Church's Stance on Disfellowship and Excommunciation


Kayvex
 Share

Recommended Posts

That's not right, but it's often what happens. There is a double standard there. 

 

Perhaps; but there's also an element of "where much is given, much is required".  I understand that in matters of church discipline, as a general principle priesthood holders are held to a somewhat higher standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

Perhaps; but there's also an element of "where much is given, much is required".  I understand that in matters of church discipline, as a general principle priesthood holders are held to a somewhat higher standard.

Oh. For some of us it seems grossly unfair. Since it's not politically correct it's not something that's fun to discuss. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't making comparison, I was stating fact. It's a difference of whether you're sinning under covenant or sinning without the weight of the covenants added on. It's part of adding some mercy in with the need for justice. 

 

I don't deny that there is, of course, added weight having made a covenant. That added weight being the covenant, of course. My question, and concern with the idea, is two-fold: 1st what JaG pointed out -- the idea that excommunication removed our liability for having made those covenants, and 2nd: I wonder how much difference committing adultery under covenant vs. without the covenant (but with the same knowledge of good and evil) will really make as to punishment/salvation status, etc...

 

I do not doubt that breaking covenants is serious indeed. So with lesser sins, the addition of the covenant broken seems like a bigger deal. But a murderous, adulterous, lying thief -- if the knowledge is equal -- I question that there is really much difference as to what awaits the two.

 

I will grant that the second of these two thoughts is lesser. And there is a great deal of speculation therein. But the first point -- I stand by. A promise to God is a promise to God. Excommunication does not render that promise null and void. At least not by any understanding I've come across. Therefore I ask the question: is there any understanding other than speculation and folk-doctrine that supports this idea that excommunication is some type of mercy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a part time sales man for a residential cleaning service. Everyday I meet a new customer there is no set price that I can give to them immediately, there are so many variables and no two houses right next to each other will cost the same price. Things such as age and condition of home, square footage, materials used in the construction, color of the paint etc....to make it even more perplex the pricing continues to change as I feel out the individual client, are they a newly married couple with a newborn, retired empty nesters, etc...

 

I would think that the church DC is the same thing and the Bishop/Stake Pres/council members are listening to the spirit as their guiding factor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe it removes our liability for having made covenants, or for sins committed while our covenants are in effect. What I meant was that it removes the opportunity for further damage against those promises. Honestly, I've never looked for official word on the matter. It's just what I've learned from a couple of local leaders, one of whom is a close relation. I never felt any reason to think or study otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe it removes our liability for having made covenants, or for sins committed while our covenants are in effect. What I meant was that it removes the opportunity for further damage against those promises. Honestly, I've never looked for official word on the matter. It's just what I've learned from a couple of local leaders, one of whom is a close relation. I never felt any reason to think or study otherwise.

 

I can appreciate that. I still question it as valid. I simply don't buy that one is released from the promises one made to God upon excommunication. Those promises are promises, and everyone who is excommunicated, surely, God expects to repent, return to the church, and fulfill the promises once made. I have never read anything from the church that teaches this sort of, "released", thing. But I've heard it said a lot. So that's interesting to me. I wonder where it comes from.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea why this couple was excommunicated .....Don't think I could gues why. Before giving my opinion and thoughts I would need more info on this couple. Can't believe they just walked in and got excommunicated. Makes me think there were more things going on and or we don't know the full story. Anything we say here is just opinion and none of us know the full story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a couple things I will add to this conversation.

 

The more unpleasant item is that there is an aspect of 'leadership roulette' to church discipline.  Some bishops and stake presidents take a harder stance than others.  That's an inevitable consequence of having a volunteer clergy (and a clergy that is very poorly trained, compared to other religions).  I'm not saying that's bad or wrong, but the volunteer clergy model does have its downsides.

