excommunication in other churches

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Tex

No, that's not what I meant.

OK, my bad. Then what did you mean? I won't make Lebowski's mistake. I'll make sure you succintly define it before I try to respond.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by jay santos

OK, my bad. Then what did you mean? I won't make Lebowski's mistake. I'll make sure you succintly define it before I try to respond.

It's no clearer how much we all need the atonement than when one of our number has transgressed so seriously that it merits formal discipline.

[Brian]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

If children are being born into situations where their environment is so utterly wicked and evil, could it be that a loving God would destroy those people so they could no longer reproduce and allow His children to be born into less evil circumstances?

Maybe that's how President Taylor was looking at it.

This assumes that God doesn't know what he is doing. Which I reject.
It's as if God finally realized, "Dang, that didn't work. I can't send my kids into this mess. Better get out the mop and clean up."

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Tex

It's no clearer how much we all need the atonement than when one of our number has transgressed so seriously that it merits formal discipline.

This comparison of sin and who's better or worse than another is really problematic. If it's clear one needs the atonement for serious sin, then it must be unclear someone else needs it without serious sin. (Who defines serious anyway? It all gives the same result--shutting you out of heaven without Savior)

[Tex]

Originally Posted by jay santos

This comparison of sin and who's better or worse than another is really problematic. If it's clear one needs the atonement for serious sin, then it must be unclear someone else needs it without serious sin.

I didn't draw any such comparison. When I have had opportunity to participate in disciplinary councils--particularly reinstatements--it is a stark reminder of my own need for the Savior, even though I have never personally been disciplined.

I know you are on this anti-church-discipline kick, because you see it as nothing but punitive. If I saw it that way, maybe I'd agree with you ... but I don't.

Originally Posted by jay santos

(Who defines serious anyway? It all gives the same result--shutting you out of heaven without Savior)

The Lord. Via his prophets.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Adam

Oh hell no. Shoot me now. Tex on a disciplinary council. The thought makes my blood run cold.

Tex love and disciplinary council? Does tough love come to mind?

What we can't revoke his membership for fifteen years? Why the hell not?!

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Adam

Oh hell no. Shoot me now. Tex on a disciplinary council. The thought makes my blood run cold.

Originally Posted by Archaea

Tex love and disciplinary council? Does tough love come to mind?

What we can't revoke his membership for fifteen years? Why the hell not?!

And you'd better believe I'd excommunicate both your butts faster than you can say, "I hate Bruce McConkie." I just wish disciplinary councils had blood atonement power.

You better pray you never fall under my evil power, because I will destroy you.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

And you'd better believe I'd excommunicate both your butts faster than you can say, "I hate Bruce McConkie." I just wish disciplinary councils had blood atonement power.

You better pray you never fall under my evil power, because I will destroy you.

That's the Tex we know and love. Torture any one? Sure, with delight!

How many people have your ex'ed? Five or six?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

That's the Tex we know and love. Torture any one? Sure, with delight!

How many people have your ex'ed? Five or six?

More than that, and half of them were my own family members.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Adam

Oh hell no. Shoot me now. Tex on a disciplinary council. The thought makes my blood run cold.

I wonder how Tex ever got on a high council, given that he is single? Hmmm.....