While continuing in President Hinckley’s challenge last night, I came across the following passage in Mosiah 26:34?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú36:
And it came to pass that Alma went and judged those that had been taken in iniquity, according to the word of the Lord.
And whosoever repented of their sins and did confess them, them he did number among the people of the church;
And those that would not confess their sins and repent of their iniquity, the same were not numbered among the people of the church, and their names were blotted out.
So why don’t we do this today? Why not purge the church of dead wood? Would we better off? Verse 37 said that as a result of his efforts, Alma saw many people join the church after such purging.
I vote ‘yes’ on the purging.
…and if you need a little help, perhaps some part-time labour, in order to process all of the purged in my area, I’d be glad to pitch in.
Oh my. This sort of policy would start a real controversy where I live.
Are you suggesting that we don’t excommunicate people anymore? How is it that we don’t do this today?
I saw my Dad stay inactive all my life. he supported us in our callings and efforts bu he seldom went to church. (Maybe Christmas) But then a home teacher came along and made the difference.
If he would have been taken from the church records would it have turned out the same?
Would the home teacher still have been in the house?
“Are you suggesting that we don’t excommunicate people anymore?”
Not at all. In fact, up until recently—when he requested me not too—I home taught someone who had been excommunicated. It is rare, however, to excommunicate someone who never comes out to church.
“If he would have been taken from the church records would it have turned out the same?”
Good question. I wonder if Alma ran into similar problems.
I’m sure it was slightly different for Alma. He probably didn’t have a computer to keep track of all the inactives. He may have had scrolls or some other primitive way of keeping track of members. If he would have tried to keep track of everyone, I can only imagine how bad it would have been for the ward membership clerk…
I don’t suppose those who were dissenting to the Lamanites or joining the Gadianton Terrorist Organization bothered to request that their names be removed from the records…
“I don’t suppose those who were dissenting to the Lamanites or joining the Gadianton Terrorist Organization bothered to request that their names be removed from the records…”
…which of course happened after Alma’s purging.
I imagine Alma had similar problems at the time. Anyway, I wasn’t offering that point as an argument against you. Just saying that like today, it’s difficult to do a “purge” as well as one would like because those who have, in effect, “purged” themselves are not always helpful.
I’m sure the requirement for them to send a letter doesn’t help either.
It’s not helpful in an administrative sense–it makes the job harder. But it’s helpful in fulfilling another important objective: Not withdrawing blessings from people who haven’t made a firm and well-deliberated decision to eschew them.
One of my favorite stories about Brigham Young was about a woman who wrote to ask that her name be removed from the Church’s records. I can’t access the exact words of his reply, but here it is to the best of my memory:
“Madam,
“I have spent the morning searching for your name among the records of baptism for the remission of sins. I was unable to find your name therein, and was therefore saved the trouble of removing it therefrom. You may therefore assume that your sins have not been remitted, and that you may enjoy the full benefits thereof.”
Does anyone have a guess at the percentage of men who are ex-communicated go through the process and have their blessings restored? I know women are sometimes excommunicated but it seems like women are disfellowshied or put on probation while men are ex-ed at a much higher percentage. I know of several cases were the Bishop would put the woman on probation and the man was ex-ed. Same crime, different punishment. In one of the cases, the man was the one who confessed and the female was not even sorry about it, yet he was given the harder penalty.
Purging is an interesting word. What if the person being purged was your child or spouse?
I don’t know how reflective this is as a whole, but of the dozen or so (formerly) excommunicated men I know, one has been re-baptised.
actually 2 at least, Kim.
According to my Bishop the average percent of men rebaptised after being excomunicated is about 16%
could it be possible that the man in your instance, Bill, was ex and the woman was on probation because he held the Priesthood and therefore is held to a higher standard?
Since men are usually the “Instigator” in moral issues the men have more to answer for. But this is only my opinion, and my experience
Ray, by “moral” you mean “sexual,” right?