 

It's also important to note that formal discipline has, as I understand it, been in decline for a couple of decades now.  A pragmatic view of the practice shows that, since most people who are excommunicated struggle to return because of social stigmas, it may at times be in the best interest of the individual to employ other disciplinary measures in hopes of maintaining a functional relationship with the individual.  This isn't always possible, but it seems to be preferred these days.  There seems to be an emphasis on excommunication being used with unrepentant sinners and probationary measures used with repentant sinners.  The actual decisions will vary from person to person and priesthood leader to priesthood leader (see 'leadership roulette').

 

Lastly, keep in mind that the Church has very strict policies of confidentiality regarding disciplinary hearings.  The Church also acknowledges that this opens them up to enormous criticism about how these hearings are portrayed by those who are subject to discipline.  But the Church, by and large, will not make public any details about these events unless the person disciplined makes them public first.  Even then, it is very rare that these statements are put into writing.

 

What I would try to emphasize is that, yes, at times is disparity and unfairness in how Church leaders mete out discipline.  It isn't always fair, and it may not always even be right.  But it is important to also judge if the individuals receiving discipline and the leaders assigning discipline are genuinely trying their best to do what's right.  As long as people's hearts are in the right place, we can work around the actions.  If the hearts are in the wrong place, we have much bigger problems than the actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't deny that there is, of course, added weight having made a covenant. That added weight being the covenant, of course. My question, and concern with the idea, is two-fold: 1st what JaG pointed out -- the idea that excommunication removed our liability for having made those covenants, and 2nd: I wonder how much difference committing adultery under covenant vs. without the covenant (but with the same knowledge of good and evil) will really make as to punishment/salvation status, etc...

 

I do not doubt that breaking covenants is serious indeed. So with lesser sins, the addition of the covenant broken seems like a bigger deal. But a murderous, adulterous, lying thief -- if the knowledge is equal -- I question that there is really much difference as to what awaits the two.

 

I will grant that the second of these two thoughts is lesser. And there is a great deal of speculation therein. But the first point -- I stand by. A promise to God is a promise to God. Excommunication does not render that promise null and void. At least not by any understanding I've come across. Therefore I ask the question: is there any understanding other than speculation and folk-doctrine that supports this idea that excommunication is some type of mercy?

 

 

I think the misunderstanding is the implication that one is removed from the consequences of one's covenants that WAS made.  Those are already done and set and will require repentance.

 

My understanding (and I'm fairly certain this is good understanding) is that it releases someone from his covenants to stop future consequences so that one can stop from digging a hole down and down and just stand on this plateau so that one can start to climb up.

 

But, as we all know as covenant people - living outside the covenant disqualifies us from certain blessings.  Because, just as it releases us from our part of the promise, it also releases God from his promise.  It is a difficult place to be in if one truly gained a testimony while they were under the covenant and have the differences more stark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I don't agree with is the thinking that Excommunication = Punishment.

 

Excommunication is not punishment - like putting someone in jail as a punishment.

 

Yes, excommunication protects the church, the church members, and the excommunicated - in the same way that jail protects the society, the society's members, and the criminal.

 

But, I don't see excommunication as punishment in the same way that I don't see God's judgment of fire and brimstone as punishment.  The pain is self-inflicted - God did not zap the person with pain.

 

When we eliminate the element of vengeance and pride on the part of the leaders and members and concentrate on love when pondering the process of excommunication (either one they are involved in, or one they are reading off the internet about) then they can better see how excommunication is a way for God to maintain a house of order in this mortal probation.

 

This is how I also hope people will see the secular justice system - it should not be a process where one can exact revenge and "get even".  There is nothing separating a murderer from the family of the murdered when the murderer is getting lethal injection while the family sits there feeling satisfaction that the murderer is finally getting his due - that's vengeance and hate... not much different from the hate that caused the murder in the first place.

 

But that's just me.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am really enjoying your guyses inputs and ideas on the matter. And it does seem to be changing with time. Many of the stories I heard were from people years and years ago. Perhaps that's why I've never met an excommunicated member, being young and in the young single adult ward.

 

Vort, your post was exactly the specificity I needed. And Palerider, perhaps you are right, and the people aren't telling the whole story or there are outlying consequences and circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding (and I'm fairly certain this is good understanding) is that it releases someone from his covenants to stop future consequences so that one can stop from digging a hole down and down and just stand on this plateau so that one can start to climb up.

