But why then do those people say they're getting their moral principles from the Bible? — baker

Well, perhaps they are caught in the same sort of circularity as @Hanover.

You don't have to add ones I haven't written. — Ennui Elucidator

I tend to leave the to you; case in point:

...your extension of his neglected argument to summarily writing off Christians without knowing anything about the individual — Ennui Elucidator

I'm presently at a lose to see what it is that I have said that you are finding so objectionable that you are persisting after two dozen pages.

But I am happy for you to make this thread as long as you can. It further puts the lie to your previous clim that the article was unoriginal and hackneyed. Keep it up.

Who is writing your posts? [...] — baker

You need to differentiate the writer and what's written (the topic at hand).
If this was a personal heart-to-heart over an intimate dinner by the candlelight, then it might be different.
And

(don't want to veer off on a side-track though) — jorndoe

My interest here is as to the extent to which Christians (and Muslims) ought be allowed at the table when ethical issues are discussed. Given their avowed admiration for evil, ought we trust their ethical judgement? — Banno

This is all I have ever been discussing. Lewis, Christians, and whether his article has any bearing on your question.

You failed to notice the conditional:

If they admire evil, ought they be allowed to the table?

You failed to notice — Banno

I failed to notice or you wrote “given that” which isn’t quite the conditional you suggest it to be? Also you pluralized both Christians and Muslims, so your syntax indicated you were speaking of groups of people, not a hypothetical individual with specific beliefs that happens to belong to a general class. Also, despite having quoted you on this post in several prior comments, this is the first you’ve suggested that I misread you. If I did, I did. Mea culpa. But now that you are clarifying, go ahead and put a period at the end of a sentence. Do you have to ask an individual Christian what their views are before acting as if they admire a horrid god?

But now that you are clarifying, — Ennui Elucidator

I've been making your misfire apparent for page after page. From my very first reply to you on the toipc:

Doubtless one can formulate forms of christianity that are in some way immune to Lewis' critique, and in that regard Lewis has done a service to theology. But that such less perverse versions exist does not excuse the likes of Israel Folau. — Banno

Anyway, perhaps we are finished here.

he shows the people how to defy the cruel overlord — Isaac


Well no -- the villain here is the Pharisees. — Srap Tasmaner

The Pharisees who made up the cruel laws? Or the Pharisees who misinterpreted the law so poorly written and ambiguous that it only got properly understood 1500yrs later. I can't say this new story about overcoming incompetence is better than the one about overcoming cruelty.

Or perhaps he doesn't see it as "molestation" at all. Maybe he read a lot about ancient Greek culture where paedophilia is regarded as a good and normal thing. Maybe he doesn't think children are automatically innocent. Maybe he himself was a victim of priestly sexual abuse as a child and is now repeating the pattern. Maybe he lost his faith and is since then in a volatile psychological state, more likely to engage in problematic or even criminal behaviors. — baker

Yep, all good possibilities too.

When you look at this in the context of Christian culture as a whole, priestly child abuse is, sadly, not some egregious special case. People can be quite rough on eachother, and Christians are no exception. Physical violence, domestic abuse, alcoholism, drug abuse, ... — baker

Sadly true. One of the issues I'm trying to raise here is that there's a lot in the bible (and in Christian tradition - obedience to authority, exceptional respect for religious leaders, cruel and severe punishments...) which provide a perfect environment for abuse.

Sure, but the point is that there is a whole culture of people refusing to play by the rules. We cannot just ignore them, nor their success. — baker

OK, what is it you suggest?

Then you don't have much of a case for fairness. — baker

I don't see how. Are you saying that I can only make a case the we ought have something if it's actually indispensable. That seems like an unreasonably high threshold.

The right to freedom of speech doesn't include the right to be heard. — baker

No. Nor should it, in all cases. But again, here I'm discussing what ought to be, not what is. I think it's reasonable for people to venture an opinion on the contents of the bible as any other book, without needing to become part of some peculiar game of make-believe.

But let's not pretend they are examples of condoned conduct. — Hanover

I'm not. I've talked exclusively about narratives, not law, not history... stories.

If you read a single page of a legal document without putting it into the context of other controlling documents and opinions and rules, then you're out of the conversation in terms of what the import of the single document is. — Hanover

Maybe, but that's because there's a fact of the matter about how legal documents are interpreted. The reason I'd have no luck is because Judges are obliged to take the legal context into account. No-one is obliged to take the theological context into account, you just decide to, and then insist I must also.

