Stopped going to church

[The Folk Prophet]

10 minutes ago, zil said:

I don't know the answer, and would be interested in hearing it, but isn't it logic?  Baptism is the covenant by which we become members of the church.  Excommunication makes us no longer members of the church - thus severing that covenant.  (Of course, by definition, it would also sever any and all other covenants you have made.)

Why is it logical? If I have made a promise to God then I am accountable for that promise. Excommunication doesn't change that I made the promise. When I stand before God on judgment day I'll still have made the promise and not kept it. I don't follow how excommunication has any bearing on that promise at all. Being an official member of the church or not is irrelevant, logically. And, logically, God's side of the covenant is conditional on our obedience and the ratification of the Holy Spirit, which requires repentance (excommunicated or not), so, logically, in regards to the promises made, the covenant is already "severed" when we sin.

Are we to believe that someone who has been excommunicated will stand less accountable for their betrayal of God than one who was not? Just that mere factor? Both the one who wasn't caught in their sin and the one who was stand in defiance and rebellion but the sheer chance of having been caught and having your name removed from the records of the church means that you get a higher kingdom in the next life? Logical?

Edited May 25, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Guest MormonGator]

16 minutes ago, zil said:

I don't know the answer, and would be interested in hearing it, but isn't it logic?  Baptism is the covenant by which we become members of the church.  Excommunication makes us no longer members of the church - thus severing that covenant.  (Of course, by definition, it would also sever any and all other covenants you have made.)

I think excommunication is sort of like renouncing your citizenship (obviously not the same, just a loose comparison). If you say you are no longer a US Citizen, that's fine, but you lose our rights and protections. If you say you are no longer LDS, that's fine but you lose your covenants and the blessings that they have. Again, not a perfect comparison. 

[The Folk Prophet]

5 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

If you say you are no longer LDS, that's fine but you lose your covenants and the blessings that they have. Again, not a perfect comparison. 

Not a perfect comparison because usually excommunication is not a result of simply leaving the church with no other factors involved. Excommunication occurs because of serious sin -- which sin has already caused you to lose the blessings of your covenants. If one did just up and leave the church with no other factors then the "sin" would be the simple leaving of the church itself, but still, I think, it would be the sin that cause the severing of the covenant, not the formal excommunication itself.

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Source?

I keep hearing this, but I believe it is members making stuff up. I do not believe it.

When you're ex-communicated and you want to join the church again, you get re-baptized.  You need a source for that too?

[NightSG]

19 hours ago, Carborendum said:

For being born in the Church I find it disturbing that you think you're going to hell.  That makes no sense from what you've just said.

Maybe that's just a summer vacation plan?  http://www.gotohellmi.com/

As for the rest, don't forget that simply joining another church is grounds for excommunication.  Never heard of it being done to anyone who just quietly left, though, nor do I ever expect to; if there's no serious animosity there, creating it through the process of excommunication just makes it less likely that that person would ever return.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Maybe that's just a summer vacation plan?  http://www.gotohellmi.com/

As for the rest, don't forget that simply joining another church is grounds for excommunication.  Never heard of it being done to anyone who just quietly left, though, nor do I ever expect to; if there's no serious animosity there, creating it through the process of excommunication just makes it less likely that that person would ever return.

My point is that a person who seemed to be as active as this guy indicated he was, he shows a lack of understanding of the LDS doctrine on "Who's Going to Hell and How to Get There." (now available in paperback).

[The Folk Prophet]

47 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

When you're ex-communicated and you want to join the church again, you get re-baptized.  You need a source for that too?

Are you going to actually provide a source or just deflect?

[NightSG]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

My point is that a person who seemed to be as active as this guy indicated he was, he shows a lack of understanding of the LDS doctrine on "Who's Going to Hell and How to Get There." (now available in paperback).

Also available online as a very quick download, since it's just my ex wife's phone number.

[anatess2]

48 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Are you going to actually provide a source or just deflect?

I'm going to have you look it up.  Because, after all, you're LDS too.

But, I'm going to give you a tip because I like you.  If today you are excommunicated and tomorrow you want to go back to full membership, you can't.  You'll have to be baptized first. The Church does not baptize people who are already under a baptismal covenant under proper authority.  Ok, now you can go look for sources if you don't believe me.

Edited May 25, 2017 by anatess2

[Vort]

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Why is it logical? If I have made a promise to God then I am accountable for that promise. Excommunication doesn't change that I made the promise. When I stand before God on judgment day I'll still have made the promise and not kept it. I don't follow how excommunication has any bearing on that promise at all. Being an official member of the church or not is irrelevant, logically. And, logically, God's side of the covenant is conditional on our obedience and the ratification of the Holy Spirit, which requires repentance (excommunicated or not), so, logically, in regards to the promises made, the covenant is already "severed" when we sin.

Are we to believe that someone who has been excommunicated will stand less accountable for their betrayal of God than one who was not? Just that mere factor? Both the one who wasn't caught in their sin and the one who was stand in defiance and rebellion but the sheer chance of having been caught and having your name removed from the records of the church means that you get a higher kingdom in the next life? Logical?

