Honestly, that was the whole intent of my list – to show that your argument in this thread is not with the LDS Church but rather with Christianity (and any other religion/denomination/organization that expels members for violation of core communal standards, if you are are consistent). That’s all I meant to show – NOT that you should embrace excommunication. If you don’t, you don’t – but you can’t use Jesus or the subsequent apostles/disciples as your justification.

I should make myself clear. I am not in disagreement with you over then notion that excommunication can be abusive, and I certainly not sold on the idea that it is a positive step towards repentance. My position, and what I am comfortable with, is really simple. If you don’t agree with the Church, don’t submit to it’s supposed courts. On the other hand, if you want to be part of an organization, you will have to follow by it rules. This is true whether we are talking about Mormons, Catholics, Elks, Freemasons, NRA, Sams Club, or Costco. Each of these organizations reserves the right to suspend your membership at their discretion. Regarding religion, it is a bit strange that you would want to be part of a religion that more absolutes about it’s authority than any other main stream religion that I am aware of, yet dismiss that authority when it comes to punishment. Is there room for reformation within the Church? All of this notwithstanding, my only real point was to demonstrate that it is far too narrow sighted to argue against the practice of excommunication by appealing to Jesus’s willingness to forgive the wicked. While no doubt he clearly demonstrated the need to extend love, compassion, and forgiveness, he also prophesied that even that has limits, which in the bare minimum is the final judgement.

“I’ve mentioned this before, but I think it bears repeating. In the Jewish religion, NOBODY gets excommunicated for any reason–even murder. I have a Jewish friend who told me this.”

As the resident Jew, this is not exactly correct. First of all, the three major sects within Judaism are Reformed (liberal), Conservative (middle to right leaning) and Orthodox (conservative to ultra-conservative).

Orthodox Judaism does not even recognize that Reformed Judaism exists and does not consider those people affiliated with it to be real Jews. This is not exactly excommunication because they never considered them a part of Judaism to begin with. Conservative Jews are more inclusive.

However, within families, the practice of shunning was, at one time very wide spread. If a family member married outside on the faith, they were considered dead to the families FOREVER! In fact, in the real extreme cases, the family held a funeral for that person. This also applied in the most extreme cases to persons not only marrying non-Jews, but Orthodox marrying outside of Orthodox or Ashkenazi Jews (Eastern European, mostly light-skinned) marrying into Sephardic (Southern Europe, North Africa, Middle-East, mostly darker skinned) families. Because there is no real Central Jewish hierarchy, things were mostly handled at the family level, or at most the local congregation level.

So, is there excommunication in Judaism? The answer is yes. it is called “herem,” separated from the community. According to the Jewish Virtual Library (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Excommunication.html), it generally applies to the same conditions as in Christianity.

Is it practiced today? Probably only among the Most ultra-orthodox sects within Judaism. Since inter-marriage is common, non-practicing Jews in the majority, the population diminishing and the general “live and let live” attitude among most Jews, it is probably not that big a deal anymore.

I generally agree with your statement -it is painful to more people than just the excommunicated or the ‘cast out’ person. It is the harshest and most serious action the church can take today and maybe sometimes they do get it wrong.

But then again the majority of those excommunicated bring it on themselves -I’m convinced of this after seeing many, many members ex’d.

In D&C it was know as being cast out as in 42:24 ,74-75, 80, 84:54 and many more. Seciton 102 explains in general terms how a church disciplinary council works including casting lots by numbers. But maybe Elder Ballards talk from 1990 is more appropriate here: http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=edc72150a447b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

Excommunication is a Christian invention. Following the death of Jesus (what Mormons call the apostasy), there were many forms of competing Christians, including Gnostics, Marcionites, and Orthodox Christians to name a few. Paul even mentions this in Galatians 1:8 “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”

From a Mormon perspective, the apostasy was well underway with all the competing versions of Christianity, so there was a need for “Orthodoxy”, which literally means “straight thinking.” Orthodox priests, such as St Ireneaus, excommunicated Gnostics as a means to keep Christianity pure, and to clearly define and prevent Gnostic heresy from creeping into the Orthodox church (note–there was no Catholic Church yet–the pope wouldn’t exist for a few more centuries.) When Constantine came to power, he didn’t just excommunicate the Gnostic Christians, he worked for their extermination, though I believe they lasted until about the 7th century or so.

