The Folk Prophet

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.

Of course if you condition it with "that has truth," then you are correct. But it is undeniable that if you remove those tacked on words at the end that the church teaches that it is the only true church. Edit: I misread...so I'll restate: If you change the sentence around to "the only church that has truth" then you are, of course, correct. But it is undeniable that the church teaches that it is the only true church. That's better.

I vote "perk". Actually, what we really teach is fairly straightforward. Tons of info on it. For example, here.

I am not saying that there are no commonalities to psychological issues. I am saying that those commonalities are not necessarily to blame. Take, for example, killing. We are taught not to kill. Then we go to war and we have to kill. Some people have serious psychological responses to having had to kill. Should we therefore blame the "do not kill" teaching for those responses? There are only a few principles, I think, that allow for such opposition. Most principles are always good or always bad. Thou shalt not kill and justifiable killing is one complex issue that many of us, hopefully, will never have to face. Abstinence from sex prior to marriage and the embracing of sex after marriage is another issue, that most of us will probably face. It is bound to cause issues for some because it is a complex reality. To imply that anyone that has issues with that complex reality must be because they were taught improperly in the home is invalid, imo.

According to Handbook 1, there are, actually, three specified reasons for church discipline. 1. Save the Souls of Transgressors. 2. Protect the Innocent. 3. Safeguard the Integrity of the Church. The first one (Save the Souls of the Trangressor) is wherein church discipline can be considered "punishment" in that the means whereby excommunication (or disfellowshipping or informal disciipline) is used to save the soul of the transgressor is in "...helping transgressors recognize and forsake sin, seek forgiveness, make restitution, and demonstrate a renewed commitment to keep the commandments." Furthermore, the Handbook goes on to state, "...in some instances the only way to encourage true repentance is to convene a disciplinary council and consider formal discipline. Without formal discipline, some transgressors may never experience the change of behavior and change of heart necessary to qualify them for redemption through the Atonement, for “none but the truly penitent are saved” (Alma 42:24)." The obvious read here being to "discipline" them in order to motivate them to repent. As to whether you call it a "punishment" or not it doesn't really matter, but to argue against it being a punishment seems a bit silly to me in that the primary definition of "discipline" is "punishment". They are synonyms. It is called church discipline for a reason. But let's step back here a sec and really look at what is being implied. Are you saying that the excommunicated person is now less accountable because of the excommunication and the removal of covenants? This is what I am reading from the various statements I've seen and heard in this regard, and this is what I am speaking against, ultimately. If this is not what you (and others) are saying, then it is coming across that way and perhaps some clarification is in order. But the removal of covenants is not a reason for excommunication. It is a result. And excommunication in no way makes the person less accountable.

I disagree that it can be categorized as a fault of the home. To be clear, that is not to say that it is never the fault of the home. I think, in general, however, that trying to blame peoples neuroses on specific thing is a mistake. Unless that blame is that people are mortal and thereby emotionally and mentally weak, fallible and generally prone to problems.

Am I understanding you correctly that you believe The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not claim to be the ONE true church? Am I misunderstanding you?

I've heard this before -- in church nonetheless. However, it is inaccurate per the various reasons given for excommunication. It is also inaccurate doctrinally. Excommunication does not wipe one's slate clean. Is simply doesn't. Only repentance does that. One of the purposes of excommunication is very clearly and definitely to punish in order to motivate change.

Hmm. From the limited info given, I think the giggling with her friends about it implies something else. But perhaps. Interesting thought, either way.

There are appropriate questions to ask concerning the law of chastity and there are inappropriate ones. The inappropriate ones are inappropriate, regardless of how many are sitting there, regardless of it being a male or female asking. The inappropriate questions should not be asked. However, the concern, I think, is putting a check on the asking of such questions -- meaning, I suppose, that if an adult sister were sitting in the room with them, maybe the bishop wouldn't ask certain questions, yes? But there's a different issue at hand. Confession is not an easy thing, and most people, I think, who were serious about it would want to confess it to as few people as possible. If I committed a sin that was severe enough to require a bishop level confessions I would have a hard enough time letting my bishop know. Throw in a few others and it becomes even more overwhelming -- particularly to a less mature youth. When and if a council is required, then a council is required. But generally, part of a bishop's job is to protect the youth and keep their confessions entirely private. I have another inexplicable agree-with-MoE moment here though. I think bishops should have clear and explicit training in this regard.

classylady, -- I also read agenda in the OP and the response and therefore have not engaged. I have also not engaged because there is not enough information. Unless we know what the bishop actually said how can we possibly assess its appropriateness? The OP stating that something bugged her does not tell us a thing. Either way, I find myself skeptical of the legitimacy of the report, and side with you on the inappropriate behavior of the teen. Ridiculous.

It's not that simple and likely leads some to simply not take the poll. I do not read them. But saying "no" would also be inaccurate because I have read one or two in the past. Saying yes implies things that are not true either. So I guess my answer is: Have I ever read them? Yes. Do I read them currently? No. Will I read them in the future? Probably no.

I am not familiar and have found nothing in searching around. Perhaps there is a confusion on the quotes that do say we will have to grow to become like God. ???

The poll needs a few variations of 'sometimes'.

I am not suggesting cutting off the relationship. I am suggesting not formalizing it pre-mission.