I found the Pratt quote,  it made perfect sense.   For me, it wasn't like turning on or off a light switch.    And after I was rebaptized/confirmed, it has never been a light switch type experience.   The influence of the Holy Ghost for me isn't outwardly so obvious, it's just inherent, with that gift of constant companionship in how my mortal body works and lives.

That sounds like depression to me, to be honest. 

[rpn]

21 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

That sounds like depression to me, to be honest. 

But it wasn't.   I was very much okay having gotten square with Them.    (I can tell you that when I first realized saw the pattern, I thought about that as an explanation, but it just didn't fit my circumstances at all.)  It was the absence of the gift of the Holy Ghost.

[bluebell]

On 3/17/2023 at 12:49 PM, bsjkki said:

My spouse finds it interesting how often or how long we deny temple attendance or partaking of the sacrament. I agree with him that spiritual experiences help people have a desire to repent and helps people maintain or return to their covenants. Unless someone is continuing to sin, why would they be unable to take the sacrament as part of the repentance process? If you have a porn problem, are you unworthy to go to the temple or would going to the temple help you overcome a porn problem? Is it helpful to send a youth home from healthy environments at church schools or on missions as they repent into unhealthy environments that drive them further away or cause more issues. 

 Bishops do represent the Savior, and during the repentance process this is so, they need to remember this as they interact with people repenting. Yelling and shaming can definitely make a person feel hopeless and worthless instead of providing hope and healing. If a Bishop makes a youth feel worthless, they tend to lose hope in the Saviors love for them. It’s a big job with huge responsibilities. Very hard to get right all the time.

I've seen great changes when it comes to partaking of the sacrament and attending the temple and I'm so glad that they have been made.  I've seen people struggling with porn encouraged to attend the temple, because it provides them with spiritual power.  I've also seen bishops admonished for taking away the sacrament  for every little sexual infraction and reminded that removing the ability to partake of the sacrament should not be their first go-to when helping another repent.  

Our collective ideas of repentance and forgiveness have come a long way and the changes are welcome in my opinion.  I graduated from high school in the 90s and knew of a bishop (a very good man--one of the best) who excommunicated a teenager who had not been active since he was a child for living with a girlfriend.  I'm so glad that we (generally) don't do that kind of stuff anymore.

Today, an active, endowed person who commits adultery might not even be excommunicated at all.

[california boy]

13 hours ago, pogi said:

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?

I know you didn't ask me, but I thought I would share my experience. I have definitely noticed a difference in my relationship with God.  It is much closer, more personal,  more directed as to what I should do and how I should live my life.  I found that by relying on God and not the Church or it's leaders, guidance and spirituality has come from a more reliable place.  Guidance from the Holy Ghost has never gone away.  

I think a lot of that has come from no longer lying about who I was.  While I was in the Church, everyone just assumed I was straight, when I always knew I was not.  I felt like I was lying to everyone.  When I came out and was excommunicated, I felt like I was now totally honest about my life.  While God always knew who I was, now everyone did.  I could start building a more honest relationship with God and man.  I definitely feel closer to God than I ever did while I was a member.

This idea that only members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can have a special relationship with God and receive His guidance is false.  God reaches out to every single person that reaches out to Him. 

[Tacenda]

44 minutes ago, california boy said:

I know you didn't ask me, but I thought I would share my experience. I have definitely noticed a difference in my relationship with God.  It is much closer, more personal,  more directed as to what I should do and how I should live my life.  I found that by relying on God and not the Church or it's leaders, guidance and spirituality has come from a more reliable place.  Guidance from the Holy Ghost has never gone away.  

I think a lot of that has come from no longer lying about who I was.  While I was in the Church, everyone just assumed I was straight, when I always knew I was not.  I felt like I was lying to everyone.  When I came out and was excommunicated, I felt like I was now totally honest about my life.  While God always knew who I was, now everyone did.  I could start building a more honest relationship with God and man.  I definitely feel closer to God than I ever did while I was a member.

