BookofMormonLuvr

So divorce degrees violate the Establishment Cause on a regular basis? Interesting.

We can't take back what is already there and making one person take possession of the image of the church is slightly unfair. We do stupid stuff. If people are so unmerciful that they can't see past our mortal failings they probably weren't prepared to hear in the first place. So while it is important to be a good example, we cannot place an onerous burden on individuals to be perfect in order to maintain some imaginary myth of a perfect church with perfect people. Did that make any sense?

Good point. You don't have to go to a building to have church- there is no rule against church at home on those weekends. You could agree not to take him to the building, but still let him know there will be church at home. Sings some songs, prepare a lesson. Basically, FHE on Sunday morning.

I really like this post, but it begs the question... Why does the "culture of the church, your neighbors" expect it of you? What is it about the LDS Church that the members expect such "cranked up to 11" perfection out of other members? How did they arrive at such high expectations of each other?

I group of Restorationist Saints (RLDS who did not follow the Community of Christ and their changes) has a t-shirt that says.. "I Agree With Abinadi"

Alma had a similar situation with one of his sons. I like what he said... I would hope we can extend the same mercy to our brother here. Alma didn't cast his son out or place a burdensome rock of punishment on his back, he simply reminded him of his duty and the consequence of unrepented sin, and then sent him back into the "good fight". Our brother here will remember his sin each time he writes a child-support payment or picks up the kid for a weekend visit, we don't need to do it for him.

Another idea: Find a non-denominational church with a Saturday night meeting. Say you will take him to that if he agrees to go to Sacrament meeting the next day. BTW, he has been coached by his mother.. 12 yo don't come up with this... on their own. Or you could just tell the mother you will start taking him to the local Kingdom Hall since she doesn't want him attending "Mormon" meetings.

Good luck... Focus more on your relationship with your wife (who it appears is standing with you) then on any punishment meted out, and step up to the plate if the kid is yours. If you do those two things you will be alright. You have repented and are trying to make things right, so you are alright in my book. :)

Interesting question... My answer would be "Yes" and "No" Yes, in that in LDS thinking I would be a "former member" because years ago I was baptized into and attended the LDS Church. No, in that I believe I belong to the Church of Christ that was organized in 1830, so I don't see myself as a "former member" but a current member of the church. Just as I see you as a member of the Church of Christ. The same goes for my brothers and sisters in the Church of Christ (Temple Lot), the Church of Jesus Christ, the various branches of RLDSism, and most others baptized by the line of authority coming from John the Baptist through Oliver and Joseph... (though I do have a problem with those churches that give women the Priesthood and those practicing plural marriage). Needless to say- My view of who constitutes "the church" is has grown considerably over the past few years. I love you all as my brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus.

Wow, I hope I chop this up right... 2. Covenant (as it relates to baptism) 3. The ordinance (as it relates to baptism) 4. The doctrine of baptism 5. The blessings (benedictions) specific to baptism 6. The punishment (maledictions) specific to not being baptized or fulfilling baptism. Is there a difference in maledictions for not being baptized from not fulfilling baptism? 7. According to the law – what is the meaning and purpose of a proxy? 8. Does the Book of Mormon – in your view – speak of a covenantal promise linking the generations spoken of in the Book of Mormon and again to the generations of our day and time? 9. What is the meaning of a “remnant”? Finally do you believe there are examples of proxies involved in covenants in the Book of Mormon – directly or indirectly? I ask these questions because it does appear that the primary problem is one of understanding of terms. I would like to make sure I understand your terms before I begin to discuss the concept of “fullness” of the Gospel and how that relates to covenant and law of baptism as clearly taught in the Book of Mormon to the ancient peoples concerning the temple that was often spoken of using symbolism in ancient Hebrew poetic formats. The Traveler I tried to make it legible, oh well- hopefully it is understandable.

I appreciate your opinion, captainmoroniRM. This line strikes me a contradictory... You say they won't be punished, but then go on to say they would be not permitted into the Kingdom of God- which is the supreme punishment. Feeding off another discussion... Why do you not take the Sacrament in proxy each week for the dead then? It stands to reason, since their agency doesn't end, that they would need to partake somehow, having been made members of the church through proxy baptism earlier on.

No problem. I understand the havoc of life. Take your time.

I am not going to continue this discussion, it is not my intention to cause contention. Apparently, any observation I may have contrary what is generally accepted will interpreted as contention, so I will pick my discussions more carefully- and this one is not worth it. I do believe, however, that it is healthy for members of any church, and the church itself, to discuss potential issues within their ranks instead of pretending everything is rosy. I will leave it at that. Hopefully, some of your fellow LDS members who see what I am poorly trying to say will speak up, I am sure they will have more credit with you then this crazy apostate. :)

The LDS Church actually encourages participation on places like Facebook... Sharing the Gospel Via Social Media

Thank you, Dravin. Let's see what it says... The first thing I notice is the change in pronoun in this verse compared to the other verses in the chapter. Whereas, Paul speaks of "us", "our", "me", "you"- in this verse he speaks of "they" being baptized for the dead. Why is he not including himself or his hearers with those being baptized for the dead? Later, in verse 32, Paul makes this interesting observation in similar language... Does this make fighting with beasts an ordinance needed to redeem the dead? The unclear nature of this verse stands in stark contrast to the plain teachings of the Book of Mormon I quoted in post #28- In my humble opinion.