Hugh Nibley once said “Excommunication… [is] the only power to punish the Church has ever had”. Yet, how this punishment has been used and understood has changed within the Church over time. Therefore, what is the nature of this punishment and why does it need to be used at all? How does excommunicating someone fit with Christ’s message to seek out the lost sheep and carry them back?
I should acknowledge that I have never been involved in a disciplinary council but do know people who have been excommunicated. Some estimates of the number of yearly excommunications that can be derived from Church Statistics indicate that number of people excommunicated every year is between 20,000-70,000, and these are from the early 1980’s. The large variations make me skeptical of the accuracy of these reuslts, yet they are interesting to note. There is approximately 3,000 stakes. 20,000 excommunications indicate around 7 people per stake per year. I think this sounds a little high, but perhaps not. Moreover, I would be interested in seeing statistics for numbers of people readmitted after excommunication. Regardless of the numbers it would seem that thousands of members of the Church have this experience every year. In view of this it is worth considering in more depth.
Excommunications and Disciplinary Councils (or Church Courts) have been a part of the LDS Church since its inception. The first revelation on this subject was received in 1830 (see D&C 20: 80-83) with the organization of the Church and the first Excommunications occurred occurring within the first two years of the Church’s existance (see Bush). The range of activities that were punishable by Excommunication, or that required a disciplinary council was very broad. The grievances can be categorised into five areas: Grave Offenses (Adultery and Theft), Frank Apostasy (Teaching False Doctrine), Subtle Apostasy (Disobeying Leaders), Unchristian-like Conduct and Personal Grievances (Bro. So-and-so was rude to me). These have been restricted over time and civil matters are now encouraged to be resolved in governmental channels. Yet that these councils still exist raises a question about their status in the LDS Church; should the Church have the power to cut people off, should it be able to excommunicate people?
In part, it seems that Excommunication is a hangover from the Isrealites conception of accountability and the community. If an individual sinned then the whole community was punished. Thus in order to restore ‘righteousness’ to the community, their repentance was to remove the offending part (see Josh 7). If we reject this view of community accountability then we should also reject this form of punishment, for it does not save the individual but the community.
During the Church’s early years one factor was most important in deciding the outcome of these ‘trials’; whether a person was repentant or not. This resulted, according to Bush, in a high level of consistency in how the actions were applied but it was not necessarily in line with the severity of the crime. Over time the Church has attempted to formalise the procedure and outcomes of trials, this seems to have led to a shift in how situations are ‘judged’ . There is a stronger emphasis on a specific crime being linked with a certain outcome. This shift reflects an important rhetorical change that now describes excommunication as part of the repentance process rather than a punishment for those who were not repentant. This leads me to my second question; upon what criteria should the Church excommunicate people, if at all? A third related question is Excommunication necessary for the repentance process?
Doug Alder has noted that discussion around Excommunication can too readily revolve around ideas of respectability; meaning people focus too much on the negative effect of the social stigma attached to being excommunicated. Instead, Alder argues that Excommunication can be a sacred and spiritually beneficial experience, if the person is prepared and ready. But this raises other questions about how people can become ready for such a violent act, as described by Margaret Toscano in the PBS documentary ‘The Mormons’ and in a post by Clap Whipkey on MM. In this regard then, what could be done to improve the process or outcomes of Disicplinary Councils?
For my part, I believe that women should be involved, especially at the High Council level and even at the Bishop level. This move will take away some of the negative power/gender structure that seems to tied to these type confessional situations. I believe women should be involved in the process of taking confession as well. Moreover, it would a wonderful day if the social stigma could be entirely removed.
As a hopefull aside, J. Bonner Ritchie has also written about the Excommunication process and notes that he disliked the metaphor of court and argued instead for a move toward the metaphor of councils. This is a shift that has occurred over recent years, so who knows who might read your comments.
To reiterate, my questions are these?
Should the LDS Church retain the power to excommunicate and if so why, and if not why?
Upon what criteria should Disciplinary Councils judge the appropriate response to a particular ‘sin’?
Is Excommunication necessary for the repentance process?
What could be improved in the process or outcomes of Disciplinary Councils?
1. Hugh Nibley, Brother Brigham Challenges the Saints, edited by Don E. Norton and Shirley S. Ricks [Salt Lake City and Provo: Deseret Book Co., Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1994], 420.
2. This link is to a series of three articles on Excommunication to which I refer in this post. The authors are Lester Bush, Doug Alder and J. Bonner Ritchie.