I have found a blog through a friend called Hieing to Kolob. It’s written by a very liberal feminist called Bored in Vernal whom I find a curious person and disagree with her on almost all points (I hope she links back to read this article- I’d love to get her feedback). Though personally concerned in the past with her constant questioning and bad mouthing of the Church’s positions on issues and doctrines, her latest post was, to me, alarming. It’s the blog titled “His Hand is Stretched Out Still–Musings on Doctrine, Apostasy, and Gay Marriage” dated Sunday March 9, 2008
She said,
“As I’ve read the details of the Danzig case, I can only repeat Isaiah’s words, over and over, in my mind. I’ve been reflecting upon these verses as compared to the Church’s reactions toward perceived “apostasy” by its members. The hierarchy seems to see itself as the outstretched hand of the Lord, always there with mercy to welcome back the repentant sinner. Yet, members who struggle with reconciling their consciences with Church policies are recipients of the harsher treatment of the refrain. To these, the Church’s hand continues to stretch forth in judgment and punishment rather than mercy and healing.
What I have seen of these very public cases over the years are members who sincerely believe in the Church yet struggle with ambiguity. I relate to the Danzig’s dilemma since I was present in California when the Church became involved in helping to pass Proposition 22. As members, we were asked to participate in making phone calls supporting the initiative, and to place signs in our front yards. Much pressure was placed upon members in this effort. A few years later, having moved to Texas, a similar situation presented itself. This time, members of the ward sat through a fifth-Sunday combined PH/RS meeting where the position of the Church regarding gay marriage was delineated and members were pressed to spend time and money in passing the legislature. I am strongly in favor of the Church’s official position on political neutrality, and believe that on the gay marriage issue this position is being strongly violated.”
-Bored in Vernal (Bold added)
Strong words, and I think she’s dead wrong. I’ll explain at the end.
Now, keep that in mind as you read the LDSNewsRoom press release on the matter:
24 February 2008 Church leaders are always saddened when an individual, whether through his or her actions or personal choices, decides to leave the Church. A welcoming hand of fellowship is always extended to those who wish to return at anytime.
Every organization, religious or secular, has to determine where its boundaries begin and where they end. The Apostle Paul said that the original Church was organized to help members to be “no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine.” (Ephesians 4:14)
Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are encouraged to study, learn and ask questions in their quest for knowledge. Gordon B. Hinckley, 15th president of the Church said: “This Church came about as a result of intellectual curiosity. We believe in education … we expect them (Church members) to think. We expect them to investigate. We expect them to use their minds and dig deeply for knowledge in all fields.”
However, it is not acceptable when their digging and questioning leads to public opposition against doctrine Church leaders are obliged to uphold. That doesn’t mean that Church leaders don’t listen and consider opposing views. Quite the contrary. Local bishops and stake presidents (congregational leaders) love and are concerned about all members of the flock. This is the purpose of counseling provided by local Church leaders who know and care for each individual in their congregations.
Honest disagreements are not the same as public advocacy of positions contrary to those of the Church. When disagreements arise, the principle of the Church is that local leaders discuss these matters with members with love and concern. This was the case with Peter Danzig.
On 23 February 2008 The Salt Lake Tribune posted an article about Mr. Danzig who was a member of the Church’s Orchestra at Temple Square. According to the story, in June of 2006 Mr. Danzig published a letter-to-the-editor in the Tribune (and letters in other local newspapers) encouraging members to oppose Church leaders on the issue of same gender marriage.
In his Tribune letter-to-the-editor, Mr. Danzig said he “was troubled that my church requested I violate my own conscience to write in support of an amendment I feel is contrary to the constitution and to the gospel of Christ.” In reality Church leaders had asked members to write to their senators with their personal views regarding the federal amendment opposing same gender marriage, and did not request support or opposition to the amendment.
Initially Orchestra leaders met with Mr. Danzig to see if his public advocacy of this issue could be reconciled. Finding no resolution, they contacted the Office of the First Presidency, and were instructed to refer the matter to Mr. Danzig’s local Church leaders, as Church protocol requires. Mr. Danzig was asked to take a leave of absence from the orchestra until the matter had been resolved.
