In 1993, several LDS scholars and authors were excommunicated in local proceedings that were apparently directed (or at least encouraged) by senior LDS leadership or by individual senior LDS leaders acting on their own. After this September Six episode, things quieted down. I’m sure I wasn’t the only one who thought that, in the wake of the reaction to the 1993 events, LDS leadership had determined that the excommunication of scholars or authors for public discussion of troubling LDS issues was simply counterproductive and should be avoided in the future. Then came the Internet and social media, which increased the public discussion LDS history, doctrine, policy, and practice a thousand-fold. As a result, the LDS disciplinary process for unwelcome public statements about the Church rumbled back to life a few years ago, and I’m sure most readers are aware of some of the results over the last few years. Let’s talk about a couple of new actions that are happening right now and what that tells us about the process.
Just today, Bill Reel announced on his podcast site that he had received official word that his church court, held last week, resulted in his excommunication. Mainstream media is also covering the story. Bill posted a copy of the letter he received, which, following standard practice in these cases, is long on generalities and short on specifics. The excommunication letter addressed to him stated that “you hold views contrary to Church doctrine, that you do not sustain the leaders of the Church, and that you are intent on publishing your views in an effort to persuade others to your point of view.” In lawyer-speak, that’s conclusory language — it doesn’t cite any particular facts, any specific view or statement, any particular leader and how Bill didn’t sustain him, or any particular person who was persuaded to believe anything as a result of Bill’s statements. It is possible there was presentation of and discussion of particular facts in the hearing itself, but the letter does not give the impression that was the case. It’s almost as if, once the general charges have been made, the outcome is already decided and particular facts are irrelevant, even unwelcome.
Also in the news, Gina Colvin, a scholar and blogger/podcaster who hails from New Zealand, is scheduled to have a formal disciplinary council before her local bishop at some point in the near future. As reported in a post at the Religion News Service, the court is being held because “she recently received a baptism and confirmation in the Anglican Communion and participates regularly in her local Anglican congregation in New Zealand.” According to the article, the LDS Handbook defines one form of excommunicable apostasy as “formally join[ing] another church and advocat[ing] its teachings.” That strongly implies that just formally joining another church by itself is *not* sufficient to be considered apostasy. You have to advocate its teachings as well.
Having followed many of Gina’s postings on social media, websites, and podcasts over the last few years, I can say with a fair degree of confidence that she has not become a mouthpiece for Anglicanism or advocated its teachings (whatever those particular teachings might be). She has, however, spoken in favor of what one might call a progressive Christian view, that is treating people of all stripes with more kindness, patience, and tolerance, including suggestions for how Mormons and Mormon leaders ought to treat people within the Church. That’s just standard Christian ethics, for which a hundred scriptures in the New Testament could be cited. I certainly hope those sort of statements are not grounds for excommunication. It would certainly make the Church look bad to excommunicate someone for acting too Christian or taking Christian ethics (how we should treat people) too seriously. Or maybe the Handbook has been updated to make “acting too Christian” a new ground for excommunication. Perhaps someone with access to Handbook 1 could confirm or deny that possible change.
I won’t lengthen this post with a laundry list of particular changes to the LDS disciplinary process that might improve things a bit. At least make the directives in the Handbook clearer and give the poor bishops who get pushed into such proceedings by weight of circumstance or by directives from senior leaders better training for how to proceed. As it stands, it seems like the Church is using a 19th-century practice (or even a 9th-century practice) to deal with a 21st-century problem.
A quick caveat before closing. Churches, including the LDS Church, have full authority and power to define their own standards for membership and to apply them (or misapply them) to particular cases. The Church can disfellowship or excommunicate anyone it wants to. But from a practical standpoint, justifying the action as necessary to protect the good name of the Church doesn’t make sense if the negative publicity associated with the action is so significant as to harm the good name of the Church. And from a formal perspective, outlining procedures and standards that give the appearance of a fair proceeding (in which the accused is informed of specific actions or statements that transgress specific conditions of membership, and is given the opportunity to see the evidence that gives rise to such charges and contest that evidence with contrary evidence and witnesses) — well, if that’s what you hold the process out to be, then the practice should conform to the claim. If it does not, abandon the whole charade and simply send out letters that say, “Your membership has been terminated.”
There was also Sam Young earlier this year. I don’t know if it’s a trend or random grouping. These high profile excommunications had been somewhat rare the last ten years or so. I hope it’s not a trend.
