what are the practical effects of excommunication?

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Last Sunday in sacrament meeting. He started off by saying "All we hear about at church are good examples. Well there are plenty of bad examples in life as well and we can learn from them too." He then covered a series of fascinating stories. He works as a therapists so he sees lots of things on a daily basis. At one point in his talk he said "I am a fast-driving, caffeine-loving, swearing, infrequent-temple-attending member of the church. And that's OK. We all struggle with things." He left off "democrat" (which is true).

Interestingly, folks are calling it the best talk in the history of the ward. Few people have the guts to be honest, but we crave honesty. It's wonderfully refreshing.

Image vs reality. I think many members are relieved to find they are like most, the reality not the image.

I feel the reality of the church is pretty darn good. Why are so many people guilt ridden to be part of the reality.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

You are seriously f'ed up in the head, Jay. I specifically stated some very serious, specific sins (molesting babysitters, robbing stores, fudgepacking) and you've gone off on some wild sanctimonious rant about all sins in general, which isn't what I was saying or implying.

I didn't say they couldn't repent, but I did say they had no business exercising their priesthood until they had repented; something that requires involvement with their ecclesiastical leader. This isn't some gray area we're talking about with these very SPECIFIC items. I did not attempt to extrapolate beyond these items, but you have.

Are you really that stupid? Honestly? You must be trolling because you can't be that mentally deficient.

Even fusnik agreed that child molestation was a serious sin.

When you make the above comments, you come off as a complete idiot.

Speak when you're spoken to, Indy. This is Tex's argument. My discussion with you was completely seperate.

But since you want in on Tex's argument...

Is that the second time or more you've used the "F" word in your life? If so, then you must believe failing to forsake that sin means you were never truly repentant the other times you repented of that sin. You've lived your whole life without any intent to repent of your sins. Which means you've taken the sacrament, attended the temple, and given your infant blessings unworthily all this time. Bummer for you. I'd take a fudgepacker who truly repented to bless my baby over someone who swears with no intent to repent.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Speak when you're spoken to, Indy. This is Tex's argument. My discussion with you was completely seperate.

But since you want in on Tex's argument...

Actually if you really want to get technical, I originally shoehorned in on a discussion between the two of you.

Originally Posted by jay santos

Is that the second time or more you've used the "F" word in your life? If so, then you must believe failing to forsake that sin means you were never truly repentant the other times you repented of that sin. You've lived your whole life without any intent to repent of your sins. Which means you've taken the sacrament, attended the temple, and given your infant blessings unworthily all this time. Bummer for you. I'd take a fudgepacker who truly repented to bless my baby over someone who swears with no intent to repent.

Keep beating on that straw man, santos. Maybe we'll use what's left for the barn.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Tex

Actually if you really want to get technical, I originally shoehorned in on a discussion between the two of you.



Keep beating on that straw man, santos. Maybe we'll use what's left for the barn.

Person commits sin Jan. 1. Person repents Jan 2 - Jan 10. Confesses, makes retribution, sorrows for sin, forsakes, all that. God and bishop pronounces man forgiven Jan 11. Jan 12, man partakes sacrament. Jan 20 man gives blessing.

Feb. 1, man commits same sin again.

Question: Was man worthy to take sacrament Jan 12 or not? Was man worthy to give blessing? Did the recommision of the same sin nullify the previous repentance or not?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Person commits sin Jan. 1. Person repents Jan 2 - Jan 10. Confesses, makes retribution, sorrows for sin, forsakes, all that. God and bishop pronounces man forgiven Jan 11. Jan 12, man partakes sacrament. Jan 20 man gives blessing.

Feb. 1, man commits same sin again.

Question: Was man worthy to take sacrament Jan 12 or not? Was man worthy to give blessing? Did the recommision of the same sin nullify the previous repentance or not?

Ask God.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Tex

Ask God.

You already told me the repeat of the sin is evidence that he didn't truly repent.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Adam

This is example 497542954729852 of Tex refusing to respect the discussion by giving an honest answer to a reasonable and respectful question.

First, there's nothing about santos that's been respectful. Not that you would recognize respectful either.

Second, it's a totally specious question. The only person capable of sitting in judgment in a REAL situation is a bishop, to say nothing of some half-baked hypothetical designed to push someone's agenda in a meaningless debate. I'm happy to talk general principles, but I'm not going to be drawn into making pronouncements on when some dreamed-up sinner has repented of, or received forgiveness for, some dreamed-up (and unspecified) sin.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Tex

Ask God.

This would have probably been a wise answer when you first got into the discussion.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by BYU71

This would have probably been a wise answer when you first got into the discussion.

Folks are always trying to make more of my answers than is actually there.

This is the outrageous statement that sent santos into a tizzy:

Originally Posted by Tex

The D&C indicates that a truly repentant person will confess and forsake his sins. Time limits are generally the way a bishop or SP can know if a person has truly forsaken his sin, given that "you cannot always judge the righteous, or ... cannot always tell the wicked from the righteous" (D&C 10:37).

Pretty controversial and provocative, isn't it?

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...5&postcount=68

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Tex

First, there's nothing about santos that's been respectful. Not that you would recognize respectful either.

Second, it's a totally specious question. The only person capable of sitting in judgment in a REAL situation is a bishop, to say nothing of some half-baked hypothetical designed to push someone's agenda in a meaningless debate. I'm happy to talk general principles, but I'm not going to be drawn into making pronouncements on when some dreamed-up sinner has repented of, or received forgiveness for, some dreamed-up (and unspecified) sin.

No kidding it's a specious question. Too bad you already answered it when you said that true repentance requires a wait period to see if the sinner will commit the sin again. If he does, he never truly repented in the first place.

I'm getting to know you Tex and I was more right than ever when I pegged you as a Pharisee. You define sin as anything that could get you excommunicated. You're stuck in the law of Moses. You're so stuck on the law you can't see. Sin becomes so large and scary to you that you have to compartmentalize it into only the big things that you don't struggle with. You're the 90 and 9 that "need no repentance".