It's become an odd thread. We seem to have general agreement that hell is an unjust notion, and hence a disavowal of those who would claim otherwise, including censure of those who would praise such an unjust god. At this point we pretty much have unstated agreement on the merit of the Lewis article.

But it has been combined with a claim from avowed non-christians that those who would claim otherwise do not exist in great numbers nor do they understand the bible; this last based on some notion of there being a correct, non-literal interpretation. — Banno

Yep. Napolean Phenomena. You start a thread on religion, a lot of people will think "I know some talking points about religion". Religion-bashing has become passé since the new atheists lost their novelty factor, the new vogue is to defend it. I'm afraid the actual content of the the OP stood only a little chance in such a polarised environment, but there's been some genuinely interesting discussion (for me, anyway) through the haze of apologetics, so still an OP worth writing I think, thanks.

C.S. Lewis statement that 'the doors of hell are locked from the inside.' — Wayfarer

That's a keeper.

those beastly Christians and Muslims — Wayfarer

I wonder why they always exclude Jews from this blanket condemnation... Isn't Yahweh a bitch too? :-)

Maybe, but that's because there's a fact of the matter about how legal documents are interpreted. The reason I'd have no luck is because Judges are obliged to take the legal context into account. No-one is obliged to take the theological context into account, you just decide to, and then insist I must also. — Isaac

This is just incorrect and largely why you're not afforded a seat at the table when offering interpretations of biblical sources. There's nothing meaningfully distinct between how legal documents are interpreted as opposed to religious except for the fact that you have respect for the Anglo tradition of legal interpretation, but not for the systems in place for biblical interpretation.

When interpreting a legalistic document, we need to look to how it is interpreted by those who actually use as a guide for their society, whether that be the OT, the Constitution, or any legal code. It makes no more sense for a Ugandan to interpret the US Constitution and tell me what it really means than it does for you to tell someone who relies upon the OT that it really means that stoning is acceptable.

The religious group that holds the OT as a primary source of law is Judaism. Christians, as you might have noticed, do not. Why they eat pork and Jews don't is something you can research if you'd like. So, now looking at Judaic interpretations (as that is the one at play here), we now need to look at which of the Jews consider the OT as a literally true document and we then limit ourselves to that subgroup within Judaic interpretation. That sub-group would be those who are generally considered to be the Orthodox. Their view is not a simple literalism however, but it's one of divine authorship, meaning they do believe God wrote the OT. As each word is from a divine source, each word is impregnated with profound meaning that must be deciphered. That is to say, they reject outright these simplistic literalist interpretations where you interpret by reading from the four corners of the document. You also have to include Talmudic sources in your interpretations as well, as that too is a primary source. That is to say, when we look to interpret the OT from those who use it, no one does as you have done. You are criticizing a view held by no one.

From all of this interpretation arises what is referred to as halacha, which are the determinations of what Jewish law is. The method by which these conclusions are drawn is not nebulous or vague, but is based upon a long standing method. This is to say, there are few people who live their lives with greater certitude than the ultra-religious Jews. They don't go bumbling about wondering what this ever evolving document demands of them..

So, no, nothing you have said means a whole lot. It's just simplistic nonsense that actually argues that adherence to OT law demands (or might one day be so misinterpreted as to demand) we stone little girls. If you are interested in what the OT does demand (and the better word is "command") to the Jews, look it up. There are 613 commandments, not one of which says you are to stone girls.

My special pleading is limited to what actually occurs, having eliminated the hypothetical concerns of those who have no idea what they're talking about, except that they might have engaged in a cursory reading of a document that they now wish to claim equal expertise in. Reading this nonsense is like when I have to respond to a pro se legal pleading.

Anyway, perhaps we are finished here. — Banno

We could be, but how would that help your page count? I think at least two more rounds of "Grouping Christians is..." and "I'm not not grouping Christians, I'm just using Christians as proxy for..." is in order. I will insist that you say, "People who admire morally abhorrent agents are bad and that includes some Christians (such as X) that admire a morally abhorrent god" and you will reply "Stop being dense and engaging in special pleading; I am obviously talking about the Scotsman left after my No-true Scotsman criteria are applied (while of course conceding that it is of no moment whether any of them are Scotsman because I am really just talking about a pamphlet that sets out rules for government for China), and those Scotsman are abhorrent, so stop saying they are moral." Then I, trying yet again to understand you because of what I see as your clear equivocation will ask, "Who's on first?" and you will say "Yes."