In my opinion, there are very few things within Mormonism which scream “cult” as much as the process of excommunication does. All one has to do is watch the video of Jeremy Runnell’s excommunication, OR listen to the audio recording of Bill Ree’s DC – to see that this whole process is anything but a “Court of Love”. I think it is a cruel, inhumane and soul destroying practice. I think if one chooses to defend LDS excommunications – they might as well also defend “the stocks”, “the dunking pond”, “public shaming” (which is often a natural out-cropping within Mormon culture anyway) and….you might as well re-institute “stoning”. I can’t imagine that the LDS Church will continue this doctrine far into the future. It’s a pretty significant black eye to the church – and the optics (to the rest of the world) are truly awful.
“a progressive Christian view, that is treating people of all stripes with more kindness, patience, and tolerance”
I have a doubt we are talking about anyone excommunicated for merely showing more kindness, patience and tolerance; depending of course on how exactly you are defining these words. I’ll be watching the downvotes 🙂
“It would certainly make the Church look bad to excommunicate someone for acting too Christian”
Hopefully the church is not trying to “look” anything at all; the phrase implies deception. Yet I sense at least some effort by the church to “look” like orthodox Christians which to me is something of an abandonment of its roots. Millions of ministers suddenly.
What is important is to please God rather than seeking the approval or favors of men.
D&C 3:6 “And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men. 7 For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. …”
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Acts-5-29/ “Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.”
“…as to harm the good name of the Church.”
Among whom is this good name found and among whom does it most matter?
It matters most to have a good name before God. Next to that, a good name among godly persons, but that creates a bit of a circularity as to who that might be.
Joseph Smith had to worry about the “good name of the Church” even among the saints themselves. He probably did not worry much about what non-Mormons thought of it, other than they wanted to kill him for it.
http://emp.byui.edu/satterfieldb/quotes/If%20I%20were%20to%20tell%20you%20all%20I%20know%20%20JosephSmith.html “On May 23, 1843, I listened to a discourse preached in the Nauvoo temple, which was then only partially finished. Brother Joseph was talking on the pre-existence of our spirits, and our relations to God in the spirit world, and our standing in the family circle of our Father. Now I am telling the truth, and I remember that while thus talking he suddenly turned around to the Apostles sitting on the stand and said in effect: ‘Brethren, if I were to rell you all I know of the kingdom of God, I do know that you would rise up and kill me.’ Brother Brigham arose and said, ‘Don’t tell me anything that I can’t bear, for I don’t want to apostatize.’ Brother Joseph, addressing the Apostles, then said: ‘The weight of this kingdom has been as a millstone around my neck, but I am going to roll it off on your shoulders, and then the kingdom of God will go on.’ “
That’s a bit mysterious. Probably a thing I won’t know until I know it.
Lefthandloafer:
I think people see want they want to see. I watched the Runnell’s video and thought to myself that there’s a guy that would probably be happier outside the church. I also think some of the rhetoric about excommunication being a medieval remedy to a 21st-century problem is overwrought. We don’t expect, for example, a local democrat committee to continue to offer a position and speaking platform to a newly-converted republican just because he wanted to stay to ask some more “hard questions.” Nor would I expect my employer to continue to employ me if I repeatedly spoke out to the media about my perceptions with the deficiencies with our product line. People still get “excommunicated” from organizations all the time, even if people don’t call it that anymore.
Lefthandloafer writes “It’s a pretty significant black eye to the church – and the optics (to the rest of the world) are truly awful.”
But then, so is/are concepts such as pre-existence, that humans can someday be Gods themselves, eternal marriage, polygamy, personal revelation, salvation by works; any one of these ideas heresies in most orthodox Christian communities and churches.
Mormonism isn’t for everyone or even very many.
In some ways your criticism resembles that of the western world expressing contempt for the United States of America; how it is that there is no national health care or universal welfare. It makes US “look bad” to the rest of the world, as if how we looked to the rest of the world was ever “on the table” so to speak.
Of course there is one fairly large dynamic that makes this somewhat different and that is “the LDS Church claims to be the one and only true church on the face of the Earth”…and claims to have a monopoly on building the Kingdom of God here.: let alone that they are the best representation of Christ’s teachings and example. That’s some mighty big claims from an organization that seems to get more agitated by someone asking hard questions…and talks about their struggles with faith publicly….as compared to an MTC President who has admitted to sexually abusing a missionary in the MTC.
