hordak Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 1. Excommunication ≠ abandonment.this is absolute baloney, excommunication does result in shunning by former friends and family members. It isn't the right thing to do but it definitely happens especially in utah.Think i'm going to agree with LDSguy on this on given your former example JAGshe did. But here's the funny thing: he got to go do the mission and ultimately came home "with honor", and his role in the shabby little affair was forgotten. she was never regarded as anything other than the little skank who almost kept elder so-and-so off his mission, until the day she quit coming to church altogether--then she was forgotten entirely.The current policy is better, i think.The church might not abandon, but members of the ward are perfect content to, or worse, as you illustrated above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john doe Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 WOW, he didn't say no doubt disfellowshipped and could be excommunicated. He said no doubt disfellowshipped and excommunicated. See the and tells us that unlike the Christ who was forgiving, he thinks that this requires that the person be automatically disfellowshipped AND excommunicated. I think I need to recluse myself from this discussion any further before I lose my composure or really start believing that the unchristian view presented here are held at large by my fellow Mormons.Except, and this is where you got into trouble, is that he did not use the word 'and'. He used the word 'or'. If he had said that anyone who breaks the Law of Chastity is automatically excommunicated, I would be right there with you, brother. But he didn't say that, and you have spent the last 3 pages of this thread misrepresenting what he actually did say. And I for one don't appreciate your efforts to use a broad brush to paint those who actually read what he said as having an 'unchristian' view. In fact, I'm slightly offended by your misplaced sense of superiority over those here who have displayed better reading comprehension skills than you have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 He said no doubt disfellowshipped and excommunicated. Incorrect:Probably because they were not living the Law of Chastity and no doubt had been disfellowshipped or excommunicated if they had been members while making the baby.And versus or is a significant difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 Think i'm going to agree with LDSguy on this on given your former example JAG. . . The church might not abandon, but members of the ward are perfect content to, or worse, as you illustrated above.Certainly; but this girl was not excommunicated. It was the underlying behavior (and an unhealthy dose of outright sexism), not the nature of the Church discipline, that caused the opprobrium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john doe Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 Certainly; but this girl was not excommunicated. It was the underlying behavior (and an unhealthy dose of outright sexism), not the nature of the Church discipline, that caused the opprobrium.Opprobrium. Great, now I have to find an online dictionary that recognizes that word to find out what it means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 Opprobrium. Great, now I have to find an online dictionary that recognizes that word to find out what it means. That's why I love Google. Just type in "define: [your word]" and it gives you multiple definitions (depending on how common the word is) from different sites. define: opprobrium - Google Search Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 In your arrogant and judgmental nature you inferred something I did not say you can't be excommunicated for breaking the law of Chastity. If my meaning was lost in your fit of near rage, I am sorry that you misunderstood what I mean, or that I didn't say it well enough.You said "the Church does not excommunicate someone for having a child out of wedlock". Sorry, my friend, but I can only respond to what you say, not to what you mean. I am not feeling "rage". "Irritation" at your refusal to acknowledge the plain meaning of what you've just typed--perhaps. "Frustration" at your blatant misrepresentations of other people's posts when those posts are still on the internet for all to see--sure. "Amusement" at your accusing me of "arrogance" and "rage" and then (with no hint of irony) exhorting me to "Leave the decisions to the rightful authority and focus on being more Christ like a showing compassion and love to your fellow man!"? Certainly.But "rage"? Not even close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LDS_Guy_1986 Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 Incorrect:And versus or is a significant difference.Not in the context he used since there is no need to disfellowship if you plan to excommunicate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hordak Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 Certainly; but this girl was not excommunicated. It was the underlying behavior (and an unhealthy dose of outright sexism), not the nature of the Church discipline, that caused the opprobrium.Think i'm reading you right. The actions (taken freely) and the sexism cause the problems, not the church's discipline.However i think if people's judgment/ views can be so wrong, even when there is not such a strict discipline,(she wasn't exed) then it would only be harsher when faced with someone who was exed.That is NOT to say the church shouldn't excommunicate people, when warranted, to prevent the negative consequences from the members.But just to point out that there is a certain attitude carried by some members in the church that does lead them to abandon sinners.As illustrated in your example. So with THE church... Excommunication (or sin) ≠ abandonment.unfortunately with some member it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LDS_Guy_1986 Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 I'm slightly offended by your misplaced sense of superiority over those here who have displayed better reading comprehension skills than you have.How is rebuking unchristian acts by a fellow member being "superior"? Guess we don't live the teachings of Jesus Christ any more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john doe Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 How is rebuking unchristian acts by a fellow member being "superior"? Guess we don't live the teachings of Jesus Christ any more?Well, you misread a fellow poster's words and passed judgement on him as being judgemental. Doesn't that strike you as even a little strange? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 (edited) Not in the context he used since there is no need to disfellowship if you plan to excommunicate.Which is why they used the operator or instead of the operator and; to indicate one or the other was happening not both. Do you seriously not understand what the word or means? A or B instead of A and B is really, really basic stuff. Edited January 30, 2011 by Dravin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl62 Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 1. Excommunication ≠ abandonment.Excommunication does not equal abandonment? Wow, what perfect world are you living in! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingnut Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 Why don't we all take a deep breath, ignore the last three pages, and address the question in the OP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 (edited) Sure, Hordak; I acknowledge all of that. But the point of excommunication is not to say "we're done with you"; it's to a) spur the process of repentance by sending the excommunicant a clear signal that, yes, he has done something unacceptable (which a surprising number of excommunicants deny), and b) as you state, to protect the Church from the excommunicant's antics until that repentance process begins to kick in. I don't deny the social consequences. But, having worked through an addiction recovery group where probably 1/4 to 1/2 of the members had been excommunicated at one time or another--people who think the Church (as a ministerial, rather than a social, entity) doesn't care about you once your name is off the rolls, are very much mistaken. And Carl: Yes, maybe I am living in a perfect world. All I know is that my new boss--an ex-Mormon by his own choice--still gets monthly visits from his Stake Presidency. Edited January 30, 2011 by Just_A_Guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan6329 Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 This is the stupidest argument ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john doe Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 And now it's over. Or now it's over? Hmmmmm, can't decide which one to use here. Either way, it's over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts