So no, I don’t think excommunication is always necessary, even when less-than-desirable things are going on. In such cases, disciplinary action of any kind would probably have been excessive (though I did not have all the information, I had more than most missionaries do). But we simply cannot say that excommunication is ipso facto excessive.

There are two main reasons people are ex’d: behavior (sin) or belief (apostasy to Mormons; heresy to Catholics). Mormons are seldom ex’d for belief unless they are poking the church in the eye. That’s probably true for historical Catholicism, too (had to be responsible for a schism to get ex’d), until the inquisition made it easy for lay members to use the church to murder their ex-girlfriends, enemies or people they owed money. Talk about an act of violence.

My DH also had looked up excommunication practices in other contemporary churches. Apparently, one protestant church recently ex’d a large group of its members for belonging to the “wrong” political party.

Quix, I also appreciate your illustration of the value of a formal marker which you can mnemonically use to “start over”.

I think I had to get my connotative aversion to the word off my chest so I could better focus on what you’re saying.

In our case, my wife was disciplined. She was repentant. We were broken. And in this vulnerable moment the Church presents God as so displeased with her as to cut her out of salvational communion with Him. This happens to be inseparably tied to communion with the Church. The church at this time for us was a meaningful and non-meaningful blend of claimed divine access, authority, genuine community, family tradition, and mixed day-to-day benefits. Yet confessing and submitting felt to my wife and me the honest thing to do. All was severed in order to fully weigh the seriousness of her sin upon her mind and soul.

Our marriage almost being over was such a real and pressing concern at this time that such discipline just couldn’t seem as weighty to us as I can see it is from the LDS God-church perspective. My wife already deeply felt that she could never be worthy again of my love or God’s love, yet, she felt love from me and from God. The excommunication seemed, then, like a paper tiger in its coolness and formality. It seemed like she should feel worse about losing something like this, but it was so passively-aggressively delivered that it was more confusing than anything, I think.

The process probably was excessively draconian, but alleviated somewhat because the men in charge were kindly, smiling, bumbling administrators. The detailed questioning process probably should have felt more violating to her, but here were men she generally liked doing the act. The God-church was willing to say this state of transgression was also my failure because my eternal marriage was also severed till she resubmit. That could have been even more greatly hurtful, but yet I already was in a place where my faith, though weak, was not rooted in the church as my intermediary.

So, yes, I see the violence you speak of. Maybe we were already prepared to find hope elsewhere, and diverted so greatly by more pressing problems, that the process just didn’t feel violent. And while their actions gave us mixed signals, we truly felt free to start over.

Assume 5 individuals with identical (let us say, righteous: tithe mint & cummin, love God with all heart mind & strength, love neighbor as self, whatever) moral codes, beliefs and actions:

Individual #1 is an active, endowed, sealed (always attending) member of the Church.
#2 is an endowed and sealed member of the Church, who seldom worships with the Saints.
#3 is endowed & sealed, but has resigned from the Church.
#4 accompanies his LDS wife to her meetings, but doesn’t join out of respect to the wishes of his saintly mother.
#5 is very involved with his or her Unitarian church.

Which of the 5 can expect to be included with the resurrection of the just? Of the unjust? Is the Atonement efficacious for some, but not for others? Which? Are the salvific ordinances necessary for inclusion in the resurrection of the just? Can administrative action withdraw the effects of those ordinances, or are they efficacious after having been received?

I really think you’ve been reading a lot of Konrad’s Heart of Darkness…a lot of your imagery is simply over the top. Again, we’re not talking about a disagreement of definition. You know that “blood atonement” conjures up horrific images in peoples minds. Why use it except to incite? And plus, the ideas that Brigham taught were not borne of him, incidentally…that was O.T. stuff. And your facts on blood atonement are lacking (the whole “or not” aside is what I’m referring to here…this isn’t a post on blood atonement, so I’ll refrain…)

Plus, I know people who have been excommunicated and have come back. Quite simply, they disagree with you.

