Zions Redemption Radio Network

10/06/2025

09/17/2025

Please share this!!!

11/07/2024

https://youtu.be/ypkblgLlDXA?si=N2cTiQJ9QqgcIZNE

In this episode of the Key of David Podcast, hosts David “The Lion” Douglas and Trevor Keyes discuss the fascinating experiences of their guest, Mark Lichten...

11/05/2024

EXCOMMUNICATION–JUST AND UNJUST, Part 2 of Chapter 9 of The Church and The Priesthood

Pages 183 to 187

iTunes Podcast:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/zions-redemption-radio-network/id1463911397?i=1000675467042

Where much is given, much is required, and in those early days of the Church, God gave great manifestations and revelations and thus expected a great deal from the members in return. In 1864 George A. Smith gave an illustration of this principle:

It was at the same Council [June 1833] that Daniel Copley, a timid young man, who had been ordained a Priest, and required to go and preach the Gospel, was called to an account for not going on his mission. The young man said he was too weak to attempt to preach, and the Council cut him off the Church. I wonder what our missionaries now would think of so rigid a discipline as was given at that time thirty-one years ago, under the immediate supervision of the Prophet. (JD 11:8)

Members who commit heinous sins are already cut off from the Spirit of the Lord even before they are brought to a Church trial. They generally continue to go downhill and fall into darkness, while those who are unjustly excommunicated feel no effect of it.

Persons sometimes say that they have enjoyed the spirit of the work as much since they were cut off as while they were in the Church. Have they enjoyed the Spirit? Yes. Why? Simply because they were wrongfully cut off. They were cut off in such a way that it did not take the Spirit of God from them. And the reason why they were cut off was because they did not come up to the particular standard of perfection of those who dealt with them, or they did not come up to their feelings. (Francis M. Lyman, Mill. Star24:100)

President Joseph F. Smith added even more information in the following reference:
[184] Several examples have occurred in the history of the Church where men through transgression, duly proved and decided upon by the constituted authorities, have been stopped from acting in the Priesthood, which is just as effectual as taking away their Priesthood would be, if it were possible; but this has taken no ordination from them, and if in such cases the transgressors should repent and make complete and satisfactory restitution, they would still hold the same Priesthood which they held before they were silenced, or stopped from acting. A person once ordained a bishop, an elder, or high priest, continues to hold those offices. A bishop is still a bishop though he may remove to another ward, or for other reason temporarily lose his calling. But in case he is wanted to act in a new office, or place, and the proper authorities call him to act, it is not necessary to re-ordain him a bishop; he would only need to be set apart for his new calling. So with other officers in the Priesthood, once having received the Priesthood, it cannot be taken from them, except by transgression so serious that they must forfeit their standing in the Church. But, as stated, their right to officiate, may be suspended or stopped. The Lord can take away the power and efficacy of their ordinations, and will do so if they transgress. No endowments or blessings in the House of the Lord, no patriarchal blessings, no ordination to the Priesthood, can be taken away, once given. To prevent a person for cause from exercising the rights and privileges of acting in the offices of the Priesthood, may be and has been done, and the person so silenced still remain a member of the Church, but this does not take away from him any Priesthood that he held. (Joseph F. Smith, Imp. Era 11:465-466)

President Smith here reiterated the fact that only sin can take away a man’s blessings, promises and priesthood. Just because a man is cut off because of a personal grudge of a bishop does not take away his Priesthood. A stake president may excommunicate a man for erring in doctrine, but in reality [185] it may be the stake president who has erred in the doctrine. Today several are excommunicated for believing and promoting the teachings of the early Church leaders, but in reality it has no effect on their Priesthood. Others are excommunicated because they do not have a testimony that the president of the Church is a prophet, seer and revelator, but this does not jeopardize his Priesthood, nor is it a sin. Excommunication should be only for those who commit very grievous sins.

Who, then, has the authority or responsibility to try someone for committing sins? The answer is the bishop of the ward in which the offense has been committed. When a law of the Gospel is broken, then the offenders may be subject to a trial–no matter who has committed the transgression. According to Brigham Young–

In the capacity of a Bishop, has any person a right to direct the spiritual affairs of the kingdom of God? No. In that capacity his right is restricted to affairs in a temporal and moral point of view. He has a right to deal with the transgressor. I do not care what office a transgressor bears in the Church and kingdom of God, if he should be one of the Twelve Apostles, and come into a Bishop’s neighborhood, and purloin his neighbor’s goods, defile his neighbor’s bed, or commit any breach of the moral law, the Bishop has a right to take that man before himself and his council, and there hold him to answer for the crime he has been guilty of, and deal with him for his membership in the Church, and cut him off from the Church to all intents and purposes, to all time and eternity, if he will not make restitution and sincerely repent. “What! One of the Seventies?” Yes. “One of the High Priests?” Yes. “One of the Twelve Apostles?” Yes, anybody that happens to come into his neighborhood and transgresses the moral law. (JD 9:91)

