posted
I found this article about exommunication both interesting and horrifying. My thoughts and feelings about this article mixed.
I find it interesting as a member of the LDS Church that gets a lot of exposure for its excommunication practices. For the longest time it seemed the LDS Church was the last influencial church to still have the practice, even including the Catholic Church. Mostly, I never understood why more church's didn't forcefully protect the sanctity of morals and doctrines. On the other hand, it seems that splits and schisms are the modern equivalant; let the differences fester and then have a huge group fight.
What is horrifying is the focus of the article. It mentions, "offenses ranging from adultery and theft," but mostly illustrates offenses "to gossiping." I suspect bias in the reporting because of that focus, but it is still troubling on its own. Excommunication - both reasons and process - should be far more private. I can understand why excommunications should be public as much as possible to keep back innuendo and rumor. What this article describes goes way too far as the congregation literally votes people off the island! That ends up more a popularity contest than an ecclesiastic action.
I don't know what to think of it in the end. Religiously, I am all for excommunication to keep bounderies and reinforce purity. Yet, some of the examples of the expulsions are worthy of concern. The fact that police get involved (by request of the pastor) or the courts (by way of former members) makes it worse. Yikes!
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, one of the ten commandments encompasses gossip. It isn't exactly a minor offense in the bible.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
From reading the article it sounds more like the pastor didn't like the congregant questioning his disregard for the church's bylaws so he shunned her publicly.
Excommunication is a serious matter but using it for more minor offenses, yes I think gossip is more minor than murder or adultery, makes it a mockery instead of a serious action.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand the motivations for excommunication but I think it should be kept to a minimum. The potential problem with excluding differing opinions is that it can inherently make the base views of a group more radical (here is an overly simplistic example: if you have a group with 5 radicals, 5 moderates, and 5 liberals and you kick the 5 liberals out, then you have shifted the "average" opinion of the group from moderate to inbetween moderate and radical). Of course, in practice I don't think this has been much of a concern considering the huge number of people involved, but it is still something to keep in mind.
(In this case "liberal" meaning a person who is less strict about following a certain set of rules)
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: Well, one of the ten commandments encompasses gossip. It isn't exactly a minor offense in the bible.
Are you thinking of 'bearing false witness'? It seems to me that this does not cover gossiping, but is intended to apply to courts of law.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The pastor at Allen Baptist is ignoring the church charter. Good for Ms. Caskey for sticking to her guns. Although the article left off an important point: if the congregation was too small to appoint deacons at 12 members (a reasonable point), was it still too small to do so 3 years later when it has 70 members?
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Threads: I understand the motivations for excommunication but I think it should be kept to a minimum. The potential problem with excluding differing opinions is that it can inherently make the base views of a group more radical (here is an overly simplistic example: if you have a group with 5 radicals, 5 moderates, and 5 liberals and you kick the 5 liberals out, then you have shifted the "average" opinion of the group from moderate to inbetween moderate and radical). Of course, in practice I don't think this has been much of a concern considering the huge number of people involved, but it is still something to keep in mind.
(In this case "liberal" meaning a person who is less strict about following a certain set of rules)
Doesn't "radical" mean extremely liberal? Seems like if you kicked out the liberals in that situation, you wouldn't change the average opinion much at all. Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
right, when its true its not false witness. I'm saying that false witness covers spreading false roomers, lying on the stand, or basically saying you something, or know something to be true about somebody, but are in fact actually bearing false testimony against someone. You know lying. you say you witnessed something you didn't. you are witnessing to someone about past events that are false. false witness. It's literal.
Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, to me 'witness' has the connotation of a court room, with people called formally to say what they saw. But I see that you theist types hear a different meaning in the word. Perhaps rivka or Lisa could chime in with the Hebrew.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
String, are you saying that if you didn't witness something and you spread it to people who are not concerned, that constitutes being (in our modern verbiage) a false witness? It's an interesting idea.
The argument for excommunication in LDS churches is that it is not supposed to be vengeful, but an avenue for the person to fully repent. I know of people who've committed serious sins, but unless they go and confess them, they will not ever be disciplined. I also know of cases where a crime was known publicly and the person was excommunicated for it. All kinds of stuff happens.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: String, are you saying that if you didn't witness something and you spread it to people who are not concerned, that constitutes being (in our modern verbiage) a false witness? It's an interesting idea.
Yeah, I guess it does. huh. Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Speed: Doesn't "radical" mean extremely liberal? Seems like if you kicked out the liberals in that situation, you wouldn't change the average opinion much at all.
I've always taken "radical" to mean an extremist at the far end of either side of the scale, so that a radical can be on either the conservative or liberal side of the center.
EDIT: For clarity, I hope. Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even if you don't interpret the ninth commandment the way that I do (I've read several articles with that interpretations), there is always:
Leviticus 19:16 Proverbs 11:13 Romans 1:29 which is a particularly harsh one. “They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips.” 1 Timothy 5:13 Matthew 7:1 Proverbs 18:8
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Well, to me 'witness' has the connotation of a court room, with people called formally to say what they saw. But I see that you theist types hear a different meaning in the word. Perhaps rivka or Lisa could chime in with the Hebrew.
I don't see why it matters -- there are plenty of other commandments that deal with gossip, and despite the prevalence of beliefs to the contrary, the Ten Statements are not more important than the others.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't 911 only supposed to be used in an emergency, where there is an immediate threat to life or property? Did that old lady bring a gun to church?
Seems like the preacher has caused himself more than a little gossip now by peristing in his disobedience and making a game out of it.
Posts: 1379 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Radical" was poor word choice on my part. Here's an example of what I meant: Link. Suppressing the opinions of one group inherently gives more power to the competing opinions of other groups.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I beleive X-communication is very important, if we Y's stopped communicating with the X's then we may run out of people. Posts: 2332 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Peggy Penley, a Fort Worth, Texas, woman whose pastor revealed her extramarital affair to the congregation after she confessed it in confidence,
Wow, that's just . . . wow. How is that supposed to be helpful to anyone?
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've always taken "radical" to mean an extremist at the far end of either side of the scale, so that a radical can be on either the conservative or liberal side of the center.
The term "radical" comes from "radix", meaning root. There are as far as I can tell two ways to interpret this, one that it means going back to the 'roots' of whatever it is you're reforming (so, like protestantism tried to do), and the other that means that you're simply making such a major change that you're changing it all the way from the roots up.
I guess that either way it's a "liberal" meaning in the sense that it favours great change over the status quo. But it could be a 'backward-looking' radical change, such as Protestantism. I suppose even if they try to get at the original meaning, they never really can and it ends up being liberal anyway.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Yeah, I guess it does. huh. ![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