 

How is is this reasonably or logical. Releasing them from their covenants makes it oki-dokie to fornicate, adulterate, steal, lie, etc?

 

This makes no sense. Releasing someone from their covenants does not keep someone from digging a hole down. Only repentance can do that. And the consequence of sin is death - period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is is this reasonably or logical. Releasing them from their covenants makes it oki-dokie to fornicate, adulterate, steal, lie, etc?

 

This makes no sense. Releasing someone from their covenants does not keep someone from digging a hole down. Only repentance can do that. And the consequence of sin is death - period.

 

No.  Releasing them from their covenants doesn't make it okay to fornicate, adulterate, steal, lie, etc., just like it is not okay for non-members to fornicate, adulterate, steal, lie, etc.

 

But... a person under covenant cannot get re-baptized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I don't agree with is the thinking that Excommunication = Punishment.

 

Excommunication is not punishment - like putting someone in jail as a punishment.

 

Yes, excommunication protects the church, the church members, and the excommunicated - in the same way that jail protects the society, the society's members, and the criminal.

 

But, I don't see excommunication as punishment in the same way that I don't see God's judgment of fire and brimstone as punishment.  The pain is self-inflicted - God did not zap the person with pain.

 

When we eliminate the element of vengeance and pride on the part of the leaders and members and concentrate on love when pondering the process of excommunication (either one they are involved in, or one they are reading off the internet about) then they can better see how excommunication is a way for God to maintain a house of order in this mortal probation.

 

This is how I also hope people will see the secular justice system - it should not be a process where one can exact revenge and "get even".  There is nothing separating a murderer from the family of the murdered when the murderer is getting lethal injection while the family sits there feeling satisfaction that the murderer is finally getting his due - that's vengeance and hate... not much different from the hate that caused the murder in the first place.

 

But that's just me.

 

This is all fine and dandy...but it's merely word play. Not "calling" something punishment doesn't change what it is.

 

God doesn't seem to have any problem referring to things as punishment (https://www.lds.org/search?q=punishment〈=eng&domains=scriptures), so I'm not sure why we're trying to get away from the word like it's mistaken or faulty somehow.

 

Seems to me that this is merely a trend that goes right alone, hand-in-hand, with the no-one's-to-blame, we're-all-victims, offending-someone-is-the-worst-grievance, PC obfuscation that's so popular nowadays.

 

So what's the real value in redefining these concepts as something other than punishment? So people don't feel bad? Is that, really, a valid part of repentance? Since when is not feeling bad for your sins an important step in the repentance process?

 

It seems to me that we're twisting things. Yes, excommunication is meant to be done in love. Well, so is putting child on time out or grounding them. So now what? We're going to start claiming the putting a child on a time out or grounding them isn't punishment because it's done in love? Seriously. This makes no sense.

 

Excommunication is not meant to be vindictive or done in anger. But it is also not man's discipline. It is God's. When we as a church excommunicate people we're not doing our will. We're doing what the scriptures command us to do. It is God's will, God's way, God's method, God's plan, and God's punishment.

 

You can call it anything you like, but to me, stripping someone of, perhaps, the greatest gift we have from God in this life (the Gift of the Holy Ghost) is much more severe than putting a child on a timeout, grounding, or even a good spanking. Frankly, keeping the Gift of the Holy Ghost and receiving a severe lashing would be less detrimental.

 

Telling a child you're not punishing them as you put them on time out is essentially lying. The child knows better. And so does the excommunicated. It is a punishment, whatever we name it with our nouveau politically correct phrasology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But... a person under covenant cannot get re-baptized.

 

???

 

I'd phrase it that a person under covenant does not need to get re-baptized. Putting it in terms of "cannot" makes it seem like it's excommunication is a desirable thing. Having to be re-baptized, while better than staying un-baptized, is a much worse thing than not having to be re-baptized. Of course it's all relative. But what are you claiming here? That the reason for excommunication is for the re-baptism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all fine and dandy...but it's merely word play. Not "calling" something punishment doesn't change what it is.

