what are the practical effects of excommunication?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Don't play stupid, it's unbecoming. Your confess and forsake doctrine was crux to your whole argument. Even if it's not, it's an interesting tangent isn't it?

It's not "my" confess and forsake doctrine ... it comes from D&C 58:43 and must be referenced in at least a hundred General Conference talks, not to mention church curricula. I think it's even a Scripture Mastery scripture for seminary students. Honestly, if you want to understand what it means, all you have to do is look.

As it pertains to serious sin, setting conditions for regaining full fellowship is standard church practice, including "time limits." The handbook even explicitly indicates that in the case of disfellowshipment, it "is intended to be temporary but usually lasts at least one year." For excommunication: "almost always lasts at least one year." The purpose is for the member to "[show] true repentance and [satisfy] the conditions imposed."

[Tex]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

IMO the only ex'able offenses are as follows:

a. sexual offenses where a victim is involved
b. openly and actively against the church
c. murder

I'm trying not to get too handbook quote happy here because I know it just drives some of you crazy, but here's a synopsis of excommunicatible offenses:

1. Serious transgression, especially of temple covenants. Taken into consideration are elements such as: type of covenant violated, position of trust or authority, repetition, magnitude, the transgressors age/maturity/experience, the interests of the innocent, the time between transgression and confession, the attitude of the transgressor (particularly if confession was voluntary), and other evidence of repentance.

2. Disfellowshipped members who have not repented and "for whom excommunication seems to offer the best hope for reformation."

3. Members whose conduct makes them a serious threat to others and whose membership facilitates access to victims.

4. Leaders and prominent members whose transgressions significantly impair the name or influence of the church.

It is mandatory for murder, and almost always required for incest.

Seems like that loosely fits most people's desired definitions, does it not?

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Except for Jay Santos, who seems to think that that person should be able to continue to perform priesthood blessings.

Hey Alma thought it too. I'm in good company.

[Taq Man]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

OK, forget it. Just give me the next store-robbing, fudgepacking guy that has a bottle of olive oil in the pantry and let him come over and heal my daughter.

I thought that it was faith that healed? Not the degree of "worthiness" of the blessing givers. Faith and worthiness are not mutually exclusive. The Lord's will is going to be done in the end regardless of who says the prayer.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Tex

The D&C indicates that a truly repentant person will confess and forsake his sins. Time limits are generally the way a bishop or SP can know if a person has truly forsaken his sin, given that "you cannot always judge the righteous, or ... cannot always tell the wicked from the righteous" (D&C 10:37).

Sorry, had to break for FHE. I have a lot to teach my kids to undue the legalism you teach them at church.

You've avoided this for about 12 posts in a row now, and I don't know why I expect you to stop avoiding the question, but I'll try one last time.

"Confess and forsake" is certainly a true doctrine. But your interpretation is what's faulty. You're assuming that a repeat of a sin is evidence that the person never was truly repentant. Given that belief, what you're saying is that any sin you commit more than once: dishonesty, selfishness, greed, lust, anger, laziness, etc (you're a great guy Tex but I'm sure there's one in there that gives you problems) by definition, you've never truly repented of that sin. And if you don't approach the sacrament, exercising faith in Christ and truly repenting of your sins, then you do it unworthily.

If you hang someone with this interpretation of "confess and forsake", you're hanging yourself too, unless you deny repeating any sin ever.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Taq Man

I thought that it was faith that healed? Not the degree of "worthiness" of the blessing givers. Faith and worthiness are not mutually exclusive. The Lord's will is going to be done in the end regardless of who says the prayer.

It's sad what legalists like Indy and Tex do to other members of the church, but almost worse what they do to themselves and their loved ones. You either have to go to a place where you consider yourself sinless or you must beat yourself up constantly for not measuring up.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by jay santos

...You either have to go to a place where you consider yourself sinless or you must beat yourself up constantly for not measuring up.

One may as well be a Catholic if this is the case.

I agree with you here Jay. I've decided to heed the words of Pres. Hinkley a few years ago when he counselled us to "just do the best you can."

[Tex]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Sorry, had to break for FHE. I have a lot to teach my kids to undue the legalism you teach them at church.

You've avoided this for about 12 posts in a row now, and I don't know why I expect you to stop avoiding the question, but I'll try one last time.

"Confess and forsake" is certainly a true doctrine. But your interpretation is what's faulty. You're assuming that a repeat of a sin is evidence that the person never was truly repentant. Given that belief, what you're saying is that any sin you commit more than once: dishonesty, selfishness, greed, lust, anger, laziness, etc (you're a great guy Tex but I'm sure there's one in there that gives you problems) by definition, you've never truly repented of that sin. And if you don't approach the sacrament, exercising faith in Christ and truly repenting of your sins, then you do it unworthily.

If you hang someone with this interpretation of "confess and forsake", you're hanging yourself too, unless you deny repeating any sin ever.

For the "12th time", I was referring to serious sin, which was the context of your question. One is not typically disciplined for generic "dishonesty, selfishness, greed, lust, anger, laziness, etc" nor is a time table set by priesthood leadership for one's repentance of such sins.

It's curious why you keep insisting on putting words in my mouth and then demanding that I defend them.

Originally Posted by jay santos

It's sad what legalists like Indy and Tex do to other members of the church, but almost worse what they do to themselves and their loved ones. You either have to go to a place where you consider yourself sinless or you must beat yourself up constantly for not measuring up.

What a cruel thing to say.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Hey Alma thought it too. I'm in good company.

Before repentance had taken place? Link?

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Tex

For the "12th time", I was referring to serious sin, which was the context of your question. One is not typically disciplined for generic "dishonesty, selfishness, greed, lust, anger, laziness, etc" nor is a time table set by priesthood leadership for one's repentance of such sins.

It's curious why you keep insisting on putting words in my mouth and then demanding that I defend them.



What a cruel thing to say.

I love this sin category creation you do: serious vs not serious.

Serious: all those sins other people do

Not serious: all those sins I do