- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Just wondering recently if there is a “doctrine” on excommunication, or if it’s just policy. Section 20:80 states that: Quote:Any member of the church of Christ transgressing, or being overtaken in fault, shall be dealt with as the scriptures direct.
Of course, there are numerous examples of Christ dealing with those accused of sin: the publican He dined with, the woman taken in adultery, etc. The BoM also deals with the subject a bit, but no references that I’m aware of re: removing them from membership in the Church.
I certainly understand why one who leaves activity in the Church and then actively works against the Church and it’s members might be ex’d, but why should someone “taken in adultery” in violation of temple covenants be ex’d? I’m not sure how I see that as part of the repentance process. I know that’s the claim, but I’m wondering how does it helps a sinner who wants to return to God’s grace to be separated from the body of Christ and removed from fellowship in the Church? Anyone have any insight on this?
Just read 3Nephi 18:28-32, which seems to address the issue, but doesn’t give me a satisfactory answer. Excommunication is an ancient practice, and it has taken many forms in various reglious traditions. The Mormon foundation for it probably is the first few chapters in Alma, when the Nephites had joined with the people of Mulek, many in the rising generation didn’t believe what was established by the new Nephite leadership, and our first recorded wave of excommunications occurred – including Alma, the Younger, and the sons of Mosiah, if I am correct in how I read the story. As we’ve discussed in a fairly recent thread, the word “doctrine” is a bit squishy – and I wouldn’t frame excommunication as doctrine. I would call it a practice or policy – and the justifications / reasons for it have ebbed and flowed over time. It was wielded like a stick in the early days of the Church on some people for things that seem silly to us now – but it also was NOT used in some cases that seemed to have warranted it, especially in comparison to cases that did end in excommunication.
Generally, the move to add layers of discipline, so to speak, has been an attempt to avoid excommunication in cases that aren’t considered automatic and extreme. Unfortunately, given the pracitcal nature of the administration of discipline, decisions vary radically among local leaders – with some using excommunication in situations where others would use disfellowshipping or even informal probation. That lack of consistency is my biggest concern – along with the overuse I have seen in some areas and with certain issues.
Theoretically, I have no problem with the concept of excommunication, but the practical implementation gets really wonky when so much decision-making power is vested in local leaders who often have strongly individual views about its use. When, ultimately, one person has that kind of power, things can tend to the extremes, unfortunately. Many organizations have a form of “excommunication”. Ask anyone who has been “fired” or “laid-off” from their job.
I’ve seen grown men cry who have lost the job they have known since high school.
Just a thought.
Mike from Milton.
At least in the LDS church, we “teach” that church discipline is used to help a person repent. In the Dark Ages, they took excommunication to mean that the soul was “going to burn in hell.” It was threatened and used as a punishment and certainly as a control mechanism.
And for the most part the people believed it. I think.
I honestly don’t see the LDS church doing that stuff today…well, at least not lately. It’s been almost 20 years since the intellectual purge…which was justified by claiming they needed to protect the “innocent” sheep from the wolves.
Perhaps that is why the MormonTimes article, all this recent talk by DCP, and the “supposed” 100 page Dehlin hit piece, is making me squirm. When the membership start ratcheting up the wolves in sheep clothing paranoia…history has shown that bad things will going to happen.
Old-Timer wrote:Excommunication is an ancient practice, and it has taken many forms in various reglious traditions.
I do know that St. Paul seems to condone/support the practice in some cases.
cwald wrote:In the Dark Ages, they took excommunication to mean that the soul was “going to burn in hell.” It was threatened and used as a punishment and certainly as a control mechanism.
I am aware of several cases where an LDS person was excommunicated for political reasons and the action was later reversed post-death. I am also aware of one case where an individual was excommunicated and then after a period of patient and humble efforts to appeal the decision had the excommunication overturned. In light of these circumstances, I have pondered what the state of the soul is before, during, and after an excommunication. Does an excommunication lock the individual’s spirit into purgatory or spirit prison? Does a reversal and a restoration of all previous “blessings” unlock the spiritual prison door?
I have concluded that God doesn’t care. I believe that God will deal with the individual based upon His relationship with that person and not be particularly swayed by our efforts to communally reject that person.
Kumahito wrote:Just wondering recently if there is a “doctrine” on excommunication, or if it’s just policy. Section 20:80 states that:
Quote:Any member of the church of Christ transgressing, or being overtaken in fault, shall be dealt with as the scriptures direct.
There’s also Mosiah 26. Here’s a quick summary:
Book of Mormon wrote:6 For it came to pass that they did deceive many with their flattering words, who were in the church, and did cause them to commit many sins; therefore it became expedient that those who committed sin, that were in the church, should be admonished by the church.
13 And now the spirit of Alma was again troubled; and he went and inquired of the Lord what he should do concerning this matter, for he feared that he should do wrong in the sight of God.
29 Therefore I say unto you, Go; and whosoever transgresseth against me, him shall ye judge according to the sins which he has committed; and if he confess his sins before thee and me, and repenteth in the sincerity of his heart, him shall ye forgive, and I will forgive him also.
32 Now I say unto you, Go; and whosoever will not repent of his sins the same shall not be numbered among my people; and this shall be observed from this time forward.
34 And it came to pass that Alma went and judged those that had been taken in iniquity, according to the word of the Lord.
35 And whosoever repented of their sins and did confess them, them he did number among the people of the church;
36 And those that would not confess their sins and repent of their iniquity, the same were not numbered among the people of the church, and their names were blotted out.
Thanks, all. I think I’m going to be in a position to sit on a disciplinary council for someone who’s been out of church activity for a while and is now looking to come back, but who has been involved in LoC issues during the hiatus. I’m just not sure I understand the reasons to ex someone in order to help their repentance process. I can understand how if a member is ex’d and then patiently does everything asked of them to return and have their blessings restored, that shows a great deal of humility, dedication and patience. Is that it, though? Kumahito wrote:Thanks, all. I think I’m going to be in a position to sit on a disciplinary council for someone who’s been out of church activity for a while and is now looking to come back, but who has been involved in LoC issues during the hiatus. I’m just not sure I understand the reasons to ex someone in order to help their repentance process. I can understand how if a member is ex’d and then patiently does everything asked of them to return and have their blessings restored, that shows a great deal of humility, dedication and patience. Is that it, though?
Wow. Good luck.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
I have thinking about the issue this way: maybe its not all about the transgressor, as much as it is to set an EXAMPLE, or STANDARD for others not to commit the same crime (Sin), so as not to face the same music. …I dunno, just thinking…!
Can we have a list of what you can be excommunicated for? And what are the conditions. I “transgressed” a lot of things, but while I was an Aaronic priesthood holder, apparently… I’ve been involved in disciplinary councils in the past as part of my callings. Send me a PM if you want to talk about it privately. Kumahito wrote:Thanks, all. I think I’m going to be in a position to sit on a disciplinary council for someone who’s been out of church activity for a while and is now looking to come back, but who has been involved in LoC issues during the hiatus. I’m just not sure I understand the reasons to ex someone in order to help their repentance process. I can understand how if a member is ex’d and then patiently does everything asked of them to return and have their blessings restored, that shows a great deal of humility, dedication and patience. Is that it, though?
Please read the following thread:
http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=2866&hilit=excommunication+return I was especially surprised that 97% of excommunicated persons don’t make it to rebaptism. Food for thought…
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.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.