For more than a year and a half, Mr. Danzig counseled with his local bishop and stake president regarding same gender marriage and other Church doctrines. Unfortunately he was not able to reconcile his personal beliefs with the doctrine Church leaders are charged to maintain by divine mandate.
In December 2007, Mr. Danzig voluntarily withdrew his membership in the Church by his own formal written request. He was not officially disciplined by the Church as the Tribune article indicated.
The Church normally keeps this type of communication confidential. However, the Church felt compelled to defend its position when Mr. Danzig made this information public and because of the blatant, inappropriate editorializing by the Salt Lake Tribune in what was purported to be a news story.”
-LDS NewsRoom (bold added)
Conclusion:
Bored in Vernal says “the Church’s reaction toward perceived “apostasy” by it’s members”?? What’s with the “apostasy” in quotation marks? It IS apostasy to “encourag(e) members to oppose Church leaders”! Then he “voluntarily withdrew his membership in the Church”- sounds an awful lot like apostasy to me. Can people disagree with the church as Mr. Danzig and Bored in Vernal do? Of course, this isn’t the inquisition. However, first of all I’d say there are steps to follow.
In the Newsroom article it says the Church encourages people to think and study and not follow blindly. It’s important to believe for yourself and have your own understanding of principles. The Church is established as the article says, like Paul said, that “the original Church was organized to help members to be “no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine.” (Ephesians 4:14). That’s where I’d put Mr. Danzig and Bored in Vernal-”children, tossed to and fro, carried about with every wind of doctrine”. The false philosophies of men can definitely be convincing, even to the elect. When Church members disagree with official policy, they should try to reconcile their views with the Church’s. Not by blind obedience, but through faith, and understanding. It says Mr. Danzig met with his Bishop and Stake President to try to reconcile his personal beliefs- I am glad to hear that. That definitely shows humility on his part, and I admire that. It’s a shame he decides it’s more important to him than membership in the Kingdom.
As for Hieing to Kolob, if you’re reading this, I’d ask a few questions:
First, do you agree with the assertion that “Honest disagreements are not the same as public advocacy of positions contrary to those of the Church”?
Second, do you feel this man apostatized for the Church?
Third I’d just echo what a commenter has said on your blog, that I don’t think you understand the Church’s policy on Political Neutrality- it’s most certainly not being violated.
Fourth, I guess I’d just say that I’m sad to read of you daily pitting yourself against the Church and her doctrine. That can’t be a great feeling.
Lastly (fifth) You seem to think that the Church is a hierarchy that pounds the nail that sticks out- that they oppress the members who think and feel differently, and disciplines those who differ. I see it from a different perspective: The Church tries to save people from their selves. When the seeds of apostasy are creeping into people (like publicly calling on members to oppose Church leaders) they act. They tried to counsel with him and reason with him to see if he would gain his own testimony of “the doctrine Church leaders are charged to maintain by divine mandate”. You said, “Yet, members who struggle with reconciling their consciences with Church policies are recipients of the harsher treatment of the refrain. To these, the Church’s hand continues to stretch forth in judgment and punishment rather than mercy and healing.” What are you talking about? He publicly criticized the Church and asked people to oppose it’s position! Not only did it have the right to defend itself from apostasy, but lovingly counseled with him for a year and a half! Doesn’t sound like they really cracked the whip to me.
Do you think people are excommunicated out of wrath (which Mr. Danzig wasn’t)? or out of love? I believe in something called tough love. When Heavenly Father states something is wrong/right and one of his children disagrees and breaks His commandments- when that child cannot live with Him again, do you think it is because God’s pride was hurt and he’s getting even with his child? I’m sure it’s very painful to lose a child; He knows it’s in his child’s best interest to counsel with her and do what he can to help- even if it means that person cannot partake of the sacrament, or go to the temple for a time. Tough love. I see the Church ‘hierarchy’ is the same way- speaking out publicly against the church is a red flag symptom of current/upcoming apostasy and I think the Church did exactly the right thing.
P.s. I think your website: called “notapostate” is just a little ironic don’t you think?
Hopefully you read this and I’d love to hear your response.
There are a few issues here which I’d like to address, and I’m sure that I shall jumble them all up, so bear with me. As usual, I will also play devil’s, or someone’s, advocate.
