How do People Get Exocommunicated?

[inho]

Interestingly, the man who had received the 'higher' ordinances in the Preston Temple and who then revealed explicit details of what had taken place and who stated that he knew the Church was false, has not been excommunicated and cannot be excommunicated.

I think it is a myth that one cannot be excommunicated if one has received the 'higher' ordinances. We have apostles and seventies like Amasa Lyman, John W. Taylor, Richard Lyman and George P. Lee, who were excommunicated. It is likely that they had received the second anointing. There is nothing in the Handbook that says that any ordinance would make one immune to excommunication.

The man you are speaking of, had been inactive for years before he went public with his experience. If I recall right, he was living in Malta at the time. It is likely that the branch president there had no idea who he was and what he was doing.

[gkearney]

On the issue of murderers always being excommunicated - this is not actually true. I was a member of a branch where a particular sister had brutally murdered someone earlier in her life, had then changed her identity, moved to America, joined the Church, went to the Temple etc. had become very rich and famous, was featured in articles in the Ensign, hung out with General Authorities who had praised her, and then in 1994, film director Peter Jackson decided to make a movie starring Kate Winslett about a young women who had brutally murdered her best friend/lesbian lovers mother in New Zealand and lo and behold someone did some detective work and traced this person to be a famous member of the LDS Church who had kept her former activities secret.

No disciplinary action taken.

I have never heard of disciplinary action taken for event that took place before becoming a member.

[Arenera]

People excommunicate themselves all the time. Simply by turning away from God.

What is the difference of someone who has been excommunicated from the church, and a non-member?

Would Lucifer and his followers be considered being excommunicated?

[DesertWonderer]

The most recent high profile excommunications - John Dehlin, Kate Kelly etc. have been for activities which did not involve personal sins.

They both expressed views which the Church didn't like.

Incorrect. They were xed for apostasy (i.e. repeatedly teaching and promoting false doctrine and teaching to undermine the church).

[DesertWonderer]

The most ignominious excommunication of all time:

http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2014/ ... s.html?m=1

LOL so you believe Snuffer's version of the events? It's painfully obvious that his account is one-sided and purposefully picks and chooses "facts" to support his case. You know what I've always found really funny about the Snuff? He is a trained lawyer. As such he should not be using fallacious arguments--but he is the king of it.

He of course knows this but uses them anyway b/c 1) he doesn't have logical arguments to support his false position and 2) his followers don't know the difference and are easily deceived.

[LukeAir2008]

The most recent high profile excommunications - John Dehlin, Kate Kelly etc. have been for activities which did not involve personal sins.

They both expressed views which the Church didn't like.

Incorrect. They were xed for apostasy (i.e. repeatedly teaching and promoting false doctrine and teaching to undermine the church).

Teaching false doctrine is not classed as personal sin. Maybe you don't understand that. Teaching LDS doctrine in a mainstream christian church would be classed as teaching false doctrine. Teaching some of the doctrines taught by the early leaders of the Church would be classed in the current church as teaching false doctrine,

I can assure you that John Dehlin does not teach false doctrine. He doesn't teach any doctrine. He believes the truth claims of the LDS church are false and he doesn't identify with any other religion or faith. He's an atheist or agnostic. He does believe that homosexuals should be treated the same as heterosexuals etc.

[brianj]

The most recent high profile excommunications - John Dehlin, Kate Kelly etc. have been for activities which did not involve personal sins.

They both expressed views which the Church didn't like.

Kate Kelly believes that women should be able to receive the Priesthood. She organised a group of women who attended the Priesthood session at General Conference. She petitioned the Brethren to specifically ask the Lord whether the ordination of women was right and to then make known the answer they received from God. The Brethren did not like that idea and she was excommunicated by her Stake President.

John Dehlin interviewed (still does) a whole selection of Mormons (LDS and other Mormon groups) and non-Mormons for his Mormon Stories podcast and discussed a whole range of subjects from his own mission experiences where the missionaries were carrying out 'soccer' baptisms to boost the statistics to a man who had received 'higher' ordinances in the Temple and who then. revealed the nature of theoe ordinances and said the Church was false.

John Dehlin was expressing views on homosexuality and other sensitive issues which the Church didn't like and both he and his wife were excommunicated by their Stake President.

If you are committing serious sin and make it known to your Church leaders, unless you are a leader yourself, you are unlikely to be excommunicated. The Church will usually try to 'rehabilitate' you and excommunication will be a last resort after probation, disfellowshipment, counselling etc. hasn't worked.

