Something I don't get about apostates

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I think it is a bit odd because the purpose of excommunication, according to the church, is to help a person repent. The actual reason for the excommunication you are hinting at is primarily related to the damage and negative publicity the person brought to the church (which makes the excommunication sound a bit more like PR or punishment than repentance). If that person's actions alone were sufficient to excommunicate them, then they would be excommunicated even if their publication didn't get a lot of attention.

So it seems a bit odd to me.

It's also to protect the reputation of the church. Hence the penalty for a bishop will be greater than the penalty for the average joe.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I think it is a bit odd because the purpose of excommunication, according to the church, is to help a person repent. The actual reason for the excommunication you are hinting at is primarily related to the damage and negative publicity the person brought to the church (which makes the excommunication sound a bit more like PR or punishment than repentance). If that person's actions alone were sufficient to excommunicate them, then they would be excommunicated even if their publication didn't get a lot of attention.

So it seems a bit odd to me.

Could not teaching someone that their behavior is damaging the church be a part of the repentance process?

And is it not true that the more people your sin hurts, the more drastic and more serious the remedy?

[Archaea]

The difficulty I have with the appearance approach to excommunication turns on the fact, we claim God is no respecter of persons, but if it appears bad the Church becomes greatly offended and is quick to excommunicate.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

...or as a matter of artistic or intellectual expression they wish to explore areas The Church finds unsavory/embarassing/unacceptable/dangerous.

Like Rodan's The Kiss?

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Like Rodan's The Kiss?

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

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

It's also to protect the reputation of the church. Hence the penalty for a bishop will be greater than the penalty for the average joe.

I always understood the penalty for a bishop being larger because the bishop had more knowledge, not because he had more influence.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The difficulty I have with the appearance approach to excommunication turns on the fact, we claim God is no respecter of persons, but if it appears bad the Church becomes greatly offended and is quick to excommunicate.

You are going to have to work a little harder for the small-minded like myself to understand how "no respecter of persons" is mutually exclusive with excommunication for open apostasy.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I always understood the penalty for a bishop being larger because the bishop had more knowledge, not because he had more influence.

The only story I remember was one told by or about N. Eldon Tanner. A stake president reported an indiscretion for which he was immediately excommunicated. The president complained or commented to Elder Tanner, that never in his life had he ever been so rough on the membership for which he had stwewardship. Elder Tanner explained, "You should have known better."

The reporter of this incident explained, missionaries and leadership are held to a higher standard.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The difficulty I have with the appearance approach to excommunication turns on the fact, we claim God is no respecter of persons, but if it appears bad the Church becomes greatly offended and is quick to excommunicate.

Agreed. While I believe that all who are excommunicated have nobody to blame but themselves, there seems to be a lot of damage control done by the church when it becomes public.

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.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Could not teaching someone that their behavior is damaging the church be a part of the repentance process?

And is it not true that the more people your sin hurts, the more drastic and more serious the remedy?

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.