I assume they aren’t actually this dour, but what some people envision a disciplinary council looks like. Here I’m not addressing the normative question of whether we should excommunicate, I have already said my piece about that here.
A while ago I was speaking to my stake president and made some humorous quip about him excommunicating people, and he had responded that he had actually never excommunicated anybody before. I was kind of surprised at this, as my father who has served in bishoprics in the 1990s and 2000s referred to disciplinary councils and excommunications during his time. (And yes, I know it’s not technically called “excommunication” anymore, but here I’m using the term to be more pithy).
I have no hard data on this, but I would not be surprised if excommunications are less of a thing nowadays for several reasons.
To some extent the excommunication process requires the consent of the person being disciplined. They could just not show up and/or request their records be removed. Whereas before the Church may have had enough sociocultural heft in some geographic areas to get people to show up, even if there was a call to a disciplinary council I suspect many people just wouldn’t bother (unless, of course, they want to invite a bunch of media and make some point of it).
Of course, they can have one without the person, but generally speaking completely inactive, members-on-records-only are considered off-limits (except, possibly, in some egregious circumstances). Unless they start serially killing people I doubt Rocky Anderson or Marco Rubio will ever face a disciplinary council, despite whatever they may be doing in their personal lives.
Moving one degree further, I don’t get the vibe that somewhat-inactives are typically facing a lot disciplinary councils either. If somebody shows up to Church every couple of months with their live-in girlfriend, I doubt many bishops will call them up for living in sin, although there may (or may not) be some sacramental restrictions.
I’m not super informed about this, but word on the street is that same-sex couples are holding callings, taking the sacrament, and everything, depending on how liberal the SP or bishop are, so gay couples are another category that people are skittish about calling up for a disciplinary council for. (To briefly preempt a concern here, you can’t complain about bishop roulette and one-size-fits all at the same time, they are the mirror images of one another).
So really that ironically leaves relatively active people who are opting into the Church’s disciplinary structures voluntarily who are at risk for discipline and maybe excommunication. While in the past there may have been people who really did not care for living the Church lifestyle, but for whom there was enough social scaffolding around the Church as an institution that they still felt obligated to go through the process, my vibes, again for what they’re worth, is that, like the non-believing missionary going on a mission due to social pressure, that is less of a thing now, so I suspect that excommunication is more or less reserved for 1) leaders who committed a sexual sin, 2) super active types who are nonetheless serial adulterers, 3) super active types who did something that would put them in prison, or 4) embezzling from the Church. Since 2 and 3 are less likely to happen among people who are actually showing up to Church, or who would want to keep showing up to Church after being exposed, the Venn Diagram overlap of people who are actually at risk of being excommunicated is quite small.
Just one data point: I’ve served in three bishoprics/unit presidencies over the years, and once more as a ward clerk . In the first bishopric, a singles ward 25+ years ago, it was approximately one disciplinary council a month—mostly endowed members having sex. In the second, a small branch 20+ years ago, we were just happy people were coming so there wasn’t really any disciplinary councils. As a ward clerk 10+ years ago in a robust family ward, it was maybe one disciplinary council every three months, mostly sex by unmarried members. And now, in my current bishopric for 4+ years (healthy sized family ward), no disciplinary councils at all. I think people are probably opting out rather than making an admission to the bishop, but I don’t know for sure.
In a lunch conversation with a coworker, I responded to his inquiry about excommunication, and I mentioned how besides leadership, no one knows if someone is excommunicated or not. It’s not mentioned over the pulpit. There’s no effort to socially shun such a person, etc. My coworker responded with, “You guys do excommunication wrong.”
I’ve always found it odd how certain anti-people will complain in the same breath how hard it is to get your records off of the church and how quick we are to excommunicate. There’s just no pleasing certain people.
Interesting thoughts. Growing up and in my younger years in the church, there was always a feeling of obligation toward confession to the Bishops. If you had a sin and didn’t confess, lightening would strike or at least you’d carry around a weight of guilt because Jesus was rejecting you unless you told.
That’s disappeared for me somewhere in my 30s, likely because I came to see Bishops and SP as just people with a job to do rather than someone holding a magical authority power.
What’s interesting though, is that my kids (now mostly adults) have never felt any obligation. Their approach is more that their personal lives are none of the church’s / bishop’s business.
I wonder how common the change is in the millenial and gen z groups and if this extends to more orthodox members than my kids. Even more, I wonder at the larger implications of such a mindset change.