I'm not sufficiently familiar with Dehlin to comment on him, but your comments on Kelly are quite misleading.
Kate wanted women ordained to the priesthood, demanded they be permitted to attend the priesthood session of conference, then actively spoke out against the general authorities. She encouraged those women she misled to "raise hell" in church. She held a protest on Temple Square during conference. She was repeatedly asked then warned to cease her apostate activities but her behavior shows that she was only going to stop when the leaders did what she wants or after being excommunicated.

Furthermore, she was not excommunicated by her stake president. He doesn't have the authority to do so. Such an excommunication can only happen if the president, his counselors, and the high council all agree to it.

[LukeAir2008]

The most recent high profile excommunications - John Dehlin, Kate Kelly etc. have been for activities which did not involve personal sins.

They both expressed views which the Church didn't like.

Kate Kelly believes that women should be able to receive the Priesthood. She organised a group of women who attended the Priesthood session at General Conference. She petitioned the Brethren to specifically ask the Lord whether the ordination of women was right and to then make known the answer they received from God. The Brethren did not like that idea and she was excommunicated by her Stake President.

John Dehlin interviewed (still does) a whole selection of Mormons (LDS and other Mormon groups) and non-Mormons for his Mormon Stories podcast and discussed a whole range of subjects from his own mission experiences where the missionaries were carrying out 'soccer' baptisms to boost the statistics to a man who had received 'higher' ordinances in the Temple and who then. revealed the nature of theoe ordinances and said the Church was false.

John Dehlin was expressing views on homosexuality and other sensitive issues which the Church didn't like and both he and his wife were excommunicated by their Stake President.

If you are committing serious sin and make it known to your Church leaders, unless you are a leader yourself, you are unlikely to be excommunicated. The Church will usually try to 'rehabilitate' you and excommunication will be a last resort after probation, disfellowshipment, counselling etc. hasn't worked.

I'm not sufficiently familiar with Dehlin to comment on him, but your comments on Kelly are quite misleading.
Kate wanted women ordained to the priesthood, demanded they be permitted to attend the priesthood session of conference, then actively spoke out against the general authorities. She encouraged those women she misled to "raise hell" in church. She held a protest on Temple Square during conference. She was repeatedly asked then warned to cease her apostate activities but her behavior shows that she was only going to stop when the leaders did what she wants or after being excommunicated.

Furthermore, she was not excommunicated by her stake president. He doesn't have the authority to do so. Such an excommunication can only happen if the president, his counselors, and the high council all agree to it.

I wasn't being misleading. The point I was making was that she was excommunicated for her beliefs/ideas/opinions and not for personal sin. She didn't lie, steal, molest children, have sex outside of her marriage etc.

She was excommunicated by the Stake President He PRESIDES. He had the final say in the matter. The counsellors and high council give their opinions. They advise the president. They dont tell him want to do. The Brethren had already made it clear they wanted her out of the Church.

We are free to express what we think and believe. It's called free agency. Others, however, might express their free agency and authority and take away our Church membership.

[BringerOfJoy]

My daughter was excommunicated a year or two ago, when she had stated that she had been rebaptized, and she brought up the dreaded "Snuffer" name on her blog. This was the most "Molly Mormon" of my children. She was told by her leaders to take the blog down. She did for a time while she prayed about it; but it was a no-brainer: She believed that the Lord told to put it up in the first place, so how could she obey men that told her differently? So, it went back up.

Think about that: you can now have a blog that supports gay marriage--something that until very recently was considered anathema to the LDS church--but now we've been told from the top down, you have the right to support and blog about the subject. BUT, should you get re-baptized--something that was a part of the historical LDS movement-- and blog about that fact and why you did it; you are toast.

Her husband, who left the church some time back because he has lost all faith in anything to do with religion, period, spoke well in her defense at her excommunication. He just said that he didn't know anyone more Christ-like; and if the church was now kicking out people like her that had always served faithfully, and was in many regards a "true believer," then he couldn't imagine what the future of the LDS church would be. I can't either.

At least it can be said--unlike some of the excommunications I am familiar with--that the leadership of her ward treated her with kindness and respect in the process.

So, that is how SOME people--quite a few that I know--get excommunicated these days.

[shadow]

We are free to express what we think and believe. It's called free agency. Others, however, might express their free agency and authority and take away our Church membership.

It's their literal responsibility to kick out the wolves from among the sheep.