 

God doesn't seem to have any problem referring to things as punishment (https://www.lds.org/search?q=punishment〈=eng&domains=scriptures), so I'm not sure why we're trying to get away from the word like it's mistaken or faulty somehow.

 

Seems to me that this is merely a trend that goes right alone, hand-in-hand, with the no-one's-to-blame, we're-all-victims, offending-someone-is-the-worst-grievance, PC obfuscation that's so popular nowadays.

 

So what's the real value in redefining these concepts as something other than punishment? So people don't feel bad? Is that, really, a valid part of repentance? Since when is not feeling bad for your sins an important step in the repentance process?

 

It seems to me that we're twisting things. Yes, excommunication is meant to be done in love. Well, so is putting child on time out or grounding them. So now what? We're going to start claiming the putting a child on a time out or grounding them isn't punishment because it's done in love? Seriously. This makes no sense.

 

Excommunication is not meant to be vindictive or done in anger. But it is also not man's discipline. It is God's. When we as a church excommunicate people we're not doing our will. We're doing what the scriptures command us to do. It is God's will, God's way, God's method, God's plan, and God's punishment.

 

You can call it anything you like, but to me, stripping someone of, perhaps, the greatest gift we have from God in this life (the Gift of the Holy Ghost) is much more severe than putting a child on a timeout, grounding, or even a good spanking. Frankly, keeping the Gift of the Holy Ghost and receiving a severe lashing would be less detrimental.

 

Telling a child you're not punishing them as you put them on time out is essentially lying. The child knows better. And so does the excommunicated. It is a punishment, whatever we name it with our nouveau politically correct phrasology.

 

Very simple.

 

So that I don't associate the pain as something God gave me.  Like my mom whipping my butt for stealing.  Rather, it is pain I gave myself.

 

Very important distinction in the way my brain processes things.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

???

 

I'd phrase it that a person under covenant does not need to get re-baptized. Putting it in terms of "cannot" makes it seem like it's excommunication is a desirable thing. Having to be re-baptized, while better than staying un-baptized, is a much worse thing than not having to be re-baptized. Of course it's all relative. But what are you claiming here? That the reason for excommunication is for the re-baptism?

 

I was simply pointing out the difference between the plateau and the hole.

 

Ex-communication being desirable is just like saying being a non-member is desirable (wasn't it JimmiGerman that started this discussion?) because then you're not going to be punished for your sins... or so they think.

 

If I remember correctly, you joined that conversation and pointed out why being a non-member is not "desirable".  That reasoning is the exact same reasoning why being ex-communicated is not "desirable".

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very simple.

 

So that I don't associate the pain as something God gave me.  Like my mom whipping my butt for stealing.  Rather, it is pain I gave myself.

 

Very important distinction in the way my brain processes things.

 

*shrug*

 

Like I said, God doesn't seem to have a problem referring to these things as punishment, wrath, etc. So I'm not sure wherein we feel like we know better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was simply pointing out the difference between the plateau and the hole.

 

And I'm saying that excommunication is not the difference. There is NO plateau! There is toward God, or there is away from Him. Their is sin or there is repentance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*shrug*

 

Like I said, God doesn't seem to have a problem referring to these things as punishment, wrath, etc. So I'm not sure wherein we feel like we know better.

 

And like I said... that's just me.  So you can disagree with me but never presume to tell me I think I know better... even after I gave you blanket authority to speak for me.  ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I'm saying that excommunication is not the difference. There is NO plateau! There is toward God, or there is away from Him. Their is sin or there is repentance.

 

I pressed Send to soon.  I added to that sentence.

 

Excommunication is a difference - it is the difference between being a member (under covenant) and not being a member (not under the covenant) with everything associated with that distinction.  Being excommunicated simply means living outside of the covenant is the better path for the supplicant at his stage of faith to get back to God.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And like I said... that's just me.  So you can disagree with me but never presume to tell me I think I know better... even after I gave you blanket authority to speak for me.  ;)

 

To be clear, I'm more addressing the trend, and the "we know better" thing is more meant to address the trend.