I listened to it. There is something that was clear during the proceedings, Bill was arguing a moral point. He seemed to be under the impression that this was a right versus wrong, truth versus lie, debate. It was simply a question of whether his actions damaged the Church and whether he’d continue to damage it. He admitted they he did, and wouldn’t stop. Truth is irrelevant. Right or wrong irrelevant. Case closed.
His only defense is that he didn’t do what he is accused of or possibly that his actions did not cause harm to the church.
Claiming the church lies, is immoral, etc. Has nothing to do with the council.
jimbob writes “People still get ‘excommunicated’ from organizations all the time, even if people don’t call it that anymore.
On blogs it is called “banned”. Took about an hour for me to get excommunicated from DailyKOS.
But one need not wait for excommunication. I quit Huffington Post when they took a hard left turn, and I quit National Geographic when it did likewise.
jimbob – I don’t think the analogy of an employee works in this situation. A member of the church pays money TO the church and gives volunteer time to the church.
But I can be a registered Republican and spend all my time saying, “We need to socialize medicine and raise taxes” and I won’t get kicked out being a Republican. They will still take my donations.
Isn’t that what Donald Trump just did?
Definitely want excommunication to be on the table. A community needs it if nothing else to protect against child abusers and other criminals who prey upon those in their social networks. It’s too bad excommunications are no longer announced in church for this purpose, because not everyone is aware of the predators among us.
Greggggg writes: “Truth is irrelevant. Right or wrong irrelevant.”
Agreed, but not perhaps for the reason you might suppose. Truth cannot be known with sufficient accuracy, particularly while sitting in a high council room somewhere; “right or wrong” is a concept that each decides for himself but you cannot very well represent an organization if your views on right and wrong differ from that of the organization. To change the organization itself presumes upon a level of bottom-up democracy that does not exist (even where it is said to exist).
I consider it dishonorable for a man to accept, or keep, a position of leadership when he does not subscribe to the philosophies of that organization.
Mormon Heretic asks “Isn’t that what Donald Trump just did?”
Yes, it isn’t what Donald Trump just did. (Full disclosure: I don’t know what Donald Trump just did and neither do you unless it’s a “tweet”).
Happy Hubby writes: “I can be a registered Republican and spend all my time saying, “We need to socialize medicine and raise taxes” and I won’t get kicked out being a Republican. They will still take my donations.”
Maybe, but you won’t be a delegate representing Republicans. That’s the essential element. Do you represent the organization? If so, then you have a duty, a fiduciary kind of duty, to properly represent the organization.
I was trying not to mention Trump. But since it was brought up,.. There are many that consider themselves Republican that would like to boot Trump out of the party.
Michael 2 – I don’t get it. Bill wasn’t asking to be a representative of the church. He was just saying, “Can you allow someone to stay that doesn’t believe it all, but wants to stay a member?”.
Can we all agree that analogies often suck?
Michael 2,
I get it. That wasn’t my point. He was accused of publicly making the church look bad. A charge he plead guilty to without remorse.
That element of truth was reasonably determined in the council.
For the high profile disciplinary councils we are talking about here, I don’t thing that determining guilt or innocence is part of the purpose; it is a forgone conclusion. The purpose of the DC seems rather to be to get the person to decline to repent in front of witnesses so that the resulting judgement can be deemed valid. It is important that witnesses (the bishopric or high council) be present to ensure that a certain process is followed and prevent Ecclesiastic abuse, but it is all merely a formality.
I do not think that the excommunication process is intended to give the person a fair chance to defend themselves. There is no standard of evidence, no burden of proof, no way to challenge the judge or jury, etc. Etc. Etc.
Bill Reel could not have avoided his excommunication by justifying or denying his actions, only by regretting them, which he did not, does not, and will not do.
(By saying this, I’m not saying that I agree with the process or result.)
During the spate of excommunications in 1993, I was living in Texas, before the World Wide Web was widely used. I was vaguely aware something was going down because I was familiar with Avraham Gileadi through his books on Isaiah and heard rumblings. I called a cousin, living in Utah County, to ask what was happening. He had no idea what I was talking about and I remained mostly in the dark.
Today, the internet changes the dynamic of high profile excommunications in a couple of ways. One, we hear about them. Two, for those who choose to be vocal, we also have a pretty good idea of the background leading up to their excommunication.
