Stephen168
New member
You proved my point.
- Status
Stephen168
New member
What type of offenses resulted in excommunication?
P
ParkerD
Guest
More bishop’s courts result in “disfellowship” which means the person should not partake of communion and has ongoing interviews with the bishop, than result in “excommunication” which means they are no longer a member of the church and will be asked if they would like to seek a path toward repentance and re-baptism.
Breaking ten commandment number six, seven, or eight or spouse abuse or child abuse or those who follow the practice described in Titus 1:11–may result (when circumstances are evaluated), in a bishop’s court or a “high council” court within an LDS stake. Then, the decision of the court is sent to the First Presidency for ratification since they and the apostles have the keys of membership in the church (i.e. “binding on earth and in heaven”).
Stephen168
New member
Which commandments are they by name?
P
ParkerD
Guest
Hi, Stephen, and good day to you.
Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.
14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
15 Thou shalt not steal.
J
Jerusha
Guest
Seems like the early Mormons broke those with regularity, and a “few” others.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Hi, Jerusha, and good day to you.
The LDS understanding of the Judeo code and its application has been in certain cases different than the Catholic understanding and application of the Ten commandments, as you may be aware. The Ten commandments came from a religious background where people like Abraham and Jacob had more than one wife and it was considered acceptable. An important element within the LDS application of the Ten commandments is the ongoing principle of revelation to a living prophet, such as was Moses. Marriage is perhaps the best example of that ongoing principle and how the application of the commandment changed when revelation was received by the living prophet. Moses received the Ten commandments and the words that described their application. That is the important calling of the living prophet–to receive the will of God and teach it, then let people choose to live those commandments, or not, but to understand the consequences if they disobey without repentance.
The LDS understanding of the Judeo code and its application has been in certain cases different than the Catholic understanding and application of the Ten commandments, as you may be aware. The Ten commandments came from a religious background where people like Abraham and Jacob had more than one wife and it was considered acceptable. An important element within the LDS application of the Ten commandments is the ongoing principle of revelation to a living prophet, such as was Moses. Marriage is perhaps the best example of that ongoing principle and how the application of the commandment changed when revelation was received by the living prophet. Moses received the Ten commandments and the words that described their application. That is the important calling of the living prophet–to receive the will of God and teach it, then let people choose to live those commandments, or not, but to understand the consequences if they disobey without repentance.
S
SnakeMauler
Guest
Ok, but where does the whole God living on another planet and Jesus coming to America and whatnot fit in with that?
P
ParkerD
Guest
Let’s think. If you think Jesus Christ is resurrected and is still alive, then where He lives is a physical location somewhere that you define as “heaven”, where His feet walk on ground that is firm under His feet, no? So the “other planet” is “heaven”.
You may think that Jesus told everyone everything He ever did during His life and after His resurrection, but that would seem to be an unreasonable assumption. He did say He had “other sheep,” and He did have prophets of the Old Testament say that there would be a scattering of Israel to all parts of the world. He had an interest then and has an interest now in the people of the entire world, not just Jerusalem and the surrounding areas, and had a particular covenant interest in all the tribes of Israel. He has a much wider area of concern than you seem to think based on the assumption you have made.
But think as you wish–it’s your choice.
T
twopekinguys
Guest
There doesn’t seem to be much consistency in any of this.
Remember the Mormon Missionaries that posted pictures of themselves on the internet vandalizing and desecrating a Catholic Shrine? No ex-ing for them.
Then you have the guy that made the calendar of Mormon Missionaries shirtless. He got ex-ed in a minute, with no discipline for the guys that posed.
Just a little inconsistent don’t you think?
religionnewsblog.com/21757
I especially liked this quote (bolding mine):
Mormon Calendar-maker Chad Hardey was excommunicated from the Church of Latter Day Saints. Mormon Chad Hardey had been summoned by a council of church elders in Las Vegas to discuss his "conduct unbecoming of a member of the church."
Which commandment is that again? If people consistently got ex-ed for that, numbers would be way down dont’ you think?
associatedcontent.com/article/878291/topless_mormon_calendarmaker_excommunicated.html?cat=3
P
ParkerD
Guest
Twopekinguys,
The attitude of the person in the situation has a great deal to do with the decision of the bishop’s court or high council court, and the evidence of their desire to repent of whatever bad judgment and poor decision making that led to their particular poor choice. The cases and the decision making are not public matters–they are confidential matters.
But you might re-read Titus 1:11 and become aware that the church even in those times of old had an interest in protecting the members of the church from “subverting” or from using their membership in the church to go after “filthy lucre.”
The attitude of the person in the situation has a great deal to do with the decision of the bishop’s court or high council court, and the evidence of their desire to repent of whatever bad judgment and poor decision making that led to their particular poor choice. The cases and the decision making are not public matters–they are confidential matters.
But you might re-read Titus 1:11 and become aware that the church even in those times of old had an interest in protecting the members of the church from “subverting” or from using their membership in the church to go after “filthy lucre.”
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
BYU also won’t give him his diploma.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Which would be because he broke the honor code that he agreed to by signature when he chose to attend BYU.
X
Xavierlives
Guest
You know, Parker, I agree that in John we see Jesus talking about other sheep. I think I also agree that he was likely referring to the Gentiles.
and this all reminds me of some questions I asked some Mormons recently and they partially answered the questions.
Q1. So Jesus came to the Americas to share his message?
A1. Yes.
Q2. So did he establish a church here?
A2. Yes.
Q3. Did it fail too?
Q3. err…yes … [evade].
Q4. If Jesus just “left” the middle east on his heels, to go to America, why were the churches he established so different?
Q4. They weren’t. (personally I consider this an evade answer).
