To me, the idea of excommunicating members is so "old school" -- and really bad form. Not only that, I view it as highly counterproductive for the LDS church.

The reasons why:

1. Does the church need any more enemies? When you excommunicate someone, chances are awful good that you are making an enemy of him and maybe his family, as well. Such humiliation, which is impossible to hide from family and other church members, can make one angry. And don't forget -- angry ex-members can write very angry things on the internet.

2. Nothing screams "cult" and mind control like excommunicating your adherents. To a church where image and PR mean everything, it is counterproductive to have non-members think of you as being more evil and kooky than you already are. This negatively affects missionary work.

3. Almost no other religion excommunicates their members except for the cult-like faiths such as Jehovah's Witness, Scientology, etc. Does the LDS church really care to be categorized in a like manner as those other groups?

4. What would Jesus do? Jesus realized that people were human, yet he admonished the sinner to "sin no more." How can LDS claim to be the church of Christ if they don't follow Jesus' example?

What say you?

yes to infinity!

It's also surprising what the reasons for excommunication can be. For example, stating that TSM is not inspired ("not supporting the prophet") is sufficient grounds for excommunication. Or, of course, if one considers the "Man" (JS) not to have been inspired.

I suppose TSCC is concerned that peopel with "heretic" beliefs could do damage inside the church, but I think these days they do much more damage on the outside. Many who doubt the church would keep it to themselves... until TSCC X's them and makes it a public humiliation event.

You'd think (well, I'd think) excommunication would be for some mortal transgression of god's law, like denying christ. In other words, it's something you *do*. Instead the church seems to use it nearly exclusively for something you *think* or suspect. So you have situations where an embezzler who fesses up maybe gets disfellowshipped but if you tell anyone you think the BoA is a complete fabrication and provide incontrovertible evidence why, you're exed. That utterly disproportional reaction is a dead giveaway of insecurity and dirt to hide.

I think they already have, so long as you have a shred of truth about what they really are and a strong enough platform to share that truth. Why do you think the likes of John Dehlin, Grant Palmer, Tom Phillips, and many more haven't been excommunicated?

I have no platform. If I said "Bishop, you're full of crap" enough times and with enough conviction I'd find myself in a Court of Love™. These brave souls continually tell The Brethren™ it's a load of crap from stem to stern and they are still on the record books.

Or are we due for the September 6 part 2?

I believe Grant Palmer was on the verge of being excommunicated and prior to the disciplinary council Grant resigned.

I think you are on the right track but need to go further.

They need to get rid of the whole concept of worthiness and punishment for sin.

- No disfellowshipping
- No not taking the sacrament
- No not entering the temple
- No exclusion of callings based on 'worthiness'

But that would be way to Christian of them.

Very good points that you make.

Also, the whole idea of "confession" to a church authority is a relic from the past that needs to be disposed of.

I think th Chuch should re-think its existence, not going to happen in introspection, but can be a compelled existential exercise. It will come down to finances, whether the Chuch goes on with or without excommunication.

The cult will always use excommunication.

We should likewise punish the MORG by resigning, and excommunicating it from our purses. :)

The Church should also drop the idea of "worthiness," which would actually kill off the idea of the temples. I feel that any person who makes an effort to improve is worthy of salvation. I am not perfect, but I have made progress in controlling some of my bad habits. Unfortunately, the Church is obsessed with the appearance of perfection.

If I am wrong, then I just screwed myself out of a good afterlife.

And from what I understand the Catholics almost never actually excommunicate people anymore.

In theory, according to my Episcopal priest, one can be excommunicated in our church. In practice? IT DOESN'T HAPPEN. I don't even know HOW it would happen.

I can tell him I think what he said was bullshit and I would be invited to explain why. (I have done so, if not quite so rudely.) I can tell him I've decided religion is useless and I am now an atheist and he'd be interested in how I came to that conclusion. I can say, "Dude, I'm outta here!" and I would be wished well and sent along with God's blessing. There is nothing binding me to this community except the fact that I WANT to be part of it. So there is no threat from above about being "allowed" to stay in.

Perhaps the Mormons ought to learn a few lessons from mainstream Christianity. Hell, where I am, we are quite literally across the street!

This was supposed to go under the post underneath this one. Oops.