Agency has consequences. Therefore we're NOT free to express what we think and believe without consequence, even the consequence of being removed from the fold.

Fighting the Lord's Prophets is sinning. It's always a sin to follow Satan even if you're deceived. Dehlin sinned and was removed from church membership which for him was just a technicality. Same with Kate. Korihor had no excuse either. Dehlin and Korihor are quite similar.

[brianj]

I wasn't being misleading. The point I was making was that she was excommunicated for her beliefs/ideas/opinions and not for personal sin. She didn't lie, steal, molest children, have sex outside of her marriage etc.

She was excommunicated by the Stake President He PRESIDES. He had the final say in the matter. The counsellors and high council give their opinions. They advise the president. They dont tell him want to do. The Brethren had already made it clear they wanted her out of the Church.

We are free to express what we think and believe. It's called free agency. Others, however, might express their free agency and authority and take away our Church membership.

I'm again going to disagree with you here. I have known women in the church who believe that women should be able to be ordained to the priesthood, but they are not excommunicated for their beliefs. Kelly openly spoke out against the prophet. She worked to assemble a group of followers and directed those followers to violate church standards and hold a protest on Temple Square because the prophet chose to follow God's will instead of hers.

For most of the time I have been a church member I didn't understand or believe in the law of chastity. I occasionally mentioned this to people, particularly leaders, and questioned the reason for the law in Sunday School. If the law is about procreation, as I had been taught, then contraception eliminates that issue. But I didn't speak out against church leaders, I didn't call chastity false doctrine, I didn't encourage anybody to disregard that principle, and I didn't call for the First Presidency to repeal that commandment. Therefore I never was warned to change my beliefs or face excommunication.

I don't understand why you and other Kelly supporters claim that she was excommunicated over her beliefs while turning a blind eye to her actions. I know church members who believe it should be okay to smoke marijuana medically or recreationally, and I have no doubt that if a weed legalization initiative makes it onto the Utah ballot a lot of active church members will vote for it. But those people will not face excommunication over their vote. However, if they load up a bong and light up in sacrament meeting they will probably be out. Would you claim such people were excommunicated for their beliefs and not for lighting up in church?

[Silver Pie]

Interestingly, the man who had received the 'higher' ordinances in the Preston Temple and who then revealed explicit details of what had taken place and who stated that he knew the Church was false, has not been excommunicated and cannot be excommunicated.

I think it is a myth that one cannot be excommunicated if one has received the 'higher' ordinances. We have apostles and seventies like Amasa Lyman, John W. Taylor, Richard Lyman and George P. Lee, who were excommunicated. It is likely that they had received the second anointing. There is nothing in the Handbook that says that any ordinance would make one immune to excommunication.

The man you are speaking of, had been inactive for years before he went public with his experience. If I recall right, he was living in Malta at the time. It is likely that the branch president there had no idea who he was and what he was doing.

He got the second anointing. He can do anything short of shedding innocent blood. Anything else he does wrong is not going to damn him, but he's delivered over to the buffetings of Satan until he is redeemed. That's the doctrine. The Church leaders know about him and do not discipline him. That would give LukeAir's comment about not being able to be excommunicated a firm base.

[Silver Pie]

The most recent high profile excommunications - John Dehlin, Kate Kelly etc. have been for activities which did not involve personal sins.

They both expressed views which the Church didn't like.

Incorrect. They were xed for apostasy (i.e. repeatedly teaching and promoting false doctrine and teaching to undermine the church).

Which the Church didn't like, right? I fail to see a difference in the two views above.

[brianj]

He got the second anointing. He can do anything short of shedding innocent blood. Anything else he does wrong is not going to damn him, but he's delivered over to the buffetings of Satan until he is redeemed. That's the doctrine. The Church leaders know about him and do not discipline him. That would give LukeAir's comment about not being able to be excommunicated a firm base.

I don't get it. I would love to experience the ordinance you referenced, but I look at it as nothing more than a sign that I am moving in the right direction. Don't forget that when leaders have been told that whatever they seal on Earth will be sealed in Heaven they were also told that whatever they loose on Earth will be loosed in Heaven.

[Silver Pie]

He got the second anointing. He can do anything short of shedding innocent blood. Anything else he does wrong is not going to damn him, but he's delivered over to the buffetings of Satan until he is redeemed. That's the doctrine. The Church leaders know about him and do not discipline him. That would give LukeAir's comment about not being able to be excommunicated a firm base.