The question I didn’t ask which seems relevant now is
Q5. But aren’t those churches clearly different than the Mormon church now? As in, Aren’t the remnants of the “Old First Church” in America not what was used to establish the Mormon church?
X
Xavierlives
Guest
Err… he has graduated and they refuse to give him a diploma?
T
twopekinguys
Guest
So it isn’t a commandment. Again, it proves the inconsistencies.
What is the difference between what this guy did, and John Doe taking pictures of his family at the beach, and using it for their Christmas card that is mailed all over the country? With how many people in between seeing it?
I’ll save you from answering…NONE.
Also, you totally sidestepped how something as trivial as this gets excommunication, where missionaries ON their mission don’t
You also sidestepped how the missionaries on the calendar didn’t receive any punishment. Aren’t they just as guilty?
D
dianaiad
Guest
This is circular reasoning…with a bit of ‘true scott’ thrown in, aspirant.
Of course those who are aware of the differences between spontaneous and induced abortion are aware of which incurs latae sententaie excommunication and are comfortable with leaving the language as it is. However, the language IS what it is, saying ‘abortion,’ rather than using ‘induced,’ ‘unnatural’ or some other modifier–because it is expected that all who read it know what the authors meant.However. doing so leaves things wide open to equivocation, such as the argument that Stephan tried to use about murder; that ‘we don’t know if someone has murdered,’ and therefore the latae sententae excommunication wouldn’t be appropriate for that.
The problem here is that, just like everyone is aware what sort of abortion is being spoken of here, so is everyone aware of what sort of killing is being spoken of. Not the accidental taking of life, or the tragically necessary loss of life that happens in rescue choices, or war–but murder; the deliberate taking of a life because the killer really wants the victim to be dead.
The murderer always knows when he or she has committed murder. God does–and since the belief is that latae sententaie is instant and automatic, there is no need for anyone else to know whether murder was done. As long as the murderer knows…that’s it.
The same goes for procuring an abortion; that’s the other side of the problem with Stephan’s argument. It is quite possible for a woman to have an abortion and hide this from the authorities; it is quite possible for a woman to have an abortion and NOBODY knows about it–but her.
It seems to me that if a latae sententaie excommunication must be recognized as such before it goes into effect, then the whole idea behind it is defeated. The sinner, by desecrating the Host, attacking the Pope or a Bishop, procuring an abortion, ordaining a woman to the priesthood or (if he is a priest or she is a nun) breaking religious vows and getting married (a couple of other things, I think…I forget what…) has excommunicated himself or herself. If this excommunication is never recognized or understood by the church, evidentely, it doesn’t matter; God knows about it. Who else needs to know? It is then up to the sinner to start the rehabilitation process. It’s up to the sinner to go to a priest and say “I have done this thing or that thing…how can I come back?”
Excommunication latae sententaie seems to lay the entire burden upon the sinner–not only to know when and why, but to know what to do. Whereas a formal excommunication, being handled by earthly authorities, is a lot more concrete. Both result in the same thing; excommunication is excommunication; the results to the sinner are precisely the same.
The difference, it seems to me, is that a latae sententaei excommunication seems…like abandonment. The sinner is left standing in the dust with neither map nor instruction book; if he doesn’t do all the work to catch up, he remains excommunicated. A formal excommunication, though it may at first seem harsher (and certainly more public) than a latae sententaie (I’ll remember how to spell that one of these days…) excommunication, very clearly spells out the problem—and the remedy. The sinner has the comfort of knowing exactly where he stands at all times with the church.
That’s a problem with latae sententaie excommunications: this very anonymity. Since it IS automatic, and known only to the sinner and to God at first, the sinner can continue his or her life and lie to everybody else, committing one mortal sin after the other. That is very, very bad for him. One thing I have noticed about the purpose of excommunication for both Catholics and Mormons is that it is considered to be a tool of repentance; if one is not a member of the church, one cannot be judged according to the rules of that church. It gives the sinner time to adjust; to repent, and to come back. That is the stated goal of excomunication for Catholics, just as it is for Mormons. One of the reasons sinners are excommunicated is to give them a breather: (at least for us.) to give them the time, and the support, they need to evaluate the direction their lives have taken so that they may come back.
For Mormons, when one is excommunicated for a serious sin (like adultery or murder or whatever) we are doing them a huge favor. You see, for us, in order to come back, you must be rebaptized. That new baptism does precisely what the old one does: it wipes away all sins; one comes up from the waters of baptism as pure and sinless as the pre-apple Adam. That’s what we believe–so if we formally excommunicate people more than Catholics do, that’s why.
On the other hand, given latae sententaie excommunication and the abortion rate among Catholics (not to mention the other sins to which latae sententaie excommunication applies), it seems fairly obvious that in reality, there are a LOT more excommunicated Catholics wandering around than there are excommunicated Mormons.
If those excommunicated Catholics don’t choose to tell others about their status (including their priests, perhaps) doesn’t mean they are any less excommunicated.
Certainly the excommunication process as the Mormons work it is aimed at getting the excommunicant BACK.
T
twopekinguys
Guest
You’re right, but I believe he is appealing that. I am not sure if it is resolved or not.
I am on the fence with that though.
If (and I am sure he did), he did sign the honor code, then they may be right. But I am not sure how simple shirtless and fully clothed pictures on a calendar could break that code.
Just another one of those things that is very inconsistent.
X
Xavierlives
Guest
Uhhh… no.This is circular reasoning…with a bit of ‘true scott’ thrown in, aspirant.
Other than that. Carry on.
P
ParkerD
Guest
You seem to have missed that someone doing a calendar for advertising purposes and monetary purposes is in a different situation than someone sending out Christmas cards, but think as you wish.
- Status