I’ve recently been reading a novel about the Cathars in France, and the entrance of the Inquisition recalled an earlier post. One of my first posts as a permablogger at W&T asked the following questions about church discipline:
Could investigation by the SCMC and becoming subject to subsequent disciplinary procedures come to be seen as a ‘badge of honour’ ?
Is there jurisprudence: do church disciplinary procedures and bodies, including the SCMC, follow laid down rules and procedures, with proper representation; are they fair?
Would the church benefit by being more open: both about any rules and procedures, and also more open with those under investigation?
Does it work long term? Did the cases of the September Six, for example, accomplish what the church was hoping to accomplish?
At the time of writing it seemed to me then, that the kind of discipline meted out to the September six might be a thing of the past. In the more than three years that have passed, there have been a number of high profile cases resulting in excommunication: Denver Snuffer, Kate Kelly and John Dehlin. In addition, I am aware that a number of bloggers have also faced discipline, including Rock Waterman and Will Carter. Most recently the author of the CES letter Jeremy Runnells chose to resign during a disciplinary hearing that would likely have resulted in his excommunication.
It struck me that perhaps we could revisit those questions.
Could investigation by the SCMC and becoming subject to subsequent disciplinary procedures come to be seen as a ‘badge of honour’ ?
This would certainly seem to be the case in some circles.
Is there jurisprudence: do church disciplinary procedures and bodies, including the SCMC, follow laid down rules and procedures, with proper representation; are they fair?
There have certainly been complaints about procedural irregularities.
Would the church benefit by being more open: both about any rules and procedures, and also more open with those under investigation?
We only get one side of the story when the church chooses not to present theirs. Still, I have some sympathy for the leaders on the ground tasked with meting out the discipline as well. They are volunteers, not career clergy. Just what is available to them in terms of either training or support? Is publicity fair to them?
Does it work long term? Did the cases of the September Six, for example, accomplish what the church was hoping to accomplish?
Perhaps a better question would be, just what does the church hope to accomplish by these actions?
What do you think?
Discuss.
Note: SCMC is the Strengthening Church Members Committee (footnote added 21 May 2106)
Matthew 18:17 applies. Sometimes, it is necessary.
Jurisprudence–I’m not sure how you are using the word in this context.
Interesting essay though and an interesting question.
I don’t know the answers but thought you deserved recognition (and I was curious about your meaning).
Your post did make me think of this:
https://feedback2016.byu.edu/
My impression would be people who’d claim it as a badge of honor are those making arguments that the church is overly oppressive and/or fearful of some “truth” getting out. A “big brother” thing like that can be seen as support for those types of arguments. I think the vast majority of members would be mortified to be seen as threats by leaders.
From what I can tell by other descriptions, the SCMC Committee specifically targets those with bigger audiences (via publications on and offline). People who self-publish, like Snuffer, can gain quite a following very quickly. Members have been trained to share the gospel, and they are eager to spread exciting gospel insights that have “changed their life.” Add in social media and things have a way of getting out of hand quickly. Thing is, this can all fly under the radar of local leadership (speaking with some personal experience). Many members have never heard of the CES Letter, for example, but of those that do (that I’ve interacted with), a lot became aware of it only after a family member or friend left the church over it. I kinda understand why the church would want to actively identify and monitor a publications like these that can affect many, many members before local leadership even has a chance to clue in. Problem is, this stuff can get out of hand easily, and paranoia can lead anyone to target individuals who really aren’t all that influential or antagonistic.
“Does it work long term?”
By this, I assume you mean excommunication of agitators, and I’d say most definitely. The whole point is boundary maintenance, and while the excommunications don’t define where the lines are, they certainly identify when those lines have been crossed. Also, protesting from within the church and protesting from without are perceived entirely differently. Most of the press, attention, and credence come from straddling the boundary. Once they’re clearly defined on the outside, they’re no longer as interesting. If John Dehlin had been excommunicated earlier, he probably wouldn’t have gathered near the following. Instead of being percieved as a questioning member investigating difficult Mormon topics, he’d have been an ex-Mormon digging up dirt, and his influence on active believers would have been less. At least, this is what I perceive happened to the others who were excommunicated.