I recall in the 60s and perhaps in the 70s, after the start of priesthood meeting, the Aaronic priesthood were asked to leave and when the Melchizedek priesthood was there, a statement was read from the pulpit: “Member X has been tried and excommunicated or disfellowshipped.” I cannot recall if the reason for the excommunication was given or not.
That eventually stopped and now it is never done. It seems the only way the congregation finds out about a church court today is by gossip: “Did you hear that Brother X was excommunicated for fooling around with Sister Y?”
Perhaps the Church doesn’t want to cause undue embarrassment to the offender.
For my perspective it’s depends on who the Bishop is. I personally know two members, in the last ten years, who were excommunicated-one is or was a pedophile and what his situation is now or lives I have no clue. The other was a serial adulterer etc. He posted on FB all about his excommunication, I can’t imagine the Stake Presidency had much of a hardship deciding on him. Right now, in our our ward the wife of a couple told everyone in SS she and her WML, endowed, active husband, were selling their medications to make ends meet. Selling prescription meds is illegal. Imagine the amount of people expressing concerns when this brother was passing the sacrament some weeks later. The Bishop doesn’t think it’s a big deal, the SP told him to call the legal dept. which he didn’t. So, I don’t think he’d be exed, if our Bishop had any real knowledge of criminal matters being participated in by active recommend MP brethren. I also don’t think people have confidence in the Bishop TBH.
I’m not aware of anyone in my stake having had their membership withdrawn in the last 25 years or so. That may be because that information is only shared on a need-to-know basis now, and the cases where the whole ward needs to know are very limited. But if you read the handbook chapter on membership councils, the list of sins that require one is pretty short (and pretty much all no-brainers) and the list of sins that may require one isn’t much longer (it does include cohabitation and same sex unions). Then there’s a list of things that explicitly don’t require a membership council, which makes me wonder if there’s been a change.
If you look at the purposes of membership councils (help protect others, help a person access the redeeming power of Jesus Christ through repentance, protect the integrity of the Church) holding one for members who are not active does not seem likely accomplish them.
@Anonforthis: “I think people are probably opting out rather than making an admission to the bishop, but I don’t know for sure.”
I’ve wondered the same thing, and it might be a bit of both. About 20-30 years ago was peak people having non-marital sex. Since the widespread availability of broadband internet and porn non-marital (and marital) sex has been in decline. However, I also think ReTx is onto something, where people just feel less obligated to report everything to a bishop nowadays.
@jader3rd: I also get the sense that it was harder to remove one’s name in the past, but I’m a little skeptical when I hear accounts of how hard it is nowadays, since by most accounts it’s a pretty straightforward process; if the paperwork doesn’t go through I’d probably attribute that to incompetence more than malice.
@ Kent Gibb: Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that: excommunications used to be announced over the pulpit! Between stopping that practice, making it easier to withdraw your name voluntarily, and not using the term “excommunication,” I think there’s clearly an arc towards making it seem less punitive.
@Anonymous: Yes, I think the bishop matters. It’s interesting now that we all have access to everything the bishop has access to just how little handholding there is in regards to disciplinary council law, as it were, so there’s probably a lot of variation among local church leaders.
@RLD: “If you look at the purposes of membership councils (help protect others, help a person access the redeeming power of Jesus Christ through repentance, protect the integrity of the Church) holding one for members who are not active does not seem likely accomplish them.” I agree, except in cases where there are clear PR problems when somebody in the media is associated with the Church. (E.g. my understanding is that Ted Bundy joined the Church shortly before he was arrested–I would have hated to be the High Councilor assigned to his defense!)
FWIW: the high council only participates in a membership council in “difficult situations” like facts being in dispute (or if the member wants them to participate). I can say with confidence that has not happened in my stake for at least four years. Ted Bundy seems like an open-and-shut case so I doubt the high council would be needed.
I vaguely recall that when I suddenly developed an interest in understanding the role of the high council four years ago, the handbook said something about high councilors not being assigned sides. That’s not there now, but the procedure described does not include anything like the assignments described in D&C 102. The membership council is run by the stake presidency and the high council’s role is limited to offering their “comments and insights” after the member is excused and then sustaining or objecting to the decision the stake president makes. But I’ve never seen a membership council in practice, so take that for what it’s worth.
The subject of excommunications is so difficult. It was something I was very afraid of in my responsibilities when I was stake president.
