Church discipline

[Tarnished]

I understand and pretty much agree with what you are saying. But it is not true to say that "other religions" do not believe that you have to repent again and again.

Let me rectify my statement then to say, "some other religions". What I am saying above is not that "all" religions believe that you do not have to repent once you have been saved. But there are some out there that do, or at least seem to.

[Dravin]

But it is not true to say that "other religions" do not believe that you have to repent again and again.

That's true, throwing some in there is much more accurate. Actually, small minority of Christians may even be more accurate but I don't know the demographics for the, I could kill a bus load of kindergarteners and its all cool 'cuz I'm saved crowd (once saved always saved no matter what I do crowd).

Actually had one such point out to me that he could kill me where I stood and it wouldn't have any effect on his salvation, twas kinda creepy to say the least.

[Jamie123]

Let me rectify my statement then to say, "some other religions". What I am saying above is not that "all" religions believe that you do not have to repent once you have been saved. But there are some out there that do, or at least seem to.

I apologize - after I'd thought about it a bit, I reckoned that was probably what you meant. I don't know for sure, but I suspect many churches that do teach "do as you like - you're saved" are actually perverting the teachings of their original founders.

I think the overall situation can be understood as follows. The Christian is faced with the following two principles:

1. God commands us to repent of our sins and henceforth to live righteous lives.

2. As fallen creatures, we know that we have no capacity to obey this command. Therefore our righteousness can only come from Christ.

This is obviously problematic, and the Christian feels like the child who's told to "speak when he's spoken to, and not to answer back!" If he follows Principle 1 and ignores Principle 2, he inevitably fails and drives himself mad with guilt. On the other hand, if he concentrates on 2 at the expense of 1, he becomes the "do as you like, you're saved!" caricature that many synergist Christians (Mormons included) use to parody monergists.

However, there's a simple 3rd principle that can be added:

3. Repent, try to live a sinless life, accept that you will not succeed, and trust Christ to pick up the slack. But do not use your inevitable failure as an excuse not to do the best that you can.

Edited April 6, 2009 by Jamie123

[Tarnished]

3. Repent, try to live a sinless life, accept that you will not succeed, and trust Christ to pick up the slack. But do not use your inevitable failure as an excuse not to do the best that you can.

Exactly

[Vort]

The idea that fornication should be considered a "spiritual sin" is a little strange to me.

Is there such thing as a "non-spiritual sin"? All sins are spiritual sins. To say otherwise is a contradiction in terms.

Over the years, I've come to view sexual immorality less serious than other sins since (like gluttony or sloth) it comes form a simple carnal desire, not from any deep-rooted spiritual pride.

Acting on your carnal desires, contrary to God's commandments and your own spiritual impulses, is a "deep-rooted spiritual pride." Sins of sexual immorality dull or destroy your sensitivity to the Spirit, and thus your ability even to hear God's voice. Dangerous stuff indeed.

Of course, not saying that lust isn't dangerous, or that (unless repented of) it doesn't damage our relationships with our partners and with God. But it is immeasurably less serious than other things of which Man is capable.

Sure, you can find things far more damaging, such as murder and rape. But the idea that sex immorality is really no big deal is a Satanic lie, and one of the pitfalls of our present generation.

On the other hand, I can begin to understand though where the LDS position comes from: The ability to copulate and thus create children is (as I understand it - please correct me if I'm wrong) part of God's creative power devolved upon mankind. If we use it wrongly, we are abusing what is effectively a "priesthood authority". I've often considered this a weak point in LDS doctrine since - if applied consistently - it would require a ban any form of non-procreative sex.

Don't you think sex creates more than just children? It's called "making love" for a reason.

(Another thought: Plants and animals also have the power to reproduce themselves. Does this mean they too share in God's creative act?)

Sure. But since plants and animals are not children of God, there are no moral ramifications for them; they simply do as they are created to do.

[Jamie123]

Posted in error

Edited April 6, 2009 by Jamie123
Posted in error

[Jamie123]

Is there such thing as a "non-spiritual sin"? All sins are spiritual sins. To say otherwise is a contradiction in terms.

OK - but in that case why bother with the adjective? I assumed it was used to imply "most serious". If all sin is spiritual, why not just call it all "sin"?

Acting on your carnal desires, contrary to God's commandments and your own spiritual impulses, is a "deep-rooted spiritual pride." Sins of sexual immorality dull or destroy your sensitivity to the Spirit, and thus your ability even to hear God's voice. Dangerous stuff indeed.

