Mormon WikiLeaks (MormonLeaks)

[tooblue]

Just as a matter of doctrine, why is excommunication required to access the redemptive power of the atonement? And under which circumstances is the atonement not powerful enough for full repentance?

In certain circumstances, excommunication represents the only means by which an individual can wipe the slate clean (for lack of better terms) and prepare themselves to return to full fellowship as a disciple of Christ; it's the mechanism by which the covenants they previously made are forgotten or set aside, and they are permitted to make those covenants anew.

In this way, excommunication is seen not as a punishment, but rather as an opportunity to bury their old life and seek access to the redemptive power of the atonement—to literally be born anew.

In certain circumstances, excommunication is decided upon because the person represents a threat of some kind to the general body of the church. In those circumstances, it may not be possible for the person to return to full fellowship and to make covenants anew during their mortal life (nor might the person want to). The opportunity for regaining access to the redemptive power of the atonement is reserved exclusively for God's judgment in the hereafter.

Mankind (peoplekind :-)) are inherently flawed. We can trust that good men will do their best, with discernment to pass wise judgment. Knowing this, it may be best concerning certain individuals to not attempt judgement.

[Northwestcoug]

I don't know the answer, but the whole "fall of Adam" seems to have some parallels to ex-communication and working your way back into the presence of God.

Why is the atonement not powerful enough for some of these sins? Why is it some sins are not covered by it, unless you are excommunicated first?

I know you don't know the answer, but when JS made his comment and tooblue disagreed, I tried to remember a doctrinal reason why excommunication is needed for repentance.

[Northwestcoug]

In certain circumstances, excommunication represents the only means by which an individual can wipe the slate clean (for lack of better terms) and prepare themselves to return to full fellowship as a disciple of Christ; it's the mechanism by which the covenants they previously made are forgotten or set aside, and they are permitted to make those covenants anew.

In this way, excommunication is seen not as a punishment, but rather as an opportunity to bury their old life and seek access to the redemptive power of the atonement—to literally be born anew.

In certain circumstances, excommunication is decided upon because the person represents a threat of some kind to the general body of the church. In those circumstances, it may not be possible for the person to return to full fellowship and to make covenants anew during their mortal life (nor might the person want to). The opportunity for regaining access to the redemptive power of the atonement is reserved exclusively for God's judgment in the hereafter.

Mankind (peoplekind :-)) are inherently flawed. We can trust that good men will do their best, with discernment to pass wise judgment. Knowing this, it may be best concerning certain individuals to not attempt judgement.

As a matter of doctrine, I still don't know why some sins are not covered by the atonement. Christianity teaches that since we have all fallen because of Adam and sin, we are unworthy to return to the presence of God. This was the whole reason for Christ. He paid the price of all our sins. So why is excommunication needed for some circumstances when a reliance on the atonement only will not get us back to God?

And if we commit these certain sins, why do we need to negate those previous covenants we made and make them again after being ex'd and rebaptized? Aren't we all breaking covenants we made when we sin, and we are remaking them continually after repentance? This is where Christ comes in, right? Aren't we all 'burying our old lives' continually through repentance and the sacrament? Does excommunication have some extra umph power to get those people access to the atonement, when everyone else is essentially doing the exact same thing week after week?

Ex'ing to keep bad people out of the church I get. That is easy to get behind. And those bad people are committing heinous crimes, so I understand why excommunication might have gradually been viewed as necessary for the worst offenses to God. But still, I don't see any doctrinal evidence in Christianity for the necessity of excommunication to fully access the atonement.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Countless stories in the scriptures when people were immediately forgiven once they turn to God. My favorite (John 8):

1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.

2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.

3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

[falafel]

Countless stories in the scriptures when people were immediately forgiven once they turn to God. My favorite (John 8):

Dammit, just yesterday I was advocating for forgiveness and you were talking about milestones around necks!

[Flystripper]

the atonement is infinite the qualification to its access are left up to the interpretation of man.

[Pelado]

Dammit, just yesterday I was advocating for forgiveness and you were talking about milestones around necks!

milestone.jpg

[Eddie]

Why is the atonement not powerful enough for some of these sins? Why is it some sins are not covered by it, unless you are excommunicated first?

I know you don't know the answer, but when JS made his comment and tooblue disagreed, I tried to remember a doctrinal reason why excommunication is needed for repentance.

This is just the gospel according to Eddie...

But I think that sometimes excommunication is needed not necessarily for the atonement for work, but for the sinner to have faith in the atonement. To repent you have to have sorrow for your sins. I think some people feel the need to be punished, and if the punishment isn't severe enough then they don't feel like they've "earned" the atonement.

Quite honestly - I think there is some breakdown in how the LDS general population understands the atonement and how the rest of the Christian world views it.

For much of the Christian world, it feels like "hey, accept Christ and you're done! You can keep on living like you always have, keep on sinning, but because you've accepted Christ, the atonement will totally cover for you! So...eat, drink, and be marry! For you have accepted Christ!"

For many (most?) within the LDS church, there is a sense of being worthy, or making yourself worthy, of Christ's atonement. You show you've accepted the atonement by getting baptized and living the gospel. We take James at his word, that we are saved by Christ after all we can do - so there is a sense of "you better do all you can do!" We have to earn the atonement and make ourselves worthy.

