what are the practical effects of excommunication?

[Tex]

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.

Then you favor a day when covenants mean nothing.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Tex

Then you favor a day when covenants mean nothing.

if , as some have asserted, there is an order of magnitude fewer excommunications now than say 40 years ago, does that mean covenants are valued less now?

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Tex

Then you favor a day when covenants mean nothing.

Go to hell. You are a complete jerk.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

if , as some have asserted, there is an order of magnitude fewer excommunications now than say 40 years ago, does that mean covenants are valued less now?

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

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Go to hell. You are a complete jerk.

Actually he isn't. He is just someone who is a little carried away with his percieved knowledge.

[BYU71]

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.

You waffle way to much.

[MikeWaters]

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.

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.

[JohnnyLingo]

Originally Posted by BYU71

You waffle way to much.

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.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by BYU71

You waffle way to much.

Mullahs

1. must be strict and very law and order
2. must completely obey their religious superiors.

The dilemma comes into play when their superiors decide not to be strict. It's a terrible position for a mullah to be in.

[Mormon Red Death]

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.

I'm not getting your argument... If the church doesn't have excommunications then the covenants lose their meaning? These two things are mutually exclusive.

Has excommunication always existed? If so what examples?