Yes I was trying to be subtile I guess it did not work. Sorry
No, I’m not trying to find fault. I have frequently noticed that in the Church, we use the word “morality” as a kind of euphemism for sexual purity. You’ll see that this happened in several addresses during the last General Conference. I don’t know how that Mormon use of the word came about. I don’t think it reflects the normal meaning of the word “moral” as used by most other English speakers.
Dictionary.com defines morality as
“The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
Virtuous conduct.
A rule or lesson in moral conduct.”
The definition of Virtuous conduct is obviously not just an LDS thing.
Ray, of course sexual purity is virtuous conduct. But there’s lots of other conduct, of a nonsexual nature, that is also virtuous or unvirtuous–moral or immoral. When I say a person is immoral, I may mean that he mistreats his employees or that he exploits the poor. But when I say it in an LDS chapel, everyone will assume I mean that he’s sexually promiscuous.
16% returning to activity is a mighty low number assuming they went to their Bishop to confess their sins and seek forgivness to start with. With an 84% chance that they cannot make it through the process – would they be better off to just quite going to church than face the ordeal of Church Courts?
Pros/Cons – Should a man confess his sins and face an 84% chance of not returning to church or quit going and wait a number of years beofring letting some HT reactive them, I expect those in authority would forgive them so they would stay active.
What would you recommend to someone?
Kim – 2 out of 12 is 16%.
Bill, I don’t think you’re being accurate when you describe an “84% chance that they cannot make it through the process.” There’s no CANNOT about it. Statistics are not predestination. People who are excommunicated have the opportunity to use their own agency and get through the process.
Bill, I said a dozen or so. It could have been more than 12. FWIW.
If only 16% of the people who are ex-ed do not come back to Church, then what are the odds someone who confesses and goes thru the excommunication process will be able to make it? 16%.
What are the odds that if they go inactive for several years and then start attending again, they would not be ex-ed if the confessed to their past sins? My guess is pretty high. So the odds are that a person who goes in-active for several years and then returns has a better chance to return to activity than then person wo confesses and is ex-ed.
I think it should be the other way around. If you confess your sins and want to change your life, then you should have a better chance to make it than if you do not confess them now.
This concept of purging has a lot of problems when you are dealing with people’s lives.
I attend with this family where the parents messed up, then got married and now have teenagers, they come to Church each Sunday and are still waiting for full fellowship. I am amazed they even come to Church. It is so hard on the Father when his sons receive the Priesthood and he cannot be in the circle.
The question is – Would he have been better off to not confess when it happened and wait until now so he could be forgiven quickly and be active or not?
The problem, Bill, is that you’re still equating statistical “odds” with someone’s “chance” to repent. The odds that someone who chooses to repent and go through the process of coming back will come back are 100%, not 16%. The 16% figure represents how many people actually make that choice, not what the opportunity is for each person to choose. Those who are excommunicated have the opportunity, and the opportunity is 100%.
You talk about a man who can’t hold the Priesthood because of transgressions he’s committed and then ask if he would be “better off” if he had not confessed early but waited a long time and confessed later. No. He would not be better off. Each time he stood in that circle, he would have been sinning again, mocking a Priesthood he had no right to exercise. Each day he would have been carrying that sin with him, rather than beginning the road back. He is much better off having confessed early. No one is better off who persists in sin and who exercises the Priesthood unworthily.
ltbugaf – You assumed the man in the example was still using his priesthood which is not the case.
Let’s consider this from an eternal viewpoint – If only 16% of the people exed are able to return to the Church and you must be a member in order to reach heaven, is 16/100’s a good number to base getting into Heaven on?
The other option is to not attend Church for a number of years after commiting your transgression, then return to the Church and then confess your sin with almost no chance of being ex-ed and have a 100% chance of getting into Heaven.
Another question is why is only 16% of the people able to endure an excommunication?