The straight man always comes out looking better.

Religion-bashing has become passé since the new atheists lost their novelty factor, the new vogue is to defend it. — Isaac

The vogue is to get over being fart-sniffing atheists (new or otherwise) and just be malcontented nihilists playing at absurdists telling everyone that the know nothing by producing a mountain of evidence and talking points about why everyone is wrong all of the time. Or maybe just being contrarian. Hard to tell. In any event, you are at least 30 years late to the party of the cool kids shitting on atheists and defending the naive, romanticized "true" believers. Or maybe go read Tolstoy.

The vestry is private, the church isn't so maybe it's "it's OK to molest boys when hidden but we should protect the innocent when in view". — Isaac

To see if I understand, the idea is that you've articulated a coherent narrative which describes the different contexts that the 'tendencies to act as if' arise in. That itself gets interpreted as a belief, because the priest does have a tendency to act (X in context A and Y in context B). It doesn't matter who made the belief, all that matters is how accurate the description is. On this account someone can believe something they are not aware of. Even if the priest doesn't think, articulate, realise, become consciously aware of their tendency to act as if X, that's counted as a summary of their belief, and thus is what their belief is.

The 'and thus' there follows because all there is to a belief that or in X is an accurate summary of a person's tendency to act as if X.

Seem right?

When people are looking for these stories, they'll more readily pick one off the shelf than make one up themselves. The myths and narratives that a society offers matter a lot to the kind of society that results because of this. It' my belief that a contradictory mythology such a Christianity offers - with the sort of contradictions Lewis is highlighting - offers a narrative which allows for such horrors as priestly child abuse, much more readily than better mythologies might, precisely because of these underlying themes (that God's actually something of a git himself. That he sees the rites, cassocks and prayers as more important that the behaviour...). — Isaac

I understand that this drives a distinction between a person's post hoc rationalisations and their tendencies to act as if? For example, someone can make a rationalisation of their behaviour which inaccurately summarises their tendencies to act as if, and thus the resulting rationalisation does not reflect their beliefs as defined above.

I don't think that interfaces directly with the argument either. If I can reconstruct your argument, it seems to go something like:

( 1 ) Christians act as if X is good.
( 2 ) X is bad.
( 3 ) If someone acts as if X is good when X is bad then their judgement should be questioned.
( 4 ) Christians' judgement should be questioned.

Which is a perfectly valid argument. I don't think it's currently sound though, as premise ( 1 ) seems insufficiently justified. The reason being that despite the sophistication of the belief account you've provided, there currently isn't an articulated link between why worshipping an entity which approves of X means acting as if X is good.

Edit: eg this illustrative quote from the Screwtape Letters:

It is, no doubt, impossible to prevent his praying for his mother, but we have means of rendering the prayers innocuous. Make sure that they are always very 'spiritual', that is is always concerned with the state of her soul and never with her rhuematism. Two advantages will follow. In the first place, his attention will be kept on what he regards are her sins, by which, with a little guidance from you, he can be induced to mean any of her actions which are inconvenient or irritating to himself. Thus you can keep rubbing the wounds of the day a little sorer even while he is on his knees; the operation is not at all difficult and you will find it very entertaining. In the second place, since his ideas about her soul will be very crude and often erroneous, he will, in some degree, be praying for an imaginary person, and it will be your task to make that imaginary person daily less and less like the real mother--the sharp-tongued old lady at the breakfast table. In time you may get the cleavage so wide that no thought or feeling from his prayers for the imagined mother will ever flow over into his treatment of the real one. I have had patients of my own so well in hand that they could be turned at a moment's notice from impassioned prayer for a wife's or son's soul to beating or insulting the real wife or son without any qualm. — CS Lewis, The Screwtape Letters

An additional point is that cognitive dissonance makes this argument on particularly shaky ground. If I've understood it right, the unified narrative for cognitive dissonance is: one acts X in context A and Y in context B, where X and Y are 'contrary'.

So ( 1 ) would be true for Christians act as if X is good, but under the assumption that a unified narrative would need to imply that in the aggregate the Christian acted as if X was good, this gives a strange conclusion. If a Christian acts as if X is good in church, but not at home, being able to substitute in 'Person act as if X is good' because they do in context C into ( 1 ) from the unified narrative makes you able to question the Christian's judgement. EG, hypothetical secret gay rights advocate in a Christian community worshipping the God preached in a gay bashing Church still gets their judgement questioned about the gays in the same way as the rest of the congregation.