My wife’s excommunication process was poorly handled, and the so-called “loving outreach” was a real eye opener (and let down). Yet I see the Bishop as a well intentioned administrator and generally nice guy. He was just not trained nor gifted to shepherd our spiritual lives. The experience led my wife and I to really start over in approaching religion and faith as a meaningful, intentional journey and not as a commitment of habit and tradition, to take complete open-eyed ownership of where our marriage was and is headed. It freed us to consider where we felt God was drawing us and then follow Him.

Now we’re seeking to live in authenticity with God, with more personal accountability to root our outward practice as an extension of our inward hope and faith. While I think the strategy and tactics of Mormon disciplinary procedures could be much more effectively conceived and carried out, the process actually accomplished, ironically, the spiritual goals I think were intended. It would seem mean and ungrateful not to find God as having worked during that process to reach us. He didn’t just wait outside the building for us to be finished with being Mormons.

I’m still a member of record. No, I don’t see God’s Book of Life as having any special LDS connection. Nor am I hedging my bets. I moved on in liberty to my allegiance to God and faith in Christ. To write a letter of resignation still feels like I’d be regressing to define my relationship with God as one of corporate “churchness.” While I have since received an “evangelical” Christian baptism and am very involved with another denomination, “joining” was not my motivation.

Therefore we seek to pursue God in liberty and have asked our former LDS leadership to honor that liberty. So far they have and sociable contact has been appropriate. Sure, some former LDS friends now avoid us, and some family members treat us very differently, but not all. We changed our community. So for those who define themselves strongly by affiliation this is a huge chasm to bridge — or not bridge at all. This experience has freed us to find good in the LDS community for those who don’t define their faith and religious practice primarily that way. Some have still reached out in authentic friendship and acceptance of our kids. Therefore, I still see opportunity with many LDS members for friendship and bridge-building.

Again, “violence” just doesn’t seem to best fit our experience.

I can tell this will be the shortest post here!!

I think all bishops, stake presidents and high councilman and possibly GA’s should be refreshed in their minds of what an excommunication means.

“Disfellowship basically accomplishes the most necessary functions to protect the church. The person is not able to participate in any public worship practices which would indicate endorsement or condoning of their positions, like holding callings, praying in meetings, or exercising priesthood. The only thing that excommunication does beyond that is the blotting out of their name from the book of life. It is an “eternity-level” punishment with no “temporal-level” impact above and beyond disfellowship.”

They should also be made aware of the percentage odds of a member returning to the church after an individual has been excommunicated and the probable effects this will have in percentage terms on that individuals posterity long term activity

I don’t think that the use of the word violence as a synonym for excommunication is problematic because violence is “pregnant with negative cultural connotations.” In fact, this is what Clay is saying. Excommunication as a word is pregnant with negative cultural connotations. It depends on which culture we’re talking about. What Clay has done is shine a light from wider American culture onto our narrower American Mormon sub-culture and drawn a useful comparison.

In fact, the uses of excommunication, as the most extreme act the Church can legally take against an individual in the 21st century United States (other than firing them from employment or suing them for just cause) are redolent with images of violence, as Clay has shown.

To answer Clay’s question, WHY is it necessary to excommunicate, I think the answer is very primal. It’s the worst thing we can do, and we haven’t let the message of Christ sink into our hearts and church culture enough so that we feel an institutional act is necessary for someone to be forgiven of sin. I have never read this in the scriptures by the way, which is why I asked a pointed question about the theology of excommunication. We don’t have one, except by uncanonical tradition and policy, that for some reason, people’s sins are worse when they have made covenants and that repenting by throwing yourself on the mercy of Jesus Christ is not enough.

In summary, and this may be a bold statement, the NEED to excommunicate comes from the same dark place in our culture that produced a president of the Church who believed that there were some sins for which the blood of Jesus could not atone, but for which the sinner himself or herself must suffer by voluntarily (or not) having their blood shed.

Excommunication is spiritual blood atonement.

Clay, I just want to say that this is an interesting post.

I do believe excommunication serves a real purpose within the Mormon community and I don’t believe it’s generally viewed in the negative light Clay believes it is.