I agree with Martin. In the short-term there’s loss from alienating the individual’s followers/sympathizers. Long-term the person loses credibility among mainstream members. It’s “strengthening” church members by handicapping the offending individual’s ability to exert influence.
Good questions. Like Mary Ann, I agree with Martin, as I do think that “strengthening” the church by excommunicating members does work. Of course, it’s shameful that it does work because to me, the SCMC appears to be little more than a religious version of the House Un-American Activities Committee. Not surprising, I suppose, considering it originated under Ezra Taft Benson. IMHO, it seems chiefly designed not only for “boundary maintenance,” but also to provide a subtle but clear reminder to anyone who might express opinions contrary to mainstream LDS thought that they need to be very careful about going public with any information or opinions they may have. In other words, its most effective tool seems to be fear mongering and an assumption that if a member loses or wavers in their testimony, someone else besides that member needs to be held accountable. I’ve never quite gotten why it’s someone else’s fault if I lose my testimony. It seems to me that that’s on me, not on John Dehlin or whoever. Just my .02.
Regarding being more open about rules and procedures, I don’t think it would at all benefit the church to be more open. If the tape of the Runnells disciplinary council shows us anything, it’s that the church would open itself to a great deal of criticism about procedure, fairness, etc. if it was ever more transparent about disciplinary proceedings, I think the inconsistency, unfairness and general bias of disciplinary councils would come to light, thus causing more problems for the church. For a procedure (here I’m talking specifically about excommunication) that has such dire consequences (cut off from family, community, erasing of all temple blessings, etc.), you’d like to think that we could do better than untrained (however well-meaning) lay clergy who, I have to imagine, often feel out of their depth.
The church is being forced to share power that they no longer dictate. The badge of honor if that is the correct description (I doubt it) merely addresses the fact that there is now an exLDS tribe or perhaps an exiting LDS tribe or both in one that allows members to exit without shame and find support in doing so, they are no longer loner outcasts. This has forced the church to find some manners and civility in dealing with various minorities. On balance it is better for both those who are leaving and those who are staying. With the exception of the (hopelesly misguided) policy the church is being forced to become better in spite of itself.
ji, I’d say Matthew 18:17 is a bit of a prooftext and does not mean what you are implying. Jesus was a Jew, and Jews have NEVER believed in excommunication. They didn’t excommunicate in Jesus’ day, and they still don’t in our day, some 2000 years later.
Well, Lucifer was kicked out of heaven. Not seeing how that was wrong. Its one thing to have a differing opinion regarding a doctrine, stance, principle, opinion, etc. but its a completely different thing to voice dissent publicly and refute outright the church as valid.
Folks like Dehlin should not be members of the church and so they should leave on their own or be excommunicated as they are, by their very fruits, enemies to the church
Thanks for the comments folks.
ji, I’d have to agree with MH I’m afraid. That verse seems to me to be referring to personal disputes between individual members in a congregation.
Stephen, I mean jurisprudence in the sense that are there clearly laid out procedures to follow, are they followed, are all parties fairly represented… It’s there as an artifact of the first post and likely makes less sense outside that immediate context, being something discussed more widely as part of the radio program that first post stemmed from. Probably best just to take the question after the colon. :-). Interesting link on the byu site. I imagine to some extent procedures and policies are an exercise in covering backs, as much as they are about being fair to all.
Interesting observations Mary Ann. I’d agree that a lot of things might well fly under local leadership radar. These are busy people who between callings, employment and family would have little time to indulge in participation in the internet community, even were they interested. It’s not something I ever hear mentioned at church. I do think we have a problem with paranoia that isn’t helpful, and can be seen in a variety of settings, and can be seen over and over in discussions generally.
Martin, Mary Ann. It does kick up a storm short term, even globally, which whilst membership as whole maybe largely unaware of it, or simply brush it away, paints a less than flattering picture of the church to non-members reading the news. But you may be right about the longer term. Certainly the more of it there is, the less interest global media seem to pay, because yet another lds ‘dissident’ excommunication is par for the course, no longer an exciting new story.