When i was ex communicated for my transgender issues i was told that it was for my benefit to excommunicate me so that ( said is such a loving manner that i felt my teeth rotting and falling out like cavity on ultra mega steroids) when judgement fell upon me that God would not judge me as much as someone who sinned and hid it from God, Of course since those days i still get at least once a month a visit from various members of the church . somehow they found me in montana where i moved a few years ago and still come and see me. was amazed when teh bishop in the city i live knocked on my door named me by my name and said how are you i am from .. ward and wanted to welcome you to montana if you have any needs here is my card we would love to see you in church. can we say big brother is watching. to this day since my excommunication many bishops have offered me free counseling to return back to fellowship and become a full member again . LOL as a fyi i have never filed a change of address form how can they find me so fast . not even 2 weeks in montana and they found me

In modern Catholicism, excommunication is more literal, as in one loses the sanction of the Church to partake of the Host, AKA the Eucharist or "holy communion." Excommunication literally means being barred from communion. If you've committed certain acts, according to Catholic principles, you're not supposed to take communion. For the most part, however, no one else will bar you from doing so. It's essentially a self-imposed penalty. Not too many people seem to impose upon themselves.

NevermoinIdaho Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And from what I understand the Catholics almost
> never actually excommunicate people anymore.
>
> In theory, according to my Episcopal priest, one
> can be excommunicated in our church. In practice?
> IT DOESN'T HAPPEN. I don't even know HOW it
> would happen.
>
> I can tell him I think what he said was bullshit
> and I would be invited to explain why. (I have
> done so, if not quite so rudely.) I can tell him
> I've decided religion is useless and I am now an
> atheist and he'd be interested in how I came to
> that conclusion. I can say, "Dude, I'm outta
> here!" and I would be wished well and sent along
> with God's blessing. There is nothing binding me
> to this community except the fact that I WANT to
> be part of it. So there is no threat from above
> about being "allowed" to stay in.
>
> Perhaps the Mormons ought to learn a few lessons
> from mainstream Christianity. Hell, where I am,
> we are quite literally across the street!

From wiki:

In Roman Catholic canon law, excommunication is a censure and thus a "medicinal penalty" intended to invite the person to change behavior or attitude, repent, and return to full communion.[1] It is not an "expiatory penalty" designed to make satisfaction for the wrong done, much less a "vindictive penalty" designed solely to punish.

Excommunication can be either latae sententiae (automatic, incurred at the moment of committing the offense for which canon law imposes that penalty) or ferendae sententiae (incurred only when imposed by a legitimate superior or declared as the sentence of an ecclesiastical court).[2]

Excommunicated Catholics - unless they cease for some other reason to belong to the Church - are still Catholics and remain bound by obligations such as attending Mass, even though they are barred from receiving the Eucharist and from taking an active part in the liturgy (reading, bringing the offerings, etc.).[3] However, their communion with the Church is considered gravely impaired.[4] In spite of that, they are urged to retain a relationship with the Church, as the goal is to encourage them to repent and return to active participation in its life.

Excommunication is extremely rare in Roman Catholicism. I grew up Catholic and never heard of anyone being excommunicated. A more common form of church discipline would be if a priest denied communion, but even that is rare. I never saw that happen, either, but I've heard of it a few times.

For Catholics, repentance is handled through private, confidential confession to a priest. The church member guides the discussion and a priest will only respond to what you confess. As a part of the process, the priest will ask the penitent to say a set number of prayers or rosaries. The rest of the congregation is blissfully unaware of what goes on in the confessional. Everyone goes to confession at least once a year, so no one finds it remarkable.

If we are expected to excuse the wrongs of the leaders they really should stop disciplining the wrongs of others, it just looks disingenuous. In other words excuse our human shortcomings but we won't be excusing yours.

To quote Uchtdorf:

“To be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the church have simply made mistakes,”

“There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles or doctrine.”

“doubt your doubts”

“We openly acknowledge that in nearly 200 years of church history...there have been some things said and done that could cause people to question.”

They should absolutely do away with it.

If they just can't make themselves get rid of it, save it for the rapists, murderers, and high ranking thieves.

Leave the teenagers, and twenty year old single people alone for being normal.

The church needs stop insulting and humiliating people over things that they have no business even knowing.

Excommunication is only meaningful when the victim really wants to be in the church. "Please don't fling me out in the cold, cruel world without blessings and magical underwear! I'll be good, I promise! I'll do whatever you say!"

They did figure out, though, that it's pointless excommunicating people who want out of the church anyway. They seem to have gotten over their vindictive, childish, "Oh yeah? You can't leave, we're kicking you out! So there!"

But there are a lot of people in that middle ground where, yes, exing could turn fairly faithful members against the church. So I say, keep doing it. Keep making enemies of your semi-believers.

I think if tommy boy really loved us at all, he would excommunicate the whole church.... All 15 bazillion members. And even the necro-dunked ones.

Wiki defines excommunication for various religions. The Mormons have the longest description of all of them. The mormon church is in love with having that kind of power over people. I've watched them destroy people and their families right along with them.

I predict it will become more free with excommunication because tolerance is killing it. If you don't like it, let us boot you out the door. It is the only way they'll keep their identity. There's good BOM scriptures to back it up too.

They already have, to an extent. I've had friends older than me who were exed... and when I was later involved in similar "indescretions" they didn't seem to care. I still got home teachers and other visits. They knew. And I was a more visible/active member than those friends had been.