That being said, Clay and I had a side conversation going on and he is correct that I am agreeing with him in the cases where his assumptions are true, which I’m sure is all too often the case. I just don’t see them as generally true.

I think the problem I have with his premise is:

1. Anytime you think you can take a complex social organizaion like the LDS church and boil it down to “almost all members believe X way” I think you are probably wrong in your assumption.

2. His premise is setup with a bar for proof that is too high for himself. He can never prove that there isn’t at least one situation where excommunication is actually a good thing but if there is even one such case, then his premise is wrong.

3. I know of such cases personally (or at least I perceive it this way and my perceptions are my reality in a case of beliefs like this) so I can safely reject his assumptions for myself and thus for the LDS community.

But I want to emphasize that this only means I’m disagreeing with the absoluteness in Clay’s point. i.e. that *all* excommunications could be done away with and replaced with disfollowshipment. If you temper that point to make it a bit less absolute then I think I basically agree with him again that there is often available compromises that could be found that just aren’t found because we don’t know how.

“friendly fire” took place), then we step onto dangerous territory in associating the excommunication with a word so pregnant with negative cultural connotations.

Yeah, it’s semantics, but the naming of things has tremendous implications for how we reason through them. Therefore, I still object strongly to calling all excommunication acts of violence.

however, Pubilus Syrus noted that not every question deserves an answer, and both Joseph and Elder Uchtdorf have noted that if we start out on a wrong premise, we will end incorrectly as well. Thus, I find the question about violence to not be a helpful one because a false premise is engrained into the question. It is not unlike the “Do you still beat your wife?” line of questioning or “Is the sky green or purple?” One simply CAN’T answer the question and still be honest. And I think it is well to point that out. I will be posting shortly and if my questions are based on wrong premises, I would hope someone would point that out to me.

However, calling excommunication “violence” without qualification serves as a maneuver in political science circles called heresthetics…under such a connotation, it becomes quite difficult for people to stomach it as a necessity.

“But let me say that if love, peace, and forgiveness are my political machine that I’m trying to fit cogs into, I will unabashedly agree.”

Again, you are setting up a (false) dichotomy between excommunication and love/peace/forgiveness. If we believe at any level that excommunication might just be the proper course of action (and I know from my personal interactions that it can be…and trust me, I know of cases where “friendly fire” also took place)

You’re right, if by “practical sense” you mean what does it officially affect in terms of Church participation.

But as you pointed out, it makes a huge difference to both the person and the community how they understand the situation and these differences are not trivial. Even something as simple as “I, as the leader of this ward, feel I need to impress upon the individual and the ward the seriousness of X action” we are still talking about a real need that has real practical differences.

Clay, is what you are really asking specifically the need to excommunicate for apostacy? You originally said this. Does this mean you are okay with it if we’re talking about a serious sin that you agree is a sin? (Sexual abuse, say.)

Also, give some thought to the cut off point. Would you be okay with excommunication if the “apostate” in question was vocal and public and just started a full time job as an anti-Mormon? That seems like a pretty clear case to me where disfellowshipment just wouldn’t cut it.

Actually, this comment sort of goes along with what I was saying. Resignation and excommunication are actually the same thing, technically. But many post-Mormons don’t want to be considered “excommunicated” but instead “resigned.” Presumably we’re talking about a “stain on their name” that they perceive as being different in one case vs. the other.

I don’t think the example you are using here proves a vast majority of Mormons misunderstand what excommunication means. I think it does prove that you can’t entirely decouple doctrinal content from perception of the community. It would be pretty natural for me, as a father, to prefer to think of my son as “only inactive” vs. “he quit the Church entirely.” It would be easier to explain to people if the topic came up, for example. Yet you can never really do away with the a person’s decision to quit the Church or for the Church to quit them.

I think this is why we should be talking more about how to work out compromises and reduce excommunication rather than try to eliminate it or doctrinally nullify it. Everything we’ve said up to this point suggests to me it’s necessity to exist, but also suggests that there are real communal ramifications — not merely non-existent spiritual ones — that go along with the concept. Such impacts are very real and that’s exactly why they are often effective as a way of helping people want to change their behavior. I think we miss the boat to think of this solely in terms of how it “affects one’s salvation in the afterlife.” I think we miss the boat to even assume that is the primary concern of most members or post-members.