I think reality is somewhere in the middle. I think accepting Christ requires more than saying "I accept Christ". I think if we have faith in Christ and accept him and the atonement, then we try to follow his teachings. I also think that we, as humans, are deeply flawed. And we should take solace in the knowledge that it is through the atonement that we are saved in spite of our flaws, not because we began to live perfect lives. Do we need to do our best? Sure. But at a certain point we need to start doing our best and move on instead of being overwhelmed by depression due to ruminating on thoughts of past failures.

But I think that some people CAN'T move forward until they've really felt the pain! And for some of those, excommunication might be what helps them get to the place where they've suffered enough and are ready to move forward.

As a total aside - I also think there are people who have decided they aren't interested in living the gospel and are no longer believers. So adultery, fornication, etc., is totally cool. In instances where these folks are leaders and have no interest in recognizing their waywardness - sometimes I can see excommunication being necessary to protect the church from an unrepentant sinner.

[tooblue]

As a matter of doctrine, I still don't know why some sins are not covered by the atonement. Christianity teaches that since we have all fallen because of Adam and sin, we are unworthy to return to the presence of God. This was the whole reason for Christ. He paid the price of all our sins. So why is excommunication needed for some circumstances when a reliance on the atonement only will not get us back to God?

All persons will be resurrected because of Christ's victory over death. God is a perfect, immortal being with an immortal body of flesh and bone. In order to be in his presence we too must have an immortal soul (spirit and body combined as an immortal body of flesh and bone).

Despite all persons being resurrected, not all individuals will return to live in the presence of God, because many will choose (agency) not to seek redemption through Christ's atonement. I can't say exactly why the need for excommunication other than it is the mechanism that has been given to us, by which persons can be born anew, so that they may choose to be born again.

Perhaps therein lies the logic: we can choose to be born again through baptism (covenant making), but we cannot choose to be born anew, hence the need for an excommunication—a specific mechanism that does that for us.

My understanding of how it works, is there are two judgments associated with excommunication. The first human-discerned judgement leads to excommunication. After an appointed period of time, the second human-discerned judgment leads to the opportunity to make covenants anew. In certain circumstances after excommunication, human-discernment does not appear to be sufficient, and the individual's only recourse is directly with God in the hereafter.

And if we commit these certain sins, why do we need to negate those previous covenants we made and make them again after being ex'd and rebaptized? Aren't we all breaking covenants we made when we sin, and we are remaking them continually after repentance? This is where Christ comes in, right? Aren't we all 'burying our old lives' continually through repentance and the sacrament? Does excommunication have some extra umph power to get those people access to the atonement, when everyone else is essentially doing the exact same thing week after week?

I can accept that there are times when weekly covenant renewal just isn't enough and that a 'full reset' is required. Much of this is semantics, but I see a distinction between being born anew versus being born again.

There are instances in life where situations just aren't salvageable and the old needs to be thrown away and forgotten, so one can start fresh.

Ex'ing to keep bad people out of the church I get. That is easy to get behind. And those bad people are committing heinous crimes, so I understand why excommunication might have gradually been viewed as necessary for the worst offenses to God. But still, I don't see any doctrinal evidence in Christianity for the necessity of excommunication to fully access the atonement.

It's been determined through modern revelation that there are certain sins that require excommunication. Perhaps in the future, new mechanisms will be revealed to deal with the complexities of exercising agency in the context of an abject mortal existence. That's the great blessing that is inherent to modern revelation.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Dammit, just yesterday I was advocating for forgiveness and you were talking about milestones around necks!

The context was the appropriate short-term institutional response to a sexual predator. Not whether or not God forgives someone. Try to keep up.

[Green Monstah]

Countless stories in the scriptures when people were immediately forgiven once they turn to God. My favorite (John 8):

It's funny the things that we allow to bother us, but when I was on my mission, I was deeply disturbed that Alma the Younger's son Corianton was called back to the ministry after spending some alone time with the harlot Jezebel.

[tooblue]

the atonement is infinite the qualification to its access are left up to the interpretation of man.

I do not disagree with your sentiment. In my opinion certain interpretations lead to much easier paths on our journey towards redemption. Such is the paradoxical nature of agency.

[Uncle Ted]

Milestones don't look so bad.

[Sullyute]

What is the acceptable level of forgiveness for someone who has committed sexual assault or rape? No priesthood calling ever? No callings involving children or youth (even if his crimes were against adults)? That pretty much prevents this person from ever holding any kind of calling again.

I am fine with that; no callings, period. You can still receive forgiveness from god (i.e. the Atonement) but still not be put in a position to hurt others ever again.

[tooblue]

Countless stories in the scriptures when people were immediately forgiven once they turn to God. My favorite (John 8):

That is one my my favourite passages in scripture. Of course, we lack context and therefore are unable to fully appreciate the whole circumstances which lead to Christ's judgment.

It's reasonable to discern that the scribes and Pharisees left the presence of Christ so readily, not merely because they themselves were hypocrites and adulterers, but also because it was they, wanting to 'tempt' Christ who had put the woman in the compromising situation in the first place. Perhaps she was an unwitting pawn?