At no point have I ever disputed the dangers of sexual immorality. If you read my post in its entirity, you will see that I acknowledge the damage that it does to us. However, I can't agree that lust necessarily stems from pride.

Sure, you can find things far more damaging, such as murder and rape.

I think I would agree with you there - though I'm a little wary of your usage of the word "damaging". I've learned from our past exchanges that you're a consequentialist, whereas I'm not.

But the idea that sex immorality is really no big deal is a Satanic lie, and one of the pitfalls of our present generation.

Again I agree. I did not say that it was "no big deal". Read my post again.

Don't you think sex creates more than just children? It's called "making love" for a reason.

I believe that, yes. I was talking about my changing perceptions of Mormonism. In the past I've found it difficult to understand why the LDS takes a different position of birth control to the Catholic Church. I believe I now have an answer to that.

Sure. But since plants and animals are not children of God, there are no moral ramifications for them; they simply do as they are created to do.

OK - good answer.

Edited April 6, 2009 by Jamie123

[Vort]

OK - but in that case why bother with the adjective? I assumed it was used to imply "most serious". If all sin is spiritual, why not just call it all "sin"?

Agreed. Personally, I rarely or never say "spiritual sin", since I think it's redundant.

At no point have I ever disputed the dangers of sexual immorality. If you read my post in its entirity, you will see that I acknowledge the damage that it does to us. However, I can't agree that lust necessarily stems from pride.

To some extent, I was speaking past your specific post to the larger issue. Not every word I wrote was intended to be a specific response to exactly what you wrote.

Also, note that I didn't say that lust necessarily stems from pride; rather, fornication in all its varieties stems largely from pride.

I think I would agree with you there - though I'm a little wary of your usage of the word "damaging". I've learned from our past exchanges that you're a consequentialist, whereas I'm not.

Not sure what you mean specifically. Sin causes spiritual damage. Some sins cause more spiritual damage than others. Sexual sin causes great spiritual damage.

Again I agree. I did not say that it was "no big deal". Read my post again.

And again, I was not necessarily intending every word I wrote as a specific response to what you wrote. Sorry if that wasn't clear. However, I did detect a sense that you thought sex sin was not as big an issue as the LDS Church makes it out to be, so that was the feeling I got that prompted my response.

[Maya]

I think one of the mixups here is what does to be saved mean? Everyone will be saved? Yes everyone EVERYONEwill be saved from eternal nothingness to eternal life... that will happen to EVERYONE! Those that do take Jesus Krsitus as their saviour no matter what religion believe that they are saved to be with Jesus, and theya re. They will come to a glory where Jesus can visit. Jesus is their God! Exhalation is "more" than to be saved. There you will live where Jesus lives, but there can not those, that have not repended rigiously and agreed to babtizm with authority come. There is no place for ignorent there as it is not only to be with Jesus but to work with him and even to be with Elohim.

Mostly the others believe only in Jesus ... the trinity, that is what they will get, they will be saved there where they are willing and hunger for. Then our "small" hell will be when we notice we have not done well enough to enherit, what we KNOW to be true, but have to be satisfied with less. Akll this regadless of religion. Islam people dont believe they can live with God just to wrok for him... and that is what they will be able to do, they dont believe in Jesus Christ, or believe He is a profet. They will be with JK and Muhammed ina a plavce taht serves for their understanding of what is expected to happen.

Yet those that humble their hearts after death or that hear first time about gospel then and agree on the babtizement done for them and are willing to learn the gospe will get what they hunger for then.

But everyone is saved from eternal death!

ps... they talk about eternal development.. I sure hope that is true ...

[beck61]

In the end, it's really up to God.

[Hemidakota]

My best friend is returning to church after 15 years of inactivity. He is an endowed member of the church and was sealed to his wife when he was 20 years old.

Fast forward to present. He left his wife for a younger woman and now that has ended. He wants to try and repair his life and I have encouraged him to come to church. He tells me that he has been feeling the Spirit and wants to continue. He has also been reading the Book of Mormon and praying. In conversations with him I have learned that he never really had a testimony, he was just going through the motions because that was what was expected of him. ( he grew up in the church)

Over the last 15 years he has committed adultery on numerous occasions and ultimately left his wife for a younger woman. He did not live the gospel at all. Given the fact that he is been inactive for 15 years and even when he was he was just going through the motions, do you think he will be excommunicated?