I think the Point that ltbugaf is making here is that the reason the 16% are able to endure the excommunication process and the 84 are not has to do with their desire to return and repent or persist in sin. Take my brother for example. Right after his excommunication he said he wanted to be rebaptised. But as time progressed he chose a life of sin.(He was the one who molested me) Now he thionks he is an athiest. He has alloud satan to take a strong hold of his heart and soul. The D&C says that the person, after they are Exed is delivered to the “buffetings of satan” until the day of redemption. The day of redemption is when they are rebaptised. A good book to read about this is “The Worth of a Soul” by Steven A Cramer
“You assumed the man in the example was still using his priesthood which is not the case.”
No, obviously I didn’t assume that. You already told us that he didn’t use the Priesthood because you told us that he couldn’t stand in the circle when his sons were ordained. Then you asked if he would have been better off not confessing. By not confessing, he could have gone on participating in the ordinations, etc. In other words, he could have exercised Priesthood that he had no right to exercise. So the answer to your question was, no, he wouldn’t have been better off not confessing. He was better off not being able to stand in the circle when his sons were ordained.
“If only 16% of the people exed are able to return to the Church…”
You’re still characterizing this the same, wrong, way. It’s just not true that only 16% are “able” to return. It is true that only 16% do return. Many others are able, but don’t choose to do it.
I think what Bill meant was not that he would go on as if nothing would happen, but that he would stop going to church for a season and then come back. Of those who have gone this route whom I know, none of them were excommunicated.
I was assigned as home teacher to a woman who never attended church for years. The bishop then became aware that he needed to ask her to discontinue a sinful behavior. She refused and told him it was none of his business, so he then had an obligation to excommunicate her.
Kim – Thank you for your response. Like you, those I have known who quit going to Church and then returned were welcomed with open arms and those who confessed first were lost.
It seems kinda sad that a Bishop would excommunicate a woman on hearsay. I am interested in hearing why a Bishop would have an obligation to excommunicate someone who does not attend. I have always heard that a Church Court was a “COURT OF LOVE”. Sounds like the one mentioned above was a “Court of Revenge”.
Power – Do as I say or you will be EXED. Perhaps with a little time and Itbugaf as a HT, she would have turned her life around.
Question for Itbugaf – Were you the person who told the Bishop about her sinful behavior? If so, how do you feel about it since you created her problems instead of helping her? Would she have been beter off (eternally) to not let you into her home until she was ready to repent? Also, is she one of the 16% or did she become one of the 84%?
I think this is a pretty good topic to discuss. You hear very little about the realities of excommunication. Very serious stuff here for a person who believes in the Mormon ideals of having to belong to the Church to reach Heaven.
Bill, what on earth makes you think the Bishop was working on hearsay? The woman made no pretense that she wasn’t engaging in this behavior. She did it openly. She was completely defiant when the Bishop told her she needed to stop.
You ask whether I was the one who told the bishop about her behavior. No, I wasn’t. However, if I had, it’s absolutely false that I would have been “causing her problems.” She’s the one who was causing her problems, by sinning and refusing to even try to repent of that very grave sin.
You suggest that with time and more home teaching, she might have turned her life around. No, she was adamantly refusing to turn her life around. She was given the opportunity to do so and chose not to.
You say you’re interested to know why the bishop would need to excommunicate someone who doesn’t attend. The way you phrase that makes it seem as if she was being excommunicated for nonattendance, which isn’t true. She was excommunicated for committing a very grievous sin and for defiantly persisting in that sin when asked to stop and change her life.
Obviously, I’m not going to give you any more specific information about this situation; it would be entirely improper to do so.
Why you think this action had ANYTHING to do with revenge, I can’t begin to imagine.
Finally, you ask whether she’s one of the 16% or the 84%. She began with a 100% opportunity to repent. She refused it. She was removed from the Church, in an action that protects the Church from pure mockery and that protects her from greater condemnation for her misdeeds. Whether she will eventually recognize that she needs to repent and decide to come back, I don’t know. But she’s not held back by any percentage statistics. She still has a 100% opportunity to stop sinning and do what is right.
ltbugaf – Here is the part I do not understand – if she was not attending Church and I assume she did not go to the Bishop and confess, how would the Bishop know what she was doing?
