Wednesday, November 8, 2006

Counterpoint and Excommunication

I never finished blogging about the Counterpoint Conference—life got in the way—but I intend to finish. It just won’t be as fresh news as it could have been. One portion of the Conference that stirred me was the keynote speaker, Gay Blanchard. Gay was awarded the “Eve Award,” a recognition by the organizers of the Mormon Women’s Forum which honors those who have made contributions to enrich the lives of Mormon women that may not be noticed by the community as a whole.

Gay, a sweet white haired woman in her eighties, stay-at-home mom, wife, musician and playwright, began at midlife to diverge doctrinally with her local leaders on the subject of the Atonement. As I’ve been following along with some of the discussions lately occurring on Atonement Theory, I realize that the Mormon Church does not teach a comprehensive Atonement Theory. In fact, there has been considerable latitude in the doctrine that LDS leaders have espoused along these lines. Apparently, Gay began to reject a salvation by works paradigm.

From some of her writings available on the internet, I obtained this quote by Gay: “the whole purpose of the Law of Obedience is to convince us that we can't keep all the contradictory rules required of us by religious leaders over the centuries. Trying to do so is truly an education. We grow in our understanding of ourselves and of others; we assume responsibilities; we learn about the gospel. If we are awake, we learn painfully our many limitations. We work and work and work at trying to perfect ourselves one thing at a time, at trying to make ourselves worthy, at trying to work out our salvation. But we do not progress into higher law.” Gay says that for most Mormons “their journey stops here: working at trying to be obedient to the whole letter of the law.” Once we discover that we are unable to keep all of the commandments, we become open to experience a mighty change of heart and begin to rely on the grace of Christ to save us. This sounds not so different than some recent LDS authors, notably Steven Robinson. However, several decades ago, these thoughts were not so acceptable.

Because of Gay’s teachings on this subject, she was excommunicated from the Church. The decision was later appealed and changed to a disfellowshipping. However, much damage has been done to Gay and her family through this action. Of a large family, only one of her children continues to be active in the Church.

Lavina Fielding Anderson and I discussed this briefly in the hallway after Gay’s speech. “It might be easy for me to remain active in the Church after an excommunication,” she said. “But it’s different for the children. I don’t think I could stand a Church that did that to my mother.”

I grew up in a church that did not excommunicate or disfellowship its members. I find it a difficult policy to accept. Why does our Church feel the need to cut off members who continue to desire to belong? Even if there is sin, or doctrinal misunderstanding, it seems to me that these things would be corrected more easily from within than from without. I would prefer to leave it as the Lord’s prerogative to cut the sinner off from his presence.

I would love to hear some of my readers’ thoughts on excommunication.

12 comments:

AmyB said...

I think excommunication is an extremely unfortunate outgrowth of Joseph Smith's intolerance for anyone disloyal to him.

I can't imagine a loving God that would cut off children from Her or His presence. Jesus spent his time among the sinners, he didn't kick them off His team.

Excommunication is used as a fear tactic to keep people in line, and makes the church as a whole an unsafe place, in my opinion. I would love to see it fade away like some other unfortunate teachings and practices have.

Mark IV said...

amyb,

No, I don't think the practice of excommunication can be attributed to some flaw of Joseph Smith. Lots of churches used to practice it, they just don't much any more.

BiV,

Is it just excommunication, or do you object to official discipline in any form? I think some kind of official withdrawal of fellowship is good in some cases. I see no reason why the church should provide a place for a polygamist to recruit more wives, for example, so I'm glad the church draws a line.

While I agree with your judgement that people are usually better off in the church than out of it, I've seen a few really scary situations where a true predator viewed the ward as a happy hunting ground. There is no way the church should be expected to facilitate or tolerate their behavior.

Anonymous said...

the way I see excommunication, it is an opportunity to 'start over'. You can leave the church, and begin again with fresh baptism. If you think about it this way (which I believe is the way it is intended) I think its a pretty cool thing.

That being said, its hard to see it that way in the moment, with all the emotions and peer shunning that tends to come. Maybe the church could just call it something else, and focus on teaching the principle to the members better so they would not see it as a 'kicking out' of our members?

Johnna Cornett said...

Gay Blanchard's article "Why Most Mormons are not Going to the Celestial Kingdom" is online as a pdf at Mormon Women's Forum.

Bored in Vernal said...

Johnna, Thanks for the link. It's an interesting article with temple symbolism. It certainly explains more about Gay's beliefs than I was able to pick up during my one encounter with her. She also explains where she differs with Robinson.

