Excommunication
 

My question is how long does the process take? Assuming he met with the Stake President today will he be excommunicated by the end of the week or will it take longer. Further, because of his status in the church will they be announcing this over the pulpit?

I would think that regardless of how long it took, that it would be something that the Stake would try to push through quietly.

I wonder why a person in his shoes would accept such a calling. Or did the stake president's inspired, prayerful decision to call him come before the affairs commenced?

I've never seen something like this announced over the pulpit, but you never know.

It will probably take a little longer than a week, but not too long.

What fun is that?

There was a prominent SP in Salt Lake, part of his prominence was because he was the SP for many of the GA's. One of my friends was in his Stake and he said he was the toughest SP he had ever had when it came to chastity. He constantly harped on it and was very tough on the subject in Temple Recommend interviews.

He had an affair and was allowed to apologize at a Stake Conference. My friend said he felt like he was watching a Jimmy Swaggert rerun. I like it better when these guys repent and go through the process quietly and on their own.

It depends, but typically from a couple of weeks to around a month or so. Letters of notification, everyone arranging schedules, a little paperwork.

They guy in Arizona, who taped his church court, apparently his excommunication was announced over the pulpit in all the wards of his stake.

It was already all over the internet, thanks to the guy that taped his own excommunication.

There's ALWAYS a question whether he will be exed. His public position makes it a little more likely but when none of us know the details, we can't know how things will go down. I've been surprised (pleasantly) by several cases of people I've known who were not ex'ed. It seems that the Church is moving away from automatic excomunication.

Also, in both of the recent cases I've known, the process has taken several (3-4) months. It's true that if schedules align, they could do it quickly, but in both of these cases, the stake president wanted to take time to get to know the person, the circumstances, the efforts at repentance, etc. I think that's wise.

I don't like making conroversial statements, however I think excommunications are handled much like HC violations at BYU.

The criteria for whether one gets ex'd has to do with 1) amount of contrition, 2) visibility of person being disciplined, 3) PR considerations.

The sin itself is secondary.

By the way, I think there's almost never a reason to excommunicate somone. The two exceptions I can think of is: 1) No desire for repentance or change and 2) public profile. I'm even doubtful on 2) as I think there are much worse things that can happen to the church's reputation than someone making a mistake and attempting to correct it.

does the church actually look better, when it kicks out it's members for sin?

I'm saying, if you are looking for good PR, it is good PR to excommunicate someone for an affair?

I think it probably has more to do with sending a signal to the other members about what it takes to remain a member.

Agreed. I don't think it helps the Church's image at all to excommunicate someone who made a mistake.

I am also inclined to believe that based upon his position that the excommunication is a foregone conclusion. That said, there will still need to be a court with the SP and the High Counsel and time for him to bring any witnesses he may wish to in his defense, as well as time for any of those who have been harmed to testify if they wish to. The logistics may take some time.

I would hope that something like this can be dealt with in private as much as possible and without the need for an announcement over the pulpit. Unfortunately this sort of secret is is rarely well kept. I would assume that most of the stake will learn of it, if not the details of it, pretty quickly.

When it comes to these things, PR I am talking about is the PR within the membership of the church.

Back to BYU, do you really think anyone cares or or thinks positively when BYU announces they have kicked a kid out because he had sex, consentual sex. Maybe some Islamic mullah somewhere applauds, but other than that the PR is for membership consumption.

If the only thing keeping your pants on is your membership in the church, your'e not gonna make it too long.

Still doesn't make sense.

I know it is due to my low IQ, but your comments went right over my head.

I'm wondering what you mean by "church PR". Does it mean that by "punishing" members in the church by excommunication, we'll discourage others from doing the same thing? I don't think that works.

I would probably agree with you, but it is what those in charge think works. I would say 90% of LDS people are into forgiveness. Watch the sinners who recognize their sin and ask for forgiveness. They are almost rock stars at church. Why, I don't know.

Try not going to church for 6 months and then show up. See if you ever have had so many people come up to you with a huge smile and say they really glad to see you.

Most of this I believe is very sincere, but some of it is programmed into us.

On the other hand, those in charge have a dual role. They want members to feel they can sin and come back and be forgiven, they actually want them too. On the other hand they don't want members thinking at decision time that there aren't serious consequences for bad behavior.

When these issues become highly public, that is when the PR part comes in. Anyone knows PR and image plays a big role in what happens with the HC and discipline.

also, if you screw up real bad and you aren't Mormon, there will be no welcoming arms. Don't forget that.

This hasn't happened since Ronney Jenkins, Mikeli Wesley and Reno Mahe almost ten years ago.

I think I agree with you. I don't agree with the thought that it's the leader's job to show there are consequences to bad behavior (but I don't think that's your personal opinion). The real consequences have nothing to do with excommunication.

What hasn't happened, sex? I think what you can safely say is that there hasn't been a leak about it.

Also, do you think in each of the sex scandals during the Crowton era if it hadn't gotten to the press, it wouldn't have been handled differently. Before you go off, remember all the kids who got kicked out. I believe if it had been handled internally, a lot fewer kids would have been kicked off.

I don't believe consensual sex is grounds for getting kicked out of BYU anymore. No one in the athletic program has been kicked out for it in almost ten years.

SexGate1 was undisputedly consensual. SexGate2 is another matter.

I'll try again with a definition.

Consensual sex between a man and a woman where no rape allegations are made.

I'm always up for a challenge and this looks like a good one.

I am betting Bishops are more likely to sign continuing ecclesiastical endorsements with athletes than students. The athletes are not going to be routed through a hard-a**.

what the players in the Crowton era got in trouble for was a wild sex party with rape allegations. That's a lot different. I know you love to beat this drum, but those players would have been kicked out at a lot of schools, not just BYU.

I hope you are right. My guess is if some high profile player got a girl prenant or if it was alleged in the newspaper he had sex with her, there would be a good chance he would be gone.

I would say BYU does a great job of keeping this stuff quiet, so much so that if anyone asked me if any BYU players had consentual sex outside of the bonds of marriage, I would have to answer, no. At least based on what I have heard in the media.

Agreed. It was the guy's own
 

doing.

A person I am doing business with was the executive secretary to the SP. They were shocked when I exposed the guy's youtube entry.

It was a setup from the beginning by the guy taping the council.

Well, then you've never
 

participated in a stake disciiplinary council. How about child sexual abuse?

I'm ok with ex'ing over child abuse. Just don't hide it from the authorities.

Are there any accounts of Christ excommunicating someone from his church in the NT? (Not trolling, just don't have my scriptures available).

I met a Mennonite proselyter on a trip recently that used 1 Cor 5:13 in his literature to show God's true church should excommunicate obstinate sinners. He said if a Mennonite had a TV and refused to give it up, he would be excommunicated.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_cor/5

Ah, the child abuse card. Useful in any argument, from excommunication to capital punishment. You can't advocate for anything but public flogging, drawing and quartering, without looking like you're condoning child abuse.

No, I'm not really sure what purpose excommunication does, even in the case of a repentant child abuser. Enlighten me.

For a time, I actually worked with a group of sexual offenders. Guess what? God loves them (but probably not as much as those who "have sat on disciplinary councils"). Some of the most touching testimonies of the Atonement came from that group.

Agreed. But I don't see a purpose to excommunicating a repentant sinner.

he not only had an affair he solicited a hooker on state street

Reminds me of a friend, who stated, if he's going out, he's going out in style, doing things he wants to do.

He later became a bishop, not a stake president though. Rogue Stake Presidents seem relatively rare given the years of being in the leadership which is required to rise to that level.