“While the present-day Church does indeed continue to control large financial resources, its structural, political and suasive power in society is massively, devastatingly depleted by the twin dynamos of state and science.”

You’re mistaken about the twin dynamos. The true dynamos that have depleted the power of religion are democratization of the arts and … youth athletics.

Art is the power to create new myths. In the 21st century, anyone can participate in the arts. We also have an infinite selection of art to consume, infinite stories. Church is now obsolete in generating stories for the imagination.

I coach youth athletics. Based on my first hand experience, adults are easily able to channel zeal otherwise reserved for religion into disputing an officiating call for a nine-year old. Church is now obsolete in generating religious energy.

Surely the power of the state and science are powerful. Just not so powerful as art and youth athletics.

This is an excellent point that is not really being addressed by many of the comments that find excommunication necessary and wholesome. The point is that for many people in the USA, the process of excommunication as performed by the LDS church is prima facie evidence of moral turpitude. To these people it is just wrong.

Just as the LDS church has the right to perform excommunication, these people have the right to believe that the LDS church and LDS people are undeserving of inclusion in the group of people that are seen as morally upright. The LDS church itself is making the same case about religious beliefs and LGBT issues. They are making the case precisely because they know there is a significant and powerful group of people for whom the LDS church is morally suspect.

It think those commenters conflate the issue of the right of a group to excommunicate and that the practice of exercising this right should be generally seen as morally acceptable.

They seem to me a bit uncomfortable with the loss of respectability.

Then I am very grateful that mine feel no threat from yours. Cheers.

Once you take that part away, excommunication in its current form is just saying that a person cannot give talks, hold callings, participate in the temple, contribute money, or partake of the sacrament each week. Basically, it is just a bishop and stake president saying, “You cannot represent us on a local level,” which seems like a very normal and logical tool in bishops’ and stake presidents’ bag of ways to regulate their local congregations, even at times when I disagree with its application or utility.

So it is not the practice of excommunication itself that resembles medieval Catholicism, but instead the errant interpretation of its everlasting significance, and the public reactions that can result from that.

Old Man – I know Rosalynde hasn’t been excommunicated because of the numerous cheery bios she’s put up on websites like FairMormon I’m sure Roman and Rosalynde will correct me if I err. The fact that excommunications express so much “love” (they are “Courts of Love” for a reason!) is all the more appalling… “Es tu, Brute?” as the spiritual knives are drawn…

Don’t condescendingly pat me on the back for my service and tell me of what I know or don’t know. You have no idea who I am or experiences I’m drawing upon to condemn the comparison. Don’t twist my words into casting judgment where it is not aimed.

“But implicit in this argument is the sense that the Church is an institution of overweening power over the life of the individual.”

This is actually true, at least mentally, spiritually, emotionally–and often socially and financially as well. Speaking for myself, and believing that there are others like me, I can say that the Church absolutely dominates my worldview – my entire sense of purpose, destiny, and even self-worth. “I am a child of God,” – until the church damns me through excommunication, leaving me as an outcast spiritually, emotionally, and socially (given the tight social networks that exist).

Perhaps you have to experience excommunication to know what it’s like. I haven’t (whew!), and neither have you. Perhaps we should take at face value the feelings and emotions people express when they’ve been excommunicated, rather than baselessly second-guessing them.

If they know nothing of violence, you know nothing of excommunication.

I appreciate your military service, and totally agree that these Iraqi villages know violence better than we do. But surely you don’t have to go to Iraq to find violence. It’s found in every city in America. When people talk about excommunication as “spiritual violence,” they’re obviously making an analogy to represent the spiritual hurt they feel the “Court of Love” inflicting upon them.

Finally, who are you to say that people who are excommunicated know nothing of violence? Maybe they’re veterans like yourself. Maybe they were abused as kids, or abused by their husbands. Let’s withhold judgment, ok?

I see this idea a lot, not just from you. But it’s a red herring for several reasons.

First, in many cases excommunications are private affairs, so there’s no public warning function. Some excommunicated individuals continue to go to church, and plenty of ordinary church members are none the wiser.

Second, LDS members in good standing often do bad things that reflect poorly on them and the church, which nevertheless don’t usually lead to excommunication (e.g., cheating, lying, stealing, swearing, implementing torture programs for the U.S., etc. etc.) even though it makes people think our church is bad.

Third, does the public think that a single individual “represents the church?” I sure don’t believe that any old Catholic represents the Catholic faith – I know the pope does. How many people in the public really think that someone not a leader of the church represents the church? Further, when the person is explicitly criticizing the church, as John Dehlin did, there is no possibility people think he’s speaking on behalf of the very church he’s criticizing.

Fourth, even if people are excommunicated, they can still call themselves “Mormon” without lying, or still lie and call themselves a Latter-Day Saint. The church would then have to correct this misinformation (“No – he’s not a member of our church.”). But if the church is going to take the trouble to correct this misinformation, why not just say that the person is not teaching doctrines of the Church (while allowing the person to stay in fellowship)?

Amen.

Martha #41: Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t remember Bro. Kelly being much of a voice for anything. Can you find a single picture of him at the protests? How many posts on the Internet? Any speeches? Did he actually do anything except say “Yeah, me too” to the Bishop after the fact? Sorry bud, you have to work as hard as your wife if you want that response.

Dehlin is an adult. And his drama has been going on for several years. The scriptures are full of warnings and he denied those. Friends and family have worked with him. He had plenty of chances to do an about face. He still does.

In the case of Kate Kelly, she was excommunicated while her husband who held all of the same beliefs and attended all the same rallies was not. Same bishop. Same offenses. Entirely different outcome.

In John Dehlin’s case, he conducted his podcasts for 10 years. Over that time he covered all kinds of issues including his problems with historicity and ebbing belief in the church’s leadership before a public audience. One stake president seems not to have had a serious problem with it but a new one was appointed and, Bob’s your uncle, a warning interview was held leading to an eventual excommunication.

If this is all in a spirit of discernment why such different outcomes? And if the intent is to put people back on a right path why wasn’t John Dehlin called in before he had committed to a dangerous path. Nothing I’ve seen in the last year or so speaks to me of a loving Heavenly Father.

In the case of Kate Kelley and John Dehlin, these excommunications were in reality signs of weakness. If the Church’s claims to the divine were as they claim, why would they worry so much with “blind” or “misguided” usurpers? The truth should easily conquer? Shouldn’t we see the apostles take front stage against these miscreants and set us strait with their wisdom? Don’t they have God’s blessing and don’t they have communion with Jesus? Can’t they simply ask and receive the wisdom necessary to correct these apostates without excommunication or shunning? Wouldn’t that be more merciful to the so called sinners?

Keep hearing this and wonder where are all the progressives calling out “victim blaming”? A group or person is WEAK and their claims UNTRUE if they feel the need to remove some people from their groups/lives? Let’s just take that down a few paths.

I was ready to cheer for Megan in #34, but then she decided to label Beck as someone who should be excommunicated. Where, again, are the progressives calling out such “violence” over political differences? Let’s at least be consistent.

Roman #35, spot on.

Consider this parallel in science: if a layperson was claiming to be a scientist and making idiotic and unscientific claims from that position, it might be easy for the scientific community to point out that the person has no training in the field they are commenting on. But if the person was a member of, say, the Royal Society of Science, and was using that as part of their credentials, then the Royal Society might have to publicly disassociate the person from them to prevent the appearance of endorsement.

In fact, they have done so. And no one batted an eye, except the person who was removed from the order, who ran to the press screaming that they were being persecuted for their contrary views. But everyone knew what was really going on. Why this is considered barbaric in a religion is a mystery to me.