-Bytor

I would accept excommunication...it will only help him to start over. But, leaving that in the Stake Presidency to make the decision base on what the Lords desire for him.

Did he stand in any leadership position when this happened?

[Traveler]

In the end, it's really up to God.

Interesting perspective. I have come to the conclusion that in the end (after all is said and done) that it is really up to the individual and that is the reason not everyone (thought they should) will not enjoy being in G-d’s company.

The Traveler

[rameumptom]

Thank you, rameumptom.

The idea that fornication should be considered a "spiritual sin" is a little strange to me. Over the years, I've come to view sexual immorality less serious than other sins since (like gluttony or sloth) it comes form a simple carnal desire, not from any deep-rooted spiritual pride. Of course, not saying that lust isn't dangerous, or that (unless repented of) it doesn't damage our relationships with our partners and with God. But it is immeasurably less serious than other things of which Man is capable.

There are two LDS reasons for sex: to pro-create and to enhance intimacy between husband and wife. Fornication diminishes both to a basic carnal desire. It takes a precious power that God has given us: Christ-like love, and twists it into animal lust.

The Celestial Kingdom is all about loving and intimate relationships. The greatest of these relationships is a non-sexual one: the Godhead. The three members of the Godhead are so intimately entwined that they are of one mind, heart, and will. And Jesus has invited us to join that relationship (John 17, 2 Nephi 31, 3 Nephi 11).

A truly loving marriage helps us to learn how to be one flesh; so united that husbands and wives that are truly intimate can often finish each other's sentences, or anticipate how the other would think and feel in a given situation.

You do not get this with fornication. Instead, you get Satan's replacement of physical pleasure. His method, however, does not create eternal bonds of love, but rather temporary attractions. Just look at most of Hollywood's hookups (whether legally married or not), and you'll see just how temporary such "love" can be.

Because fornication destroys a person's ability to true intimacy, it destroys the concepts of family, service, selflessness, kindness, compassion, and altruism. It mocks God's will and purpose to make all good things everlasting. It encourages the temporary and selfishness as good and virtuous.

And this does not begin to talk about the issue of pro-creation, which is also mocked by fornication.

[bytor2112]

I have high hopes for my friend. It is sooooo wonderful to watch the Atonement work in someones life. There is definitely a miracle beginning in his life. He is gaining a testimony and really changing. What ever happens during the repentance process, excommunication or disfellowship, he is going to come out of this clean and a true disciple of Christ.

[Jamie123]

There are two LDS reasons for sex: to pro-create and to enhance intimacy between husband and wife. Fornication diminishes both to a basic carnal desire. It takes a precious power that God has given us: Christ-like love, and twists it into animal lust.

The Celestial Kingdom is all about loving and intimate relationships. The greatest of these relationships is a non-sexual one: the Godhead. The three members of the Godhead are so intimately entwined that they are of one mind, heart, and will. And Jesus has invited us to join that relationship (John 17, 2 Nephi 31, 3 Nephi 11).

A truly loving marriage helps us to learn how to be one flesh; so united that husbands and wives that are truly intimate can often finish each other's sentences, or anticipate how the other would think and feel in a given situation.

You do not get this with fornication. Instead, you get Satan's replacement of physical pleasure. His method, however, does not create eternal bonds of love, but rather temporary attractions. Just look at most of Hollywood's hookups (whether legally married or not), and you'll see just how temporary such "love" can be.

Because fornication destroys a person's ability to true intimacy, it destroys the concepts of family, service, selflessness, kindness, compassion, and altruism. It mocks God's will and purpose to make all good things everlasting. It encourages the temporary and selfishness as good and virtuous.

And this does not begin to talk about the issue of pro-creation, which is also mocked by fornication.

Perhaps I'm being overly influenced by my background and reading over the past few years, but I've pretty-much come to the following position:

1. All sin is destructive to the soul, and is detestable to God.

2. Notwithstanding this, some sins will destroy the soul faster than others.

3. The more dangerous sins are those associated with pride, conceit, diminishment for the importance (though not necessarily the physical needs) of others, a desire for personal power for its own sake, and a wish to put oneself in God's rightful place.

4. The less dangerous sins are those associated with carnal appetites, e.g. gluttony, avarice, sloth, unrighteous anger, and forms of selfish (though not necessarily self-centred) behavior, physical cowardice and (many people here will disagree) the kind of lust that leads potentially to fornication.