First: the most intriguing aspect of BiV’s post, to me, is the notion that the “hand stretched out” can be both an action and an action of mercy. I agree with some of the posts on her blog that this action can be a divine movement towards/against the Church as a people, or against individuals. I also believe that the institution of the Church also reaches out to individuals, either in anger or in mercy. While these distinctions do not always exist, I believe firmly that at times they do, particularly when it comes to more local levels of ecclesiastical organization. I know of too many examples of egregious abuse of authority by lower level ecclesiastical leaders for me to be able to attribute all their actions to divine prompting, and none to mortal motives, whether good or bad.
Moving on, I agree absolutely that disfellowshipping or excommunicating a member of the Church for certain behaviors often is an example of tough love. In many instances, I believe, the act is one in line with the doctrine of the Church, and it is best for the individual, if he or she desires to reconcile with the Church. I also believe that there have been times when Church leaders have acted overly harshly, have overstepped their bounds, and may have been better served treating a member otherwise. Does this belief make me apostate? I don’t think so; I still firmly adhere to the idea that this is the one true gospel and that this is the Lord’s Church. I feel that my recognition of the potential for the men and the women in the Church to make mistakes actually enables me to maintain my belief.
So what about political neutrality? I think that it’s a very, very fuzzy line. What constitutes political neutrality? Is it not supporting a particular political party? Or is it not supporting or disagreeing with particular political issues? If it’s the latter, then I think that the Church is not politically neutral, for better or for worse. On your own blog you talk about the impossibility of separating moral/religious beliefs from political; I don’t think that the Church does, when it speaks out. It doesn’t speak out often, but even though that letter did urge members to write to their congresspeople about their opinion, it also reiterates at the end that “We, as the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, have repeatedly set forth our position that the marriage of a man and a woman is the only acceptable marriage relationship.” I happen to agree with that doctrine, but I also believe that including it in a letter that urges members to write their own opinion is not quite neutral on the topic. Maybe it shouldn’t be, maybe it should be. The salient question now becomes: what does one do if one does not agree that passing the amendment is a wise/moral decision?
Is it apostasy to disagree with the Church’s stance on an issue? I think that you’re using the term apostasy pretty freely, actually. In your formulation, questioning and disagreement seem to be alright until they are publicly aired, at which point they become apostasy. Or is questioning that leads one to a different answer than the one espoused by one’s bishop apostasy? To probe even more deeply: What are the fundamental doctrines of the Church? How are they communicated? How are they believed? How does one portray one’s belief? What if one’s belief in some fundamental doctrines leads one to disagree with one’s bishop? What does one do in that instance?
Anyway, I think that your post brings up some interesting questions. In terms of BiV, I find her blog to be an honest and provocative way for a person who takes the doctrines of the Church very seriously and very personally to reconcile personal doubts, disagreements, and questions. Not agreeing with certain aspects does not mean that a person cares nothing for the Church, her people, and her doctrine and is willing to line them up to hurl darts at them, but is often an indication of a very serious and soulful engagement with the very issues that comprise our existence. The agony and difficulty born of doubt are usually the result of a desire to believe; while they can be, they are seldom the casual self-absorption of a frippet willing to be tossed by the wind.
Zillah, always a pleasure. Simplest way will be just to go down your comment, quote you and respond in kind:
“I know of too many examples of egregious abuse of authority by lower level ecclesiastical leaders for me to be able to attribute all their actions to divine prompting, and none to mortal motives, whether good or bad.”
– I agree completely. I’ve known of affairs, embezzlement, and even activity in prostitution rings by Church leaders. If BiV feels that the local leaders are misinterpreting the Church’s Official Position and is pushing too hard to be active then that is one thing. No doubt local leaders are unique in their handling of situations, especially political. So in that sense, I’m sorry that BiV felt uncomfortable with the situation. I get uncomfortable when she blames the Church for things and not individuals- saying the Church hierarchy suggests the system itself when instead she could say “individual (mortal) leaders make me feel uncomfortable”. Even at that it’s dangerous (and way way too common) for people to criticize Bishops and other leaders… I’ve seen many people leave the Church in my life and I’d say perhaps the majority of them begin with disagreements with Bishops or other leaders. I do want to mention that I’ve disagreed with my own leaders before but there are ways to take it in stride.