While there are different forms of Judiasm (Orthodox, Liberal, Hassidic), they’ve never felt the need to excommunicate each other. I’m not sure why Christians seem to have this need of excommunication. I really like the Jewish position to let God be the judge. If seems to flow with Jesus admonition to “judge not” (or as the JST says, “judge not unrighteously.”)

I guess if you’re comfortable with excommunications and being intimidated enough by the spectre of them, then that’s as it should be for you. I am sickened by it — both the fact of them and the stifling atmosphere, pain and family alienations they engender.

I respect that these are all biblical but I also note that they’re also all OT. I thought the concept of dividing the Bible into OT and NT was that there was a new covenant. So I’d still like to hear what Jesus has to say about it. I mean before people are wrenched from their whole culture and their eternal families and their families from them.

Of course the BOM is also a new covenant so some reference from the BOM or the D&C that Cowboy suggested he’d find would be satisfying. But, really, I’d like most to know what Jesus had to say about it.

Ex. 12: 15 – “whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel.”

Lev. 7: 21 – “the soul that shall touch any unclean thing, as the uncleanness of man, or any unclean beast, or any abominable unclean thing, and eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which pertain unto the Lord, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.”

Mal. 2: 11-12 – “Judah hath profaned the holiness of the Lord which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god. The Lord will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the Lord of hosts.”

Gal. 5: 10-15 – “he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be . . . I would they were even cut off which trouble you . . . But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.”

2 Thes. 3: 6 – “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.”

It seems like our current excommunication rules are quite lenient compared to thoe of the Bible.

I’ll give you the point on the money changers, perhaps that is a bit of a stretch to make a solid case for excommunication. Though, symbollically I find that argument debatable, given the spiritual implication that a temple – even in Jewish belief – was a place where man came to be reconciled before God. Some of the rites performed in the temple included the High Priest carrying into the Holy of Holies stones symbollic of the twelve tribes of Israel, worn on a breastplate, all symbolic of communion with God. So for Jesus to drive the money changers out, does seem to bear a symbolic expression of that notion, though, albeit I agree that it was not an administrative procedure by any means.

The above notwithstanding, it is a bit audacious of you to accuse me of straining parables when the basis of your argument is an implication based on the absence of a bible verse giving Church leaders the authority to excommunicate. While a rule on who, how, and when to excommunicate is not presented in the bible, we can see that he who sat with sinners, and prostitutes, will eventually excommunicate those found on his left. As for “what did Jesus say about excommunication”, well there you have it, Matthew 25. If excommunication is a spiritually violent act, then how do you interpret the notion of Jesus casting the slothful and unwise steward into outer darkness where there is weeping, wailing, and nashing of teeth? We could split hairs about how Churchs approach the matter today, but we could do that with a good deal of the religious positions taken from ambiguous scripture. Suffice it to say, scripture tends to give more credence to the notion that there are occassions when excommunication is appropriate, so I find your rationalization on empty scripture, quite empty in and of itself.

And, mind pointing me to it in the D&C? No relevant scripture is occurring to me.

Yeap, that’s a good way to explain it.

#63 alice,

Jesus makes it clear in the D&C, but then one needs to accept the D&C as Jesus’ words too.

But yes, excommunication will usually be a “spiritually violent act” for the person excommunicated, many people will see it that way. But then after some time has passed some do see the difference between living without the gift of the HG and ask to return to church -but currently its only about 1 in 10 or so worldwide (there are stats on this in area offices and GA’s review these regularly)

Jesus may have disrupted the commerce of the money changers. He may even have thrown them out of the temple grounds but that’s a physical place. I don’t see that He excommunicated them from their personal covenants with HF.

