Mormon Excommunication - What I don't get.

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Yahoo Bot
_Emeritus
Posts: 3219
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 8:37 pm

Re: Mormon Excommunication - What I don't get.

Post by _Yahoo Bot »

You're just wrong.

The Church does not go around publicizing excommunications without the consent of the excommunicant. So how could an excommunication be for publicity purposes?
_consiglieri
_Emeritus
Posts: 6186
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:47 pm

Re: Mormon Excommunication - What I don't get.

Post by _consiglieri »

Yahoo Bot wrote:You're just wrong.

The Church does not go around publicizing excommunications without the consent of the excommunicant. So how could an excommunication be for publicity purposes?


Here you must ask church leaders why they publicized Elder Hamula's excommunication.

And although they did not say what it was for, they said what it was not for.


Could L. Simpson report to my office?

No. Wait. That's too obvious.

Could Lisa S. please report to my office?
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)
_Meadowchik
_Emeritus
Posts: 1900
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 1:00 am

Re: Mormon Excommunication - What I don't get.

Post by _Meadowchik »

I did a cool thing and stopped by ULM yesterday and this came up in my chat with Sandra Tanner. She pointed out that making the exing public could have a legit motive: to protect others who may be vulnerable and trusting of a person in financial, spiritual, social matters bc they think the GA is a specially righteous person.
_I have a question
_Emeritus
Posts: 9749
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 8:01 am

Re: Mormon Excommunication - What I don't get.

Post by _I have a question »

Yahoo Bot wrote:You're just wrong.

The Church does not go around publicizing excommunications without the consent of the excommunicant. So how could an excommunication be for publicity purposes?


George P. Lee

Can you name a General Authority who has been excommunicated without the church publicising it?
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
_Johannes
_Emeritus
Posts: 575
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2015 5:50 am

Re: Mormon Excommunication - What I don't get.

Post by _Johannes »

Yahoo Bot wrote:The exact meaning of the term "excommunication" is to affirmatively disable one from partaking of Communion, or in the LDS Church, the sacrament. Where evangelical churches do not have or understand communion, they get confused and think the term means that some earthly judge can revoke someone's salvation. Not true. Excommunication means only in the LDS sense the inability to partake of certain ordinances and related activity, such as holding callings (although when I was bishop I gave callings to excommunicants; there is no real prohibition).


I can't speak to LDS practices, but this is incorrect as far as mainstream Christian churches are concerned. The "communion" in "excommunication" is not the literal holy communion that is served up in the form of bread and wine, it is the social "communion" of the church ("community" would be a better contemporary word).

Excommunication has always been a public matter in mainstream churches. An excommunicated individual could play no formal role in the church at all. I believe that, historically speaking, such people were even banned from attending public worship.

Why the LDS church does things differently is an interesting question. I wonder what the history is.
_Johannes
_Emeritus
Posts: 575
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2015 5:50 am

Re: Mormon Excommunication - What I don't get.

Post by _Johannes »

I have a question wrote:Can you name a General Authority who has been excommunicated without the church publicising it?


Isn't that an unanswerable question?
_I have a question
_Emeritus
Posts: 9749
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 8:01 am

Re: Mormon Excommunication - What I don't get.

Post by _I have a question »

Johannes wrote:
I have a question wrote:Can you name a General Authority who has been excommunicated without the church publicising it?


Isn't that an unanswerable question?


Possibly, in hindsight it's definitely an unfair question for the reasons you allude to.
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
_Yahoo Bot
_Emeritus
Posts: 3219
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 8:37 pm

Re: Mormon Excommunication - What I don't get.

Post by _Yahoo Bot »

I have a question wrote:
Yahoo Bot wrote:You're just wrong.

The Church does not go around publicizing excommunications without the consent of the excommunicant. So how could an excommunication be for publicity purposes?


George P. Lee

Can you name a General Authority who has been excommunicated without the church publicising it?


Lee was before the policy change. For most of the Church'e existence, the name of an excommunicant was stated in a priesthood meeting. Again, "excommunication" has only one meaning: barred from the sacrament and other ordinances. Excommunicants can still attend church and often hold callings.

Now, stakes have several or many excommunicants attending church or not attending and nobody really has a clue; often, not even bishops. There are probably people on this board who are excommunicated whose status is unknown to their ward members.

I have no particular knowledge, but I am fairly certain that the publicity surrounding Elder Hamula's status came at his request. Given the way it was announced, I have my strong suspicions as to the issue.
Post Reply