“I also believe that there have been times when Church leaders have acted overly harshly, have overstepped their bounds, and may have been better served treating a member otherwise. Does this belief make me apostate? I don’t think so”
- Again, I agree. I’ve thought the same thing basing it on my conception of justice and mercy (which seems to be different for everyone), but I take it back to separating the Church as His Kingdom, and individual imperfect judgments. In Bivs post, she didn’t challenge the judgment of one particular mortal church leader, but the Church itself. Disagreeing with the judgments of the Church is unsettling, but challenging the judgment of the Church itself is apostate.
“So what about political neutrality?… What constitutes political neutrality? Is it not supporting a particular political party? Or is it not supporting or disagreeing with particular political issues? …that letter did urge members to write to their congress people about their opinion, it also reiterates at the end that “We, as the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, have repeatedly set forth our position that the marriage of a man and a woman is the only acceptable marriage relationship.” I happen to agree with that doctrine, but I also believe that including it in a letter that urges members to write their own opinion is not quite neutral on the topic.”
-I’m glad you happen to agree with this doctrine… every LDS member in the world should! It’s our official doctrine! And you’re right, the Church is not neutral on the topic of how marriage should be defined; it’s because has God told us the definition. Any member who thinks the LDS Church is neutral when it comes to how marriage should be defined needs to pay more attention in church.
Here’s the way to look at it: the principles the Church believes in, and publicly declares, relating to things like the family (such as gay marriage) are not espoused as our political views, but as eternal divinely mandated truths- how those truths apply to politics is secondary.
If you look at the Church website under Political Neutrality first words you’ll read: http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/political-neutrality
“The Church’s mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, not to elect politicians. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is neutral in matters of party politics…
The Church does not:
• Endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or platforms.
• Allow its church buildings, membership lists or other resources to be used for partisan political purposes.
• Attempt to direct its members as to which candidate or party they should give their votes to. This policy applies whether or not a candidate for office is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
• Attempt to direct or dictate to a government leader.
The Church does:
• Encourage its members to play a role as responsible citizens in their communities, including becoming informed about issues and voting in elections.
• Expect its members to engage in the political process in an informed and civil manner, respecting the fact that members of the Church come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences and may have differences of opinion in partisan political matters.
• Request candidates for office not to imply that their candidacy or platforms are endorsed by the Church.
• Reserve the right as an institution to address, in a nonpartisan way, issues that it believes have significant community or moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the Church!!
That’s it! What does that last bullet point say? Non partisan. Moral consequences, or directly affects the Church. So can it be political? YES. Is it politically neutral as far as party lines and partisan issues? Yes. The Church will write and voice our views to preach the gospel, but it is NEUTRAL as far PARTY politics. But when issues come up that the church has official stances on, remember “The Church’s mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ” and encourages members to be very active in politics. I’d say the Church has an obligation to use it’s influence to lobby for clearly defined and LDS accepted MORAL issues, not political issues. Anyway, I could go on, but that’s all for now…
“what does one do if one does not agree that passing the amendment is a wise/moral decision?”
-If you find yourself thinking that passing the amendment is NOT a moral decision when His Church is officially saying it IS- then you’ve got some soul searching to do. Who’s going to be right- you or the Church on a moral question? Hint: if you said yourself, run before the lightning gets you.
“Is it apostasy to disagree with the Church’s stance on an issue? I think that you’re using the term apostasy pretty freely, actually.”
- It depends on what the issue is and how much/how you disagree. And as far as using the term apostasy freely, I am on purpose- I don’t consider ‘apostasy’ as an extreme threshold that one passes only when we remove our membership records and garments. The ‘seeds’ of apostasy are planted any time we deviate from the gospel- when we trust in our own strength (mental reasoning included) over the Church and letting that get hold of our heart until we finally leave. If we have a testimony that this is the True Church (and I don’t mean the true people IN the Church, but the bride of the Savior itself) and that it’s will not lead us astray, then if we claim that it IS misleading the saints then I’d say that’s apostate according to my definition: as listening to the philosophies of men/women over the church and being cast to and fro cast about by every wind of doctrine.
“What if one’s belief in some fundamental doctrines leads one to disagree with one’s bishop? What does one do in that instance?”
