Doctrine of Excommunication

[Anonymous]

Cadence wrote:

Its about control. Almost all policy is. To control behavior make an example of someone. Now a true believer would argue that the control is necessary for individual salvation. I say there is not valid reason to ex somone except if they were trying publicly to destroy the church. Exing some one for anything else is counterproductive I think.

Hmmm? I agree about the control part….mostly

Should the church excommunicate someone who has committed a serious sin like rape or child molestation.

I don’t know?

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

cwald, you asked the question:

Quote:

Should the church excommunicate someone who has committed a serious sin like rape or child molestation.

I don’t know?

My vote is: absolutely. There are certain lines that should never be crossed without repurcusions. Not only should there be

excommunication but a very long prison sentence.

Every organization has the right to define codes of conduct. All member of those organizations have the right to conform or not.

And if they choose not to conform there maybe a consequence to be paid. With the numbers of years of my inactivity & my alcoholism,

the Church had every right to excommunicate me. I wouldn’t of blamed them. (Frankly, I’m surprised they didn’t.)

Mike from Milton.

[Anonymous]

What?

For inactivity and alcoholism?

I don’t think we can go from child molestation and rape….to inactivity and alcohol.

Maybe I just don’t understand what you mean….because i dont know you. Is it possible for you to reframe your response? No disrespect meant…

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

child molestation and rape? Those are examples of why I don’t have a problem with excommunication.

inactivity and alcoholism? I agree that it would make some kind of intellectual sense, but those are examples of why I do have a problem with how some leaders view discipline. Granted, very, very few local leaders would take that route, but it is possible theoretically – and I don’t like that.

In general, my position is that openly fighting the Church (actively trying to convince members to leave it, especially those who wouldn’t do so otherwise) and committing serious sins are reasonable grounds for excommunication. It’s defining those two things that gets tricky. As a rule, I’d rather err on the side of excommunicating less than excommunicating more – on charitable decisions rather than harsh decisions. However, there are exceptions even to that rule – and child molestation and rape are among those exceptions for me.

[Anonymous]

I have a difficult time expressing myself on these blogs. I would rather do it in person.

You miss alot from not seeing a person’s expression, immediate reaction, feedback, etc.

The point I was trying to make was: organizations like the Church can decise on codes of conduct for members to adhere to.

If they can’t or won’t then the organization can exclude them for the reasons they feel necessary to justify the organization’s

existance, beliefs & teachings. It was my assumption that at one time, the Church could excommunicate based on lack of activity

or social problems such as alcoholism. Especially if the member was unrepentant or there was no attempt (or desire) to return to activity.

In return, the member has a right to determine how they will react.

1. Repent, comply with the Church’s teaching, seek repentance & ask forgiveness. (True blue approach)

2. Seek a middle ground approach that satisfies Church teaching & personal beliefs. Or,

3. Do something else outside of the Church.

We can disagree with the Church’s teachings, administrative government, doctrine, etc.

The only thing we can change is: what do we (individually believe) & how are we going to react?

I hope that makes sense.

Mike from Milton.

[Anonymous]

it absolutely makes sense, Mike – and I agree with everything you just wrote.

[Anonymous]

Yeah that makes sense.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

I said in an earlier comment that one of the things that concerns me most about the entire disciplinary process at the most practical level is the fact that individual leaders can take actions in individual cases that I believe are way too harsh – but I also need to acknowledge that one of the best things about the entire disciplinary process is the fact that individual leaders can take actions that allow mercy in cases that, at the surface level, don’t appear to warrant mercy.

I understand the terrible burden placed on Bishops, Branch Presidents and Stake Presidents in making disciplinary decisions, and I understand that it can’t be avoided if the possibility of mercy is to remain an option. I want that option to remain. If I personally err at any point with regard to this issue, I want it to be on the side of mercy – but in order for me to have that option, I must allow for “opposition in (even this) thing”.

[Anonymous]

One question to ponder . . .

Is the individual’s role to serve the organization, or the organization’s role to serve the individual?

The church is not the Rotary, the boy scouts, etc. Its purpose is to lead people to salvation in Christ. Its purpose is not to protect itself or to further its own institutional goals, except in the sense that it maintains that pathway to eternal life for each individual.

When we talk about the rights of organizations, etc., it might be more useful to focus on their responsibilities. I think there are reasons for excommunication where that leads a person to repentance or where individuals might be harmed. i.e. generally men engaging in sexual assault where people are harmed.