IF Jesus wanted men to have the power to excommunicate other men doesn’t it seem that He would have made that clear? In the OT we have the Ten Commandments — specific, direct, tangible. In the NT we have the Two Great Commandments — equally unambivalent if broader in their scope. You are extrapolating and straining parables to get the result you’re looking for. I’m not buying it. Excommunication is a spiritually violent act — no less, I’m sure on the local authorities than the excommunicant. I’m sure if it were HF’s or His Son’s intent He would have had words to make that abundantly clear.

There is no indication that Jesus was throwing the money changers out of a religious community. He objected to and disrupted their commerce. He hated the “sin and not the sinner” if you will. But there is NO indication that he severed their ties with the temple.

I must have read past your mention of the money changers in your initial comment #255. Even so, I am not sure that there is any relevance in the arguement about whether they, the money changers, believed in Jesus. The commerce was based around providing oblations for hebrew offerings. Though I don’t know for certain, I would assume that they were probably Jewish, which interestingly enough, so was Jesus. It was not his intention to do away with the things of old, mosaic law, until after his ascension. In other words, if you are trying to make a case that when Jesus ran out the money changers, it was not the same as excommunication because they did not share religious beliefs, then I would urge you to think again. They were all at the same temple worshiping the same God, more or less. Needless to say, it is an example where Jesus did cast someone away, and we can only speculate on the permancy.

Regarding the five virgins, you are either taking a fairly innovative interpretation of that story, or you are not aware of it’s context and tradition interpretations. The wedding in this case is on occassion of the marriage of the Bridegroom, Jesus, and his Bride, the Church. This analogy is characterised throughout scripture in the context of The Second Coming of Jesus, including the Final Judgement. So those not found in attendance are those not “known” of Jesus, and therefore not reconciled unto salvation (Celestial Kingdom in a Mormon context), because he would not vouch for them at the gate or veil, whichever you prefer. Depending on whether one holds the somewhat unorthodox view of progression in the hereafter, again either through Kingdoms of Glory in Mormon theology, or from purgatory to grace in other Christian faiths, the general idea and broad ecumenical interpretation of that parable is that this expulsion is about as permanent as it gets.

With respect to the money changers in the temple, we don’t know anything about them except that they profaned the worship by turning the temple into a place of business. We don’t know if they professed to be followers of Jesus – which would more or less need to be the case if you wish this to be an illustration of Jesus establishing a precedent for excommunication. We don’t know how sincere in their hearts the money changers’ veneration of HF might have been when their business was concluded. We don’t know if these were actually the ones who had established the practice of operating business within the temple grounds, however, we can suppose that the priests and officials who operated the temple were equally being chastised by Jesus by extension. We only know that this is the only aggressive action recorded and that it was in response to conducting commerce under the guise of religion. In any case, I don’t see how this establishes that anyone is vulnerable in the community of the other faithful for being sinful or critical or voicing the differences that come prayerfully and sincerely.

If you read further down in that chapter Jesus seems to say that the Pharisees who abuse their authority will be ground to dust. A different message altogether and one to consider soberly.

With respect to the parable of the foolish virgins, I, again, don’t see that the intent of the story is to expel those who come up short. The virgins who had made the mistake of not planning to be ready were told to correct their mistake. When they did, they were not readmitted to the wedding. The wedding. An event. Not their futures on earth and their eternal progression. How does this tell us about having all of our eternities and the eternities of those who love us severed or grossly altered because of sin or criticism? If it does, then we might all have great insecurity because I’m sure we’re all wanting in some regards.

Nowadays, we know better, and just tell the weaker saints that they shouldn’t be offended, and that being offended over innocent actions is sinful.

A good starting point is Matthew 25. Jesus makes no bones about his willingness to expel the slothful and unwise servant, or seperating sheep from goats, or from shutting the door on the five unprepared virgins. You will also remember an occassion in Matthew 21, where Jesus entered the temple and overthrew the tables of the money changers and DROVE OUT, them that sold doves. So, while it certainly appears that the tenor of the New Testament writers is such that Jesus is emphasized for his compassion, we should still bear in mind that there are clear textual examples which nullify the presumption that formal Church discipline would somehow be against the Character of Jesus in all cases.