– I’d say go talk to him. Find out what’s the rub and then make it a subject of study and prayer. Now, I’d say the disagreement with one’s Bishop is perhaps not the most important thing- I submit that the most important thing is how you react to it. Do you go to the newspapers with it? Do you leave the Church over it? Or do you say to yourself, “mmmm I don’t see it that way, he may very well be wrong, but he’s not perfect and I don’t expect him to be and I don’t come to Church for anyone else but ME.” And then NOT leave the Church over it. The Devil is the one that wants to escalate those feelings to cause resentment, bitterness, pridefulness (is that a word??) and put a wedge between you and your Bishop because that will be a great first step toward your spiritual death.
“In terms of BiV, I find her blog to be an honest and provocative way for a person who takes the doctrines of the Church very seriously and very personally to reconcile personal doubts, disagreements, and questions. Not agreeing with certain aspects does not mean that a person cares nothing for the Church, her people, and her doctrine and is willing to line them up to hurl darts at them, but is often an indication of a very serious and soulful engagement with the very issues that comprise our existence.”
– I second that. I’ve read many of her posts and can tell that she takes the Church very seriously and puts a lot of time and effort into the Gospel. I applaud her for that. She probably reflects on the Savior more than I do; in many ways I genuinely admire her dedication. I wrote this post not to suggest that BiV is “looking for excuses to be a buffet-style Saint”, but because she writes of her doubts about the Church and I feel that I can offer answers. When she writes about issues, Church doctrines and policies that makes her uncomfortable or disagrees with, being such a different person for her (in just about every way), I see them so very very differently and offer an explanation for the discrepancy she sees. Secondly I write it as a bit of a warning. I’ve known close friends who start off down an ever so subtle, slippery slope beginning with ‘concerns’ or ‘doubts’, then thinking it’s ok to hold different views/ not believe in Church policy, then they think “wait a minute, if I’m right and they’re wrong, who are they to tell me how to live”. I just think she and others like Mr. Danzig should be worried and very cautious when they find themselves at odd with the official declarations of God’s Mouthpiece on earth today, and try hard to reconcile the differences in stead of deciding the Church is wrong, and accepting views in direct clear distention with the Church.
“The agony and difficulty born of doubt are usually the result of a desire to believe; while they can be, they are seldom the casual self-absorption of a frippet willing to be tossed by the wind.”
– … born of doubt… desire to believe… all I say is don’t settle for a dissenting view, if you desire to believe, with an increase of understanding and resulting faith, it’s worth the struggle. Don’t give up.
P.s. One more comment to BiV- read the comments for your posts: does it seem like you’re boosting people’s faith and belief in the Church or are your readers agreeing with you that the Church is wrong. Seems to me you’re pacifying and feeding peoples doubts and they applaud you for it. It’s a place people can gather and talk about the parts of the Church that ‘bother them’. See anything wrong with that? If it was a site where people come with concerns and together try to reconcile them, I’d be all for that.. like a dear abby thing maybe, I don’t know… but it’s not.
Hi George,
I’m sorry it’s taken so long for me to get over here and respond. I really appreciate your thoughtful post. There are so many points I want to respond to, but I think I will limit myself to a few.
First: I’m grateful for your indepth analysis of the Church’s political neutrality. You are absolutely right that I had an incorrect idea of what that was all about. I never realized that “political neutrality” was synonymous with “non-partisan.” A careful look at the statements, such as you have done here and in your subsequent post shows that the Church intends to be neutral as pertaining parties, but not necessarily on political issues. In such a case I cannot help but feel that the term “political neutrality” is misleading. When one is continually told that the Church is politically neutral, then it is upsetting to watch Church resources being used to promote political causes. Please make no mistake: throughout California Church funds, buildings, ward lists, etc. were used blatantly to support one particular political agenda. This was not a local bishop or area. It was state-wide, with directives coming from Stake and Area Presidencies. Church funds paid for signs which the members were strongly pressured to place in their yards. Members were asked to make phone calls and read a scripted message. Callings were issued to work on the initiative. The same was repeated in Texas when I was living there. In one case a Stake Presidency held what I can only describe as a “rally” against gay marriage. But, being non-partisan, this apparently fits your skewed definition of “political neutrality.”