I don't think that conclusion is tenable, so it highlights that one cannot take the constitutive elements out of the unified narrative and throw them into the argument. And if that is true, the necessity of coming up with a unified narrative in cases of cognitive dissonance blocks the argument from applying to any specific Christian without a theory of when you can rightly judge that someone in the aggregate is acting as if X is good. IE, a theory of accuracy for the unified narratives.

There's nothing meaningfully distinct between how legal documents are interpreted as opposed to religious except for the fact that you have respect for the Anglo tradition of legal interpretation, but not for the systems in place for biblical interpretation. — Hanover

Nonsense. The legal interpretation can land me in jail or set me free. It has just about one of the largest meaningful consequences it's possible to have. Were it not for such s consequence I might well not give two figs for how legal instructions had been historically interpreted by the legal community either.

It makes no more sense for a Ugandan to interpret the US Constitution and tell me what it really means than it does for you to tell someone who relies upon the OT that it really means that stoning is acceptable. — Hanover

Yes, but that's because a Ugandan, like it or not, is not under the jurisdiction of the US constitution and you, like it or not, are.

This is not the case with the Bible, which is just a book and people voluntarily follow some, all, or none of it's edicts as they see fit.

The difference is one of pragmatism. I can quite legitimately, intervene in people's interpretation of religious texts. I might say to the Pope "look at this line from the bible, isn't this all nonsense", and he could say "yes, you're right, sod this for a game of soldiers". In contrast, I could provide the best argument in the world to a judge about some line in a legal document and he'd still have to say "well, that's the way the legal community have interpreted it so there's little I can do".

Each individual member of the legal community is constrained to some extent by the others and subject to their interpretation regardless.

Each individual member of a religion could make up a new rule, walk away entirely, or not as they see fit and they'd be in no way bound by traditional interpretations. They could invent a new church, a new cult, an entirely new religion, or abandon the project entirely.

You're treating biblical law as if it applied in the same way as actual law. It doesn't. Biblical law is entirely optional. Take all of it, some of it, none of it, as you see fit. Make it up as you go along, stick to 2000yr old edicts, listen to your pastors, ignore them entirely, whatever you like. As such, there's no reason at all why a complete outsider might not take part in the discussion on the basis of what each line/section/story means to them, it's possible that their unique take might change the understanding of any individual, since there's no practical constraint on what the 'right' interpretation is.

I see I've created some confusion, I've probably veered too far from the topic and it's making it hard to see the relevance of what I'm saying.

Behaviours can be 'bad'. States of affairs can be 'bad'. Judging people as 'bad' I don't think makes any sense. I'm arguing here that the state of affairs where there's an influential narrative with such contradictions is 'bad', the state of affairs where a Christian believes in a vengeful god is 'bad', not that the Christian themselves is 'bad'.

The argument that their involvement in moral discourse should be questioned is...

When faced with a moral dilemma, I might ask myself "what would Aragorn do?" by which I mean what behaviours would fit with the story of Aragorn - the hero narrative, nobility, sacrifice etc

When faced with a similar dilemma, the Christian might ask "What would Jesus do?" by which they mean what behaviours would fit with that narrative, and they may well thereby come up with some 'good' behaviours. But with the Christian, they may also ask "What would God want me to do?", or "What would the pious do?", or "What would the Pharisees do?". They've got numerous (contradictory) narratives to choose from. The problem here is in deciding on behaviours where one course of action has a strong pull (such as much selfish behaviour does, instant gratification, hyperbolic discounting etc), the availability of an 'easier' option, but still very much fitting with the narrative is problematic (for the community).

The relevance of cognitive dissonance - the reason it's painful - is that we need to keep a united sense to the disparate internal models (which don't really discuss their outputs with each other much!). We do this by narratives (stories), the pain is when an understanding/behaviour doesn't fit with the story. If the story is a good one, this can keep us on the straight and narrow (it's actually painful to stray from it). If the story is full of holes, get-outs and contradictions, virtually any behaviour can be made to fit, there's hardly any dissonance, no pain, nothing to keep us on the straight and narrow.