This idea that only members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can have a special relationship with God and receive His guidance is false.  God reaches out to every single person that reaches out to Him. 

I believe the churches out there put a middle entity to our relationships. Even puts it between family or our loved ones. Institutions that do this are harmful. Churches are great for a community, not so much on a relationship with God in my experience. ETA: Or maybe a church can be a conduit too. 

Edited March 19, 2023 by Tacenda

[Peacefully]

Reading the differing experiences of RPN and California Boy just further proves to me that God knows each one of us and he is there for us if we sincerely seek his guidance and then follow that path back to Him.

When I became a member my mother didn’t think it would last because once I was past my teen years I was rather flighty when it came to religion. Ha, 30yrs, I guess I showed her. Seriously, the church has grounded me. It has given me stability and a place to learn more about my Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. There are things I wish would change, but I think the same could probably be said for other churches I might attend. So I stay because l believe this is the path for me at this time. 
 

Although I don’t agree with everything Joseph Smith did, I have a great love and admiration for him and everything he went through to found this church and shepherd it through its formative years. 
 

I don’t think he would condemn anyone for following their own conscience. In fact, he put it in writing.

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
 

 

Edited March 19, 2023 by Peacefully

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I've seen great changes when it comes to partaking of the sacrament and attending the temple and I'm so glad that they have been made.  I've seen people struggling with porn encouraged to attend the temple, because it provides them with spiritual power.  I've also seen bishops admonished for taking away the sacrament  for every little sexual infraction and reminded that removing the ability to partake of the sacrament should not be their first go-to when helping another repent.  

Our collective ideas of repentance and forgiveness have come a long way and the changes are welcome in my opinion.  I graduated from high school in the 90s and knew of a bishop (a very good man--one of the best) who excommunicated a teenager who had not been active since he was a child for living with a girlfriend.  I'm so glad that we (generally) don't do that kind of stuff anymore.

Today, an active, endowed person who commits adultery might not even be excommunicated at all.

Well, just saw this...

[smac97]

On 3/18/2023 at 12:14 AM, rchorse said:

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.

From the June 2017 Ensign (authored by "Name Withheld") :

Quote

I was raised in the Church and baptized and confirmed at eight years old. The gospel was a way of life for me and for most of the people around me. The Holy Ghost was a very familiar presence in my life.

When I was excommunicated, I felt an almost tangible feeling leave me. I felt like my thinking process had been disrupted and slowed, and making decisions was confusing and difficult. I was anxious and had a hard time feeling peace.

I never realized how losing my membership would change my life completely. I could no longer wear the temple garment or attend the temple. I could not pay my tithing, serve in any calling, take the sacrament, or bear my testimony or pray in church. I no longer had the gift of the Holy Ghost. Most importantly, I was not in a covenant relationship with my Savior through the ordinances of baptism and the temple.
...
I was rebaptized a little over a year after my excommunication. What a relief it was to come up out of the water knowing that Jesus was now my advocate, my partner. He had paid for my sins, and I was again in a covenant relationship with Him.

This is not per se authoritative, but I think it is indicative of general thought in the Church.  See also here:

Quote

Excommunication, in this instance, is a merciful tool given to us from a loving Savior that releases us from the obligations of our covenants. At the highest levels of rebellion against God in this life, it is better that we have no covenants at all with Him, rather than be found in violation of them all. Thus we are removed from the membership of the Church, in order to ‘stop the bleeding’ as it were.
...
In certain cases, excommunication is used to protect the faithful members of the Church from a ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’. There have been from the beginning, and still are, those who would tear down the Church from within if they could. Many of them may not realize at first that they’re after such a goal, but nevertheless they persist. Many of them may be fully aware of what it is they are doing. In either case, excommunication is the final step of discipline for those engaged in open rebellion against the doctrines, principles, or leaders of the Church. Even in this case, the mercy being extended to them in light of their willful breaking of covenants is part of the action.

Again, not authoritative.  And no citation to any authority.