Until we had a case and I had to excommunicate a brother… I think I cried most of the night… my soul hurt. Every time I went to his ward I greeted him and he made sure he continued to attend church… I can’t forget the pain I felt. I was using the keys that the Lord gave me and the case warranted it… but I could feel his pain and that of his family, as well as that of the other person involved.
After a few years I met him when he was on vacation and he told me that he was back. I remember that I hugged him and finally my soul had peace.
I was part of a few disciplinary courts when I was on the high council 10-15 years ago. At that time we did separate into 2 groups which focused on the 1.) The worth of the individual and 2.) Protecting the name of the church. Out of the 6 I participated in, 2 were excommunicated for adultery and the other 4 were disfellowshiped for adultery. I noticed a change in our Stake President as time went on. At first, he was more prone to excommunicate, but he eventually softened because he realized excommunication meant there were no ties to the church or any sense of continued accountability. With disfellowshipping, the person was still a member and it gave the Stake President a reason to continue to speak into their lives. Our most egregious case was a bishopric member who ended up sleeping with 30+ women while in the bishopric. In counsel with this person’s spouse, the Stake President chose disfellowshipping out of concern that this person would no longer feel any sense of accountability to his family, self or God if excommunicated. It was the right call as this person is back in full fellowhip wtih the church.
I think the changes in the handbook to exclude the high council are meant to allow the Stake President to offer more mercy and help members work through the repentence process without the shame of meeting with a “church court.”
When my high priest (bishopric member) ex-husband walked out on me and our six children to live with his new squeeze, you can bet he was excommunicated. He didn’t attend the disciplinary court, but he got a letter from the high council letting him know he was no longer a member.
No one is “excommunicated” anymore because the Church doesn’t use that term anymore. I’m surprised that between the OP and the comments, no one has drawn attention to that fact, and only one commenter even tacitly acknowledged that fact. I’m not here to be the word police—I just find it interesting.
I just want to register my disagreement with the claim “you can’t complain about bishop roulette and one-size-fits all at the same time, they are the mirror images of one another.”
I believe both of those are effects of inadequate training for bishops. A bishop who is excessively harsh, excessively lenient, or excessively insensitive to the differences in individual circumstances is a bishop who needs more training (and likely more sensitivity to the Spirit).
Some of that training is already there in the standards in the handbook etc which try to curb such excesses. Giving more direct instruction about what should *not* be asked in temple recommend interviews, for instance, has recently curbed some serious problems.
But beyond that kind of thing, more training should reach people well before they face such a calling. Other faiths’ seminaries have their candidates for the ministry take courses in pastoral care and counseling. We who send all of our children to seminary and give everyone age 14 and up the assignment to be ministers should probably spend less time complaining that people don’t do their ministering and more time giving them ministerial training.
As an old fart who participated in several “membership check-ups” (from court to council to status or whatever) as bishop and on the HC, it for sure has changed a ton. From the how-to, who can, to the name, to the frequency in getting membership “flagged” or whatever nice way we say it now. Lots of changes.
As for the training of leaders. I wish! I didn’t even have time to read the handbooks when I was called to be bishop. Never read them cover to cover due to being so freaking busy all the time. I read them when I had to know how to do my job as things came up. I dont know how leaders keep up now with the book changing every 6 months….I think I had 1 new handbook in 15 years of leadership.
Way back in the day, (early SLC times) the members names who were ex’d were posted in the paper each week. All started from said members having to stand up in front of the congregation to confess their sins to everyone!
I think we should do that again. Lets start in the front of the chapel and work our way back. (I sit in the back)
@DSC: I brought that up in Stephen’s first post on the topic and he acknowledged it here, so I didn’t think it was worth mentioning it again. But jader3rd’s friend is quite right that we do excommunication wrong. Rather than promise them they’re damned for eternity, we promise them they can repent and be forgiven. Rather than cast them out of our community, we encourage them to keep participating and instruct our leaders to give them extra love, time, and attention. Rather than publicly shame them and hold them up as examples of the terrifying consequences of sin, the whole proceeding is on a need-to-know basis. So maybe the Church has a point in wanting us to call it something else–what we do just isn’t what people think of when they hear “excommunication.”
If I’m not mistaken, it is certainly possible to be excommunicated even if you refuse to show up to your “court.”
Tom – yes it is. Well at least it was. Things have changed so much.
It still is.