Are we harder on our own then other religions?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

You're just continuing to make my point, Leb. I'm starting to hear an echo.

Your point was "We do it out of love, they do it as a punishment." Nothing you have posted supports that argument.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Tex

You're just continuing to make my point, Leb. I'm starting to hear an echo.



It didn't say there wasn't a punitive component; certainly having your blessings and covenants revoked is not a reward. I simply said it was not strictly about being punitive, that it was as much about love and repentance as punishment.



Heh. That is not what I said.



If so it's a shell that most of the lay church leadership lives in too. At least I've got company in there.

Most of the lay church would in a public poll say it was out of love and compassion. If they could vote secretly, they would vote punishment. If this were a public forum in front of my ward, I would mouth the words you do too.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Your point was "We do it out of love, they do it as a punishment." Nothing you have posted supports that argument.

Well, there are scores of people in my branch that theoretically COULD be excommunicated if excommunication was truly designed to be a punishment first. Hence, there are many that have fallen away that will likely never be excommunicated, even though they've been put in prison, had adulterous and/or gay relationships, and so forth.

However, excommunication, in my experience, is exercised when a member has seriously transgressed while simultaneously trying to actively participate in the church. Excommunication to them becomes the pathway through which they can regain the privilege to actively participate in the church.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Your point was "We do it out of love, they do it as a punishment." Nothing you have posted supports that argument.

This is a traditional argument, but it is doubtful legitimate evidence can be produced to support both parts of the thesis. Excommunication is about bending the will of the sinner to that of the collective by embarrassment, reduction of benefits and humiliation. It is the "death" penalty as it were, with statistically few ever resurrecting from the death of excommunication. It rids the body of the dross which the collective wisdom no longer wishes to carry. If, after abject humiliation and subjugation, a sinner wishes to return with tail between legs, after enough years and mea culpas, the congregations will allow the subject to return, but never really in full graces.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Your point was "We do it out of love, they do it as a punishment." Nothing you have posted supports that argument.

I've posted plenty on why we do it. What you've posted has supported why they do it. I.e., they're applying their understanding of what excommunication is and means in their churches, to ours.

Hence, the disconnect.

Originally Posted by BYU71

Most of the lay church would in a public poll say it was out of love and compassion. If they could vote secretly, they would vote punishment. If this were a public forum in front of my ward, I would mouth the words you do too.

It's quite possible we as a church could do a better job helping the lay membership understand what excommunication is about. Somehow I guess the high church leadership has better topics to discuss with its members than that.

All the same, there's plenty of info available on it if you just go look for it.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

This is a traditional argument, but it is doubtful legitimate evidence can be produced to support both parts of the thesis. Excommunication is about bending the will of the sinner to that of the collective by embarrassment, reduction of benefits and humiliation. It is the "death" penalty as it were, with statistically few ever resurrecting from the death of excommunication. It rids the body of the dross which the collective wisdom no longer wishes to carry. If, after abject humiliation and subjugation, a sinner wishes to return with tail between legs, after enough years and mea culpas, the congregations will allow the subject to return, but never really in full graces.

This could not be further from doctrine.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

This could not be further from doctrine.

They say a person is in full graces but it sure seems the E is somehow annotated to the membership files in SLC.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Archaea

This is a traditional argument, but it is doubtful legitimate evidence can be produced to support both parts of the thesis. Excommunication is about bending the will of the sinner to that of the collective by embarrassment, reduction of benefits and humiliation. It is the "death" penalty as it were, with statistically few ever resurrecting from the death of excommunication. It rids the body of the dross which the collective wisdom no longer wishes to carry. If, after abject humiliation and subjugation, a sinner wishes to return with tail between legs, after enough years and mea culpas, the congregations will allow the subject to return, but never really in full graces.

Au Contraire mon Frere. If you have cultural standing, you can return much as the prodigal son with much jubilation and cheering.

I know of a prominent SP who was exed. It was something everyone knew of because of the news accounts of his indescretion. Because a public figure, he got exed. However, he was allowed to stand in front of the Stake at conference and express his sorrow, much like a Jimmy Swaggert moment.

It is a double edged sword. Less prominent sinners would not have had their dirty laundry put out for all to see. However, a less prominant sinner would not have had such great anticipation of his return.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Well, there are scores of people in my branch that theoretically COULD be excommunicated if excommunication was truly designed to be a punishment first. Hence, there are many that have fallen away that will likely never be excommunicated, even though they've been put in prison, had adulterous and/or gay relationships, and so forth.

However, excommunication, in my experience, is exercised when a member has seriously transgressed while simultaneously trying to actively participate in the church. Excommunication to them becomes the pathway through which they can regain the privilege to actively participate in the church.

So we only excommunicate those that don't want to be excommunicated? I see the point you are making, but it seems a bit of a stretch regarding the punishment vs. love question.

I think thirty years ago most if not all of those folks in your branch would have been ex'd. We have definitely seen a significant change. Will we see more changes in the future? Probably.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

They say a person is in full graces but it sure seems the E is somehow annotated to the membership files in SLC.

And yet, it isn't.

As Lingo noted earlier, the horse is twitching. Here's my "treatise" on the topic, I don't feel like continuing to hash it. My only point was really that excommunication in our church is handled (and viewed) differently than in others, a point which (unsurprisingly) Nit-Picker-in-Chief Lebowski was the only one to take issue with.

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...9&postcount=20