This brings me to my second point. I suppose with a little age, I have seen how changes can occur in the definition of “doctrine” in the Church. Years ago while a young married woman in Provo, I listened as members were told that homosexuality was a wrong choice that people had complete control over. I watched as acquaintances underwent shock therapy with trained counselors associated with BYU and the Church. I saw gay members advised to marry and assured that they could be cured of their orientation. I did not believe these mainstream Church teachings. Under your advice, I would have had to submit to Church policy and try to quell my concerns and disagreements. Had I been successful in doing this, where would that leave me today? Now that the Church has changed their position and strategy on this issue, and is allowing for the fact that maybe homosexuality is more than simply a bad choice? Maybe it actually does have something to do with differences in the brain??? Maybe it’s not such a good idea for gay men to marry straight women??
I wish to say something about my conversion to Mormonism. When I was investigating the Church at age 19, the Mormons were the ones who were telling me to strive for the Spirit and listen to what the still small voice was telling me and to follow my inner convictions rather than the voice of authority. I did this and I have never been sorry for it. But if it works in one arena, it should work in another. What happens when my sincere strivings lead in a different direction than the most current dogmatic declaration? I often regret that the Spirit and my inner convictions sometimes seem to take me in different directions than established Church doctrine. Should I ignore these, or should I trust what I have identified as “the Spirit?” For instance, I feel a divine witness in my heart that tells me that love is love, and that “tough love” in most cases is a sham. This has led me to reject the practice of excommunication. If it were up to me, (which it is not), I would never excommunicate anyone who desired to remain with the Saints. Most churches find it unnecessary to use this harsh punishment, and I agree. I have nothing to do with administering the practice. So it’s simply a belief. I see no problem with sharing how I feel publicly.
It has been therapeutic for me to share my ideas in blog form. Although I know that others may see my thoughts as dissenting, I myself do not define them as apostate, thus the “notapostate” in my address. Neither do I see these positions as “doubt.” Usually there is much faith and striving which leads me to where I go. I understand that you think my blogging feeds people’s doubts. But perhaps there are some who take heart from someone who is different in some ways but still fully active and participating. I love that you described me as “curious.” To me that is a huge compliment.
Finally, I see my ideas on theology, doctrine and religion as fully inconsistent and chaotic as “the Church’s” “official doctrine.” And I reserve the right to change them at any time.
Biv Thanks for responding, and I think you brought up some great questions!
That ‘political neutrality’ is misleading, I’m with you on that- what other phrase would I use? Not sure, but when we think politically neutral it does conjure up thoughts of NO politics at all. No doubt.
As far as the Church’s stance toward homosexuality changing, I think you have a great point that I admittedly have no answer for at the moment, but will look it up and get back to you. Being a psychology major at BYU I’ve of course heard of it and studied a little bit of it, and while I’m well versed in the Church’s current attitude toward homosexuals, I cannot offer an explanation as to why the Church professed/believed the way it did back in the “good ol’ days” of shock therapy and such. I’d love to know why.
I’d like to address this idea:
“For instance, I feel a divine witness in my heart that tells me that love is love, and that “tough love” in most cases is a sham. This has led me to reject the practice of excommunication. If it were up to me, (which it is not), I would never excommunicate anyone who desired to remain with the Saints. Most churches find it unnecessary to use this harsh punishment, and I agree.”
By going to the Gospel Library section of lds.org, and typing in excommunication, I found this fantastic article by Elder M. Russell Ballard. I highly recommend it and would love to hear your reaction to it.
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=edc72150a447b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
“Members sometimes ask why Church disciplinary councils are held. The purpose is threefold: to save the soul of the transgressor, to protect the innocent, and to safeguard the Church’s purity, integrity, and good name.”
The Second question on this Q&A page addresses excommunication
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=024644f8f206c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=da985930f289b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
And a touching story of a man returning from excommunication
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ca678b5c1dbdb010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
In the end, I think of it this way: It’s said that it’s easier to repent in this life because we have a body. When one is excommunicated, they are released from the weight of the responsibilities of the covenants they are not living up to, and this makes it easier. Kind of like committing a sin as a new, young convert is very different from committing that sin as a ‘born in the covenant, RM, stake president’s councilor’. Under which circumstance would it be easier to repent? The former I’d imagine. So releasing you from those covenants makes it easier to repent and for many like the young man in the last link, gives them a new perspective and sense of urgency to repent.