Bro Sky. I’d agree with your analogy. The McCarthy era was discussed in that original post. I’m not sure what the answer to the local leadership variation and bias would be. On the one hand they know the people involved, which arguably sometimes makes them less willing to carry out discipline. Do we want outsiders coming in to carry the task, those who don’t know the individuals? But if local leaders are in a position where they feel they are under pressure to get a particular result that is just so completely unfair to everyone involved, and it might be more transparent to have those applying the pressure to be seen to be responsible.
Howard, I think you are correct that there is now, facilitated by the internet a contiguous and supportive ex-lds tribe for those that need it. And that that is where the badge of honour is most seen. I’m not sure how this will come to be viewed historically, or the change on long term perspectives both inside and outside the church of those individuals.
Rob, well it’s a view. In an internet age, where much communication occurs online, and the boundaries between what is public and what is private are much fuzzier, I think it’s a lot harder to draw that line, particularly for local leadership. When is it family and friends reading your blog and discussing your questions with you, and when does it become a following? It gets murkier when on the one hand church leaders are encouraging members to use social media to get the message out there, but on the other hand sometimes taking exception to a members particular slant on what the message might be. They can’t correlate social media. I sometimes feel the early catholic church had more room to accommodate such things, allowing members to establish various religious orders within the roman catholic umbrella…
MH (and Hedgehog, agreeing with MH). I think you’re wrong. For example, see http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Excommunication.html.
It is reasonable for any organization to have rules for membership. I would support the NAACP’s effort to revoke the membership of a klansman who infiltrated its ranks, for example. I wouldn’t describe the NAACP’s effort in such a case as an inquisition. I think use of that word in this thread is purposefully incendiary and inappropriate.
ji, my agreement with MH was with regard to the use of that scripture as a proof-text. I don’t think it is saying what you think it is saying. I don’t have any knowledge about whether Jews do or don’t excommunicate. The use of the word inquisition in the OP title is a result of the use in the earlier post linked, and which examined the idea of inquisition more generally. I don’t know if you read that earlier post, but if you’re having problems with the title you might find that back ground context helpful. It isn’t intended to provoke.
Nehemiah and Ezra actually did evict people from the congregation saying “Jews” have never excommunicated lacks a certain level of accuracy.
I realize it is a meme with some people, but:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herem_(censure)
And
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5933-excommunication
The Talmud provides a list of offenses and procedures.
Hedgehog,
You’re still wrong. It’s not prooftexting. Jesus actually did teach the need of sometimes separating the wicked from the body of the faithful — really — see Matt. 18:6-9 and 15-17. Yes, there is a scriptural basis for what some call boundary maintenance. May our God bless those who are called on for this purpose.
Interesting links ji, Stephen, thank you.
I was struck y the similarity of herem to haram (‘forbidden’ in Islam), and apparently they have the same root….
Yeah, Ezra and Nehemiah were those hardliners who advocated divorcing non-jewish wives and banishing them along with their mixed race children as I recall. Not exactly comfortable.
ji, I’m not saying there is no need for boundary maintainance. I did read the surrounding verses, and I don’t get that from those verses. They appear to me to be dealing more with looking at out own individual behaviours and interpersonal relationships, not institutional boundaries.
I’ll tell you that when I first read what they did “I sat down astonished” — not advocating what they did.
Just noting it. They would have tossed David (after all, his grandmother Ruth was a Moabite).
Which means rejection of Christ.
I looked up Matthew 18 in my copy of The Jewish Annotated New Testament. It identifies verses 15-17 as relating to church discipline. Ji isn’t prooftexting.
Verse 15 – if another churchmember sins (some texts say sins against you, others don’t), go and point out the fault when you two are alone. If they listen to you, everything’s cool. (Footnote on the verse: “Rabbinic sources indicated that a person should never shame another publicly or he/she could be excluded from the world to come.”)
Verse 16 – if they don’t listen to you, take two others with you so you have witnesses. Based on the next verse, it looks like you are taking those others along to again, privately converse with the person. (Footnote on the verse: “Jewish law required witnesses for a charge to be leveled.”)