There is no sense in which inactivity or substance abuse harms the church or directly harms individuals within the church, other than maybe providing an example of another choice. If we think that somehow the example of one substance abuser, unwed mother, viewer of pornography, etc, is more powerful than the example of hundreds of others that don’t do those things, I think we underrate the power of the gospel to change lives and we expose an unspoken belief that evil is more powerful than good and that sin is so much more enjoyable and powerful than righteousness that the only way to avoid it is to try not to think about it.

In general I think excommunication is not about saving the individual or protecting others, but throwing the individual under the bus in order to protect the reputation of the church.

If you think about excommuncation theologically, its primary impact is not “you can’t come to my meeting and pretend to be part of my club”, but “the saving ordinances are all invalidated and the doors of heaven are closed to you until we open them again”. Is inactivity or substance abuse really a reason to exclude someone from eternal life, if these situations are not based on willful behavior? i.e. an intentional turning away from the influence of the Holy Spirit? I don’t think so.

[Anonymous]

BobDixon wrote:

The church…It’s purpose is to lead people to salvation in Christ.

Here is an interesting quote from Wikipedia on what the Church thinks about salvation. It’s actually a pretty accurate summary:

Wikipedia wrote:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (also known as Mormons) defines the term salvation based on the teachings of their modern-day prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., as recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants and summarized in the Articles of Faith (Latter Day Saints) number four.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

The church is not the Rotary, the boy scouts, etc. Its purpose is to lead people to salvation in Christ. Its purpose is not to protect itself or to further its own institutional goals, except in the sense that it maintains that pathway to eternal life for each individual.

I absolutely agree, Bob. The Corvette Club of America can set rules governing who can and can’t be members, and if they eject someone, it’s not a big deal. The church, though, teaches its members that it’s the sole vessel of the priesthood and a fullness of truth necessary to salvation. Being ejected from the church is a bigger deal, and has eternal consequences.

And so I return to my original question – how does excommunication assist in the repentance process? I totally understand ex’ing those who commit serious crimes or who apostatize and fight against the church. But for a sister who has left activity in the church, “lived in sin,” and then come back to church, why in the world are we looking at ex’ing her? This topic is personal for me and occupying a lot of my brain matter right now as I’m set to participate in a court for someone in this position in the near future.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

But for a sister who has left activity in the church, “lived in sin,” and then come back to church, why in the world are we looking at ex’ing her?

We shouldn’t be, given that description as all we have.

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

Should the church excommunicate someone who has committed a serious sin like rape or child molestation.

Yes, if it happened after joining the church.

Not necessarily if it happened before joining the church.

It also depends whether the issue has been hidden.

[Anonymous]

BobDixon wrote:

Its purpose is not to protect itself or to further its own institutional goals, except in the sense that it maintains that pathway to eternal life for each individual.

I disagree… there are certain circumstances in which it is allowed to protect itself. If a person brings the church into disrepute by criminal activity, abuse, or by creating outrageous lies etc* then I think it is. Certain acts could drive people away from the church.

* Obviously some definition is needed here, but I’m not talking September Six style stuff, but criminal libel and deliberate misrepresentation.

[Anonymous]

Kumahito wrote:

And so I return to my original question – how does excommunication assist in the repentance process? I totally understand ex’ing those who commit serious crimes or who apostatize and fight against the church. But for a sister who has left activity in the church, “lived in sin,” and then come back to church, why in the world are we looking at ex’ing her? This topic is personal for me and occupying a lot of my brain matter right now as I’m set to participate in a court for someone in this position in the near future.

I remember a personal experience as ward clerk with a guy who was an RM who had fornicated. He was wracked with guilt. The bishop didn’t even take away his TR, but instead charged him to go to the temple and pray about his behavior and the girl whose virtue he took unrightously and “go and sin no more”.

I also remember a story Robert Millett tells in “Grace Works” about a sister who committed a serious transgression and sort of felt bad about it, but felt pretty good about herself anyway and decided that was enough repentance. She basically confessed to the bishop in the hall in between classes and thought that was enough and didn’t think it was any big deal.

There’s a sense in which excommunication is a wakeup call to the individual who doesn’t understand the seriousness of what they have done, and there’s a sense in which it is just kicking someone who is already down, which is why leaders have to consider the individual situation.

[Author]

Posts