Jana Riess had a column the other day titled “High-profile excommunications may harm Mormon retention rates in the long run.” In her 2016 Next Mormon survey they asked American Mormons how “troubled” they were about excommunications of “feminists, intellectuals, and activists.” From her article:
– Nearly three in five Mormons (57%) say that they are very troubled (26%) or somewhat troubled (31%) by these excommunications.
– Among those who are active and attend church at least weekly, 50% are troubled.
– Among those who say that they believe all or most of LDS Church teachings wholeheartedly, 53% are troubled.
– Among those who are current temple recommend holders, 43% say they are troubled.
– Among Millennials, the numbers are higher: 66% say they are troubled.
The economist Timar Kuran identified a concept later termed a “preference cascade” which starts with a “people behav[ing] the way they think they ought to, even though that behavior might not reflect their own personal feelings.” then “Given a sufficient “A-HA!” moment when they discover that their personal feelings are shared by a large portion of the population their behavior may change dramatically. ” (quotes from Kevin Baker, at Quora). When enough people start to realize they are not the only ones who feel the way they do, suddenly the preference manifest itself and cascades through the population.
The church might want to be concerned about the high proportion of Millennials, now in their 30’s, who are troubled about such excommunications. As a side note, the average age of Utahns is a little lower than 30, which most likely reflects the average age of all church members.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
Need Screen Name, community safety from sexual predators is definitely a worthwhile goal, but I’m not sure publicly announced excommunications are the best way to get there. Reporting perpetrators to the authorities rather than keeping things “in house” and thinking skin-deep repentance cures the problem (which is apparently often done in LDS congregations) is certainly NOT the proper approach.
Dave C., the fact that disciplinary actions in such cases now get widespread attention on social media and in the mainstream media ought to factor in to how the Church sets the policies related to such proceedings. Trying to use NDAs to prevent recordings of the proceedings seems like an official response to the publicity problem. Hint: that’s not working very well. Another hint: going to court to try to enforce the NDA and get some sort of compensation from the person they just exed will not work either.
Michael 2, I want to make sure you know that your comments can be phrased as a general contribution to the conversation (whether agreeing or disagreeing with the post) without calling out other commenters by name and quoting a snippet of their comment to get things started. That makes it seem like your primary interest is simply in rebutting anything anyone else says. I’m sure you can figure out a friendlier way to make your points and contributions.
One has to remember that these are “high profile” excommunications for one reason. Can anyone guess what that reason is? Also can anyone honestly say that Bill has been supporting and sustaining the Church leaders?
Many consider it “supporting and sustaining “ a leader when they show their leader that they have faults ( such as lying) because in the end it challenges them to become a better person. Undeserved adoration and praise can corrupt a person. It is problematic to always be surrounded by “Yes men”. See 1Kings 22 for example.
I’m with Dave’s final thought: “[just] abandon the whole charade and simply send out letters that say, ‘Your membership has been terminated.'” I get that as an ostensibly Christian organization, our goal is to guide people to unity, fellowship, and repentance rather than jumping to excommunication. But I’ve personally witnessed examples of truly bad actors (abusive husbands/fathers, people whose addictions cause them to harm family and church members, sexual predators) who don’t seem to get much more than a talking-to. There doesn’t seem to be an actual effort to modify behavior–either nothing happens, or a “court of love” convenes to pressure people into retracting incendiary viewpoints. Not trying to share too many details, but in one recent case I encountered, a husband sufficiently abusive to have a restraining order taken out against him by his estranged wife managed to convince the Stake president that he was “remorseful,” and then over the bishop’s wishes had his temple recommend reinstated and a calling issued.
Of course there should be a mechanism to remove people who are dangerous or expressly antagonistic in a destructive way. But if we’re not actually going to approach behavior modification as a conversation, “courts of love” don’t really seem to accomplish much. And I will remain deeply skeptical of the implication that people like Sam Young, Bill Reel, or Gina Colvin have caused more tangible harm than bad actors like the husband I mentioned.
Someone who I won’t identify because he doesn’t like it wrote what I won’t quote because he doesn’t like that, either. Here’s my response:
It establishes context and to what I am responding.
This person wrote something else. Here is my response:
I am selective in my rebuttals where a meaningful difference of opinion exists. Several blog posts have highlighted the value of differing opinions at the table. No promise was ever made that the audience will appreciate this difference of opinion and I do not expect it. Downvotes assure me that I have succeeded with a different opinion; thank you very much.
“I’m sure you can figure out a friendlier way to make your points and contributions.”