Verse 17 – if the member refuses to listen to them (the others you brought), tell it to the church. If the member refuses to listen to the church, then you need to treat that member as if he/she were a “Gentile and a tax collector.” (Footnote on the verse: Gentile and tax collector refer to “people requiring evangelization.”)
Mary Ann, I get that, but it is essentially the church intervening in a personal dispute between members of the same congregation. It isn’t, so far as I can see maintaining instirutional boundaries, as per my initial response.
But when you apply it to D&C 42:88-92, you’ll see the offense may be between two individuals or many individuals. It also has no restriction on shaming. Related is D&C 64:12-13.
Offenses against the church as an institution would definitely qualify just as much as offenses against one or many individual churchmembers. Public criticism of church leadership would be seen as an offense against the church as an institution.
Jesus didn’t have a church when he was alive. Furthermore, even after he died, early Christians were indistinguishable from Jews by Romans and Jews of the period, and Jesus worshiped on Saturday, not Sunday. How could Jesus possibly excommunicate anyone without any real church organization?
Yes he called apostles, but this organization was embryonic at this time, and there certainly wasnt a formal court of love as we know it today. To read LDS Church courts of love into this scripture is a huge stretch and misuse of Scripture.
I’d also like to point out that Jesus associated constantly with sinners, tax collectors, adulterers, and according to Nate, was a blasphemer. I don’t think Jesus was advocating that his ‘sinful’ ways and associations with sinners merited his own excommunication from Judaism. Because certainly this scripture would have caused Jews to condemn and excommunicate Jesus based on their interpretation on the laws of Moses.
MH,
The discipline Christ references in v.17 is clearly related to the new organization of the church under Peter. Take a look at v.18 just after the person is declared outside the community. Christ directly confirms that whatever Peter binds on earth (forbids) will be bound in heaven, and whatever Peter loosens on earth (permits) will be loosed in heaven. That’s the exact same wording he used just a couple chapters before.
Matthew 16:18-19
Verse 18 – And I tell you, you are Peter (Petros), and on this rock (petra) I will build my church (comparable to congregation), and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.
Verse 19 – I will give you the keys (knowledge and authority) of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. (Footnote says binding and loosing relate to “forbid and permit” in a legal sense according to rabbinic teachings.)
Mary Ann, do you think that Jesus was advocating for his own excommunication with these verses?
Interesting article. I can see where the church thinks they need to use excommunication, but I can’t say it is effective. Dehlin is just as influential now as when he was a member. While Runnels was not excommunicated, he probably would have been. That does not make the CES letter less influential than if he was still a member. In fact,on another point, people who have been ex’d may well turn out to be the heroes in this narrative some where down the road.
First of all, the excommunication are according to the rules of HIS church. Not Judaism. Associating with non-Christians was NOT prohibited. There is no reason he would be in violation of any of the rules that he was actively laying down for Peter in Chapter 18. He never says you SHOULDN’T ASSOCIATE with people once they are declared outside the church. He says you treat them like Gentiles and tax collectors – people he sat down with and taught. You put them in the realm of missionary work as opposed to fellowship among members.
Correction, he didn’t technically teach Gentiles, but he certainly ate with and taught tax collectors.
But MaryAnn, from the rabbis perspective, Jesus is just as deluded as Denver Snuffer. Therefore, according to you and the rabbis, Jesus should be excommunicated from Judiasm, just as Denver Snuffer was.
If you’re going to be consistent, then you have to say that this scripture equally applies to Snuffer and Jesus, and that Jesus has therefore condemned himself (in the eyes of the San Hedrin–that ancient “court of love” or high council in Jesus day.) Any Jew would say that Jesus condemned himself. This scripture condemns Jesus in exactly the same way ji used it to condemn Snuffer.
That’s why I say it is a prooftext, because I don’t believe Jesus would use that scripture to condemn himself or Snuffer. In the eyes of the respective high councils involved, Jesus started a movement just like Snuffer did. And if Snuffer is condemned by Matthew 18:17, then so is Jesus. To argue otherwise is to be inconsistent.
MH, Jesus was NOT talking about Judaism. I already said that. Jesus was talking about the church being established under Peter. Not Judaism. No rabbis here. The leaders are Peter and the disciples. No rabbis.
