- NEW!
by Factotum on October 11th, 2009
Excommunication isn't for the excommunicated it is for those who remain.
.
LDS isn't the only church that puts the smackdown on those they feel are out of bounds.
.
I have no idea what larger group (if any) is responsible for legitimizing the Westboro Baptist Church but I suspect they should get with the excommunicating already.
by dumdum on October 11th, 2009
Purity of the church. Most likely does not help the individual but gets the attention of the rest of the members. Hilter tried a like method for a race only went to more of an extreme.
by Moongrim on October 11th, 2009
From the church's standpoint- sometimes you need a large enough club to get the attention of the mule.
by whew4 on October 15th, 2009
Most every organization, whether secular or religious, has some form of separating offenders of the organizational laws, from the organization.
Some separations are permanent, and others are temporary, depending on the organization, and the offender, complying with said laws which were broken.
In a nutshell, when one breaks certain serious rules, or laws or regulations, etc. There must be a punishment affixed, until such time as the offender repents and obeys said laws,etc.
As far as the Church of Jesus Christ is concerned, when one breaks any serious commandments, they are in jeopardy with the Lord. And as long as they remain a member of the Church and do not repent, they continue to heap upon themselves condemnation for which also must be repented. Which may take an even longer period of time, depending on the case.
However, by excommunication, the offender is freed, somewhat, from heaping upon themselves additional condemnation. It basically has to do with sins from a member are more serious to the Lord than the same sins from a non-member, who has not made certain covenants with the Lord.
I just gives a person time, without additional pressure, to get their life back in order. We want them back as soon as possible, but only when they are ready to commit totally to the Lord.
We do not make contact with them, as a Church, nor do we encourage any of our members to contact them in any way. We do not wish to put any undue pressure on them to rush their coming back too soon.
This is their time to come to grips with themselves. In some cases the individual does not even feel they have done anything wrong, they totally blame the church.
And therefore many do not come back at all, or at least for many years. Each case is specific to the individual, none are exactly the same, but in the end, when an individual comes back they do it for the right reasons and are richly blessed...Later
by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on October 11th, 2009
ANSWER:
Given the low percentage of Ex'd and Disfellowshiped Mormons who get restored I think it's pretty clear that it doesn't help the "disciplined" individual at all. For example, only ONE of the September Six (Avraham Gileadi) has been fully restored as of 2009. Of the remaining five, four are no longer members of the LdS Church and one (Lynne Kanavel Whitesides) remains disfellowshiped. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Six)
But it does seem to be quite effective at creating loud, vocal and persistent critics of the LdS Church! This is a pattern which, oddly, seems to surprise both the leaders and members of LdS Church. However, if history has shown us anything it's that the victims of Ecclesiastical and Spiritual abuse rarely, "Just go away quietly".
So if restoration is the goal LdS excommunications seem to have the exact OPPOSITE reason - it alienates and divides!
EDITORIAL:
Perhaps the LdS Church should re-evaluate their "trigger happy" attitude toward ExCommunication and Disfellowship and consider ENCOURAGING Loyal Opposition rather than suppressing it.
Please consider this thought in light of this analysis:
ECCLESIASTICAL AND SPIRITUAL ABUSE: DEFINITIONS
Although the terms "ecclesiastical abuse" and "spiritual abuse" are used somewhat interchangeably, they have different emphases. Ecclesiastical abuse occurs when a Church officer, acting in his official capacity and using the weight of his (less frequently her) office, coerces compliance, imposes his personal opinions as Church doctrine or policy, or resorts to such power plays as threats, intimidation, and punishment to insure that his views prevail in a conflict of opinions. The suggestion is always that the member has weak faith, or inadequate testimony, and lacks commitment to the Church. Spiritual abuse occurs when a member, through the actions of another, is made to feel limited or lacking in free agency, diminished in value in the eyes of God, unworthy to pray, unworthy or incapable of receiving answers to prayer, outside the influence of Christ's atonement, and excluded from the Savior's love and grace.