 

And, to be entirely fair, I think there is some value to parts of the trend. There are things that we word softer nowadays, including the leaders of the church, and this is a good thing.

 

But my point, if anything, is that it oft times goes too far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I pressed Send to soon.  I added to that sentence.

 

Excommunication is a difference - it is the difference between being a member (under covenant) and not being a member (not under the covenant) with everything associated with that distinction.  Being excommunicated simply means living outside of the covenant is the better path for the supplicant at his stage of faith to get back to God.

 

The difference between being under a covenant or not is irrelevant to the commandments we break. Adultery is adultery under covenant or not. Etc.

 

What is different is the promise made, which allows for a new sin...that of breaking a promise.

 

Therefore, someone who is under covenant to not sin and then sins is committing two sins. The sin itself, and the sin of breaking one's covenant. In that regard the overall sinning is worse.

 

HOWEVER! The individual who does not take the covenant upon themselves and sins is also committing two sins, the sin itself, and the sin of not taking the covenant upon themselves.

 

Likewise, the person who is excommunicated and then continues in sin may not have the sin of being under the covenant, but they do still have the sin of not working to take that covenant upon themselves again, just as the person who has not accepted the covenants in the first place is guilty.

 

There is no way for anyone to not do as God commands and stand without accountability. There may be slight technical differences as to what sin they are accountable for, but it all equates to the same. We either choose to follow and obey or we do not.

 

And I disagree with the idea that living outside covenants is better for anyone to get back to God. It may be necessary. That does not make it better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be clear, I'm more addressing the trend, and the "we know better" thing is more meant to address the trend.

 

And, to be entirely fair, I think there is some value to parts of the trend. There are things that we word softer nowadays, including the leaders of the church, and this is a good thing.

 

But my point, if anything, is that it oft times goes too far.

 

I wasn't going for softer.  That's not why I don't look at Excommunication as Punishment.  And one shouldn't use softer words when the softer word throws it out of the proper nuance.

 

I don't use Punishment because of its connotation - that God gave it to me in the same way my mother gave me a whooping.  I punished myself is not what comes to my head when I see the word Punishment related to Excommunication (and I'm fairly certain that's not what was in the OP's head when she used the word Punishment - although I can be wrong with that one).  This is something very prevalent in Catholic thinking - so much so that it is common to say, "I'm not going there, God would hit me with lightning!"... and it becomes easy to think, "Oh, the towers fell on 9/11 because God is punishing them for their sins", etc. etc.  I just would rather avoid that thought process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference between being under a covenant or not is irrelevant to the commandments we break. Adultery is adultery under covenant or not. Etc.

 

What is different is the promise made, which allows for a new sin...that of breaking a promise.

 

Therefore, someone who is under covenant to not sin and then sins is committing two sins. The sin itself, and the sin of breaking one's covenant. In that regard the overall sinning is worse.

 

HOWEVER! The individual who does not take the covenant upon themselves and sins is also committing two sins, the sin itself, and the sin of not taking the covenant upon themselves.

 

Likewise, the person who is excommunicated and then continues in sin may not have the sin of being under the covenant, but they do still have the sin of not working to take that covenant upon themselves again, just as the person who has not accepted the covenants in the first place is guilty.

 

There is no way for anyone to not do as God commands and stand without accountability. There may be slight technical differences as to what sin they are accountable for, but it all equates to the same. We either choose to follow and obey or we do not.

 

And I disagree with the idea that living outside covenants is better for anyone to get back to God. It may be necessary. That does not make it better.

 

I think we're speaking over each other getting hung up on words... just like the Punishment discussion.

 

Let's take the word Better.  I use the word Better like this... In the movie Slumdog Millionaire, the kid was locked in the loo when the celebrity passed by.  He had 2 choices - to try to break the door, in which case, it could take a long time and he would miss the celebrity - or jump in the hole, swim through the poop, and guarantee he won't miss the celebrity.  In this case, swimming through the poop was Better in his situation than risk missing the celebrity.  Of course, in general, swimming through poop is never a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share