You’re still not answering my question. You’re changing the subject.
In other words, How is the Sen Hedrin’s excommunication any different than the High Council of Denver Snuffer? And if Denver Snuffer’s high council uses Matthew 18:17 to condemn Snuffer, why can’t the San Hedrin likewise use 18:17 to condemn Jesus? How are these 2 councils different?
You are the one saying that Jesus is talking about Judaism!
From the Jewish rabbis perspective – Jesus claimed to be the Son of God (or God himself in places). A human putting him or herself on the same level of God is blasphemy. If you were not Christian, then you did not believe that Christ was God. Therefore you would have been convinced he was committing blasphemy. Punishment is death.
For Christians who believed Christ, he was NOT committing blasphemy. He was declaring the truth. He was both the Son of God AND God. He’s not blaspheming because he IS God and God is allowed to declare Himself God.
Applying the rules to modern day. Snuffer declared in his book “Passing the Heavenly Gift” that church leadership was condemned and punished because of not completing the Nauvoo temple in time and was therefore suffering consequences to the 3rd and 4th generation. They did not have the fulness of the priesthood which is why they were not receiving the same angelic visitations that Joseph Smith had received. He claimed seeing Jesus Christ personally. How do you not see church leaders having a problem with that? From the eyes of the church, that is a pretty heavy condemnation. He refused to scale back his claim, so he got exed. And then a few months later declared leaders fallen. In the eyes of his followers, he is a true prophet shining a light on the corruption of the church – just like Christ with Judaism (or Joseph Smith with Christianity in general).
The only difference is in who you believe has the authority. Jews did not believe Christ had authority. Christians did not believe Jews had authority over Christ. Current leaders do not believe Denver Snuffer has authority over them. Denver Snuffer (now) firmly believes the church has no authority over him.
In verse 18, Christ clearly states PETER has the AUTHORITY to decide who is allowed to stay and who needs to be removed from the church. You must see verses 15-17 within the context of PETER and the apostles having authority to mete out discipline, NOT the Sanhedrin.
The need for boundary maintenance has grown as the definition of his church has become more and more corrupted! How much boundary maintenance is required here and how important is it? Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church. Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church.
The church has become corrupted through the legalization brought by man. Of course the true believers say the legalization came from God through LDS leaders but…wouldn’t that be God contradicting himself?
I agree whole-heartedly with what you wrote in 38:
Yes, this does come down to authority. Jews always felt they had authority over Jesus, and if they did, then those verses in Matthew explicitly condemn Christ for his blasphemous statements. Similarly if you believe the LDS Church has authority over Denver Snuffer, then those verses in Matthew also condemn Snuffer’s blasphemous statements concerning the Nauvoo Temple. On the other hand, if Snuffer and Jesus had authority, then the Senhedrin is under the same condemnation that the LDS Church is under for the wrong headed decision to excommunicate Jesus and Denver.
It just feels so self-serving to condemn Snuffer and not Christ using Matthew 18:17 as a prooftext. I mean I guess you can blame authority as the ultimate “get out of jail free card”, but if we believe excommunication is a valid tool (which I don’t), then I can understand exactly why Christ said, “Forgive them for they know not what they do.”
It’s easy for Christians to condemn the Sanhedrin, but from the Sanhedrin’s point of view they were acting extremely morally. I think their actions were completely wrong, just as I think excommunicating Snuffer was not only wrong, but has turned him into a martyr just as the Jews turned Jesus into a martyr. Excommunication is often counter-productive. Without Jesus’ death on the cross, Christianity may not exist at all. Perhaps we would all be Jews still waiting for a messiah.
I don’t see how boundaries are maintained if no one knows what was in question and how it was resolved.
Mostly, I think the whole process is brutal for the folks put through it and unnecessary and chilling for the church community.
I have very few coherent thoughts on any of this, but such as they are, here they are. Take what you like, as our brethren and sisters in AA say, and leave the rest.
