Something I don't get about apostates

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

My understanding is that Rodan attends in Las Vegas. They have a big tent there.

What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Of course, I can't think of any time when the church leaked the news about anyone's excommunication, but I believe that if the Church would just have a spokesman just say "Yes, so-and-so was excommunicated as a result of his or her own actions" and leave it at that, that would be the better way to go.

I like the complete silence about reasons. We should not speculate and persons blathering in the media are their own worst enemies.

I know that excommunication though rarely results in repentance. That is my point. Isn't our entire raison d'etre is to preach repentance, to encourage people to repent and help them to want to do the right thing? I'm not certain we approach excommunication in a manner that achieves that.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I like the complete silence about reasons. We should not speculate and persons blathering in the media are their own worst enemies.

I know that excommunication though rarely results in repentance. That is my point. Isn't our entire raison d'etre is to preach repentance, to encourage people to repent and help them to want to do the right thing? I'm not certain we approach excommunication in a manner that achieves that.

I've never thought about excommunication as a step toward repentance which it really is. Perhaps the church needs to do a better job teaching that it is a step in the right direction rather than a punishment.

I appreciate you making that point, as it certainly give me something to think about.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

I've never thought about excommunication as a step toward repentance which it really is. Perhaps the church needs to do a better job teaching that it is a step in the right direction rather than a punishment.

I appreciate you making that point, as it certainly give me something to think about.

Certain acts require certain punishments in order to obtain forgiveness. So excommunication is a necessitated punishment that eventually opens the door to obtaining forgiveness.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Certain acts require certain punishments in order to obtain forgiveness. So excommunication is a necessitated punishment that eventually opens the door to obtaining forgiveness.

I understand that, but I've always seen excommunication as a punishment for the act, rather than the first step toward repentance. That's more my fault than a failure of the Church teaching me that, but that's probably because it's a harsh step.

I suppose it's all on the focus of the individual. I need to view it with less emphasis as a punishment.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

I've never thought about excommunication as a step toward repentance which it really is. Perhaps the church needs to do a better job teaching that it is a step in the right direction rather than a punishment.

I appreciate you making that point, as it certainly give me something to think about.

One of the difficulties might be those who need the instruction won't really understand that.

It seems that those in charge need to address the affected member, listening to the activity, and instructing them. "hey, brother, as you might imagine, these actions are harmful. We need a course of action to help you. These are some of our options, and here's why we believe this course is the one we're choosing."

Instead, it's more court like with official, cold declaration shoving the member away.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You are just going right back to where we started.

Assumptions:

A person intends to hurt the church. A person does everything in their power to hurt the church by writing a paper and trying to get it published. If a third party accepts the paper for publication, the person is excommunicated. If a third party does not accept the paper, the person is not excommunicated.

The act for which the person SHOULD be excommunicated, if it is worthy of excommunication, would be the intent to harm the church and the attempt to harm the church. The excommunication in theory would be to help that person repent.

You want to say that the excommunication occurs because they did, in fact, succeed in hurting the church. In reality, the only difference between the person who failed and the person who succeeded was the intercession of a willing third party. Does a person who can't find a willing third party have less of a need of repentance? Hard to argue that. The actions and intentions of both people are hypothetically identical, but the punishment is not. Which indicates to me that the excommunication is more of a punitive measure in that instance (or a PR measure for the church) than it is a measure of repentance.

Excommunication, or discipline in general, boils down to evidence. The church cannot go around willy-nilly excommunicating people it thinks might be "rogue" apostates. If you are unsuccessful in your publication attempts and your apostate writings are sitting quietly on your hard drive, how should the church know of (or prove) your apostasy?

Additionally, I assert that when a person has done more damage to the church, their repentance must needs be greater ... and sometimes that requires greater discipline.

I've never thought about excommunication as a step toward repentance which it really is. Perhaps the church needs to do a better job teaching that it is a step in the right direction rather than a punishment.

I think if you look to official church publications, this is very clear. It's the automatic perjorative notion carried by the word "excommunication" combined with one-sided press accounts of actual occurances that gives it a vengeful feel. If you've ever participated in a proper disciplinary council, you'll know they can be quite the spiritual experience--for that very reason. The need and desire for the atonement is no clearer than in that moment.

Instead, it's more court like with official, cold declaration shoving the member away.

This does not describe the councils I have been a part of.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

One of the difficulties might be those who need the instruction won't really understand that.

It seems that those in charge need to address the affected member, listening to the activity, and instructing them. "hey, brother, as you might imagine, these actions are harmful. We need a course of action to help you. These are some of our options, and here's why we believe this course is the one we're choosing."

Instead, it's more court like with official, cold declaration shoving the member away.

All I can tell you is from the two excommunicated members I'm familiar with, the excommunication was neither cold, nor shoving.

I think the characterization is more dependent on the attitude of the offending party than it is the disciplinary council. People that go astray, but recognize they were wrong and have a desire to eventually return to church will not feel like the church was cold and callous.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

All I can tell you is from the two excommunicated members I'm familiar with, the excommunication was neither cold, nor shoving.

I think the characterization is more dependent on the attitude of the offending party than it is the disciplinary council. People that go astray, but recognize they were wrong and have a desire to eventually return to church will not feel like the church was cold and callous.

There is more than a little bit of truth to this. However, you have to understand the affected member, even one desirous of repenting. I have several friends, one who just returned successfully, so I'm better aware of it now. Once I would have believed as everybody else that everything we do in the process is hunky dory.

If only five percent of excommunicated members seek rebaptism, that's horrible and we're not effective.

Here are sentiments an affected member has. He or she will feel embarrassed by the actions. They are not as in tune with spiritual matters and will be more defensive. They believe, probably wrongly so, everybody is pointing fingers at them. When they no longer take the sacrament, they feel all eyes are upon them. Once they were able to speak in meetings, now they must be silent. They withdraw and by withdrawing members also pull away.

The court process is not comfortable. More effort to educate people how to conduct them is needed. I remember in the bishopric having very little training on this issue.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

If only five percent of excommunicated members seek rebaptism, that's horrible and we're not effective.

Where did you get that number?