I don't get it. I would love to experience the ordinance you referenced, but I look at it as nothing more than a sign that I am moving in the right direction. Don't forget that when leaders have been told that whatever they seal on Earth will be sealed in Heaven they were also told that whatever they loose on Earth will be loosed in Heaven.

That's true, but I think that once they give a person the second anointing, they don't feel they have the authority to undo it. There is so much secrecy in regards to it, that I don't know what the Brethren actually think about it, or what they say about it among themselves (I suspect they say nothing to each other in discussion, only talk about it when they are looking for someone to give the ordinance to). It's my personal opinion that the second anointing given by the leaders of the Church is, like the regular temple ordinances, only a foreshadowing of the real thing. From what JS has said, the second anointing (it seems to me) can only come from the Lord and is tied into the Second Comforter and having one's calling and election made sure (though I don't think those three are all one thing, necessarily). The man mentioned fully expected to see Christ when he had his second anointing. When he didn't, that's when things began to unravel for him. I don't think he understood that it was only symbolic of the thing that had the real power.

[inho]

Interestingly, the man who had received the 'higher' ordinances in the Preston Temple and who then revealed explicit details of what had taken place and who stated that he knew the Church was false, has not been excommunicated and cannot be excommunicated.

I think it is a myth that one cannot be excommunicated if one has received the 'higher' ordinances. We have apostles and seventies like Amasa Lyman, John W. Taylor, Richard Lyman and George P. Lee, who were excommunicated. It is likely that they had received the second anointing. There is nothing in the Handbook that says that any ordinance would make one immune to excommunication.

The man you are speaking of, had been inactive for years before he went public with his experience. If I recall right, he was living in Malta at the time. It is likely that the branch president there had no idea who he was and what he was doing.

He got the second anointing. He can do anything short of shedding innocent blood. Anything else he does wrong is not going to damn him, but he's delivered over to the buffetings of Satan until he is redeemed. That's the doctrine. The Church leaders know about him and do not discipline him. That would give LukeAir's comment about not being able to be excommunicated a firm base.

I still disagree. Bishop John Koyle received the second anointing and yet they threthened him with excommunication and finally did excommunicate him.

This is what the man referenced above wrote in reddit, when someone asked if he could be excommunicated (obviously, this is just his opinion):

You can be excommunicated after the SA. John D. Lee was for the horrendous massacre he was involved in. He also went through blood atonement by being shot for his murders. Later he was re-instated and all his blessings (including SA) and wives restored to him.

Church leaders have had 9 years to excommunicate me and not done so. Why not? They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. I lived in Malta for 6 years which was their best opportunity and they didn't take it. Because Malta has just one branch belonging to an Italian mission, the mission president could have been directed to convene a kangaroo court and excommunicate me all by himself without and counsellors or assistants.

Now I live in a stake and that would require 17 men (high priests) to convene a court of love. Does the church really want those men exposed to the SA and all I have on the church?

As I say, they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Anyway, what am I guilty of? Telling the truth? GBH was more guilty of apostasy than I in that he denied core doctrines of the church on national TV.

[Silver Pie]

I still disagree. Bishop John Koyle received the second anointing and yet they threthened him with excommunication and finally did excommunicate him.

I didn't know he had received the second anointing. Thanks for setting me straight on that.

As you see by your quote, the other guy believes he cannot be ex'd. And it was probably from him that I got the idea that someone who had received that ordinance could not. But, you have shown me someone who was, so that blows that theory.

[setyourselffree]

The most recent high profile excommunications - John Dehlin, Kate Kelly etc. have been for activities which did not involve personal sins.

They both expressed views which the Church didn't like.

Kate Kelly believes that women should be able to receive the Priesthood. She organised a group of women who attended the Priesthood session at General Conference. She petitioned the Brethren to specifically ask the Lord whether the ordination of women was right and to then make known the answer they received from God. The Brethren did not like that idea and she was excommunicated by her Stake President.

John Dehlin interviewed (still does) a whole selection of Mormons (LDS and other Mormon groups) and non-Mormons for his Mormon Stories podcast and discussed a whole range of subjects from his own mission experiences where the missionaries were carrying out 'soccer' baptisms to boost the statistics to a man who had received 'higher' ordinances in the Temple and who then. revealed the nature of theoe ordinances and said the Church was false.

John Dehlin was expressing views on homosexuality and other sensitive issues which the Church didn't like and both he and his wife were excommunicated by their Stake President.