From FAIR:

Quote

Excommunication is the most severe outcome which can be imposed by a disciplinary council. It is reserved for the most grave offenses. Excommunication achieves the purposes of Church discipline by:

1. it releases the member from the weight of their covenants so that they can focus on repentance and rebuild their ability to recommit to their covenant obligations and return to a state of full blessings in the Church.

2. if the offense involves a harm to innocent victims, excommunication protects the innocent by removing the ability of the offender to use his or her Church membership to access victims.

3. if the offense might harm the good name of the Church, excommunication signals to others that the offender cannot claim membership while persisting in behavior which the Church regards as unacceptable. It also avoids the impression that the Church condones or winks at inappropriate behavior.

Again, not authoritative.  And no citation to any authority, at least not as to the bolded point.  The article does cite to to articles by apostles:

•  M. Russell Ballard, "A Chance to Start Over: Church Disciplinary Councils and the Restoration of Blessings," Ensign (September 1990), 12.
• James E. Faust, "Keeping Covenants and Honoring the Priesthood," Ensign (November 1993). Also in Handbook 1, 6.7.3

Both articles discuss loss of membership, but neither includes any indication about a "release" from covenants.

I think this is noteworthy, from Elder Mark E. Petersen in 1973:

Quote

There are some who claim that even though they are excommunicated from the Church, their priesthood and temple blessings are not taken away. Let us remind those persons that the power to seal is also the power to loose, for the Lord has said of his true servants that “whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matt. 16:19; D&C 132:46.) Excommunication takes away all rights, privileges, and blessings of the Church.

The "loose on earth" reference here seems to substantiate the removal of covenants (as it is an intended mirror of the "bind on earth" concept).  If "binding on earth" is about covenant-making, then "loosing on earth" would seem to be about covenant-dissolving.

I will close with this very good 2018 piece by Daniel C. Peterson: In praise of excommunication

Quote

Well, the click-bait headline worked.  Gotcha.

First of all, let me make it plain that I’m saddened by excommunications.  I don’t, as one very small pod of my somewhat unhinged personal critics pretend to believe, rejoice when people are excommunicated.  More precisely, though, I’m saddened by the acts of immorality, the abandonment of once-treasured covenants, the loss of spiritual confidence and trust, the angry rejection of Church leadership, the repudiation of central teachings of the Restoration, or whatever else it may be that has led to excommunication.  What saddens me isn’t so much the excommunication itself, which, in important ways, merely acknowledges a defection from the Kingdom, as it is the original straying from  fellowship.
...

I echo these sentiments.

Quote

I’ve just read a denunciation of the practice of excommunication from a person who, I think, may still be at least a nominal member of the Church.  I’ll respond, very briefly, to some of the points raised by this person:

I suspect this "denunciation" related to the excommunication of Sam Young, which was in late 2018, the timeframe of DCP's article.

Quote

• Excommunication is “outdated.”

Truthfully, I don’t even know what that claim means.  How does the mere passage of time, in and of itself, render a truth or a (divinely-commanded) practice obsolete?  Granted, conditions change.  But when did excommunication pass its sell-by date?  Was it on 12 May 2009, by any chance?  At 1:17 PM?  Or perhaps earlier, sometime in, say, the Fall of 1997?

In the Latter-day Saint understanding, the Church as a whole, in its doctrines and its organizations and its practices, represents the restoration (indeed, the Restoration) of very old things.  We believe temples, apostles, priesthood, baptism, prophets, and other such matters to be exceedingly old, but faithful members of the Church certainly don’t regard them as “outdated.”  Age isn’t a very potent argument against orthodox Latter-day Saint doctrine.

• Excommunication is “abusive.”

Well, I suppose it could be.  And perhaps, in a few cases, it has been.  Church leaders are, after all, human, and subject to all of the limitations to which mortal flesh is heir.  (Although I would imagine that there are more excommunicants who feel that they’ve been abused than there are actual cases of ecclesiastical abuse.  Just as there are more criminal defendants who claim to be innocent than there are actually-innocent defendants.)  But I’ve been involved in enough ecclesiastical disciplinary councils to be quite confident that many and probably the vast majority of them, even when they involve quite grave offenses, are conducted with utmost seriousness, prayerful sensitivity, a profound desire to get things “right,” and a genuine concern for the wellbeing not only of the Church but of the individual whose fellowship is in question.