Mark IV, I agree with Amyb that excommunication is a fear tactic. I believe there are other ways to make Church a safe place from predators and people seeking plural wives. Most other churches face problems of members who sin or do not conform, and yet don't resort to excommunication. The challenge is to find solutions which will benefit all involved--the institutional Church as well as the individual. I am especially against excommunications of sweet stay-at-home moms who may differ doctrinally in their opinions. (I'm thinking Gay, Janice Allred, etc.)

Anon,
I'm perfectly satisfied "starting over" through the process of repentance and taking the sacrament each week. Far to many who are given the "opportunity" of excommunication will never be rebaptized, and their families may feel the effects for generations.

Michael said...

"I can't imagine a loving God that would cut off children from Her or His presence."

amyb,

Are you aware that the whole plan of salvation involves being cut off from the presence of our Heavenly Father if we do not conform our lives to the laws and statutes of his kingdom? It has nothing to do with him being mean, it has to do with being able to abide a celestial law and to live according to his precepts. If someone cannot or will not do that, they are cut off because the foundation of his kingdom cannot tolerate the least degree of sin.

Anonymous said...

It is hard for someone to get excommunicated. Excommunication is always the last option... I highly doubt that Gay was excommunicated for her doctrinal misunderstanding and teaching. If people were excommunicated for misunderstanding and teaching incorrect doctrine the LDS church wound not exist. I would guess that pride had a lot to do with her excommunication and not looking to God for understanding. It sounds like she likes to teach her own doctrinal understanding and not Gods. Hopefully she will repent and come back into the fold...

cp - Vernal, UT

Steve M. said...

I see no reason why the church should provide a place for a polygamist to recruit more wives, for example, so I'm glad the church draws a line.

Of course there should be a line. But I don't think that somebody taking a slightly different doctrinal stance (even if they express this stance in public) is in any way similar to a polygamist hunting for plural wives in the ward. This extreme example does nothing to justify Gay Blanchard's excommunication.

the way I see excommunication, it is an opportunity to 'start over'.

This is what repentance is about. This is what the Church (supposedly) is about. I just have a hard time seeing why it's necessary to kick people like Gay Blanchard out of the kingdom in order for them to 'start over.' Don't we take the sacrament each week in order to 'start over'?

Are you aware that the whole plan of salvation involves being cut off from the presence of our Heavenly Father if we do not conform our lives to the laws and statutes of his kingdom? It has nothing to do with him being mean, it has to do with being able to abide a celestial law and to live according to his precepts. If someone cannot or will not do that, they are cut off because the foundation of his kingdom cannot tolerate the least degree of sin.

In that case, all of us should be excommunicated, because none of us even come close to 'abiding a celestial law.' Michael, according to your logic, none of us should be members of the Church.

It seems that this is what Gay Blanchard is talking about. We aren't saved by living a celestial law, because we'll always, always fall short of that law.

In any case, I don't see how Gay Blanchard, or others like her, could be seen as committing a grievous sin. Even if the Church leaders felt that she erred in doctrine, Joseph Smith himself said that a man should not be tried or kicked out of a church for erring in doctrine.

Bored in Vernal said...

Thank you, Steve.

Mark IV said...

This extreme example does nothing to justify Gay Blanchard's excommunication.

Steve,

That isn't an extreme example, that is the norm. The majority of people who get ex'ed, at least in Utah, are fundie Mormons. The church exes hundreds of them a year and nobody cares. And since you agreed that of course the church should draw a line in those cases, I assume you agree with my larger point: excommunication does have a legitimate place. Once we agree on that, then the only remaining question is when to apply it.

I'm starting to realize (OK, I'm slow) that the real question here is whether excommunication for heresy ala The September Six is ever appropriate. I'll repeat what I said in my previous comment - I think people are usually better off in the church than out of it.

Steve M. said...

I assume you agree with my larger point: excommunication does have a legitimate place.

Yes, I would personally agree that it does have a place, in special circumstances.

I'm starting to realize (OK, I'm slow) that the real question here is whether excommunication for heresy ala The September Six is ever appropriate. I'll repeat what I said in my previous comment - I think people are usually better off in the church than out of it.

I totally agree.

Michael said...

Please remember that the Lord blesses His servants with the Spirit to run His Church. Normally, they will be in tune with Him and will only choose excommunication when it is as He directs. How could He continue to bless members with His Spirit if they continue to openly reject His Spirit with choices of evil? He promises the Spirt to them as long as they choose righteousness. Excommunication removes the promise of the Spirit, and actually blesses the excommunicant with the ability to see the loss and then make a choice to repent to again receive the promised Spirit.

Only the Lord can see fit to excommunicate. It is a blessing.