what are the practical effects of excommunication?

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Indeterminate.

It often depends upon the nature of the sin.

that's the thing... He can take the sacrament. He is a home teacher. He just can't go to the temple. My bishop agrees that he should be reinstated and so does the stake president. Salt Lake is the only one holding up the process and they by nature of being 2000 miles away can't possibly know the full situation.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

that's the thing... He can take the sacrament. He is a home teacher. He just can't go to the temple. My bishop agrees that he should be reinstated and so does the stake president. Salt Lake is the only one holding up the process and they by nature of being 2000 miles away can't possibly know the full situation.

Why is something like this removed from the onsite local leaders? It seems odd. And SLC doesn't share with the locals, even after approval is granted, what the delay was. I wonder how often the delay was, "A Clerk had it in pending file and failed to get clerk's boss to look at it."

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Why is something like this removed from the onsite local leaders? It seems odd. And SLC doesn't share with the locals, even after approval is granted, what the delay was. I wonder how often the delay was, "A Clerk had it in pending file and failed to get clerk's boss to look at it."

Arraignment, trial, and sentence, all in one paragraph. GUILTY!

Nice.

[MikeWaters]

are non-members prohibited from partaking? I'm sure there is something written that the sacrament is supposed to be for members only. The truth is that the sacrament is only for those who have been baptized, you would think.

You can't renew covenants you haven't made. But we don't really take this seriously, in the sense that we must consider it more of a general rite of belief.

I wonder if the sacrament would mean more to kids if their parents didn't let them take it until they were baptized.

My point is that it's not like the deacons are going to specifically avoid passing the sacrament to the person who is excommunicated.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

are non-members prohibited from partaking? I'm sure there is something written that the sacrament is supposed to be for members only. The truth is that the sacrament is only for those who have been baptized, you would think.

You can't renew covenants you haven't made. But we don't really take this seriously, in the sense that we must consider it more of a general rite of belief.

I wonder if the sacrament would mean more to kids if their parents didn't let them take it until they were baptized.

My point is that it's not like the deacons are going to specifically avoid passing the sacrament to the person who is excommunicated.

Neither is the bishop going to come flying off the stand if the person he asked to abstain still partakes. Abstinence from taking the sacrament at the behest of a priesthood leader is an act of obedience and contrition. Someone who is unwilling to take even that small step really has not adopted a repentant attitude.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

are non-members prohibited from partaking? I'm sure there is something written that the sacrament is supposed to be for members only. The truth is that the sacrament is only for those who have been baptized, you would think.

From the Church Handbook of Instruction (this is the 1998 version but I dobut it has changed much):

Although the sacrament is for Church members, the bishopric should not announce that it will be passed to members only, and nothing should be done to prevent nonmembers from partaking of the sacrament.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Tex

Neither is the bishop going to come flying off the stand if the person he asked to abstain still partakes. Abstinence from taking the sacrament at the behest of a priesthood leader is an act of obedience and contrition. Someone who is unwilling to take even that small step really has not adopted a repentant attitude.

well that kind of proves my point. You can be excommunicated and unrepentant and still living with your girfriend, or cheating with your secretary and STILL attend church.

What would it take, for the person who quietly attends, to be forced to leave the grounds?

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Say you are excommunicated on a Saturday....

I assume there is no prohibition on showing up on Sunday to church right?

I suppose you would probably be asked not to partake of the sacrament? (who knows, we don't enforce this one very well since non-members and the very young often take it).

So you couldn't have a calling, and you couldn't given talks or prayers.

But for all intents and purposes, you could pretty much outwardly function as a member.

In other words, excommunication does not mean physical ostracization from the community?

The ward is the social unit in Utah. You excommicate someone, you do something no different than paint a scarlet A on them. Read the book if you want to know what the effects are.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by pelagius

From the Church Handbook of Instruction (this is the 1998 version but I dobut it has change much):

Pelagius, is there a carve-out for non-members who used to be members (i.e. the excommunicated)?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by jay santos

The ward is the social unit in Utah. You excommicate someone, you do something no different than paint a scarlet A on them. Read the book if you want to know what the effects are.

So when, if ever, should the church excommunicate someone?