08-20-2007, 08:52 PM | #21 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,177
|
Quote:
|
|
08-20-2007, 08:52 PM | #22 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,431
|
Quote:
P.S. I am pretty sure the church sued over the handbook being on the net, but for whatever reason you can still find the 1998 version up. |
|
08-20-2007, 08:53 PM | #23 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
if they turned it down, wouldn't they tell the SP so? Or would they make the decision but never communicate it?
|
08-20-2007, 08:54 PM | #24 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
You must have all heard the story of the apostle that was the only one who refused to let a man who had done much damage to the church (as the story goes) be rebaptized. But on the second time around, another apostle said something to him, or something happened (can't remember what) and he relented, and the message was about forgiveness.
One thing you can take away from the story is that it takes only one person to prevent you from returning. |
08-20-2007, 08:55 PM | #25 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
08-20-2007, 08:56 PM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,177
|
In my opinion? I don't see any evidence for excommunication in ancient scripture--at least for sins of weakness and not apostacy. I see a lot of evidence for immediate repentance.
It's not for me to decide, but I would welcome a day when no one was ever excommunicated except for severe apostacy or for very serious sin where there is no desire to repent. That probably goes the same for disfellowshipping. |
08-20-2007, 08:57 PM | #27 |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Even bishops and stake presidents wonder why decisions are made, and my limited experience is that no information is provided as for the reason for delays or for the reason for granting the petition. If both the stake president and bishop are on board, I fail to see the need for higher oversight.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
08-20-2007, 08:58 PM | #28 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
Quote:
My guess is, if the person were a danger, or if his presence was a disruption, for example two ex-spouses living remaining in the same ward boundaries. The latter is one of the rare instances where the First Presidency will make a boundary exception. |
|
08-20-2007, 08:59 PM | #29 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 40
|
I've seen one way to keep "unwelcome" people away from church
When I was a child, my father had fallen into inactivity at a certain point. Mom and the kids continued to attend every week.
One Sunday, for some reason dad came along with us. In the foyer a brother walked up and said for all to hear "Wow, I thought the roof was going to cave in." Dad wasn't x'd or even in trouble. But he pretty much x'd himself from that day on. Now before the defendeers rush in, I realize that the actions of one stupid member do not speak for the church, or even the ward. My point is someone asked above what it would take to physically remove an unwelcome person at a church meeting. I think it would take care of itself pretty easily, as few people wish to go where they are not wanted. |
08-20-2007, 08:59 PM | #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,175
|
Quote:
A lot of unrepentant people are ex'd. |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|