• Excommunication has the effect of ostracizing people, socially.

Well, yes.  In several senses.  That’s rather the point of the term  כרת‎ (karath, to “cut off”), which occurs in various forms throughout the Hebrew Bible.  It’s also certainly the point of such New Testament passages as

Quote

Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.  But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.  And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.  (Matthew 18:15-17)

It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.  And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.  For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed . . .  to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.  Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?  Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:  Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.  I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators. . . .  But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.  (1 Corinthians 5:1-4, 6-9, 11)

But, according to the New Testament, such “ostracism” isn’t reserved only for cases of gross immorality:

Quote

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.  (Romans 16:17)

If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:  For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.  (2 John 1:10-11)

And, needless to say, the practice of excommunication has continued by revelation in modern scripture, as well, and under the leadership of contemporary prophets and apostles.

Ostracism from Latter-day Saint society as such, however, seems to me to be, as often as not, substantially self-imposed.  Certainly the Church advocates nothing like formal “shunning.”

I recall reading a letter, many years ago, from an elderly ex-Mormon lady to a monthly Baptist tabloid that was focused on attacking the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  In her letter, she lamented how, supposedly urged on to it by Church leaders, her children had begun to avoid her, to fail to invite her to social events, and the like.  But then, seemingly without the slightest tincture of self-awareness, she also told how, at every family birthday party and picnic, she spent as much time as she could on denouncing Joseph Smith, attacking their faith, and trying to bring her grandchildren out of the cult of Mormonism.  It didn’t take much imagination to realize that no directive from bishop or stake president to her kids was required for them to stop inviting such a tiresome anti-Mormon bore, Grandma though she was, to their family barbecues.

I have heard all of these bulleted complaints many times.  None of them holds up well in terms of reasoning or persuasiveness.

Quote

...

• Excommunication is “spiritual violence.”

Again, I don’t know exactly what this is supposed to mean, except that it’s plainly designed to portray as evil those who advocate the Church and the Restoration as the Church and Restoration have long been understood and taught.

Couldn’t that be viewed as, itself, a form of “spiritual violence” and “abuse”?  It’s certainly a case of attempted rhetorical manipulation.  However, I strongly prefer retaining the word violence for . . . well, you know, for actual cases of violence.  Excommunication isn’t remotely comparable to the Nazi invasion of Poland in 1939, nor even to a brutal carjacking.

Using "violence" in this way is a fairly recent - and pretty stupid - rhetorical gimmick.  See, e.g., here.

Quote

• Excommunication is foreign to the beautiful, accepting, always-affirming message of the gentle Jesus.

God is love.  Jesus is loving.  By this shall men know ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

Quite true.

But let’s not forget about the Jesus who carefully braided the whip and drove the moneychangers from the temple, who called the  Pharisees “whited sepulchers,” who distinguished between “sheep” and “goats,” who spoke extensively of Hell, who warned of “false prophets” who would appear “in sheep’s clothing” while “inwardly they are ravening wolves” (Matthew 7:15).

I've commented on this concept a few times.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Christ said and did things that were not well-received by the society around Him.  I'm quite okay with that.  I'm also quite okay with His servants doing the same thing.  I am of course interested in the reputation of the Church.  Our reputation affects our ability to fulfill various mandates from God, not the least of which is the Great Commission.  But preserving and enhancing the Church's "reputation" cannot come at the expense of other mandates, such as upholding and proclaiming and teaching principles pertaining to marriage and the Law of Chastity.

Christ did not upend the moneychangers' tables in the temple because it was popular.  He did so because it was right.

Christ did not preach the "Bread of Life" sermon in John 6 because it was popular.  He did so because it was right.

