"EXCOMMUNICA'TION, noun The act of ejecting from a church; expulsion from the communion of a church, and deprivation of its rights, privileges and advantages; an ecclesiastical penalty or punishment inflicted on offenders. excommunication is an ecclesiastical interdict, of two kinds, the lesser and the greater; the lesser excommunication is a separation or suspension of the offender from partaking of the eucharist [communion]; the greater, is an absolute separation and exclusion of the offender from the church and all its rites and advantages." - Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary
That is the definition of excommunication at the time of Joseph Smith and the birth of the Church. Note that the entirety of the definition is contained to the relationship between the member and the church. No claims are made regarding the effect on the standing between the member and Heaven.
In this dispensation, excommunication is the only scripturally prescribed punishment we are given to enact within the church court system for offenses. This holds true both in the Doctrine and Covenants and the Book of Mormon (e.g. Mosiah 26:36; Alma 1:24; D&C 41:5, 42:20-28 (esp.28)). There is no such thing as disfellowshipment. There is no formal or informal probation spoken of in any revelation. These are innovations of man. When you break the laws of God and refuse to repent, you are to be excommunicated (3 Nephi 18:31). Your name is to be removed from the records of the church. Then, if you later repent, you can be welcomed back freely (3 Nephi 18:32; Moroni 6:7-8), excepting those guilty of murder (D&C 42:18) or multiple offenses of adultery (D&C 42:25-26).
In the scriptures, excommunication is never taught to have any attached eternal ramifications that we tack on today (loss of baptismal effects, temple blessings, etc.). Only unrepented sin has eternal ramifications (Helaman 14:18-19). When excommunication occurs in scripture, their names are blotted out from the records and they are no longer counted as members of the people or church, and that’s all that is said (Mosiah 26:36; Alma 6:3; Moroni 6:7; D&C 20:81-83).
Rather than claiming to strip a person of anything eternal, excommunication reflects the person’s willful choice to no longer qualify as one of the people of God, and the church is simply updating the records to reflect that. This is for the purposes of record-keeping to compare with heavenly records in Judgment (D&C 128:6-7), and to inform the membership that someone has chosen to depart from God’s teachings, that they might react accordingly. It is the choice to refuse repentance that costs a person their eternal blessings, not the act of excommunication. Latitude for interpreting excommunication as anything more or different simply doesn’t exist within the scriptures.
If that doesn’t clarify the matter enough, then it should become even more clear in examining the topic of bishops, according to current teachings on excommunication:
- Bishops’ councils are a legitimate place for attempting to resolve at least some sorts of issues (D&C 102:2). Bishops have the scriptural right to judge the people according to the laws (D&C 58:18, 107:72). Some of the written temporal laws have excommunication directly affixed as the punishment (e.g. D&C 42:20-26).
- If excommunication itself has attached eternal ramifications—as we currently teach—then D&C 107 creates some problems, because that section makes abundantly clear that the office of bishop has no authority in administering spiritual matters, only temporal (D&C 107:8, 10, 12, 68, 71-72). Which means that if excommunication is our only scriptural punitive measure, and it is saddled with spiritual ramifications, thereby making it a spiritual matter, then bishops are NEVER authorized to excommunicate.
- But if the bishops have no authority to enact the only scriptural punishment, then we’re conflicting with D&C 58:18 and D&C 107:72, which authorize bishops to act as judges. How can one be a judge and have no authority to enact the singular approved punishment?
Thus, a Catch 22 is created by our modern interpretation of the word "excommunication."
However, if we contain the definition of excommunication to what is found in the scriptures—respecting God’s right to determine what a person does and does not have claim upon Him for, as the prophet-writers of the scriptures did—then the problem evaporates. If excommunication is only removing a person’s recognition as a member of the temporal church, striking their name from the temporal records of the organization, then suddenly excommunication can fall within the bounds of a bishop’s authority. That is temporal administrative behavior, and so those transgressions that are temporal in nature can be judged in a bishop’s council.
Again, if there are in fact any spiritual or eternal ramifications that are related in any way to a person being excommunicated, it will be tied to committing the transgression or sin itself for which the person is being excommunicated, and the timing will not be based upon the excommunication. The movement of God’s hand in eternal matters isn’t subject to the semantics of men’s councils. He will punish or forgive as He will, when He will.
NOTE: Excommunication may also be different dependent on the state of the people from which one is being excommunicated. Excommunication from a people who are part of a living covenant with God are likely bound to suffer greater losses than those excommunicated from a “condemned” people, which the LDS church has been since 1832, according to the word of the Lord (D&C 84:56-57). Death has been one consequence seen in scripture when those under a living covenant choose to break it (Acts 5:1-10).
