Apostasy Excommunications

I think the LDS church is very loose on what exactly is doctrine vs. beliefs vs. teaching vs. personal beliefs. This is probably part of the real issue. I listened to John’s last interview with a news reporter and he was saying he thinks he will be ex’ed and he was OK with that, but he was really pushing for the church to be more clear about what must someone believe to be a member. There are lots of DO’s that are a bit more clear. John (as would I) want some of this a bit clearer to eliminate some of the leadership roulette that the blogernacle is yapping about all over the place.

I agree with Nibbler’s points and yet it reminds me of the church court for Oliver Cowdery.

As Americans we transition easily between gospel language and the language of a representative democracy with rights and representation – checks and balances.

This is covered in RSR. Checks and balances are not part of the priesthood … only worthiness is. Theoretically the decision of the council will be confirmed by the spirit and qualify as group revelation unto them.

I don’t have the first volume of the church handbook of instructions, but I seem to recall that you don’t appeal every step of leadership up the chain. I seem to recall that you can appeal to the next level above where the court was (to the SP if your bishopric held a court) and then it moves to SLC. If I remember correctly (and I could be wrong), it was more to appeal that proper procedures were not taken more than to overturn a decision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disciplinary_council#Appeal” class=”bbcode_url”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disciplinary_council#Appeal

I think the LDS church is very loose on what exactly is doctrine vs. beliefs vs. teaching vs. personal beliefs. This is probably part of the real issue. I listened to John’s last interview with a news reporter and he was saying he thinks he will be ex’ed and he was OK with that, but he was really pushing for the church to be more clear about what must someone believe to be a member. There are lots of DO’s that are a bit more clear. John (as would I) want some of this a bit clearer to eliminate some of the leadership roulette that the blogernacle is yapping about all over the place.

I understand the struggle with doctrine/policy/tradition as well as anybody – for many of us it is a main part of our faith questioning. However, I think the “church” is doing a better job at this than in the past. That is to say, I hear the top leadership keeping things very simple of late (with the occasional hiccup like Bednar’s April 6 thing). I don’t have time at the moment to look it up, but Uchtdorf is not the only one saying things like “your testimony doesn’t have to be this tall to enter” (paraphrased).

In general, I think apostasy excommunications, like all other discipline, is being done right where it belongs on multiple levels – not the least of which is that the local leadership knows the individuals involved and is much better equipped to investigate details.

I agree, but I don’t even think all leaders even know about the church’s “Mormons and gays” web site and might still to this day think a court is needed for someone admitting to being gay, but not having acted on it.

Leadership roulette does play a role, no question. I am not aware that this has happened, but I see that it certainly could – but I’m not sure the “charge” would be apostasy. Nevertheless, individuals are able to defend themselves in a DC, and it would seem that bringing the website to the attention of the presiding authority would change everything – most DC’s don’t just fall out of the blue. Also, individuals are free to talk to a higher authority in a case where there is clearly an injustice (or even if not).

I believe that excommunication by local leaders may not be doctrinal. If it takes a sealer – one who binds in heaven and earth – to create an eternal family, how can a bishop break that sealing. Seems to me a sealer or higher would have to “ex” someone.

Of course not all excommunications concern someone who has been sealed, but most do. To me it means that the church hasnt thought through excommunication through completely.

I believe that excommunication by local leaders may not be doctrinal. If it takes a sealer – one who binds in heaven and earth – to create an eternal family, how can a bishop break that sealing. Seems to me a sealer or higher would have to “ex” someone.

Of course not all excommunications concern someone who has been sealed, but most do. To me it means that the church hasnt thought through excommunication through completely.

This is a doctrinal gray area, but it is my understanding that the sealing is not actually “broken” by excommunication, rather it is put on hold. I believe it’s viewed much the same as if we were unrepentant (because we all know we don’t get any blessings unless we’re trying to be perfectly obedient 😈 ) and therefore “unworthy” of the blessing in our Patriarchal Blessing, temple blessings, etc. When one is rebaptized and gets a restoration of blessings, there is no re-ordination, re-endowment, or re-sealing – it’s all restored by one ordinance.