When will Mormonism disappear?

[Levin]

Originally Posted by PaloAltoCougar

I never had the time or inclination to ex them through a disciplinary council.

This brings up a question: why do we "ex" the active sinner but ignore the inactive sinner?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Levin

This brings up a question: why do we "ex" the active sinner but ignore the inactive sinner?

Public expression of societal displeasure with certain sins, and for societal revenge. (Others can chime in with the love the sinner shit).

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Public expression of societal displeasure with certain sins, and for societal revenge. (Others can chime in with the love the sinner shit).

Here you go:

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...87&postcount=8

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Levin

This brings up a question: why do we "ex" the active sinner but ignore the inactive sinner?

I dont think the Church ignores the inactive sinner.

Check out the vegas guy who did the LDS missionary calendar.

[Levin]

You're not protecting the good name of the church by ex'ing the inactive sinner.

But a public display of displeasure for the committal of certain sins is certainly achieved whether the member is active or inactive.

Inactives who cohabitate versus a member of the elder's quorum who shacks up with his girlfriend -- what's the diff?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I dont think the Church ignores the inactive sinner.

Check out the vegas guy who did the LDS missionary calendar.

Correct, and as PAC has shown, we go out seeking to get rid of those who don't show up. We are a church seeking to exclude at the slightest provocation. I guess we see ourselves as an elite club.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I dont think the Church ignores the inactive sinner.

Check out the vegas guy who did the LDS missionary calendar.

This is different: it was about protecting the good name of the Church.

What about the inactive gigolo?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Levin

This is different: it was about protecting the good name of the Church.

What about the inactive gigolo?

Leaders usually just don't know about him. So little time and so many people to excommunicate to make your club smaller.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Levin

This is different: it was about protecting the good name of the Church.

What about the inactive gigolo?

Didnt you just say that you are NOT protecting the good name of the Church by exing the inactive sinner?

The Church accomplished basically zero in protecting itself by exing that guy. The Church wasnt even under attack.

If anything, all it did was generate more sales for the calendar. The guy wound up making a second calendar....this one with LDS moms.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Levin

You're not protecting the good name of the church by ex'ing the inactive sinner.

But a public display of displeasure for the committal of certain sins is certainly achieved whether the member is active or inactive.

Inactives who cohabitate versus a member of the elder's quorum who shacks up with his girlfriend -- what's the diff?

Originally Posted by Levin

This is different: it was about protecting the good name of the Church.

What about the inactive gigolo?

If he's not injuring others or the church, why bother? Bishops have far more important matters to attend than seeking out people to excommunicate.