So basically, it's not so much about judging the person, it's about judging the state of affairs where there's a weak narrative. The molesting priest will find it harder (experience more dissonance) if the only narratives available to him are those in which molesting young boys is always and unconditionally abhorrent, without redeeming consideration. As it stands, he could come up with a narrative where it's a grey area - the children should submit to his authority after all, shouldn't they; he is very pious, isn't he; he's got the frock on and everything...looks the part, does the speeches... Christianity is not the only flawed narrative in this respect.

None of this is intended to deny the fact that people compartmentalise, run two narratives at a time, it's only meant to emphasise that this usually comes at a cost, and the cost is the extent to which the two narratives are at odds. It takes a specific type of personality disorder to act like Aragorn in some instances, but like a slave-driver in others. That's because the two narratives are so radically opposed, it would create a lot of painful dissonance every time they crossed over (exploring these cross-overs is another therapeutic technique), but with the molesting priest, his two narratives aren't so different. In the vestry, the molester exerts his authority, for his own glory, believes he's owed the gratification - in church, he might have the story of Jesus to create a little cognitive dissonance (Jesus would protect the innocent wouldn't he?), but he's also got the story of the vengeful God, stopping at nothing to extract his right to adoration. So he can re-frame his past actions in the vestry to reduce the pain of these two stories clashing.

Nonsense. The legal interpretation can land me in jail or set me free. It has just about one of the largest meaningful consequences it's possible to have. Were it not for such consequence I might well not give two figs for how legal instructions had been historically interpreted by the legal community either. — Isaac

Nope, that's an irrelevant distinction. The question of what a document means is interpreted by the method agreed upon by those who use the document as to what it means. That would apply whether you're interpreting the criminal code in your jurisdiction that might land you in jail or whether you're interpreting Belgian zoning law that has no application to you, or even ancient Greek legal documents.

Yes, but that's because a Ugandan, like it or not, is not under the jurisdiction of the US constitution and you, like it or not, are. — Isaac

No, that's not why. If I were truly schooled in Ugandan law, I would feel comfortable telling the Ugandans what their law said, but I'm not. I know nothing of their complex and nuanced culture, know nothing of what they rely upon for legal authority, know nothing about how they prioritize authority, know nothing of their unwritten customs, and know nothing about their political system. If seated at the table and asked what Ugandan law is, I'd say I don't know. I'd say the same if I were asked the same of Montana law. That I can read and flip through documents doesn't mean I add any value to that discussion.

This is not the case with the Bible, which is just a book and people voluntarily follow some, all, or none of it's edicts as they see fit. — Isaac

This is a long discussion about a distinction that makes absolutely no difference. If the question is what the French law of 1235 demanded of its citizens and you argued X and me Y, one of us would be correct, despite the fact that law applies to no one. In fact, we could consider a law that was never applied to anyone.

The penalty one might expect from the violation of the law (e.g. incarceration, financial penalty, revocation of special privileges, public scorn, embarrassment, eternity in hell, shunning from the community or whatever) plays zero role in interpreting what the law means. If the law says it's illegal to steal, it's illegal to steal, regardless of whether you have an expectation of getting caught and regardless of whether you have an expectation of Presidential pardon.

There are methods by those communities who adhere to the tenants of the Bible when interpreting it, and if you want to know whether some stone their girls, you need to use those methods to know. If you don't use those methods, then you will be saying nothing more than "hypothetically, the bible could be used to justify stoning based upon my two cents upon reading through it, so it's a bad document." So now we know it could be, as opposed to whether it is or ever has been.

So now we know it could be, as opposed to whether it is or ever has been. — Hanover

But meaning is use! And we can't ask what the words mean to us privately, but have to look at the contexts in which those words are used and the resultant behavior! Oh wait. I see what you did there. Applied some analytic philosophy to the analytic philosophers that lost their way because you are talking about a book they hate. Surely Witty thinks you are wrong.

Applied some analytic philosophy to the analytic philosophers that lost their way because you are talking about a book they hate. — Ennui Elucidator

Yep. you nailed it! The lurking bigotry behind the feigned reasonableness of Lewis' article, and Banno's OP. Anachronism of the one-eyed dick.

The question of what a document means is interpreted by the method agreed upon by those who use the document as to what it means. — Hanover

Who says?

If the law says it's illegal to steal, it's illegal to steal, regardless of whether you have an expectation of getting caught and regardless of whether you have an expectation of Presidential pardon. — Hanover

That's not the point. The point is that if the law is ambiguous, ie one person thinks it prohibits stealing another that it doesn't, what matters is the interpretation of the legal community. That's where the consequence will be determined.