Eight factors characterize most abusive encounters:
1. A difference of opinion is not simply a difference of opinion but is treated as a revelation of moral inadequacy on the part of the member. If the difference of opinion stems from scholarship on the member's part or the application of professional tools to an aspect of Mormon studies, the officer seldom has the technical expertise to discuss the point at issue. Frequently he shifts the grounds of the discussion to the dangers of promulgating any perspective but the traditional one and insists that there is something bad or wrong about holding alternative views.
2. A request for help on the part of a member is seen as an invitation to judge the member's worthiness on the part of the officer.
3. No matter what the content of the initial issue, any issue can escalate with terrifying quickness into a power struggle in which the ecclesiastical officer demands compliance because of his office and accuses the member of not sustaining his or her leaders and/or of apostasy. These charges, in turn, lead to threats to confiscate temple recommends, to release the member from callings, and to conduct disciplinary councils, the results of which may result in no action, informal probation, formal probation, disfellowshipment, or excommunication.
4. If the member protests such actions and refuses to yield to the officer's power, then the very act of protest or the expressed desire to continue the discussion is seen as evidence of the charges. The officer feels justified in refusing to explain the reasons for taking the action and unilaterally terminates the discussion by citing his authority. The member, rather than having a problem, has become the problem.
5. If another ecclesiastical leader, such as a stake president or an area president becomes aware of and involved in the situation, the original leader almost always controls the flow of information to this second leader. The opportunities to present biased information, reframe the issue as one of disobedience, and portray the member as a trouble-maker are legion. The first leader seldom suggests a group discussion or meeting that involves a mediator or a referee; rather, he is usually able to use the weight of the second officer's office and power to reinforce his own in his effort to force the member's capitulation.
6. The member feels unjustly, treated. Feelings of helplessness, betrayal, anger, and depression frequently follow. Expressions of "increased love" seldom if ever follow "rebukes" from abusive ecclesiastical officers, only additional warnings about conformity that increase the sense of unfairness and powerlessness.
7. If the member in pain withdraws from church activity to protect himself, herself, and/or the family from this assault upon their spiritual well-being, the withdrawal is seen as evidence of the member's lack of worthiness, not as a cry for help or as a symptom of abuse in the system.
8. If the member alienated from the Church by abuse seeks a new spiritual home in another church or religious movement, explores alternative forms of spirituality, suffers personal, familial, or professional disruption - or even, feeling a new sense of freedom, departs from what is considered traditional respectability in Mormonism - these facts, frequently distorted by rumor and gossip, are often used as ex post facto evidence that the member "was disobedient all along" and that "the Brethren knew what they were doing." In short, situations and problems subsequent to the abuse, perhaps caused by it, and almost always intensified by it, are interpreted as justification of the abuse.
The Church, particularly on the ward level, works amazingly well most of the time as communities of compassion and belonging; but in the remaining fraction, where an ecclesiastical officer succumbs to an appetite for unrighteous dominion, the Church offers no structural safeguards against abuse and very seldom even any recognition that the member's rights can be violated. In this way, the Church's hierarchical structure, as manifested in the "priesthood pipeline," is systemically vulnerable to the temptation to inflict abuse. We hope, by documenting cases where benevolence fails, that we can strengthen members as they set about healing from ecclesiastical abuse and also encourage less absolutistic views of authority by both members and leaders.
http://www.mormonalliance.org/definitions.htm
If a Protestant were to actually read the Book of Mormon, wouldn't he find the God of the Bible, Jesus Christ, there?
by Bridget_D8547 on May 9th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
MORMONS T/F: A personal testimony must be "nurtured" or you may lose it.
by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 19th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
Is Jesus Christ really the Lord God Almighty, or is he just another son of God?
by Bridget_D8547 on May 13th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
Do you suppose the Lord thinks the temple should be used for "time only" marriages?
by Bridget_D8547 on June 9th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
Mormons:I would like to know more about Mormon core beliefs.If you had to explain Mormonism in a succinct paragraph how would you do it?
by Quiet_Listener on May 13th, 2011
| 2 people like this
You're reading Excommunication for the LDS is understood as an ‘appropriate’ or as a ‘necessary step’. How is it appropriate and necessary? What are its benefits? And how does it help the disciplined individual?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
>Excommunication isn't for the excommunicated it is for those who remain<
.