Second – How does exing someone who does not attend Church protect the Church from pure mockery? Did she wear a sign on her neck that said “I live in sin and I do it to Mock the LDS Church”? In today’s world I doubt anyone except a Mormon would think twice about what she was doing.
Third – Exing protects her from greater condemnation – What is greater than having your membership in the Lord’s Church destroyed?
Don’t get me wrong, there is a time and a place to ex people. But I think sometimes a Church Court is not a Court of Love. Exing is a very serious thing with serious consequences. I believe it should only be used in extreme cases.
For example – a young man goes on a mission and after he returns he gets caught up in a love affair that goes too far. He is not mocking the Church. Why mess up his life for several years with it being very likely that he will not return to Church (84%)? It also means that his family might not be raised LDS. I guess making an example of him would scare others into holding onto the iron rod. Spare one to save the many ideal. Same thing a herd does when the lions show up.
Last year I was at Church on Saturday helping to clean the building and this woman stopped by the building and said she had not been attending Church, had left the man she was living with and wanted to start attending Church again with her baby. After she left a member of the Bishopric made the comment that they would be holding a Church Court for her.
I thought – give the woman a chance to start attending and see what happens before you start punishing her for making a bad mistake.
Is this a Sinners need not attend, only perfect people allowed to pray and worship here Church?
Yes let’s purge all the sinners and only allow the pure in heart to feel the Spirit of Lord in their lives.
Isn’t that what the Witch Hunts in Boston were about? Purging.
Let’s put a sign on the door that says you have a 100% opportunity to worship with us if you do not sin and do what we tell you to do. Otherwise we will purge you out.
If I remember the Bible I read, it says somehting about Jesus prefering to be with the sinners.
I prefer to try and live my life like Jesus did than worry about punishing sinners.
“how would the Bishop know what she was doing?”
A: Because there was some minimal contact with her other than church attendance.
“How does exing someone who does not attend Church protect the Church from pure mockery?”
A: The Lord decreed that those who persist in their wickedness are not to be numbered among the righteous (even though the “righteous” are imperfect). See Alma 5:57; Moroni 6:7; Doctrine & Covenants 20:80-83; Doctrine & Covenants 24:24,28 for starters.
“What is greater than having your membership in the Lord’s Church destroyed?”
A: Digging oneself even deeper into condemnation by violating holy covenants and continuing to sin. The condemnation for a member of God’s covenant people is greater than for those who aren’t. See Doctrine & Covenants 82:3 and Doctrine & Covenants 63:66.
“I prefer to try and live my life like Jesus did than worry about punishing sinners.”
A: Then do so. But don’t condemn Priesthood leaders for performing the duties of their offices.
I don’t remember condeming Priesthood leaders for performing the duties of their offices. What I did was to ask questions about why ex someone who does not attend. I find that Mormons tend to try and turn on the person who ask “why” instead of answering the question. Is it too hard to answer? Is it too painful to realize that things are not perfect?
Is it possible that a “Court of Love” could be used to punish or get revenge? Would that be unrighteous dominion?
In 1975 there was a Mormon Missionary in England who was street contacting when a car pulled up beside him and he was kidnapped. A few days later, the police received a telephone call telling them where to find him. He had been raped for several days by a woman. He was interviewed several times by different GA’s visiting England to see if he was worthy to stay on a mission. Does being raped make one unworthy to be a missionary?
A BYU coed took a temp job and at the end of the day, the man she was working for pushed her down on his couch and raped her. Her Bishop put her on Church Probation for getting raped. She was forced to repent before she could attend BYU again.
Another BYU coed was going back to BYU and during a meeting with SP he asked if there was anything she wanted to talk about. She told the SP that one of memebers of the High Council had gone to Provo, called her and asked if he could take her to dinner. After dinner, the HC made an excuse that they needed to stop by his hotel room. Once there, he pushed her onto the bed and stuck his tongue down her throat and started rubbing her breast. She had to fight him off her. Should a Church Court be held for her? Should she not be allowed to attend BYU until she repents?
Why would the HC not need a Church Court?