There are methods by those communities who adhere to the tenants of the Bible when interpreting it, and if you want to know whether some stone their girls, you need to use those methods to know. — Hanover

No I don't, I can just observe their actions. It'd be a better test than asking.

you will be saying nothing more than "hypothetically, the bible could be used to justify stoning based upon my two cents upon reading through it, so it's a bad document." So now we know it could be, as opposed to whether it is or ever has been. — Hanover

That's exactly what I am saying.

And your review of this book is what?

That book is written by a Mormon. The Mormons have their own canon (Bible, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, Book of Mormon). They also believe in continuous revelation, meaning God continues to speak to people, and they can add to their canon as their President determines, as he is said to be a prophet. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_works

They are not literalists by any means.

Explain how this is supportive of the argument that since the OT discusses stoning of girls, that is what it means without reference to its context (i.e. usage).

Your post did make clear your desire to judge a book by its cover though without engaging in even the most basic rigor of cracking it open.

They have Mormons in Australia? :grin:

The question of what a document means is interpreted by the method agreed upon by those who use the document as to what it means.
— Hanover

Who says?

If the law says it's illegal to steal, it's illegal to steal, regardless of whether you have an expectation of getting caught and regardless of whether you have an expectation of Presidential pardon.
— Hanover

That's not the point. The point is that if the law is ambiguous, ie one person thinks it prohibits stealing another that it doesn't, what matters is the interpretation of the legal community. That's where the consequence will be determined. — Isaac

Your first question ("who says?") is answered by yourself in your response to me.

There are methods by those communities who adhere to the tenants of the Bible when interpreting it, and if you want to know whether some stone their girls, you need to use those methods to know.
— Hanover

No I don't, I can just observe their actions. It'd be a better test than asking. — Isaac

You can ask or watch because they are the same thing, meaning they do exactly as they say they are.

you will be saying nothing more than "hypothetically, the bible could be used to justify stoning based upon my two cents upon reading through it, so it's a bad document." So now we know it could be, as opposed to whether it is or ever has been.
— Hanover

That's exactly what I am saying. — Isaac

Every document can be hypothesized into a bad document. I could use the Bill of Rights to justify all sorts of chaos if I wanted to interpret it in a way that no one has ever interpreted and that defies all manner by which people have ever interpreted it.

They have Mormons in Australia? :grin: — frank

They do. A most wonderful people. Their disaster relief is truly awe inspiring. I went on some hurricane relief trips with them into areas devastated by hurricanes and helped remove debris, save belongings, and offer assistance. They pitch tents around their local churches and then render aid throughout the week.

And then they go and stone little girls. Whatever. So ridiculous. It would be insulting if not so ignorant.

And then they go and stone little girls. — Hanover

Excommunication can be the consequence for adultery in the LDS church, though.
Bear in mind that in an LDS setting, excommunication can mean that the person will lose their job, their home, their friends, their family (because Mormons tend to be very tightly knit socially and economically).

Excommunication is not stoning, of course, but it can critically worsen the person's socio-economic status, even to the point where they face homelessness or death by suicide for lack of socio-economic options.

A most wonderful people. — Hanover

As a translator for the local language, I once witnessed a regional organizational meeting of missionaries at the local LDS church.
"Get their trust! Get their phone number!" their leader instructed them.

And some of them say "Democraps" instead of "Democrats".

Excommunication is not stoning, of course, but it can critically worsen the person's socio-economic status, even to the point where they face homelessness or death by suicide for lack of socio-economic options. — baker

I'm not going to defend every practice with the LDS church, nor of any institution on the face of the planet. I'm also not going to recognize any similarity between stoning and removal from an organization. If you're truly interested in the nuances of LDS excommunication (versus disfellowship or simply probation), and the actual likelihood of it occurring, you can read it here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/1975/07/q-and-a-questions-and-answers/what-are-the-reasons-for-and-the-process-of-excommunication?lang=eng

There is also a path back through a new baptism as well.

In any event, most every organization has rules for admission and rules for expulsion. If you want to locate abuses within religious organizations, you needn't look to such subtle instances as the one you've cited. We are all well aware of the serious misdeeds performed by various religious institutions over time.

The question of whether a religious institution can be determined as per se evil from a cursory and decontextualized reading of their religious doctrine remains in the negative.