When can you cross the line into excommunication?

It seems to me that well-defined limits and boundaries simply don’t exist. That is both good and bad. It would largely depend on the style or views of local leaders (Bishop and Stake President). It could also depend on how high-level Church leaders view it if someone is really out there in the public spotlight.

Harry Reid is very much in the public spotlight, so there is a certain dynamic there. Your friend is probably not going to draw any attention at all unless their book enters the public spotlight. In my personal opinion, excommunication is way too severe for someone who is expressing artistic ideas through a fictional character in a book.

Excommunication is for members who become enemies of the Church, however that is defined by the leaders of the community. There’s no such thing as statute or case law like in the secular legal system. Like I said, I think this is both good and bad. Good because people can be treated as individuals within their context. It’s bad because it is therefore hard to predict, and there will be apparent inconsistencies in the application of religious “justice.”

Hawkgrrrl, those are good points and good details to remember.

Sometimes I hear stories that someone said something and they were ex’d for it…but I have been a part of some disciplinary councils, and it is not done on such a whim, but is taken very serious. Sometimes rooted in an action, but like Hawk mentioned, the person’s attitude, intent, and circumstances are all factors, and like Valoel said, there isn’t a boundary set so the situation is weighed out, not a line drawn arbitrarily.

I think the difficult situations are when someone feels strongly what they are doing/saying is “right” or they are morally obligated to do something, yet the church leaders see the danger to other church members or the growth of the church. The needs of the individual come in conflict with the needs of the organization. And sometimes the only resolution is to break ways.

I saw this with Steve Benson’s situation too.

My friend’s book deals with the complex relationships that a young female psychopath is able to carry on. The Church is not made look bad, but he says he wanted someone so manipulative that even after killing nearly a dozen people she is able to carry on a double-life, seducing an LDS man, marrying him, secretly marrying her best friend (female) as well, and actually being popular with people in his ward AND become active in a pro-family organization as a lecturer.

IMO, it adds to the believability of the character. And she’s not “really” a Mormon in this plot. She’s just a manipulator and a sociopath. That’s made more believable because Mormons are notoriously gullible, willing to believe the best of people – which is a very positive trait in general, IMO.

That’s made more believable because Mormons are notoriously gullible, willing to believe the best of people – which is a very positive trait in general, IMO.

I find this to be a curious statement coming from you. You seem certainly more skeptical than gullible. Could you elaborate on why this is a “very positive trait in general.” Like most things, I view it as positive only if also tempered by a good amount of skepticism. Either, taken to extremes, seems very dangerous to me.

Being trusting has many positive aspects – it fills you full of possibility. What if faith is power in the way that affirmations come true? Things work out because you believe they will? I believe there is probably more spiritual power in being trusting and open to possibility than there is in being skeptical and closed off. Doubt, in relation to action, causes us to question what we should do. Loss of conviction equals loss of power. I think that’s the gist of the Peter walking on water story. He doubted he could, so he couldn’t. I can value that while realizing that I tend to be skeptical, perhaps robbing myself of some of that power.

Obviously, being trusting has a downside, too – lack of critical thinking, being subject to others’ manipulations, having a superficial understanding of things, etc.

I think I can fully agree with this. But here you’re really describing trust as an impetus to action juxtaposed with doubt as a reason for inaction. But trust is not gullibility is it? It seems to me that gullible, the word itself, implies a feeling of being easily deceived which I see as a negative by definition (unless being deceived has a positive aspect I’m not aware of). I think there’s a distinction between this, and trust. Or maybe I am reading your statement incorrectly. (I’m completely threadjacking here, so I apologize). Maybe you just meant “believing the best of people” is a good trait. But I wouldn’t say that is necessarily gullibility either.

It seems like we might compare gullibility with disbelief as being the negative extremes of the otherwise positive traits of trust and doubt. As discussed in other parts of this site, doubt, and trust are both good things.

Are we a welcoming church, to those who simply like sharing Sunday mornings together? My ward has been fine by the way, they give me hope for a brighter tomorrow. What is said privately about me doesn’t concern me. I love being true to myself.

I say, absolutely welcoming of you George and hopefully more people in the church see it that way. Of course, being there on Sunday and being ex’d are also 2 different things.

Excommunication is not to determine where people are at with their testimony and their journey, I think it is to cut-off those that intend to do harm to the church in their actions, and for those that have committed sins requiring discipline while on their way back to full restoration of blessings through the mercy of the Atonement properly applied.

Can’t recall the source, but it was said that people are ex’d for behaviors, not for beliefs. I suppose it’s a fine line in the case of the Sept Six, but you could say that they went beyond beliefs into behaviors that were damaging (at what point does activism quit being a belief and begin being a behavior–that’s the crux of that question I guess).

I don’t think a person would ever be ex’d because they don’t believe in God. Could anyone think of an example?

In my opinion, it is like you said Hawk…that belief is turned into activism and the behaviors require action to excommunicate, such as talking others out believing in God, writing books about the church, holding protests, or committing sins that one doesn’t consider a sin because of the belief…but the action is deemed to be a sin by the church.

I agree, it rests on actions.