In the Mormon Lesbian thread,

TJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> you will have your court of love, but not X'd,
> just disfellowshipped or on probation.



Now I have a family member who was ex'd. There is so much family shame about this that I'm not even supposed to know it happened. In the 70's, though, she was serving her mission, and was excommunicated and sent home. Was rebaptised, etc., and became a very strict Mormon.

What could she have done to have that happen?

Some things which could possibly get you ex'd:

Murder/Attempted Murder
Rape
Sexual Abuse
Spousal Abuse
Child Abuse
Assault
Adultery
Fornication
Incest
Homosexual relations
Robbery
Embezzlement
Selling Drugs
Fraud
Perjury
Abortion
Transexual Surgery
Apostasy

Alot of the above depends on the attitude of the person on trial, but more importantly how much tithing she/he pays, and how much time and energy the person devotes to their calling, as well as the leadership position of the person on trial.


Publicy disagreeing with the church's position on political issues may get one exed, as well. I suppose you could wrap that up into apostacy, but that's not always the case.

When a disciplinary council is mandatory

The LDS Church has instructed leaders that a disciplinary council is mandatory when evidence suggests that a member of the church may have committed any of the following offences against the standards of the church:

Murder : the "deliberate and unjustified taking of human life". The church does not classify killings performed by police or soldiers in the line of duty as being murder. It also does not classify abortion as murder.[5]

Incest : defined as "sexual relations" between a parent (or grandparent) and a natural, adopted, or foster child or a stepchild. It also includes sexual relations between siblings.[5]

Apostasy : refers to members who "repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders" and also includes those who repeatedly present information as church doctrine that is not church doctrine and those who repeatedly follow the teachings of apostate sects or those who formally join another church. Merely failing to attend church meetings does not qualify as apostasy.[5]

Serious transgression while holding a prominent church position : "serious transgression" is defined as "a deliberate and major offense against morality" and includes
"attempted murder, rape, sexual abuse, spouse abuse, intentional serious physical injury of others, adultery, fornication, homosexual relations, deliberate abandonment of family responsibilities, robbery, burglary, theft, embezzlement, sale of illicit drugs, fraud, perjury, and false swearing."[5] "Prominent church position" includes the positions of Area Seventy, temple president, mission president, stake president, patriarch, and bishop.[5]

Transgressor who is a predator
Pattern of serious transgressions (as defined above)
Serious transgression (as defined above) that is widely known


Lots more info here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disciplinary_council

Very interesting...means that there were only a handful of things my family member could have done.

It depends on the leader...

My father had an affair and went to jail for a year (for theft and fraudulent schemes - both felonies) and STILL wasn't ex'd.

Then I had a friend in law school who was ex'd for having pre-marital sex. The guy had never even been to the temple!

There is NO consistentcy.

Your family member may have simply disagreed with a mission president in a public setting for all we know. It isn't as salacious as the other stuff.

may not be well known, even to those close to the member.

My view is to accept what I am told, knowing full well, there is probably a lot more to the story than they are telling. Also, rumors fly. People tell accounts that may or may not be factually true, whether they know anything about it or not.

The Disciplinary Councils are confidential. It's one meeting that is confidential. Not a one of those in attendance will discuss it in anyway whatsoever.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/04/2011 10:44PM by SusieQ#1.

You said it was in the 70s. At that time, they did not allow 'resignations.' If you just wanted out of their cult, they ex-communicated you (to show that they were in power, I guess). That's what happened to me. For your family member, it could have been ANYTHING.

Hmm...I suppose it'll stay a mystery, then...unless any of my aunts get loose-lipped as they get older.

temple endowed (married in the temple) and wanted to leave the LDS Church they were automatically excommunicated for apostasy, or some other reason if there was one.
That changed in about 1976, however, the stake presidencies didn't pay much attention to the change in policy at first.

It is true that the stake president has a wide range in his decision making on what to charge a person, and if they think it's warranted. Inspiration, and all that!

I'm in a legal lesbian marriage in ct, my LDS brother and sister-in-law barely speak to me (I was an active member for 10 years)...the missionaries continue to come to the door-even though I asked to be on the 'do not contact' list-I feel so disrespected. It's been 10 years since I left the church and I still feel like I'm recovering from all of the brainwashing! I still second-guess myself sometimes...

As many people have written about on the RfM board, the "No Contact" list doesn't mean that much to a lot of bishops. They want to save your soul and they presume to know better than you.

...Russ Nelson came to our stake conference and said that there are only three that REQUIRE excommunication--murder, incest, and apostasy. He maintained that a lot more people were excommunicated than needed to be. Then his talk became an appeal to excommunicate fewer people. According to Nelson, someone would commit adultery, and then the high council would convene and 15 sour old men would excommunicate the person for what they did, even if the person was penitent. It was an odd admission.

Never forget, however, that Simon Southerton was excommunicated for adultery when no one had any information on him regarding adultery, but had every reason to excommunicate him for apostasy. So obviously they are not above using adultery accusations if it has the potential to publicly damage a person that they want to humiliate. This is one of the great indicators that they are not operating as Christians.