what are the practical effects of excommunication? - Page 3 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

jay santos · 08-20-2007, 08:52 PM

Quote:

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.

It means Salt Lake turned down the petition. If he's been waiting weeks or months, then maybe it's a paperwork issue. If it's more than that, then Salt Lake turned down the petition and told him to apply again after X years.

pelagius · 08-20-2007, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

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

I didn't see anything. You can check here: http://www.provocation.net/chi/chi00.htm

P.S.

I am pretty sure the church sued over the handbook being on the net, but for whatever reason you can still find the 1998 version up.

MikeWaters · 08-20-2007, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jay santos

It means Salt Lake turned down the petition. If he's been waiting weeks or months, then maybe it's a paperwork issue. If it's more than that, then Salt Lake turned down the petition and told him to apply again after X years.

if they turned it down, wouldn't they tell the SP so? Or would they make the decision but never communicate it?

MikeWaters · 08-20-2007, 08:54 PM

You must have all heard the story of the apostle that was the only one who refused to let a man who had done much damage to the church (as the story goes) be rebaptized. But on the second time around, another apostle said something to him, or something happened (can't remember what) and he relented, and the message was about forgiveness.

One thing you can take away from the story is that it takes only one person to prevent you from returning.

Archaea · 08-20-2007, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

You must have all heard the story of the apostle that was the only one who refused to let a man who had done much damage to the church (as the story goes) be rebaptized. But on the second time around, another apostle said something to him, or something happened (can't remember what) and he relented, and the message was about forgiveness.

One thing you can take away from the story is that it takes only one person to prevent you from returning.

I believe it was Heber J. Grant as a young apostle, but perhaps I err.

jay santos · 08-20-2007, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

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

In my opinion? I don't see any evidence for excommunication in ancient scripture--at least for sins of weakness and not apostacy. I see a lot of evidence for immediate repentance.

It's not for me to decide, but I would welcome a day when no one was ever excommunicated except for severe apostacy or for very serious sin where there is no desire to repent. That probably goes the same for disfellowshipping.

Archaea · 08-20-2007, 08:57 PM

Even bishops and stake presidents wonder why decisions are made, and my limited experience is that no information is provided as for the reason for delays or for the reason for granting the petition. If both the stake president and bishop are on board, I fail to see the need for higher oversight.

Tex · 08-20-2007, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

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.

I'm gonna wager that the number of cases this applies to has to be infinitely small.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

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

My guess is, if the person were a danger, or if his presence was a disruption, for example two ex-spouses living remaining in the same ward boundaries. The latter is one of the rare instances where the First Presidency will make a boundary exception.

Borderline Divine · 08-20-2007, 08:59 PM

When I was a child, my father had fallen into inactivity at a certain point. Mom and the kids continued to attend every week.

One Sunday, for some reason dad came along with us. In the foyer a brother walked up and said for all to hear "Wow, I thought the roof was going to cave in."

Dad wasn't x'd or even in trouble. But he pretty much x'd himself from that day on.

Now before the defendeers rush in, I realize that the actions of one stupid member do not speak for the church, or even the ward.

My point is someone asked above what it would take to physically remove an unwelcome person at a church meeting. I think it would take care of itself pretty easily, as few people wish to go where they are not wanted.

JohnnyLingo · 08-20-2007, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jay santos

It's not for me to decide, but I would welcome a day when no one was ever excommunicated except for severe apostacy or for very serious sin where there is no desire to repent. That probably goes the same for disfellowshipping.

Very serious sin meaning what?

A lot of unrepentant people are ex'd.

08-20-2007, 08:57 PM	#27
Archaea Assistant to the Regional Manager Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Orgasmatron Posts: 24,338	Even bishops and stake presidents wonder why decisions are made, and my limited experience is that no information is provided as for the reason for delays or for the reason for granting the petition. If both the stake president and bishop are on board, I fail to see the need for higher oversight. __________________ Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα

08-20-2007, 08:59 PM	#29
Borderline Divine Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 40	I've seen one way to keep "unwelcome" people away from church When I was a child, my father had fallen into inactivity at a certain point. Mom and the kids continued to attend every week. One Sunday, for some reason dad came along with us. In the foyer a brother walked up and said for all to hear "Wow, I thought the roof was going to cave in." Dad wasn't x'd or even in trouble. But he pretty much x'd himself from that day on. Now before the defendeers rush in, I realize that the actions of one stupid member do not speak for the church, or even the ward. My point is someone asked above what it would take to physically remove an unwelcome person at a church meeting. I think it would take care of itself pretty easily, as few people wish to go where they are not wanted.

08-20-2007, 08:54 PM	#24
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	You must have all heard the story of the apostle that was the only one who refused to let a man who had done much damage to the church (as the story goes) be rebaptized. But on the second time around, another apostle said something to him, or something happened (can't remember what) and he relented, and the message was about forgiveness. One thing you can take away from the story is that it takes only one person to prevent you from returning.