Home teachers and especially bishops regularly associate with sinners and maybe sometimes a reformed hooker or two or a lady about to become one!

But the expelling of some people is done with mostly two main goals in mind. One is to protect the church in case of harm, danger or false teaching and the other, more important, is to help the sinner repent by showing him what it is like to live without the gift of the Holy Ghost. Some people will change after seeing the difference but some others never will since they prefer the sinners’ lifestyle.

Richard

http://www.2bc.info/pdf/Nsustain.pdf

What did Christ ever say about excommunication? When did He, who associated with sinners and defended the prostitute, expel anyone? Other than the money changers but that wasn’t over sincere theology but profaning the divine.

Doesn’t a restored gospel have to begin with the gospel?

1) Members expectations of power, ie, democratic vs. theocratic. The Church is very much a theocracy, and the power is not evenly diffused from the top down. That is very inconsistent with what many of us have come to expect from both professional and civic life in America. While the corporate culture has not always been as “open” and flexible, it is really starting to become so. This theme carries the general American virtues of individuality and indenpence, so it can be offsetting to then participate in Church where the power structure feels quaint.

2) Relative to the first issue, the amount of control God is thought to have on day to events. If God is in control and is pushing for a smooth operation, then it seems reasonable to bite your tongue when middle management “f’up’s”, because God will set things right. If your belief is that God put us here to act then it can be frustruating to participate in a Church that really doesn’t have a reasonable channel to communicate up stream.

My own experience suggests that the Church would feel like it is undermining it’s position on the divinity of revelation and authority, if it were to suddenly create a mechanism where the rank and file suddenly have voice. This is true at even a Ward level, where often times the leadership does do stupid things. In those cases the only “appropriate” way for those things to be addressed is through a higher authority. In other words, while I agree with Elder Oaks to some small degree that it is appropriate to keep matters in context by not making mountains out of mole hills, the Church would prefer in the cases where issues could diminish the social value on inspired leadership, to have a mechanism that makes mole hills out of even mountains. Authority is very important to the Church, more so than the issues.

I know there is personal value in being heard, BiV. I know it’s so hard when you feel dismissed, and I imagine from the intensity of how you talk about this, you have experienced pain that perhaps I don’t even understand. I hope my discussion of this issue hasn’t made it sound like I don’t care. I struggle with all of this because even as I care about personal pain, I also care deeply about the negative impact that public disapproval and criticism has.

But perhaps I need to just back away from the conversation so as not to become a pain….

So, I’d be curious about what you think is acceptable.

Also, re: working w/ someone who is not practicing all the principles of D&C 121 — in your view, is there never any value in being long-suffering with such a situation?

I had a situation as a leader where that was happening, actually, and my file leaders took time to make changes. There may have been things to learn from working together in spite of the fact that there was a great amount of tension and really inappropriate behavior (with the youth, no less). The fact that my file leaders took time, though, showed that they wanted to be thorough about it all. I look back and appreciate that, because the she said/she said could have ended up against me. (Not that I was a perfect leader, but the disrespect and criticism without ever talking to me personally was so damaging to the work, and a bad example to the youth.)

I have also had leaders (female is the one in mind) who pretty much dismissed what I had to say in my calling, and was clearly threatened by my ideas. The bishop upheld her, and he probably should have. I look back and I was probably out of line…even though she still pretty much just didn’t know what to do with me in general. I finally figured out that it was just best to work with her rather than take her on. Sometimes the Lord calls people in spite of weakness, and I believe it’s sometimes our test and opportunities to lean on God to help us be patient and merciful with that.

And BiV, I know that may feel like passive and useless silence to you, but I don’t see it that way. It is sometimes in those times that I have grown a great deal through the process of letting go, forgiving, looking for the good, and moving on. I think it’s important to not dismiss that option of praying as always a negative. I see turning to God for a change of heart as a positive. The end goal, imo, doesn’t always have to be about being heard, does it? My opinion is obvious; I’m interested in your thoughts.