This page is not discussing a friendly topic. It’s about “excommunication is back on the menu, boys”, a deprecation of someone else’s church. The tone was set at the very beginning. I can be very friendly on a more positive topic.
Matthew 10:34-36 English Standard Version (ESV) 34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household.”
I read this as meaning you may face a choice some day, a difficult choice, and your choice may set you against your friends and your family, and so it has been for me, with more choices to come.
If you have any kind of purpose, and God has you on his mind, you will be tested and it will not be pleasant. If you never face a test of that kind perhaps you don’t really matter.
“Why did God command Ezekiel to bake his bread with dung?” https://alliesbibleblog.wordpress.com/2012/11/26/why-did-god-command-ezekiel-to-bake-his-bread-with-dung/
Interestingly, God relents and allows Ezekiel to use cow dung. Could he not have simply specified that in the first place? Sure, but he was testing Ezekiel!
You MIGHT have to argue with God Himself but be sure to know your scriptures before you do that
The great hypocrisy about excommunications, of course, is what Bro Jones points out. Based on the evidence I’ve seen (which obviously isn’t all the evidence that there is), someone who disagrees publicly with the brethren or even just flirts with the line on publicly disagreeing with/calling out the church is much more likely than domestic abuser to get excommunicated. To me, that demonstrates that the church cares much more about its public image than about the safety and well-being of its members. That is the chief reason that it’s impossible for me to practice the unquestioning obedience our leaders demand. There is also a relationship, I think, between these excommunications, the church’s publicity concerns and the piety theater that is performed not just on fast Sunday, but on every Sunday. Why on earth would it be so important for an abusive husband to be a member in good standing of a church that teaches against domestic abuse unless the payoff wasn’t actual repentance with its accompanying behavioral changes but rather the APPEARANCE of being a good person (i.e. member in good standing)? Excommunication is just another arrow in the quiver of the church’s valuing the performative aspects of righteousness over, you know, actual, sincere attempts to be a better person.
I’ve really enjoyed everyone’s comments and perspectives on this somewhat “thorny” subject.
I love the Christ of the New Testament. I find that I can tap into the “Spirit of Christ” more by reading the New Testament than by any other scriptures. (Of course, revelling in nature and all of God’s creation can be incredibly edifiying as well!)
I perceive that there were a couple of things, behaviors , activities (whatever term we want to use) which really seemed to anger Jesus Christ while he was living on the earth; 1. the money-changers at the Temple – or the generation of commerce and profit on sacred ground, and 2. his apparent disgust toward the Pharisees and Sadducees and their un-willingness to abandon the old beliefs, rituals, dogma and practices which kept them in power.
As time moves on, I’m becoming more and more convinced that many leaders of the LDS Church are becoming mirror-images of the religious ruling class of Jesus’ day. From their throne-like velvet chairs at General Conference (where they can peer out at all of the “lessor ones”) to the way they are insulated from the individual members (and their “real life” day to day problems and challenges) up to and including the entrenchment of old rituals and practices (like excommunication); and, in the way the Church interacts with people who are outside the norm of what Mormonism is used to. As people learn, grow, stretch their mental muscles and become enlightened with many layers of knowledge….their tough questions are not going to be satisfied by threats, platitudes, meaningless homilies and statements like “just have faith”.
It seems to me that Jesus Christ taught us to be more inclusive, inviting people to approach….rather than pushing people away because they were non-conformists.
After all, it seems to me, that Jesus Christ was pretty “non-conformist” for his day!!
I agree with the Church on very little these days, but I do agree that there should be a process for excommunication.
I’m sure I’ll get down voted for this, but I feel it important that the accused have some due process.
In Bill’s case he pled guilty to the charges and used the opportunity to educate the HC on how corrupt the Church is (and it is). He did NOT mount a defense against the accusations.
I think this point is getting repeatedly lost. He vigorously argued a point that was totally irrelevant to the purpose of the court.
Kind of like getting a ticket in the mail from running a red light. You can see the video and picture evidence, and you know you ran it. Do you just pay the fine and move on or do you go to court, plead guilty and use the opportunity to lecture the judge about how stupid and corrupt the justice system is?
Not a bad point, Gregggg. Thank you. If the Church’s primary purpose is to protect “its’ good name” at all costs, regardless of the truth, then yes – individuals would absolutely have to have a place and a process for understanding what is happening to them. Much appreciated.
That is absolutely the purpose of the Church in these councils. Protection of it’s good name is paramount. If you are damaging the Church’s good name (even if true), and refuse to stop, you will be excommunicated.
