Is the LDS Church Vindictive?

[_guy sajer]

As a general concept, I understand, and agree (depending on context) the argument that an organization has a right to terminate members who do or say things in public contrary to the interests of the organization.

If Southerton was actively and openly attempting to damage the Church, I am not sure that it is inappropriate to ex-communicate him.

That said, I do not assert this as an absolute, but it depends (as stated above) on context.

Society generally recognizes that these rights may be constrained by certain factors; for example, when an organization is engaging in illegal or unethical behavior, we recognize the people may feel a legitimate ethical duty to speak out, and create some laws/rules to protect them, thereby allowing them to act according to their conscience and, often, in the public interest. An expression of this are whistleblower statutes and rules. (Concern for the public interest is one factor that constrains an organization's right to take punitive action against "whistleblowers.")

One might also argue that another factor that might ethically (if not legally) constrain this right is whether the critic or whistleblower is telling the truth. If what the critic says is contrary to the organization's interest, but true, does this ethically constrain the organization's right to act punitively against the critic?

Then again we have an organization that claims as its mission to proclaim truth. If it is truly committed to this mission, how can it turn around and punish persons who speak the truth, even if contrary to the material interests of the organization?

I am not sure I have clear answers to all these questions, but it seems evident to me that the analogy of the "corporation" do not apply across the board to a Church, depending to a degree on what the stated mission of that Church is. Where does the higher ethical duty of the Church lie; to protect its material self-interest, or to pursue truth?

At the very least, the vigor with which Mormonism stifles honest intellectual and spiritual inquiry runs counter to its stated mission and its stated devotion to the pursuit of truth.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Psalm 82:6
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

The persons being addressed here are the Judges of Israel. They were those set apart to act as God in judgeing the people. This is the same as a Bishop in our day.

I love it when you put up a bunch of scriptures, etc., on these issues to show that the church and its scriptures and even God, supposedly, support these ideas (and making the whole shebang look bad in the process), but this one sounds like quite a stretch even for you.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

I really don't get the whole excommunication thing...

In the case of Simon... the church ex's him, gives him further publicity, brings the issues in the forefront, makes the church look REALLY bad.

From the church's perspective I just don't see the purpose at all... unless it is just to be mean, get some revenge, and exert power or something.


~dancer~

Hi, TD. I don't get it either, and I've been excommunicated myself (I'll say so at the risk of incurring the predictable judgments of Gaz, et al.), so I know a little something about it. Excommunication is un-Christlike (even though Gaz can support it with numerous scriptures, they aren't the ultimate authority for everyone on what is Christlike). The church has a "right" to excommunicate, of course, it can do whatever it feels like and whatever members will put up with, but it isn't a moral right by any means. In Southerton's case there may well have been elements of meanness and revenge. Usually, though, I would say it's just a means of of exerting power. Usually, excommunications are for sexual matters. When the church controls who a person has sex with, it has total control of that person, and when it loses that control, about the only recourse it has to regain power is excommunication. What I don't get is why they can't see the un-Christlike-ness of the whole business.

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

I really don't get the whole excommunication thing...

In the case of Simon... the church ex's him, gives him further publicity, brings the issues in the forefront, makes the church look REALLY bad.

From the church's perspective I just don't see the purpose at all... unless it is just to be mean, get some revenge, and exert power or something.


~dancer~

Hi, TD. I don't get it either, and I've been excommunicated myself (I'll say so at the risk of incurring the predictable judgments of Gaz, et al.), so I know a little something about it. Excommunication is un-Christlike (even though Gaz can support it with numerous scriptures, they aren't the ultimate authority for everyone on what is Christlike). The church has a "right" to excommunicate, of course, it can do whatever it feels like and whatever members will put up with, but it isn't a moral right by any means. In Southerton's case there may well have been elements of meanness and revenge. Usually, though, I would say it's just a means of of exerting power. Usually, excommunications are for sexual matters. When the church controls who a person has sex with, it has total control of that person, and when it loses that control, about the only recourse it has to regain power is excommunication. What I don't get is why they can't see the un-Christlike-ness of the whole business.

I hate scriptures...cause I do not understand them at all...probably....that could be why.....You know that knowledge is power crap......

[_Runtu]

I like Simon a lot. He's a very nice man, and even the apologists have to admit that he's opened up an entirely new avenue of discussion about Mormonism. I don't see the purpose behind the excommunication, as all it did was bring more unwanted attention to the issue.

[_moksha]

...all it did was bring more unwanted attention to the issue.

But Isn't that good? I read the history of the Church as making positive changes when under pressure.

[_Gazelam]

Ya know, even after a person is excommunicated, after repentance they can be re-baptized.