Excommunication for some but not for others?

[Devobah]

Hi all!

So I just learned that RFM is still a member of the CoJCoLDS, which I found very shocking. He has long been a critic of the church and I know he used to be a member of this board. Maybe he still is, and I can be corrected. 

I'll admit that I don't listen to RFM and know very little about him, but for someone to be a very vocal critic of the church and still be a part of (or want to be a part of) the records is fascinating to me. From what I have seen, he is mostly in agreement with other notable ExLDS members, like Bill Reel and John Dehlin (I don't think he interacts too much with others outside of those two), and I know his stake president was on a show of Mormon Discussions a few years ago. (Again this is just surface level stuff and I haven't listened to the reasons).

So I guess the question that I'd like to discuss is this: When it comes to excommunication, do you think it's more along the lines of waiting long enough until the person in question says something damning, waiting until it's absolutely necessary, or other reasons? Why do some people have a longer leash than others? Is it Stake President and Bishop roulette, or is it a chance for them to go through the repentance process?

Some on the Exmormon reddit seem to think that the reason is because it seems to be only Exmormons that listen to his show (with maybe a few TBMs) here and there. They seem to be in agreement that the likes of John Dehlin, Jeremy Runnells, and Kate Kelly (to name a few) got Excommunicated because they were pulling in faithful members. 

I'll admit that I probably won't have too many CFRs on a lot of these, and a lot of these are more just my own thoughts, but this is something that I have been wondering about.

Cheers

[Pyreaux]

Simple inactivity can be a shield for many folk from disciplinary action. As does not using his real name.

[Duncan]

His toadie Bill Reel was exed

[Devobah]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

Simple inactivity can be a shield for many folk from disciplinary action. As does not using his real name.

I agree, but he is known now. He's done a reveal. His stake president knows who he is and what he does. So why the dragging of the feet?

[bluebell]

I think sometimes it just depends on the SP and how they want to handle things.  I've known of someone in the past who was excommunicated for an offense when another person did the same thing (worse, actually) and was not excommunicated.  For good or bad, local leadership does impact this stuff sometimes.

 

[Calm]

There may be other reasons excommunications do not occur than just the person, I am guessing. Maybe the bishop is concerned about the impact on the family of the potential exmember or other ward family.  
 

I know Reel’s wife had also announced she left the faith, is RFM married and if so is their spouse still a member?  Anyone know?

Edited May 18, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

Also Reel was using “I was a bishop” and meetings with an apostle apparently (didn’t watch, but saw references) in his deconversion testimony, leaders tend to hold other leaders, including former ones to a higher standard (as they should if the member is using their position to influence others).  I have remember RFM being called to a SS teacher position, have no knowledge of anything else. 

Edited May 18, 2024 by Calm

[rpn]

In order to have one's membership withdrawn for apostasy, one has to keep teaching false doctrine after the bishop tells them to stop.   Members are allowed to have differing opinions and allowed to not believe everything.  

Further, some bishops are cognizant of how a parent having their membership withdrawn will affect other family members.  

And sometimes bishops might hold a membership counsel but be unable to identify the two witnesses required to prove up the allegation when the people with knowledge (including the member) refuse to disclose their own actions and therefore remains unable to withdraw membership.

And, contrary to many members and other's  perception, the process of a church membership counsel is to help the member repent.   If it isn't going to have that affect for anyone involved, then the question is whether holding such a counsel makes any sense for the circumstance. 

It just isn't up to the rest of us to legitimately Have AN OPINION ON SUCH MATTERS.  

[mfbukowski]

I guess he (?) has a lot of fans here.

Who the heck is RFM?

-mfb.

Is this some big secret ?

Come on guys- full sentences please.

[mfbukowski]

On 5/18/2024 at 4:25 PM, rpn said:

In order to have one's membership withdrawn for apostasy, one has to keep teaching false doctrine after the bishop tells them to stop.   Members are allowed to have differing opinions and allowed to not believe everything.  

Further, some bishops are cognizant of how a parent having their membership withdrawn will affect other family members.  

And sometimes bishops might hold a membership counsel but be unable to identify the two witnesses required to prove up the allegation when the people with knowledge (including the member) refuse to disclose their own actions and therefore remains unable to withdraw membership.

And, contrary to many members and other's  perception, the process of a church membership counsel is to help the member repent.   If it isn't going to have that affect for anyone involved, then the question is whether holding such a counsel makes any sense for the circumstance. 

It just isn't up to the rest of us to legitimately Have AN OPINION ON SUCH MATTERS.  

Thanks rpn

[sunstoned]

On 5/18/2024 at 1:18 PM, Calm said:

There may be other reasons excommunications do not occur than just the person, I am guessing. Maybe the bishop is concerned about the impact on the family of the potential exmember or other ward family.  
 

I know Reel’s wife had also announced she left the faith, is RFM married and if so is their spouse still a member?  Anyone know?

I believe he is divorced.  

[blackstrap]

RFM refers to Radio Free Mormon podcast ? The guy's actual name can be provided by others . As was said , he was a member here under 'consig' as in consigliere .

[Calm]

1 hour ago, blackstrap said:

The guy's actual name can be provided by others

Corbin Volluz (I always remember the Corbin part, but have to look up his last name because I go to “Korben Dallas”)

https://www.mormondialogue.org/profile/3108-consiglieri/ you can see his posts if you click on “see their activity” and then “posts” on the left side menu.