Just that comment is worth +6.
by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on October 11th, 2009
And the much less frequent re-baptisms are what they eventually do for those excommunicated people that fail to hear the "We don't want you as part of our church!" cries.
by Richard the Anonymous on October 12th, 2009
No, it is for those that repent of the offenses for which they were excommunicated.
by Glenn Blaylock on October 15th, 2009
>No, it is for those that repent of the offenses for which they were excommunicated<
.
Yes, and citing the September Six that would be offenses like:
.
1) Publicly recognizing, teaching, and exploring ways to apply the "Mother-in-Heaven" doctrine implied in LDS Theology.
.
2) Writing books interpreting Mormon scripture that challenged the exclusive right of leaders to define doctrine.
.
3) Refusing to curb sharp criticism of LDS Church leaders' preference for legalism, ecclesiastical tyranny, white-washed Mormon history, and hierarchical authoritarianism that puts privilege and the image of the corporate LDS Church above:
.
a) its commitment to its members
.
b) the teachings and revelations of Joseph Smith its founding Prophet, and
.
c) the gospel of Jesus Christ
.
4) Studying, writing, and lecturing on Feminism as it related to LDS Theology and Scripture.
.
5) Writing books on True Mormon History - including published transcriptions of original source materials - that do not adhere to the "Faithful History" of CES and other official Church sources.
.
6) Ditto on #5.
.
And of these six offensive "sinners" exactly 2 (two) are still members of the church. One is a member in good standing and the other is a disfellowshiped member.
.
All this for "offenses" that barely even merit a reprimand for the Loyal Dissenters in other Ecclesiastical bodies and in some cases are actually praised by the Church Leaders.
.
Frankly, I would characterize most of the behavior of the LdS Church leaders in these cases as at least abusive and at most Clerical Abuse.
by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on October 15th, 2009
.
I got bit by the "disappearing edit button". That closing line should have read:
.
"Frankly, I would characterize most of the behavior of the LdS Church leaders in these cases as at least heavy handed and at most Clerical Abuse."
by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on October 15th, 2009
Anyway - put simply it's different depending on the Bishop/Stake President (I have heard this somewhere from a 'church' source but not sure exactly where - could have just been a member but the statement is still VERY true). What does this tell you? It all has to do with individuals interpretations and opinions! Other it would read "it's different depending on the God". Basically whatever the leader says goes - and if you question that your viewed as questioning the will of God. Apart from revelation concerning individuals is called 'personal revelation' as is given to the individual directly.
by Richard the Anonymous on October 15th, 2009
God speaks to nations/groups etc through his mouth-pieces if we take the Biblical view - and he God speaks personally to individuals directly - or indirectly by his spirit or angels etc. Discipline is all about bringing into conformity to someone else's desired views - it is more about what the individual leader feels than what God wants or feels. It allows a power source to keep it's inferiors in line and make sure it's rules are being kept and that noone steps out of line or questions the superior power and authority.
by Richard the Anonymous on October 15th, 2009
Repentance, love, help, etc are all just fluffy names to make it look like good is being done - it was the disciplinary procedure that made me question my faith and brought to light historical truths that cannot be questioned - rather than any 'individual apostasy'. I could not believe the God that I knew would be the author of something so unloving, unhelpful and distructive. The main doctrines behind disciplinary councils and it's effects didn't add up and contradicted each other. Yes it is an abusive system and policy.
by Richard the Anonymous on October 15th, 2009