[186] Excommunication is a two-edged sword. It is a serious matter for both the person who is cut off as well as for those who administer the excommunication. The order of these councils was much more strict anciently than in our day, for the Prophet Joseph noted:
. . in ancient days councils were conducted with such strict propriety, that no one was allowed to whisper, be weary, leave the room, or get uneasy in the least, until the voice of the Lord, by revelation, or the voice of the council by the Spirit, was obtained, which has not been observed in this Church to the present time. It was understood in ancient days, that if one man could stay in council, another could; and if the president could spend his time, the members could also; but in our councils, generally, one will be uneasy, another asleep; one praying, another not; one’s mind on the business of the council, and another thinking on something else. (TPJS, p. 69)

All this brings us to some very critical questions regarding those involved in excommunications. What happens to a person who is excommunicated unjustly? What happens to the bishop or stake president who unjustly cuts a person off from the Church? We know that correct judgment can be influenced by bias, prejudice and emotions. When bad judgment results in an excommunication, real judgment will be more serious for the “excommunicater” than the “excommunicatee.”

For members of the early Christian church, excommunication was the punishment for those who were sinful, corrupt and wicked. It was a just and fair result of their wrongdoings. Later church leaders themselves became corrupted by riches, pride and the honors of men, and so new standards for excommunication were set. Anyone who did not totally agree with the church, its leaders or doctrines was [187] excommunicated. Those members who supported the early teachings of Christ rather than the more modern versions of the Gospel were considered rebellious and wicked and were cut off the church. The “wicked” began to excommunicate the righteous. This reversal has unfortunately been repeated many times in the history of Christianity.


[188] Chapter 10

CHRIST’S CONTROVERSIAL DOCTRINES

Podcast Episode · Zion’s Redemption Radio Network · S8 E759 · 47m

11/02/2024

EXCOMMUNICATION–JUST AND UNJUST, Part 1 of Chapter 9 of The Church and The Priesthood

Pages 178 to 183

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/zions-redemption-radio-network/id1463911397?i=1000675164649


In simple terms, communication includes a connecting, sympathetic relationship, while excommunication involves a disconnection or exclusion. In a Latter-day Saint context, some have thought that excommunication results in some terrible curse or judgment that befalls those cut off from the Church. However, when someone is excommunicated for a gross sin, that person has already incurred a severe judgment, for he has already lost his Priesthood because of his actions, and his excommunication has nothing to do with that loss.

Most churches, notably Christian and Jewish, have a ceremonial program for the punishment of their members. The type of punishment depends on the seriousness of the sin. When greater offenses have been committed, individuals are removed from the general membership of the church. Thus, they are “excommunicated,” “cast out” or “cut off.” Just as a man might have an arm or leg cut off or separated from the body, so is a member separated from the body of the church.

Cutting off. In the Old Testament a penalty or form of punishment used primarily, though not exclusively, for various offenses against the ceremonial laws. The agent of the “cutting off” was either God or the community. (Wycliffe Bible Dictionary, p. 412)

[179]
Excommunication. This is the judicial exclusion of unrepentant sinners from the rights and privileges of the communion of saints carried out by a local congregation. The ultimate purpose is to bring the offender to a realization of the seriousness of his offense and to lead him to repentance. It also removes offense from the church.
Excommunication was used already in the time of the apostles. The primitive church continued the practice. (Wycliffe Bible Dictionary, p. 561)

Most Bible scholars consider the Biblical terms of “cut off,” “cast out,” and “excommunicated” to mean the same. The separation ceremony of cutting off a person may originate from the community, the church or the Lord Himself. In any case, it is a form of punishment to encourage repentance by the victim and a forgiveness by those who cut him off.

Whether or not this desired effect becomes an actuality is difficult to determine for not much has been written on the subject of excommunications. On a broad scale, we don’t know how people feel or the physical or spiritual consequences of being “cut off.” Does a person feel worse, about the same, or is it possible for him to feel better?

We will quote here from two prominent LDS sources that describe what happens to those who are excommunicated: The LDS Reference Encyclopedia (Brooks) and Mormon Doctrine (McConkie).

