Excommunication

[8ballrollin]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

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

Yeah, I remember that now.

[cougarobgon]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

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

I agree. If your typical member, endowed or non endowed, has truly repented of a sin, (let's assume adultery for my example) has confessed to the offended party, i.e. wife, family, etc., as well as having gone to his Bishop, I believe most Bishops/SPs are compassionate enough to not consider ex-communication as a form of discipline. However, let's take some one like me who is endowed, is a returned missionary, is sealed in the temple, and has served as a Bishop, I believe and expect that I would be excommunicated. Is the Bishop or SP less compassionate with me? I don't think so. To me it is very simple, someone in my situation should known better. I have absolutely no excuses. The knowledge, the experience, and the covenants I have made in the temple, put me at a higher level of accountability than others. Having said that, if I have truly repented of the sin, I believe I would have the capacity to accept the discipline and would take the necessary steps to return to full fellowship.

I held several disciplinary councils during my time serving as Bishop. I don't ever recall recommending that we excommunicate a truly repantant individual despite the seriousness of the sin. There were some members who actually seemed disappointed at our decision to not ex-communicate them. Some I believe were disappointed that we took from them an opportunity to be re-baptized. How many on this board haven't at one time or another asked themselves, I wish I could start over and be re-baptized? I have. This of course is a silly thought as I can renew my baptismal covenants every Sunday when I partake of the Sacrament.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by cougarobgon

I agree. If your typical member, endowed or non endowed, has truly repented of a sin, (let's assume adultery for my example) has confessed to the offended party, i.e. wife, family, etc., as well as having gone to his Bishop, I believe most Bishops/SPs are compassionate enough to not consider ex-communication as a form of discipline. However, let's take some one like me who is endowed, is a returned missionary, is sealed in the temple, and has served as a Bishop, I believe and expect that I would be excommunicated. Is the Bishop or SP less compassionate with me? I don't think so. To me it is very simple, someone in my situation should known better. I have absolutely no excuses. The knowledge, the experience, and the covenants I have made in the temple, put me at a higher level of accountability than others. Having said that, if I have truly repented of the sin, I believe I would have the capacity to accept the discipline and would take the necessary steps to return to full fellowship.

I held several disciplinary councils during my time serving as Bishop. I don't ever recall recommending that we excommunicate a truly repantant individual despite the seriousness of the sin. There were some members who actually seemed disappointed at our decision to not ex-communicate them. Some I believe were disappointed that we took from them an opportunity to be re-baptized. How many on this board haven't at one time or another asked themselves, I wish I could start over and be re-baptized? I have. This of course is a silly thought as I can renew my baptismal covenants every Sunday when I partake of the Sacrament.

wait a sec, you are saying that non-bishops have an excuse, but former bishops don't?

[cougarobgon]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

wait a sec, you are saying that non-bishops have an excuse, but former bishops don't?

Absolutely Not. There is no excuse or justification with respect to committing sin regardless of an individuals' calling in the Church, their knowledge, or their experience. Sin is Sin.

What I was attempting to convey in my post was that any action Church leaders take on an individuals membership, will undoubtedly be influenced by who the individual is. Personally, I have examined my life many times and I know that I have a clear knowledge of the covenants I have made. Using the word "excuses", may have been a poor choice of words, but, I cannot imagine any circumstances that could lead me to commit adultery, that would be considered by a disciplinary council and cause them to render a decision other than excommunication.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by cougarobgon

Absolutely Not. There is no excuse or justification with respect to committing sin regardless of an individuals' calling in the Church, their knowledge, or their experience. Sin is Sin.

What I was attempting to convey in my post was that any action Church leaders take on an individuals membership, will undoubtedly be influenced by who the individual is. Personally, I have examined my life many times and I know that I have a clear knowledge of the covenants I have made. Using the word "excuses", may have been a poor choice of words, but, I cannot imagine any circumstances that could lead me to commit adultery, that would be considered by a disciplinary council and cause them to render a decision other than excommunication.

What if your wife were to be incapacitated in such a way, whether physically or mentally, you 1) could not meaningfully communicate with her, and 2) could not have sexual relations with her.

I'm sure you would be up to this challenge, but you never know what temptation might set upon you 30 years into the ordeal.

[CardiacCoug]

Originally Posted by RC Vikings

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

OK, that made me laugh.

[RC Vikings]

Originally Posted by cougarobgon

I agree. If your typical member, endowed or non endowed, has truly repented of a sin, (let's assume adultery for my example) has confessed to the offended party, i.e. wife, family, etc., as well as having gone to his Bishop

What good does it do to confess and apologize to a wife and family if they don't know anything about the adultery? If three people in the world knew about the affair, the couple and the bishop, and the couple knew it was wrong and really wanted to change what would be gained by making the family hurt like that and possibly causing a divorce?

[exUte]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

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.

in the Church. How about an apostate who comes to church and tries to persuade others to join him? How about a convicted felon?

I guess in your book, mercy robs justice all the time? Interesting. Moronic, but interesting nevertheless.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

wait a sec, you are saying that non-bishops have an excuse, but former bishops don't?

much about disciplinary councils. I love reading what the uninformed have to say.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

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

Excommunication is sometimes and obviously part of the repentance process and is sometimes a neccessary part or step, although I know the intellectual mullahs on here will typically disagree with that.

Whether you like that or agree with it is completely irrelevant.

You're also assuming you understand how to define "repentant sinner".