Christ preached a gospel that was not going to be popular in the minds of an increasingly wicked world.  He knew that.  But He preached it anyway.  I think He knew beforehand that His message would alienate many people, including some otherwise good and decent people.  But He preached anyway.  I think He did so because those who were ready for His message needed to hear it, and needed to be gathered out of the World.  

Perhaps this is why He said: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."  

Perhaps this is why He also said (several times, actually) : "Behold, I am God; give heed unto my word, which is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of both joints and marrow; therefore give heed unto my words."

Christ also said: "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."  

Christ also said "For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me."  

My dad and I were talking about these things a while back, some of which have been described as the "dark sayings of Jesus."  My dad noted that some people focus on the "sweetness and light" sayings of the Savior, which is probably fine - unless that focus is exclusionary.  Christ had warnings for us, after all.  Such as this: "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you."  And this: "The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil."   And this: "Therefore, fear not, little flock; do good; let earth and hell combine against you, for if ye are built upon my rock, they cannot prevail."   And this: "For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory."

The "dark sayings" require as much attention as the cheerful ones.

Quote

• The Church’s message should always be “Come unto Christ,” never driving anybody away.

That is its message, and it always has been.  But coming unto Christ means accepting him as lord and master, not as uncritical playmate and always-affirming pop psychologist:  He didn’t say, “I’m OK, you’re OK, and isn’t it beautiful?”  He said, “If ye love me, keep my commandments.”  He commanded us to repent.

• The leaders of the Church have no authority to determine who gets to belong and who doesn’t, no right to decide who fits and who doesn’t fit in.

On the contrary, for believing members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that is precisely their right and their authority and their responsibility.  The Kingdom isn’t an open-ended debating society in which every doctrine is up for grabs, every commandment subject to focus groups and polling and negotiation, every policy a matter to be worked out by means of street demonstrations and town hall meetings but always subject to revision if even a single person objects.

The Kingdom should, of course, always be led with compassion and love, and we can hope and pray and work to include as many within its boundaries as are willing to affiliate themselves with it on conditions of repentance.  But the Kingdom does have leaders, and it does have boundaries.  The Kingdom means something specific, and the very definition of definition is to set borders and limits — which is why the term is also used to refer to the degree of distinctness in the outline of an object, an image, or a sound.

Excommunication is one way in which those facts are made plain.

This last one folds back into the point made by Elder Petersen in 1973 as pertaining to the power to both "bind" and "loose" (see Matt. 16:19; D&C 132:46).

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

32 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Well, just saw this...

Ok. I’m not sure how it’s exactly relevant to what I posted but maybe I gave you the impression that I did think excommunication was ever appropriate?

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Well, just saw this...

This is, I think, one of many great examples of why excommunication is necessary for the health of the "body" of the church (for the reasons described in that letter).

Matt 18:7-9;  "Woe unto the world because of offences!  for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!  Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.  And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire."

I believe these verses are speaking about excommunication from the "body" of the church, and not about literally chopping off body parts (that would be gross and unproductive).

(See 1 Cor 12:12-31 for a description of the "body of Christ" and members of the church likened unto "hands", "eyes", "feet", etc.)

[rchorse]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

From the June 2017 Ensign (authored by "Name Withheld") :

This is not per se authoritative, but I think it is indicative of general thought in the Church.  See also here:

Again, not authoritative.  And no citation to any authority.

From FAIR:

Again, not authoritative.  And no citation to any authority, at least not as to the bolded point.  The article does cite to to articles by apostles:

•  M. Russell Ballard, "A Chance to Start Over: Church Disciplinary Councils and the Restoration of Blessings," Ensign (September 1990), 12.
• James E. Faust, "Keeping Covenants and Honoring the Priesthood," Ensign (November 1993). Also in Handbook 1, 6.7.3

Both articles discuss loss of membership, but neither includes any indication about a "release" from covenants.

