what are the practical effects of excommunication?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

The way the church disciplines its members may ebb and flow, but the act must always exist, else covenants are rendered meaningless.

Tex, you kill me sometimes. How does this differ from what Jay Santos proposed (extremely rare, but still happens) just prior to your absurd reply to him?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

jay santos never said he would have it completely eliminated, hence it would still exist, therefore I don't know why you think a reduction in exes necessarily means that jay santos or anyone else with his view wouldn't value covenants.

help me connect the dots here. I'm not understanding your line of thinking.

Sorry, I must have mis-read what he posted. I guess I think that the conditions he specified in large degree already apply.

Apologies, santos.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

The way the church disciplines its members may ebb and flow, but the act must always exist, else covenants are rendered meaningless.

Covenants are meaningless unless excommunication exists? That's bizarre. Covenants are menaningful for their blessings and directives; you seem like a law and order, punishment and penalty type guy. There may be constructions of scripture which you use to justify that position, but I know of no scripture on point stating "no excoummunication, no meaning to covenant."

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

lol... from you that's funny.

Be conservative and stick to your guns and 71 calls you a mullah.

Change you mind or move a bit in your position and you waffle too much.

You're a hard judge, 71.

If I were judging him I would be dishing out some punishment. I think he is a moving target, unlike you who just sits there and gets hammered.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by jay santos

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.

The same for disfellowshipping? Honestly? Is there really to be no consequences for serious sins?

Personally, I don't want to be assigned a home teacher that's canoodling with the family babysitter when I have a baby in the NICU that needs a blessing.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Covenants are meaningless unless excommunication exists? That's bizarre. Covenants are menaningful for their blessings and directives; you seem like a law and order, punishment and penalty type guy. There may be constructions of scripture which you use to justify that position, but I know of no scripture on point stating "no excoummunication, no meaning to covenant."

Could you keep order and control without excommunications. I would call the kicking out of the 1/3 of the host of heaven as an excommunication.

They mess things up as it is. Can you imagine if they had been allowed to have bodies.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

The same for disfellowshipping? Honestly? Is there really to be no consequences for serious sins?

Personally, I don't want to be assigned a home teacher that's canoodling with the family babysitter when I have a baby in the NICU that needs a blessing.

Shouldn't the punishment for serious sins be something God deals out and not someone else?

Plus that is pretty big leap to say that if they got rid of disfellowshipping and excommunicating you will have more ht "canoodling with family baby sitter"

[JohnnyLingo]

Originally Posted by BYU71

If I were judging him I would be dishing out some punishment. I think he is a moving target, unlike you who just sits there and gets hammered.

I see... you can't be judging unless you are handing our punishment.

Interesting distinction that I think it lost on a lot of people.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

I see... you can't be judging unless you are handing our punishment.

Interesting distinction that I think it lost on a lot of people.

Of course you can judge without handing out punishment. I was waffling.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

Shouldn't the punishment for serious sins be something God deals out and not someone else?

One could argue that the disciplinary actions taken by the church are according to what God has commanded, no?

But that aside, this is the best argument for illustrating that church discipline is NOT intended as a strictly punitive measure. Ultimately, it is God who punishes and God who forgives. The church is simply the vehicle established by him to administrate the ordinances that are tied to the covenants, and to teach the doctrine.

This is why a proper high council and stake presidency (or bishopric) should approach the decision to discipline with great reverence.