I will not argue with you over whether or not “the vast majority of Mormons” believe one way or the other as I doubt I know and doubt you do too. (*I* have no awareness that we are talking about a vast majority or anything but a really small minority.) I will simply accept that you are right in some cases, and it’s probably more common for non-leaders (i.e. the people not making the decision to excommunicate.)

Still, if the issue here boils down “we need to educate Mormons to understand their own doctrines better.” Then we have reached a point on which we can move forward upon with your original question as a means of improving the situation for all parties. I would like to now suggest this as my answer to your original question and see what you think.

In a related vein, we see the same thing sometimes with baptisms, only in reverse. I remember there was a family that wanted to get their senile old father baptized. In the interview it was pretty obvious he wasn’t ready for baptism because he didn’t understand any of it or accept any of it. It was clear this was just the family misunderstanding the real efficacy of baptism. (They were thinking of it in a more Catholic sense of sacrements and baptising children to avoid sending them to limbo, etc.)

Finally the district leader gave into the family’s wishes and let the man be baptized for his family’s sake. He felt guilty because he wasn’t technically supposed to let someone who didn’t really believe be baptized because that’s understood as affecting unnecessary condemanation on that person’s head. (i.e. just like excommunicating them is supposed to reduce the condemnation).

I actually think he made the right decision in this case. Since the man was near death anyhow, and this probably wasn’t the best time to explain to the family that the baptism would be basically meaningless as per actual Mormon doctrine, we might as well just perform it and let is have no meaning accept as the family was making up in their minds.

In this case I do not see how it could cause condemnation since he didn’t understand what was happening anyhow.

The only real negative I see with the decision was that it meant we gave into the wishes of this family to turn baptism into something it wasn’t and thus indirectly allowed a false view of saving ordinances to be advanced. But sometimes it’s better to just not fight bad perceptions like this in such a tense circumstance.

“Mormon families all over would greatly prefer a child to “only be inactive” or to “only get disfellowshipped” vs. the alternative. And the difference in the repercussions is not marginal. Its petrifying. If most Mormons believed what you are saying, that fear would not exists in the same intensity.”

I think you are correct that this is an issue, but I think you are probably reading it wrong. The issue isn’t likely that Mormons are upset over “excommunication” vs. “disfellowship” because they think their son or daughter is “damned more” with one. The issues is probably in many cases just simply not wanting to “stain” their family name with the higher penalty. While I disagree with this point of view, I think it’s pretty human and probably pretty hard to overcome and I’d probaby do it myself if I found myself in such a circumstance without realizing that I’m just causing unnecessary trouble.

So I’m going to have to give the cop out response of “you pray about it and follow the guidance of the Spirit” as the only viabale answer for “what cases.””

Or you could just not excommunicate, and use disfellowship as the way to separate them from the family for protective purposes, and then mediate from within an unbroken family relationship rather than trying to re-attach. In a practical sense, there is no difference between an excommunicant and a disfellowshipped member. Neither can participate in public worship (teach, pray, answer questions in class, etc.) Both are allowed to come to church and talk to other members. Excommunication does nothing in that practical sense beyond what disfellowship would do.

You have a lot of work to do in educating Mormons, brother. I believe that the vast majority of Mormons view the removal of a name from church records as having direct effects in heaven. Like you said: The LDS church believes they have priesthood authority where what is done on earth is recorded in heaven. This is a basic core belief. While your caveat to that is true if you dig deep enough, for most Mormons it ends at the portion I quoted. The efficacy of that authority is WHY they are active. To a lot of people, what would be the point of all the work you do in the temples if God will ultimately clean it all up anyway? We spending countless time and money to get the names of deceased people on the records of the church because we believe we HAVE TO, that God is relying on us to do it.