You can see what he was like about ten years ago (which was about the same time he last posted on this board as consig) at https://rationalfaiths.com/author/corbin/

Edited May 20, 2024 by Calm

[Devobah]

On 5/18/2024 at 4:25 PM, rpn said:

In order to have one's membership withdrawn for apostasy, one has to keep teaching false doctrine after the bishop tells them to stop.   Members are allowed to have differing opinions and allowed to not believe everything.  

Further, some bishops are cognizant of how a parent having their membership withdrawn will affect other family members.  

And sometimes bishops might hold a membership counsel but be unable to identify the two witnesses required to prove up the allegation when the people with knowledge (including the member) refuse to disclose their own actions and therefore remains unable to withdraw membership.

And, contrary to many members and other's  perception, the process of a church membership counsel is to help the member repent.   If it isn't going to have that affect for anyone involved, then the question is whether holding such a counsel makes any sense for the circumstance. 

It just isn't up to the rest of us to legitimately Have AN OPINION ON SUCH MATTERS.  

I want to thank you for your comment. I hope you know that I wasn't implying that he SHOULD be excommunicated, but I was just shocked that he HADN'T been or had his name withdrawn. I will agree that the process of excommunication is a hard process, with both parties most likely feeling worse than how they came into it all. 

[Devobah]

On 5/19/2024 at 11:03 PM, Calm said:

Corbin Volluz (I always remember the Corbin part, but have to look up his last name because I go to “Korben Dallas”)

https://www.mormondialogue.org/profile/3108-consiglieri/ you can see his posts if you click on “see their activity” and then “posts” on the left side menu.

You can see what he was like about ten years ago (which was about the same time he last posted on this board as consig) at https://rationalfaiths.com/author/corbin/

Edited Sunday at 11:09 PM by Calm

Yeah I didn't want to try and use his screen name for the board because I know I would mess that up and get frustrated. RFM is just easier to type. It takes less time. 

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, Devobah said:

Yeah I didn't want to try and use his screen name for the board because I know I would mess that up and get frustrated. RFM is just easier to type. It takes less time. 

I never wrote the full name unless I copied/pasted it, lol.  I could manage consig just fine.  Everyone’s name gets shortened by me, except for my daughter in law’s because she asked (she has -lee on the end and I was dropping it off) and my husband’s because I love, love, love the sound of Peter (yes, his name helped him big time at the beginning), but Pete is just okay.   Everyone else calls him Pete, Dr. Pete, Brother Pete. ***  Me it’s Peter and only Peter.

****and our son was called RePete by a few overly clever family members on his side who said the two looked a lot alike as babies and children.  I didn’t see it, but Peter had a crew cut and our son didn’t, and that might be enough to throw me off.  Our son definitely didn’t look like anyone on my side.

[rpn]

3 hours ago, Devobah said:

but I was just shocked that he HADN'T been or had his name withdrawn

It is rare that anyone knows when someone has their membership withdrawn.  The Presiding person only announces it in some uncommon circumstances.    Why would anyone decided that someone was or wasn't unless the person themselves said it one way or another.  And if someone is doing stuff that could warrant membership removal, why would we trust that what they say is the truth, the whole truth anyway?

[InCognitus]

On 5/20/2024 at 12:03 AM, Calm said:

(I always remember the Corbin part, but have to look up his last name because I go to “Korben Dallas”)

For some reason I'm laughing my head off at this (and it's probably because that's the first name that came to my mind when I read the "Corbin" part as well. That's the way my brain works too! ).

[sunstoned]

The quickest way to be exed is to do anything that casts a bad light on the Q15.  An example is Tim Ballard whose actions brought President Ballard into public notice, while Franke and Hildebrandt pleaded guilty to four counts of aggravated child abuse and still have their membership.

[bluebell]

11 hours ago, sunstoned said:

 while Franke and Hildebrandt pleaded guilty to four counts of aggravated child abuse and still have their membership.

Do you we know that for sure?

I also wonder if pleading guilty and being repentant makes a difference in these kinds of cases?

[MustardSeed]

Wow.  Now that would be something if it’s true. 

[Stargazer]

On 5/20/2024 at 7:03 AM, Calm said:

because I go to “Korben Dallas”

As would I.

"Time not important; only life important."

[Stargazer]

On 5/28/2024 at 4:16 PM, bluebell said:

I also wonder if pleading guilty and being repentant makes a difference in these kinds of cases?

It does. 

But there are some offenses which are required to result in membership withdrawal, regardless of confession and repentance.

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

It does. 

But there are some offenses which are required to result in membership withdrawal, regardless of confession and repentance.

True.  I don't know what those offenses are anymore.  It used to be that adultery as an active endowed member required excommunication but that's no longer true. 

 

[Stargazer]

On 6/18/2024 at 2:03 PM, bluebell said:

True.  I don't know what those offenses are anymore. 

There's a section in the General Handbook that describes situations when a membership council is required (click HERE for the section). The only sin that requires a membership council to withdraw membership is murder. Quoting from the relevant section:

Sins That Require Holding a Membership Council

• Murder
• Rape
• Sexual assault conviction
• Child or youth abuse
• Abuse of a spouse or another adult (as outlined in 38.6.2.4)
• Predatory behavior (violent, sexual, or financial)
• Incest
• Child pornography (as outlined in 38.6.6)
• Plural marriage
• Serious sin while holding a prominent Church position
• Most felony convictions

As this indicates, the requirement of holding a membership council does not (except for murder) require membership withdrawal. 

On 6/18/2024 at 2:03 PM, bluebell said:

It used to be that adultery as an active endowed member required excommunication but that's no longer true. 

 

That's something I have never heard of. How long ago was that? It wasn't the case in 1975, which was the first time I was aware of such a case cropping up.