What's your take on this guy's question?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

I don't think church discipline and repentance/forgiveness are inextricably linked in a 1:1 ratio, no. That you felt you need to guess at that one says more about you than about me.



Lebowski? Is that you?



By "the church" I assume you mean "by revelation" and thus "by the Lord", right?



Speaking of sarcasm ...

Sorry, did you want me to take you seriously, or shall we just trade bromides for a few posts?

You play an interesting role, as the ultra-orthodox member of the board, with Indy playing it to a lesser extent.

If this assumption is in error, would you mind sharing just one heterodox religious perspective.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You play an interesting role, as the ultra-orthodox member of the board, with Indy playing it to a lesser extent.

If this assumption is in error, would you mind sharing just one heterodox religious perspective.

I think my actual orthodoxy is a very relative status. Relative to the church as a whole, I'm pretty much down the middle. Relative to CG, I'm right-center at the bare minimum.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You play an interesting role, as the ultra-orthodox member of the board, with Indy playing it to a lesser extent.

If this assumption is in error, would you mind sharing just one heterodox religious perspective.

... defined as, something I disagree with church leadership on?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

... defined as, something I disagree with church leadership on?

There are orthodox takes on many matters, not just leadership decisions. I suspect you'll go along with anything the leadership decides, believing it to be the Lord's will.

However there are matters not requiring a leadership view, such as whether JS really was commanded to marry young girls and married women. It might be orthodox to believe there really was an angel and heterodox to believe otherwise.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Tex

By "the church" I assume you mean "by revelation" and thus "by the Lord", right?

Lame.

Why have any discussion on anything? Of course you can point to revelation on any practice in the church. Did you think all this time I wasn't aware that the church's court process came from inspired leaders, and you just now thought you would enlighten me?

Twenty years ago when church was excommunicating for first time adulterers, you would have fought tooth and nail that this was an inspired, revealed-by-God process with no error. Yet twenty years later, first time adulterers are very rarely excommunicated. So if it was wrong 20 years ago and you were wrong 20 years ago to fight to the death over its correctness, why are you so sure it's correct now?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Lame.

Why have any discussion on anything? Of course you can point to revelation on any practice in the church. Did you think all this time I wasn't aware that the church's court process came from inspired leaders, and you just now thought you would enlighten me?

Twenty years ago when church was excommunicating for first time adulterers, you would have fought tooth and nail that this was an inspired, revealed-by-God process with no error. Yet twenty years later, first time adulterers are very rarely excommunicated. So if it was wrong 20 years ago and you were wrong 20 years ago to fight to the death over its correctness, why are you so sure it's correct now?

Does God sometimes change his "designated punishment" for certain sins?

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Does God sometimes change his "designated punishment" for certain sins?

Yes. I suppose God didn't realize 20 years ago that so few of the people he ex'ed were going to make it back in the church. So he's now experimenting with a new approach. Sounds reasonable.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Yes. I suppose God didn't realize 20 years ago that so few of the people he ex'ed were going to make it back in the church. So he's now experimenting with a new approach. Sounds reasonable.

You see Arch, for you this wouldn't be sarcasm, but for Jay it clearly is.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

There are orthodox takes on many matters, not just leadership decisions. I suspect you'll go along with anything the leadership decides, believing it to be the Lord's will.

However there are matters not requiring a leadership view, such as whether JS really was commanded to marry young girls and married women. It might be orthodox to believe there really was an angel and heterodox to believe otherwise.

I was annoyed when men were no longer permitted to teach primary or youth classes on their own.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Lame.

Why have any discussion on anything? Of course you can point to revelation on any practice in the church. Did you think all this time I wasn't aware that the church's court process came from inspired leaders, and you just now thought you would enlighten me?

Twenty years ago when church was excommunicating for first time adulterers, you would have fought tooth and nail that this was an inspired, revealed-by-God process with no error. Yet twenty years later, first time adulterers are very rarely excommunicated. So if it was wrong 20 years ago and you were wrong 20 years ago to fight to the death over its correctness, why are you so sure it's correct now?

There are so many false assumptions in there, it's hard for me to sort it all out. Why don't you take a little break, and come back when you've calmed down.

My point: church discipline is an integral and divinely instituted part of the repentance process. That you take its adaptation to meet the needs of a different church today than "x" years ago as admission that what was done previously was "wrong" is amusing.

Again and again in these conversations I seem to encounter this peristent view: faithful members who believe in a church founded on modern-day, perpetual revelation lead by a mouthpiece of God, who constantly try and divest said church from said perpetual revelation.