But the strongest evidence for most Mormons not seeing it your way, Bruce, is the incredible stigma and fear and pain associated with having your named removed, whether it be resignation or excommunication. Mormon families all over would greatly prefer a child to “only be inactive” or to “only get disfellowshipped” vs. the alternative. And the difference in the repercussions is not marginal. Its petrifying. If most Mormons believed what you are saying, that fear would not exists in the same intensity.

Guess I didn’t really answer this, John.

The why is because you need to declare the person not part of the group in hopes of a change or because you think they’d be better off not breaking their covenants any more. (As per my response to Clay.)

The what cases is a lot harder. Here is the problem, I see. I suspect you can always make the case either way that you’re either better off excommunicating or better of not excommunicating because you don’t ultimately ever get to know exactly what the person is really thinking or get to try it both ways and see which is the more effective approach.

So I’m going to have to give the cop out response of “you pray about it and follow the guidance of the Spirit” as the only viabale answer for “what cases.”

“Isn’t it just like a [blank] to bring a knife to a gun fight.”
Sean Connery, The Untouchables.

Clay, beautifully, beautifully written. Your ultimate question is a difficult one for me to answer. I’m going to have to think about one that for a few days.

Okay, I see what you are saying now, Clay.

The problem is that I disagree with your interpretation of Mormon doctrine here. The belief is not necessarily that we are damning the person, as per John’s comment in #8 where it was percieved as a fresh start. In fact, the belief is generally that we are helping them in two ways:

1. This might wake them up so they can come back
2. There is greater condemnation if they break their convenants then have them canceled.

So excommunication, from a believers point of view, is perceived as always merciful and never “a risk” as you are suggesting.

Thus I hold fundamentally different assumptions about how Mormons are supposed to perceive excommuncation.

So I’m going to go back to the word “violence.”

I have already agreed that in a sense an amputation is violence and thus I’m not necessarily against you using the term so long as we understand it as a positive thing in this case from the believers point of view. However, I still object to use of that word because of the perceived negative connotation. But I’m not against calling it violence in this sense.

But I am strongly against calling it violence in the sense you are suggesting where we are somehow putting the person at risk where as we didn’t have to. If this is what we actually believed, it would be a bad thing, yes.

If priesthood authority actually worked like you perceive it, then the right thing to do would be to never excommunicate anyone ever because, who knows, maybe that ordiance will somehow save them in the end. If we believed as you preceive it, then we would never ever perform excommunications except as an act of revenge and thus we should never do them at all. Thus I would agree with you.

Excommunication is declaring that you are no longer a member of the church (note: we borrowed this from the Catholics but they probably mean something different by it.)

The LDS church believes they have priesthood authority where what is done on earth is recorded in heaven. This is a basic core belief. However, there is no concept that if a mistake is made that God will honor it anyhow. Thus God is the final judge.

Clay posits this is equivalent to being cast in the pit of fire and brimstone and I’m suggesting that it’s relevant but not the final view of salvation from a Mormon point of view.

For the sake of simplifying things, let’s assume a worst case scenario that Clay is correct and excommunication does declare that believers consider that person now damned unless they repent. On a better case scenario, we can consider it merely being cut off from the community until certain changes are made to make them not a disruption to the community.

Now it seems to me that either way we have a doctrinal necessity here. If we perceive Mormon priesthood as having authority over salvation then being able to declare past saving ordinances null and void is a doctrinal necessity.

Likewise, if we just assume it’s about not distrupting the community and needing to be able to say “you are no longer part of the community unless you repent” we still have a doctrinal necessity.

Clay’s point is “aren’t we accomplshing the same thing with disfellowshipment?” But doctrinally they are not the same. One is temporarily asking the person to not participate as to not condone. The other is the cancelation of the perceived saving ordinances.

My counter point to Clay was that since he perceives them as different, then having two levels of discipline obviously means something and thus he’s answered his own question.

My other counter point was that we need to be consistent and if we believe a person has the right to remove their own membership because they perceive some benefit (which would not necessarily be for the sake of doing violence to the Church in my opinion) then we have to also believe the group can remove them if they deem it necessary for whatever reason.