In the first source, author Melvin Brooks thinks that a person who is excommunicated would have his name removed from “one of the `books of life:'”

When a person has fallen from virtue, and fails to repent, or is advocating false principles which mislead others and cause their apostasy, he is liable to [180] excommunication. If he should be excommunicated, his name is taken or deleted from the Church record, which is one of the “books of life” spoken of in Revelation 20:12. His priesthood, if he has any, is of no efficacy and is lost.
Upon repenting, he must be judged and allowed admittance only by that tribunal that took his membership from him. Then, if he is to return to the Church, he must be baptized and confirmed.
The priesthood may again be restored to him depending upon his worthiness to receive the same. (LDS Reference Enc., Melvin R. Brooks, 1:126)

On the other hand, Brigham Young made it clear that everyone is recorded in the “Book of Life” and would remain there unless they “sin unto death,” which is the fate of the sons of perdition who return to native element:

You know that it used to be a great saying, and I might say worthy of all acceptation, among the Methodists, “I know that my Redeemer lives, and my name is written in the Lamb’s Book of Life.” Their names were always there, and never will be blotted out, though they may be up and down, warm, hot, and cool, and though they may sin to-day, and to-morrow repent of it, but their names will remain in the Lamb’s Book of Life until they sin the sin unto death. And when their names are once blotted out they will never be written there again; they will then be numbered with those who will cease to increase, cease to learn, to multiply, and spread abroad. (JD 3:208)

Now look upon the opposite side of these principles. Suppose you say, “We will give up the pursuits of our holy religion. We are not Latter-day Saints. Let us go and seek after the things of the world, speculate, get unto ourselves riches, turn away from our duties, neglect the things pertaining to our salvation, . . . I tell you the result of that course. You would cease to increase in all the attributes of excellence, glory, and eternal duration, from that very [181] moment. So soon as you conceive such ideas, they find a soil within you prepared to nurture them, and it brings forth their direful effects; from that very moment you cease to increase. The opposite principle seizes you, fastens itself upon you, and you decrease, lessen, diminish, decay, and waste away in quality, excellence, and strength, until your organization becomes extinct, oblivion covers you, your name is blotted out from the Book of Life, from the heavens, from the earth, and from under the earth, and you will return, and sink into your natural element, which cannot be destroyed, though many read the Bible as conveying such an idea, but it does not. (JD 1:118)

In the second source, Elder Bruce R. McConkie stated that anyone excommunicated would lose “every blessing of the gospel” and would be “delivered unto Satan:”

Whenever, as is presently the case, there is a separation of Church and state, then the highest punishment which the Church can impose upon its members is excommunication. This consists in cutting the person off from the Church so that he is no longer a member. Every blessing of the gospel is thereby lost, and the excommunicated person is “delivered unto Satan.” {1 Tim. 1:20; Matt. 18:15-19; 1 Cor. 5:1-5} (Mormon Doctrine, McConkie, p. 240)

There are many people who are excommunicated from the LDS Church who feel that they did not deserve that kind of treatment. They argue that their punishment was unfair. Some have been excommunicated for such trifles as a belief in something controversial. Others are cut off for defending and following the teachings of former prophets. Some are cast out because of the personal opinions or particular bias of a bishop or stake president. This is not new, because many times it came to the attention of Brigham Young:

[182]
How many there are who come to me to find fault with, and enter complaints against, their brethren, for some trifling thing, when I can see, in a moment, that they have received no intentional injury! They have no compassion on their brethren, but, having passed their judgment, insist that the criminal shall be punished. And why? Because he does not exactly come up to their standard of right and wrong! They feel to measure him by the “Iron Bedstead principle”– “if you are too long, you must be cut off; if too short, you must be stretched.” Now this is the height of folly. I find that I have enough to do to watch myself. It is as much as I can do to get right, deal right, and act right. If we all should do this, there would be no difficulty, but in every man’s mouth would be “May the Lord bless you.” (JD 1:6)

However, Brigham Young was very clear on some of the reasons for excommunication. For example, he said that if an Elder of the Church would “use the name of the Lord God in vain,” he should be cut off. (JD 6:286) He thought that anyone who refused to pay tithing should also forfeit their Church membership. (JD 10:283) He also warned the sisters to “cease trading with any man . . . who does not belong to the church,” or they might be cut off. (JD 12:315) He also stated that things were more lenient then than they had been earlier.

I have told you my mind, you can now do as your own minds shall dictate, if you think proper, and be responsible for the same. I have frequently thought, what would be the consequence in this community, were we to be as strict now, as the authorities of the Church once were? For it used to be, if a man did not obey counselafter it was given him, he was cut off from the Church. Do you not think we are lenient, easy, and forgiving? Let us be kind to each other, and cultivate the spirit of peace, and seek diligently to know the will of God. (JD 1:78)

Next Episode:

EXCOMMUNICATION–JUST AND UNJUST, Part 2 of Chapter 9 of The Church and The Priesthood

Pages 183 to 187

Podcast Episode · Zion’s Redemption Radio Network · S8 E758 · 32m