Having now read Denver Snuffer’s book Preserving the Restoration, I think the leadership of the Church showed considerable restraint in not exing him long before. That statement has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of Snuffer’s claims in the book, but it does represent a direct challenge to the authority claims of the hierarchy of the Church. I don’t know that I buy his conclusions, but he has suggested several interesting courses of study – most especially the Lectures on Faith. I read them 30 years ago, just after I was baptized, but (as a recovering Catholic) was put off by the catechismal style. They need revisiting.
Most recently the author of the CES letter Jeremy Runnells chose to resign during a disciplinary hearing that would likely have resulted in his excommunication. I confess that Runnells strikes me as the Emperor Without Clothes. I realize that he, stoked by all the attention he’s gotten, seems to be convinced that he’s “some punkins” – but there’s little if anything new in the CES Letter that hasn’t been raised for 180 years by everyone from Hurlbut to Howe to Ann Eliza Young to Decker and Tanner, and answered in exhaustive and exhausting detail by tens or hundreds of LDS scholars from Orson Pratt to Hugh Nibley. He’s simply not original; he’s the child who thinks he’s the first to ever discover the prize in the Cracker Jack box – but it’s just a cheap plastic toy, and it loses its luster very soon with any close scrutiny.
That all said, the Church could be more clear about the reasons behind excommunication – not the specifics, but at least the notion of protecting the body of the Church from those who actively seek to undermine it. Whether we as individuals agree or not with whether particular cases rise to that level of seriousness, hopefully we could all agree that a clear statement of intent could be helpful. After that, well, some people ain’t ever gonna be happy.
http://www.jefflindsay.com/bomsource.shtml
Come on. Runnels can’t bring himself to drop any claims, even those that are so grossly obvious.
He is like people dealing with the material Brodie used for her footnotes that discover that the sources may be cited is not the same as sources that actually support what she is sayin (too many examples to list–though you can always start with trying to find her source for Josrph Smith faking walking on water).
But yes. You’ve hit the point.
http://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Excommunication
For examples from the five Books of Moses through the New Testament.
For those who do not know what SCMC stands for:
The Strengthening Church Members Committee (SCMC) is a committee of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) who monitor the publications of church members for possible criticism of local and general leaders of the church. If criticism is found, the committee may forward information to local church authorities, who may bring charges of apostasy, which can result in excommunication.
MH, yes, it has always been about who’s claiming authority. But you must admit that the author of Matthew said that Jesus authorized the practice. Since the gospel of Matthew tends to emphasize legalities, it makes sense. I can’t see that the statements in verses 15-17 appear in any of the other gospels. The only other epistle I can see that deals with church discipline is Titus, and it’s not nearly as nice about it as Matthew. According to the book I have, though, Titus is thought to have been written by some other Christian leader, not Paul. It’s possible church discipline appears other places in the NT, but that book of scripture isn’t my strong point. Church discipline does appear in the ministry to the Nephites, though (3 Nephi 18:28-34). So early church leaders in our history still would have had scriptural justification outside the NT.
Excommunication does not make much of an impact. Most members have heard such negative things about Dehlin they reject him outright even if he has some good things to say. The CES letter has had a powerful impact on many and will continue to do so regardless if it’s author is a member or not.
And Mosiah 26 also deals with the issue. Alma the Elder goes to the Lord to ask about it, and gets an answer in v. 32. He enforces the directive in v. 36.
… and Alma 1:24, Alma 5:57, Moroni 6:7 …
With regard to the rules and procedures being fair, this may seem inflammatory, but I don’t think that fairness is really a goal of church discipline. The rules that seem on the surface to be about fairness seem to me like they are really about establishing the credibility of the process, to add ethos to the decision that is eventually made.
One reason that I think this is because there seems to be little to no effort to treat similar transgressions with similar punishments. Rather, the leadership makes a decision based on what they think is best for the individuals (in cases where repentance is the goal) or for the church as a whole (in cases where heresy… Er, I mean apostasy is the issue).
I’m not stating a judgement here that this is good or bad, merely saying that fairness doesn’t seem to me to be much of a goal for church discipline.
It’s not only the ” high profile” or bloggers etc that are court in this cycle, my daughter in law wrote to her Bishop about the ” gay policy/ s”
His reaction was to actually harass her and my son and demanded that he meet with them and I mean demanded. He had not read the policy/s but accused her of apostasy and made a number of threats…..these threats included church discipline… The Stake President was equally useless.