It’s more than just an understanding opportunity. He had ample opportunity to present evidence that could support his claims of innocence related to the charges. I think the court is very fair in that respect. He plead guilty.
Bro Sky – I always look forward to your comments. Yours today made me think of this quote
“When the culture of any organization mandates that is more important to protect the reputation of a system and those in power than it is to protect the basic human dignity of the individuals who serve that system or who are served by that system, you can be certain that the shame is systemic, the money is driving ethics, and the accountability is all but dead.” – Brené Brown
I don’t think that quote applied to all areas of the church, but in this area it applies more than I wish.
Whether Bill, Gina, Sam, et al are a threat to the church or not–it is supremely discouraging to see domestic abusers given a pass for shedding a few crocodile tears.
I don’t think the bad publicity from excommunication is the church’s primary concern either. It’s really not to prevent bad press; it’s to marginalize those considered apostate from having influence among the members.
That the God of our universe would use His time to command someone to bake bread with dung is a story I find hard to stomach.
I only participated in one disciplinary council in my life. An MP holder had committed adultery, but didn‘t come to the council. I found the process to be careful and thoughtful. The guiding principles were 1) how can we best help this man? 2) How can we help his family? 3) How can we protect the good name of the church? After much deliberation we booted him out.
Angela C,
You are right. The purpose of these councils is to force capitulation. It only works if there is a big threat for non-conformity. In the old days people excommunicated had their names and town published in the Deseret News. Obviously to embarrass them, but more specifically to label them in a way believing members would understand to stay far away.
To a critic pursuading large groups of people, has additional credibility when they agitate from within the fold. Marginalization is key.
Eugene,
I wonder if the council was mindful of the evidence standard for adultery in D&C 42:80-81. Your council would have had to have had testimony from two witnesses, both Church members — and the member’s own confession isn’t admissable unless he consents.
As an aside, as I’ve mentioned before, my wife has left the church. She, however, has not asked to have her name removed nor has she been excommunicated. If pushed on it, she probably would resign. She told me, however, she doesn’t do this so that our extended family members (her parents, our children) don’t feel the blow of such finality. It’s not a problem for me since, I happen to agree with most of her criticisms of the church, and I don’t think her salvation, if there is such, is in danger. She is acting on what she thinks and feels is right and she is the same good person now as she was before her decision to leave.
I bring up her situation to give context to the service John Dehlin does for people like her. She made her decision independent of Dehlin – I don’t think she heard of him before she decided to leave, that is, Dehlin didn’t “lead” her out of the church. But being the only member of one’s family to leave the church while living in Utah is a very, very isolating experience. She finally connected with a PostMos (Post Mormons) group that has helped. One of the members told her about Dehlin’s Mormon Stories podcast. She has found hearing stories from others, who have similar experiences, helpful as she makes her transition. It helps her be less isolated. Yeah, Dehlin can rub Mormons wrong (even me sometimes) but he is filling a need for some of God’s children that the church cannot meet.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
Dave C., that shows how tough it is to gracefully hold to the Middle Way, for both you and your wife. Move to the middle and a certain dynamic kicks in: members of the ward or sometimes members of the family want to pull you back in or demand an explanation — which often has the result of pushing someone completely out or at least generating stronger responses than one would ordinarily give to probing inquiries. Likewise with PostMo groups or podcasts of various flavors. The discussion and dialogue can be therapeutic but it can also radicalize a person in transition. The Middle Way is a strait and narrow path, with hecklers on both sides. It takes real determination to stay on it.
Thanks Li for the comment. We didn‘t have personal or written testimonies for the disicipliary council I attended. It‘s the only one I ever saw, so I have no comparisons. As I recall none of the salient details about the situation we in question. The chances of having a witness to adultery are pretty slim – the witness would have to catch them in the act.
The man was MP, engaged in the behavior more than once, did not show remorse or seem to care at all, didn‘t come or respond to the council. His whole ward knew about the situation. We felt excommunication was the best outcome to prepare him for and prod him toward repentance. And we felt it was important for the ward that such behavior and attitude has appropriate consequences.
Again, I was impressed by the quality of the discussion with the SP and HC and really how much they all cared about every person involved.
I apologize for the flippant ending of my last comment.
“It’s really not to prevent bad press; it’s to marginalize those considered apostate from having influence among the members.”
This seems pretty clear. I’m not sure that’s a bad thing mind you.