The Folk Prophet

Then why did you ask why the church feels it will not be numerous? I'm not even sure where you're going with this any more. I made an honest attempt to explain to you what is mean by Windseeker's post. We do not feel we won't be numerous, but we do feel that we will fill the earth by reaching all nations, and yet be a relatively lesser percentage of the population. I'm not sure wherein there seems to be some lingering contention. Am I being confusing in my explanations or am I confused at your responses?

May I suggest that this may (and I emphasize "may") not be the best idea. Girl's camp can and should be a highly spiritual influence for good with a large focus on testimony building. Would it be appropriate to add in there: "Cancelled: church" as a punishment? Know what I mean?

But the word "numerous" and it's meaning was your addition to the conversation. The initial comment was that the church would fill the earth but never be a significant percentage of the population.

And it is not automatic.

It is called a day of rest for a reason, methinks.

Points and actions are distinctly different.

Well, obviously, to the number of people on the earth. What else could it mean? We are talking, after all, about how the church will never be a large percentage of the population, per Windseeker's post. Point being, there are already over 15 mill members. I'd call that numerous...but not relative to the population of the earth.

Are there any you are supporting?

Correction: Relatively numerous.

(Quoted in Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, online here.) How sad for the deformed, ugly, scared and infirm. I question this as doctrinal in terms of "common" and "repeated often", etc... Moreover, there's some logical problems in it. If the purpose of being raised as we were was so that we knew each other, then what of the wife who dies, and then the husband gets marred, scarred, or just puts on a ton of weight, then dies? And what if that man married a second time after the marring, and that wife died before him as well. Which one should he be raised as to be recognizable?

I admit it. The analogy was junk. :) I think it more reasonable to see "filling the whole earth" to mean that it has reached all nations. This has not happened yet.

The same way that a drop of blue dye fills a bucket of water but is still only a small percent of the liquid therein.

Well, for one thing, as I discovered recently, the sacrifice of animals. Some other things are questionable, for example, polygamy and the law of consecration. Does the fact that they were restored count as restored before the end, or do all things restored have to be currently in place before the end? Even if the first is true, I don't know that the law of consecration counts as having been fully restored. ?? I'd have to do more thinking and research to come up with anything else.

I'm also a bit confused by the question. Is plum tuckered out or living alone meant to justify something that would otherwise be Sunday inappropriate?

I heartily disagree. Not because it could not be honorable. The idea is, in theory, honorable. But, as is often the case, the methods are entirely wrong and more damaging than helpful.

The restoration is ongoing. All things have not been restored yet. All things must be restored before the end.

I think the line-upon-line, don't run faster than able, approach to fitness and eating is the right choice. It can be terribly difficult to jump cold-turkey head-first into a strict diet and exercise regime. Some personality types can. But for many, a long-term plan to get there over a set time is wise. I recommend always pushing yourself just past where you're comfortable. In doing so you will consistently improve.

I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but if weight loss is your goal, then the only real solution is, ultimately, will power, whatever specific diet plan you go with, including South Beach.

To be clear, I'm not talking about "feelings". And if the spiritual proof were simple there would be no test to life and the entire purpose of our being here would be thwarted.

Well, your first statement did not include the word "simple" and set up the word "no" as a compete concept. There are no simple proofs. With that I agree. There is no ultimate proof? I disagree. But no man can show another that proof because it is beyond man to do so. Each must seek it on their own. But everyone can, ultimately, receive that proof.

Hey Lakumi, I agree with you! Mostly. :) Except with the last sentence.

This comes across as word play to me. Punishment is penalty for offense. The perception of the receiver doesn't come into the definition at all. And this: "We, as a church, do not have the authority for that kind of judgement." is inaccurate. By way of not arguing the point further myself, please read THIS from the D&C student manual. It contains several quotes as to how this all works, the responsibilities and authorities of those who discipline, and clarifies things quite well. Note, also, the clear use of the terms "penalty" and "punish".

Implying that there are other true churches with which the Lord is not pleased? Seems at odds with JS-History 1:18-19. I read "true" in the same sense as "right", and "false" in the same sense as "wrong". There is only one church which is right and all others are wrong. That does not mean that they are completely wrong. It just means, as a whole, they are wrong. The only way to be the right (or true) church is to be completely right. There is only one true church and only one right church. The meaning of "true" is mathematical. Take a series of similar complex mathematical equations that claim to come to the same conclusion and ask which one is true. Even if they all contain elements of truth, only the one with all the correct methods, numbers, and mathematics will generate the proper response. That one, therefore, is the true equation. The elements of truth in the others do not render them true. The fact that the Lord is well pleased with the right and true church is incidental to the meaning, imo.

We mostly agree, except the not like a kid put in the corner thing. It is like that in many a ways. And, logically, the consequence of sin is whatever happens to you because of that sin. If that includes excommunication then it is, indeed, part of the consequence of that sin, just like being addicted to something is part of the consequence of some actions, getting thrown in jail is part of the consequence of some actions, and getting shot down by the police is part of the consequence of some actions. Edit, see my above last line to Traveler. I've said my thoughts. Won't argue further. I appreciate your insight though.

Unless, of course, it IS, actually, a punishment. Utilizing the meaning of discipline as the positive enforcement of behavior (either by oneself or by another) would make little sense in the term "church discipline". A disciplinary court is ultimately held to determine guilt and pass sentence -- well qualifying the term as punishment. Being overly sensitive to the word "punishment" doesn't change the reality of what it is or is not. What you're saying would be like a parent arguing that they aren't punishing their children when they give them a time out. Uh....okay.... But yes they are. Over-sensitivity to a word or concept does not negate that word or concept. And excommunication is, unquestionably, a punishment, regardless of whether people "feel" like it's a punishment or not. It simply is what it is. Yes, it should be done with love. Yes, it should be done for the betterment of the transgressor, the church, the congregation, etc. What excommunication does not do is " wipe an individual slate clean, to allow a reset and start over". What it does do (among other things) is knock the transgressor over the head a bit to jolt them into a realization of the seriousness of what they have done. As a general rule, as you well know, excommunication is usually avoided whenever possible. In most cases other forms of discipline are proper. But there is a time and a place where excommunication becomes necessary. The most common is when the individual is defiant and unrepentant. Hence, the head-knocking. Would you also contend that putting someone in jail is not a punishment because it is for their betterment, and for the safety of society and community? The fact that there are other, valid purposes for church discipline does not mean that it is not also a punishment. There seems to be an underlying idea that thinking of excommunication as punishment is somehow damaging. As if this realization means there is less love involved or something. I reject that thinking. I also find it decisively harmful to allow those excommunicated to think that the purpose of their excommunication was to make them less accountable for their sins. In fact, this is practically opposite of the intent of church discipline. It is, rather, to show how serious, indeed, transgression is, and how accountable individuals are for their choices. Excommunication is a threat...and a serious one. It is a temporal threat that stands proxy for an eternal one. It is a reminder that sin has consequence. It is, absolutely, a punishment. I have said my peace and I do not wish to argue it further. I'm making a strong effort to not have the spirit of contention. So I will bow out of further "debate" on the matter, but do look forward to reading your responses.