The idea of openness in a culture of high romanticism and the historical ” threat” of the new in Western culture is transported church wise. Finally there is no avenue to discuss difficult issues and my experience is that it is worse at Ground level”
this has made church attendance difficult and tense
“But you must admit that the author of Matthew said that Jesus authorized the practice.”
No, I don’t admit that.
“You are the one saying that Jesus is talking about Judaism!”
Yes, because Christianity didn’t exist when Jesus was alive.
Thanks for the continuing discussion folks.
Mary Ann (and ji), I’m still not seeing how this chapter (Matthew 18) is particularly related to church organisation, though for the sake of argument I’ll concede it might be one interpretation, in which case I can see where you would be coming from.
Mike: “Dehlin is just as influential now as when he was a member. While Runnels was not excommunicated, he probably would have been. That does not make the CES letter less influential than if he was still a member.”
I wouldn’t disagree they still have influence. But it’s perhaps a matter of where they have that influence; in the ex-mormon community – that’s very clear; in the church – not so much. As far as the CES letter goes, I don’t know how widely known it is amongst general membership, but I haven’t heard anything on the ground here.
Howard: “How much boundary maintenance is required here and how important is it? Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church. Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church.”
Well going back to Matthew 18, it’s interesting that the next section (verses 21-35) deal with the necessity to forgive, even “Until seventy times seven.”
alice: “I don’t see how boundaries are maintained if no one knows what was in question and how it was resolved.”
Excellent point. Certainly, the side of the story we’re getting in some of the cases is that that some of those who’ve been disciplined don’t know what it is they’re meant to repenting of…
New Iconoclast: “I think the leadership of the Church showed considerable restraint in not exing him long before. That statement has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of Snuffer’s claims in the book, but it does represent a direct challenge to the authority claims of the hierarchy of the Church.”
I haven’t read any of Snuffer’s writings, but if I remember correctly challenge to the authority of church hierarchy at the highest levels played a part in the excommunication of Paul Toscano (one the September six). That essay of his reads to be deliberately provocative (though I did also read somewhere he was trying to deflect attention from his wife towards himself, so maybe that was the point…).
“the Church could be more clear about the reasons behind excommunication – not the specifics, but at least the notion of protecting the body of the Church from those who actively seek to undermine it. Whether we as individuals agree or not with whether particular cases rise to that level of seriousness, hopefully we could all agree that a clear statement of intent could be helpful.”
I agree.
Amateur Parent. Thanks for clarifying that. It was spelled out in the original post, but I probably ought to add it as a footnote to this one.
Rockwell you may be right. And insofar as everyone is different, perhaps that could be a “fairer” way. But sometimes it seems like individual leader bias rather than tailoring to the individual being disciplined.
Kangeroo, I’m so sorry things are difficult at the moment. I do think local leaders can be influenced by rhetoric from afar outside the local context in which it is spoken and this can result in levels of paranoia on the part of local leadership outside Utah that are wholly unjustified.
MH, I think at this point you and Mary Ann are talking past each other. If I understand correctly her argument is that in these chapters (16-18) Christ *is* organising his church, and her comments come from that premise.
And, of course, that taken in context from the first five books of the Bible through the New Testament, the consensus is that it was a biblical practice and most would agree with Mary Ann.
I know it is also a meme that Christ did not establish a church, but there is also a lot of New Testament support for his establishing one. Especially by the time he calls 70s.
Hedgehog,I agree neither Runnels or Dehlin have a lot of influence within the mainstream of the church. I was trying to point out, excommunicating them led to more publicity and widened their influence as a result. The excommunication process does not seem to be an effective form of censorship.
Oh, and I feel the need to clarify, lest I be misunderstood. When I say “That statement has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of Snuffer’s claims in the book, but it does represent a direct challenge to the authority claims of the hierarchy of the Church,” I mean that Brother Snuffer’s book represents a direct challenge, etc. I should have been more clear. The book is the object of the pronoun “it,” not my statement.
Heros in whos eyes?