So, excomms nowadays seem to be of the anti or apostate variety. Unless it's an embarrassment by an active/public mormon, they don't go searching for excomm opportunities like they used to.

That's my mileage, anyway.

Disciplinary Courts are pointless and useless. All of it needs to be discontinued.

I bet if we had statistics for this we'd find they're much rarer now than they used to be.

Also, in regards to point #1, it's often the case, but not always. There was a man in my ward who got excommunicated, but he still came to church every Sunday, still participated in the lessons and activities, and everybody loved him. I actually had no idea he was excommunicated, I was so shocked when I found out. So what you say is probably true in most cases, but not always.

I think they'll keep excommunication as a practice though. Polygamists will get excommunicated if they get found out, since the church desperately doesn't want polygamists as members. I think for that reason alone they won't completely abandon excommunication.

Also, it gives the leaders a sense of power, which some of them like. I bet some of the leaders actually like the drama and secrecy around it.

Sounds like the way my father-in-law was exed...it was very covered up and not disclosed to anyone but immediate family members, bishopric and stake presidency. He continued to actively attend church and even had "callings" during the 7+ years he was excommunicated. But not surprising since he had been a stake president several times and was a retired church employee at the time.

The sure don't excommunicate them like they used to. However, cults are about control. So they can never drop it completely. They need that threat to hold over the sheeple as a control mechanism.

NormaRae Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The sure don't excommunicate them like they used
> to.
LOL, are they more efficent now?

A GA told me I never should have been ex'd. My reply was that if that were true, they should expunge my record. He shook his head no and looked at me like I was out of my mind. Sooo, I said, you DO think they should have ex'd me? He didn't reply. He just stood there looking confused. I'm sure he was wondering why a lowly woman would dare to put him in such a spot.

Without the "Love Council" I would not have had the opportunity of telling, in person for over an hour, the State Council what I believed and what I did not believe. It also would have denied me the opportunity of appealing to the First Presidency. If everyone acted as I did, the policy would end.
It also made it easier for me to resign after winning the appeal. I do wish the council members had answered my challenge: Do ANY of you believe in the Book of Abraham?

You've got a riveting story in there, rhgc. I'd like to hear more.

You can find it in the bios under "Before the Sanhedrin".

Boyd K Pecker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To me, the idea of excommunicating members is so
> "old school" -- and really bad form. Not only
> that, I view it as highly counterproductive for
> the LDS church.
>
> The reasons why:
>
> 1. Does the church need any more enemies? When
> you excommunicate someone, chances are awful good
> that you are making an enemy of him and maybe his
> family, as well. Such humiliation, which is
> impossible to hide from family and other church
> members, can make one angry. And don't forget --
> angry ex-members can write very angry things on
> the internet.
>
> 2. Nothing screams "cult" and mind control like
> excommunicating your adherents. To a church where
> image and PR mean everything, it is
> counterproductive to have non-members think of you
> as being more evil and kooky than you already are.
> This negatively affects missionary work.
>
> 3. Almost no other religion excommunicates their
> members except for the cult-like faiths such as
> Jehovah's Witness, Scientology, etc. Does the LDS
> church really care to be categorized in a like
> manner as those other groups?
>
> 4. What would Jesus do? Jesus realized that
> people were human, yet he admonished the sinner to
> "sin no more." How can LDS claim to be the church
> of Christ if they don't follow Jesus' example?
>
> What say you?


the folks that really belive would be traumatized by being exed. it's mental warfare.

Almost 34 years ago I refused to repent for loving not wisely but well and was exed. Branch President then told me I wouldn't burn in the latter days if I continued to tithe via one of my children! I remember thinking "bugger that for a joke" but attended TSCC for about another eight months until it became known that this BP, a supposed paragon of virtue, was an active pedophile. No he was never excommunicated. Seems like they do re-think excommunication at times but only on the lines of "she's expendable, off with head. He's not, quick stick your heads in the sand."

I think that they have re-thought excommunication, maybe several times. In the 1980s, Nelson came to our stake conference. In the priesthood session he simply said, "Brethren, we are excommunicating too many people," and began to explain that not all things require it in cases where the person is "repentant." "Not even adultery," he said. He urged the bishops and stake presidents to re-consider how they'd been doing stuff.

Anyway, when I told my cranky FIL who sat on a high council, he simply said that that would never change. When an adulterer presented himself in church court, he was GONE! In the end, it is up to the minor players who try the person in church court.

Of course the church should give up exing.
It should give up ALL pretense of authority.
It should give up "acting in the name of god" entirely.
A church court is nothing but charlatan quackery. Their authority is bogus, their premises and logic are bogus...theres no justice in it.
I think the church should press all their claims even harder to hasten their exposure.