5. When I say a sin is "less dangerous" I do not imply that it is more acceptable to God or less damaging to our relationships. I am merely saying that it is more easily repented of, and brought under Christ's grace. All sin is destructive and must be fought against.

(Please don't think I'm trying to preach this view of things, or that I'm not open to other ideas. I'm merely trying to explain the mindset that I'm coming from.)

C.S. Lewis once used the example of a man addicted to masturbation who felt so ashamed of himself that he forced himself to quit, then felt very proud of himself for doing so. That man had, Lewis claimed, effectively cured a headache by giving himself cancer. (I bring Lewis into it not as any kind of prophetic authority, but because he seems to be one of the few mainstream Christian thinkers who has any kind of "following" amongst Mormons.)

[Jamie123]

There are two LDS reasons for sex: to pro-create and to enhance intimacy between husband and wife. Fornication diminishes both to a basic carnal desire. It takes a precious power that God has given us: Christ-like love, and twists it into animal lust.

The Celestial Kingdom is all about loving and intimate relationships. The greatest of these relationships is a non-sexual one: the Godhead. The three members of the Godhead are so intimately entwined that they are of one mind, heart, and will. And Jesus has invited us to join that relationship (John 17, 2 Nephi 31, 3 Nephi 11).

A truly loving marriage helps us to learn how to be one flesh; so united that husbands and wives that are truly intimate can often finish each other's sentences, or anticipate how the other would think and feel in a given situation.

You do not get this with fornication. Instead, you get Satan's replacement of physical pleasure. His method, however, does not create eternal bonds of love, but rather temporary attractions. Just look at most of Hollywood's hookups (whether legally married or not), and you'll see just how temporary such "love" can be.

Because fornication destroys a person's ability to true intimacy, it destroys the concepts of family, service, selflessness, kindness, compassion, and altruism. It mocks God's will and purpose to make all good things everlasting. It encourages the temporary and selfishness as good and virtuous.

And this does not begin to talk about the issue of pro-creation, which is also mocked by fornication.

Perhaps I'm being overly influenced by my background and reading over the past few years, but I've pretty-much come to the following position:

1. All sin is destructive to the soul, and is detestable to God.

2. Notwithstanding this, some sins will destroy the soul faster than others.

3. The more dangerous sins are those associated with pride, conceit, diminishment for the importance (though not necessarily the physical needs) of others, a desire for personal power for its own sake, and a wish to put oneself in God's rightful place.

4. The less dangerous sins are those associated with carnal appetites, e.g. gluttony, avarice, sloth, unrighteous anger, and forms of selfish (though not necessarily self-centred) behavior, physical cowardice and (many people here will disagree) the kind of lust that leads potentially to fornication.

5. When I say a sin is "less dangerous" I do not imply that it is (ultimately) more acceptable to God or less damaging to our relationships. I am merely saying that it is more easily repented of, and brought under Christ's grace. All sin is destructive and must be fought against.

You say, rameumptom, that fornication destroys a person's ability to true intimacy, it destroys the concepts of family, service, selflessness, kindness, compassion, and altruism. I would say that yes, that ultimately is true, but there are plenty of examples of kind and selfless people who do not live chaste lives. (Martin Luther King for example was an incorrigible adulterer.) However, it is difficult to find such people amongst the proud and self-centered.

(Please don't think I'm trying to preach this view of things, or that I'm not open to other ideas. I'm merely trying to explain the mindset that I'm coming from.)

C.S. Lewis once used the example of a man addicted to masturbation who felt so ashamed of himself that he forced himself to quit, then felt very proud of himself for doing so. That man had, Lewis claimed, effectively cured a headache by giving himself cancer. (I bring Lewis into it not as any kind of prophetic authority, but because he seems to be one of the few mainstream Christian thinkers who has any kind of "following" amongst Mormons.)

Edited April 8, 2009 by Jamie123

[Jamie123]

I have high hopes for my friend. It is sooooo wonderful to watch the Atonement work in someones life. There is definitely a miracle beginning in his life. He is gaining a testimony and really changing. What ever happens during the repentance process, excommunication or disfellowship, he is going to come out of this clean and a true disciple of Christ.

I know this thread has gone off-course somewhat, and that's partly due to me. I really hope things work out for your friend. Godspeed - Jamie.