I think this is noteworthy, from Elder Mark E. Petersen in 1973:

The "loose on earth" reference here seems to substantiate the removal of covenants (as it is an intended mirror of the "bind on earth" concept).  If "binding on earth" is about covenant-making, then "loosing on earth" would seem to be about covenant-dissolving.

I will close with this very good 2018 piece by Daniel C. Peterson: In praise of excommunication

I echo these sentiments.

I suspect this "denunciation" related to the excommunication of Sam Young, which was in late 2018, the timeframe of DCP's article.

I have heard all of these bulleted complaints many times.  None of them holds up well in terms of reasoning or persuasiveness.

Using "violence" in this way is a fairly recent - and pretty stupid - rhetorical gimmick.  See, e.g., here.

I've commented on this concept a few times.  See, e.g., here:

The "dark sayings" require as much attention as the cheerful ones.

This last one folds back into the point made by Elder Petersen in 1973 as pertaining to the power to both "bind" and "loose" (see Matt. 16:19; D&C 132:46).

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks for all the info. I'm not a critic of excommunication. Having presided over a couple myself and having been part of the council for others, I feel it definitely has its place.

I was mainly interested in the idea of covenants no longer applying after excommunication. The information you've provided here, although not definitive, does help to see where the idea comes from. Although I remain undecided, I think that is definitely a reasonable view to hold.

Thanks!

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Ok. I’m not sure how it’s exactly relevant to what I posted but maybe I gave you the impression that I did think excommunication was ever appropriate?

I posted because I wondered if it was appropriate in your opinion. I guess it might be needed since it could take down several members in someone's ward. And why I would never do that. But it'd be nice if the members of the church could rally around someone like me and say it's okay if you have that opinion but we don't and love you anyway, haha.

Edited March 19, 2023 by Tacenda

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I posted because I wondered if it was appropriate in your opinion. I guess it might be needed since it could take down several members in someone's ward. And why I would never do that. But it'd be nice if the members of the church could rally around someone like me and say it's okay if you have that opinion but we don't and love you anyway, haha.

I’ve never known of anyone being excommunicated for believing differently or holding different opinions. But to me, believing differently, and publicly teaching that your opinions are correct and that our leaders are sinning/in apostasy because they don’t agree with you are, are two different things.

I do think we should be kind and accepting of members who hold different beliefs. We don’t all have to agree to be valued and loved members of the community.  😊

 

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Well, just saw this...

I have written membership council letters. That is pretty standard. I would have included a reference to the Handbook sections as well in case they want to review them in advance but otherwise that is pretty much what I would have written.

[JustAnAustralian]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I have written membership council letters. That is pretty standard.

And to be fair, the person that shared that said they'd been actively criticising the church since 2020 (and not attending since the same time), so it seems pretty reasonable to me.

Edited March 19, 2023 by JustAnAustralian

[Calm]

8 hours ago, rpn said:

But it wasn't.   I was very much okay having gotten square with Them.    (I can tell you that when I first realized saw the pattern, I thought about that as an explanation, but it just didn't fit my circumstances at all.)  It was the absence of the gift of the Holy Ghost.

I had a medication do this to me.  And while I recognized almost immediately that I no longer felt the Spirit, realizing the physical and emotional dampening effect that was also present took getting off the drug and suddenly realizing three days later water felt good against my skin and remembering that was why I had liked swimming for hours and walking in rain and baths and for the past several years all of that had just been another chore to get through.

I believe that since the Spirit has to work with the physical body, it makes sense that the body would have an impact on the experience of the Spirit.  Given your experience, it looks like the reverse may also be true, that the Spirit impacts the physical experience, its presence intensifying and its lack dulling sensations.  Having the Gift may bring a different type of engagement with the Spirit that adds additional awareness in other areas.  I wonder if actively choosing that which goes against the Spirit might even deaden physical sensations.

And I understand those who are skeptical it is actually the Spirit making a difference or that there is even a Spirit to be felt, I am not going to argue with anyone it has to be the Spirit doing or not doing these things, but it makes the most sense of my experience to me.

Edited March 20, 2023 by Calm