Excommunication

[Tex]

Originally Posted by jay santos

we are all sinners =>
penitent sinners confess and forsake =>
forsake means to not commit again =>
if you commit a sin after attempting to repent, you are an unrepentant sinner

So in your mind the message of D&C 58:43 is: no one ever repents.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Tex

So in your mind the message of D&C 58:43 is: no one ever repents.

I think that's how you interpet it.

My interpretation is that you could probably write a book about what the word forsakes means in this instance. But your simple, hard-liner interpretation is for people with more of a desire to keep people away from God than bring them to him.

[cougarobgon]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Don't agree. And I think your last two sentences negate everything you said previously. It makes the rest sound like fake humility but the teeth is in how you feel about yourself above others in the last two sentences.

You are correct. The teeth is in how I feel about myself...but, with respect to how I believe that I should be judged. I am no better than anyone else regardless of the callings I have had in the Church. I just believe that with added experience and understanding comes additional responsibility and accountability.

Having said that, Would I recommend excommunication for a former bishop who has gone through a difficult period and experiences, especially difficult temptations? Again, there are too many factors to consider in determining if someone should be excommunicated. I don't think we can come up with a hypothetical situation in this blog that would mirror an individual's feelings or emotions or the Spirit (or lack thereof) that is present during a disciplinary council. All I can say to you is that I would go into a disciplinary council with the premise that with added experience and understanding comes additional responsibility and accountability. I would then listen intently, seek for understanding, seek counsel from others in the council, then pray and ask God for direction.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by jay santos

My interpretation is that you could probably write a book about what the word forsakes means in this instance.

Watering down the definition of the word would certainly be the first step in marginalizing the whole repentance process, and by extension, the necessity of the atonement.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Tex

Watering down the definition of the word would certainly be the first step in marginalizing the whole repentance process, and by extension, the necessity of the atonement.

Yuck

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

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".

Actually, it's the men in the church court who are attempting to determine level of repentance and degree of punishment. I would rather they stay out of it and if a person wants back in, leave it to God to leave them out.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by exUte

once. Actually he was repentant long enough to be allowed to baptize his son and then quite coming to church and kept up his behavior. Wonderful guy.

So I guess you're implying that this decision to allow him back wasn't inspired? Interesting. I didn't think these courts made mistakes.

More evidence that this is a process best left between the sinner and God.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by exUte

1) Where much is given, much is expected.

2) Let the good times roll. Let's set up confessional booths and let the party begin.

I'm glad that the threat of excommunication is the only thing keeping you from "letting the good times roll". Sounds like a healthy spirituality to me.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

Actually, it's the men in the church court who are attempting to determine level of repentance and degree of punishment. I would rather they stay out of it and if a person wants back in, leave it to God to leave them out.

It is God who has instructed the men in a disciplinary council to do what it is they do.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by cougarobgon

50/50.

#1 - Male Member w/ Female Non Member.
*Ward bishopric held disciplinary council. Member Disfellowshipped. Rtd to full fellowship.
*Still married.

#2 - Male Member w/ Female Member
*Ward Bishopric held disciplinary council for female member. Female member disfellowshipped. Rtd to full fellowship.
*SP held disciplinary council with male member. Male member excommunicated and has never been rebaptized.
*Both couples still married.

Why are men and women treated differently? This is not the first time I've seen this. In fact, I can't think of a single case of a woman being excommunicated.

Case 2 also illustrates the potential harm in excommunication.