Should a person who is raped or have other things happen to them, be forced to repent before they are worthy to be in full membership?
Bill
Rape is not supposed to be treated as a wrong action by the victim and if so, the disciplining individuals misunderstand it. There used to be an awful lot of misunderstaqnding about sexual assault and rape many years ago. That is now changing. They do not need to repent because they did nothing to be repented of.
Mary – I agree with you that they do not need to repent. And the Church is changing and change comes about because members ask why. Women started asking why should I repent for being raped?
Asking the question “Why” is not condemning Church Leaders. If there is a righteous answer, then they should be wiling to explain it to us lay folks.
Which brings us back to the question of why PURGE somone off the membership rolls of the Church when they do not attend? It makes no sense.
Murder is the unforgiveable sin becomes it makes the person who is murdered unable to repent. God allows evil people to live so they have every chance to repent.
When a person is PURGED it takes away their chances to repent and return to the fold. Yes, they can do it but it is hard. Far harder than most people realize. That is way so few people return to the Church after they are exed.
During my lifetime, I have seen so many people confess their sins and ask for forgiveness and in return they are PURGED to save the CHURCH. Yes, there is a small number who take their pain and turn it into anger and try to led others astray but most of those PURGED end up joining other Christian Churchs and worshiping the Lord where they feel welcomed.
All I really want to know is why? Why do we as the Lord’s Chosen feel like it is a solemn duty to punish those who are not perfect?
Bill, where do all these amazing stories come from?
Amazing stories – what are you refering to? What story do you find amazing? All of the stories are real. Real things that happened to real people.
…and the answer to my question is???
“If there is a righteous answer, then they should be wiling to explain it to us lay folks.”
Actually, no. They shouldn’t explain it to us because they have a serious duty of confidentiality. They should fulfill that duty and keep quiet, even when some people use it as an opportunity to smear the Church.
That’s why excommunications are one of the favorite topics of anti-Mormons: They go about claiming they were excommunicated for reason A or reason B, and accusing leaders of saying X or Y during the proceedings. The leaders can’t go out and explain that the person was really excommunicated for reason C or that no one say X or Y, but only said Z. They can’t go out and explain it to “lay folks” or anyone else, because they have a duty of confidentiality.
“I don’t remember condeming Priesthood leaders for performing the duties of their offices.”
Perhaps your memory will be jogged when you read #34, where you comment on how sad it is that a bishop excommunicated a woman on hearsay, and go on to accuse him of holding a “court of revenge.” Or when you read #36, where you condemn a stake president for excommunicating a returned missionary for sexual transgressions.
ltbugaf:
Are you for real? I hope you don’t have a position of authority because you sound like an ignorant, boneheaded cretin who likes to quote scripture but always misses the big picture – a church ministers to its members to help them come to God and Jesus….you sound like the guy who always throws the first stone…
# 44 What is it you want to know? Details of who the people are? People I know.
# 33 – You wrote – I was assigned as home teacher to a woman who never attended church for years. The bishop then became aware that he needed to ask her to discontinue a sinful behavior. She refused and told him it was none of his business, so he then had an obligation to excommunicate her.
Instead of answering my question, you try to challenge me with not following the brethren.
If the woman you wrote about has not attended Church in years, I assume did not confess to a sin, what grounds would the Bishop have to ex her other than he was upset she told him it was none of his business?
I am really interested in why a Bishop would go to the trouble to ex someone who does not attend and has not attended in years.
# 36 – I read it several times and did not see anything you wrote in # 46 about # 36. In # 46 You wrote – where you condemn a stake president for excommunicating a returned missionary for sexual transgressions”. I never mentioned a Stake President in # 36.
I have another true story – A young man (17 yrs old) from a poor and humble home was at Church on a Tuesday night when his Bishop walked up behind him and and grabbed him by the neck and marched him out the front door of the Church building and then threw him onto the concrete sidewalk tearing his only pair of nice blue jeans and screamed at the boy to never come to Church again. The boy was sititng on the sidewalk with blood coming out of both hands and his knees wondering what had just happened and why.