If you are committing serious sin and make it known to your Church leaders, unless you are a leader yourself, you are unlikely to be excommunicated. The Church will usually try to 'rehabilitate' you and excommunication will be a last resort after probation, disfellowshipment, counselling etc. hasn't worked.

I'm not sufficiently familiar with Dehlin to comment on him, but your comments on Kelly are quite misleading.
Kate wanted women ordained to the priesthood, demanded they be permitted to attend the priesthood session of conference, then actively spoke out against the general authorities. She encouraged those women she misled to "raise hell" in church. She held a protest on Temple Square during conference. She was repeatedly asked then warned to cease her apostate activities but her behavior shows that she was only going to stop when the leaders did what she wants or after being excommunicated.

Furthermore, she was not excommunicated by her stake president. He doesn't have the authority to do so. Such an excommunication can only happen if the president, his counselors, and the high council all agree to it.

I wasn't being misleading. The point I was making was that she was excommunicated for her beliefs/ideas/opinions and not for personal sin. She didn't lie, steal, molest children, have sex outside of her marriage etc.

She was excommunicated by the Stake President He PRESIDES. He had the final say in the matter. The counsellors and high council give their opinions. They advise the president. They dont tell him want to do. The Brethren had already made it clear they wanted her out of the Church.

We are free to express what we think and believe. It's called free agency. Others, however, might express their free agency and authority and take away our Church membership.

According to you she may not be sinning but she absolutely was. Spreading apostate ideas is a sin.

[Spaced_Out]

This might be a touchy subject for someone. But I have a question. Besides fornication and incest, how do people get excommunicated?

For men, is it more serious than for women, since they hold the priesthood? Are things handled at a Stake level or a Ward level? Are both genders treated equally in the process?

I'm reading an article on the Ensign, page 55-57. It is about woman who came back to the Church after being excommunicated. The problem with this article is that she says that she has been part of the church 8 years old and she lived faithfully. If she were to live in righteousness and faith in her younger years, why would she make bad choices to obviously get the boot?

While we all have our weaknesses in mortality, why would we want to do something very sinful? Yes, we could have a cursing addiction or a pornography addiction and repent, but fornication goes way across the line. By the way, beside apostasy, rape, etc. are there any "unique" or "unusual" sins you can commit?

Some of the more out there excommunications that happen in South Africa in areas where I was, a PH holder not accepting the change that all races can receive the PH, another young PH holder started attending another church and passed the sacrament and collection hat - yip he got exed cant use PH outside of proper authority. In Australia the district that I was in the one Branch President started stealing tithing money - he was an Islander and got exed.
Most removal of membership is the person asking for removal and sexual sin.

[Z2100]

This might be a touchy subject for someone. But I have a question. Besides fornication and incest, how do people get excommunicated?

For men, is it more serious than for women, since they hold the priesthood? Are things handled at a Stake level or a Ward level? Are both genders treated equally in the process?

I'm reading an article on the Ensign, page 55-57. It is about woman who came back to the Church after being excommunicated. The problem with this article is that she says that she has been part of the church 8 years old and she lived faithfully. If she were to live in righteousness and faith in her younger years, why would she make bad choices to obviously get the boot?

While we all have our weaknesses in mortality, why would we want to do something very sinful? Yes, we could have a cursing addiction or a pornography addiction and repent, but fornication goes way across the line. By the way, beside apostasy, rape, etc. are there any "unique" or "unusual" sins you can commit?

Some of the more out there excommunications that happen in South Africa in areas where I was, a PH holder not accepting the change that all races can receive the PH, another young PH holder started attending another church and passed the sacrament and collection hat - yip he got exed cant use PH outside of proper authority. In Australia the district that I was in the one Branch President started stealing tithing money - he was an Islander and got exed.
Most removal of membership is the person asking for removal and sexual sin.

Great examples of the error of man.

[RAB]

I just want to point out that all who say they have received the second anointing may just be lying. Seriously, that seems to be the kind of thing that a person who had arrived at that level in their life could keep quiet about. It essentially means that a person has passed the test of mortality, has progressed as much as is necessary, but may continue on earth to help others along the way. Do these people who supposedly had that experience seem like the sort of people that have passed the test of mortality and are remaining to help others along the way? You never hear the apostles talking about those sacred experiences they have had with any specifics because I don't think they are supposed to. So, just a word of caution not to believe those who claim they have had a second anointing...pretty sure they wouldn't be talking about it if they did.