It is logical because the Church is, literally, the kingdom of God on Earth. Membership in the kingdom is granted by God through ordinances. If you formally renounce those ordinances (through apostasy and request), or utterly abandon them (through sin), or are stripped of them (through excommunication), you are no longer a member of the kingdom of God. How do we know excommunication strips the effects of the ordinances? Because one is no longer a member of the kingdom of God. Losing your Church membership means losing your place among the Saints -- a place granted in the first instance by covenant, and not breakable except through dissolution of that covenant.

That's my view at this time, anyway.

Edited May 25, 2017 by Vort

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

 

Are we to believe that someone who has been excommunicated will stand less accountable for their betrayal of God than one who was not? Just that mere factor? Both the one who wasn't caught in their sin and the one who was stand in defiance and rebellion but the sheer chance of having been caught and having your name removed from the records of the church means that you get a higher kingdom in the next life? Logical?

This is your issue why you don't think the person got released from his baptismal covenant?  You feel it is unfair that he gets a "reprieve" from the spiritual consequences of his sins?  There's this one parable... i think the official title is the workers in the vineyard...

It is not for us to decide how God judges people's sins.  Continue working in the vineyard for your promised blessings and leave others' blessings for God to figure out.  If in the afterlife you find the excommunicated guy walking towards the celestial kingdom while you get ushered into the telestial, that would be because God said so.

Edited May 25, 2017 by anatess2

[The Folk Prophet]

19 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I'm going to have you look it up.  Because, after all, you're LDS too.

But, I'm going to give you a tip because I like you.  If today you are excommunicated and tomorrow you want to go back to full membership, you can't.  You'll have to be baptized first. The Church does not baptize people who are already under a baptismal covenant under proper authority.  Ok, now you can go look for sources if you don't believe me.

I sense that you think I asked you to source the matter simply to debate it. That is not true. I was, honestly, hoping you could back up your comment with some sources. Like I said, I've heard members say such things a lot. "Excommunication is a mercy." "It relieves of of our covenants." I've never read anything official that backs this up. I have, despite your condescension, done a fair amount of looking into it. If I found, or someone found for me, an official doctrinal statement, "excommunication releases you from your covenants" then I would actually appreciate it. As it is, the "logic" of the members doesn't support the idea.

 

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I sense that you think I asked you to source the matter simply to debate it. That is not true. I was, honestly, hoping you could back up your comment with some sources. Like I said, I've heard members say such things a lot. "Excommunication is a mercy." "It relieves of of our covenants." I've never read anything official that backs this up. I have, despite your condescension, done a fair amount of looking into it. If I found, or someone found for me, an official doctrinal statement, "excommunication releases you from your covenants" then I would actually appreciate it. As it is, the "logic" of the members doesn't support the idea.

 

So, you are saying that you don't know that if you get excommunicated and you go back to church, you are getting re-baptized?  I just want to understand what your confusion on the matter is.  This is a pretty basic LDS teaching.

Yes, I was being condescending because I felt you were condescending on your "Source?" question.  I apologize if you didn't intend that to be a scoffing statement.

Edited May 25, 2017 by anatess2

[Vort]

7 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Like I said, I've heard members say such things a lot. "Excommunication is a mercy." "It relieves of of our covenants." I've never read anything official that backs this up.

I agree with your feelings. The idea that we are somehow better off being excommunicated is a questionable assertion. If a man actively plans to live contrary to the commandments of God, then yes, he is better off not being under covenants that he will knowingly and willingly break. In such a case, I suppose excommunication might be, if not a mercy, at least a respite from the condemnation he is heaping upon himself.

But outside of such a case, loss of one's Church membership and the Spirit (which are inextricably intertwined) are grievous burdens, quite the opposite of some merciful lifting of a load, as some would characterize excommunication. it's nothing of the sort.

EDIT: Some will take the above to mean that I believe excommunication to be punitive in nature. Well, yes, I suppose it is, to an extent. But I don't see it primarily as punitive. Rather, it's a natural extension of this truth: God will not be mocked. God gives himself freely, on condition that you accept his gift. Mockery, whether in the guise of hypocrisy or simply the derisive laughter and vicious vulgarity that so characterize our generation, is the opposite of Godliness. God will have none such, for such cannot dwell in his presence. Christ invites all to come to him -- but coming to him means leaving behind such mockeries.

Edited May 25, 2017 by Vort

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This is your issue why you don't think the person got released from his baptismal covenant? 

I, actually, don't know for sure what I think one way or the other. What I do think is that such a claim needs to be supported by something more that mortal logic. The church has given explicit reasoning(s) for excommunication.

1. To aid the transgressors' repentance, thereby helping them receive the Savior's Atonement for personal sins.

2. To identify unrepentant predators and hostile apostates and thereby protect innocent persons from harm they might inflict.

3. To safeguard the integrity of the Church.

To release them from their covenants, as far as I know, is not a given reason -- ever. I'm merely asking for some support other than what I consider questionable mortal logic for such a view.

9 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

There's this one parable... i think the official title is the workers in the vineyard...

I don't follow. The parable of the vineyard relates to payment for differing times of work. What does that have to do with whether one is accountable for a promise they made or not post excommunication?

11 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

It is not for us to decide how God judges people's sins.  Continue working in the vineyard for your promised blessings and leave others' blessings for God to figure out.

We are commanded to declare repentance, commanded to teach the truth, commanded to lift our fellow man, commanded to understand right from wrong. I'm not sure how sticking our heads in the sand concerning anyone else's need to repent or not can accomplish any of that.

8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

So, you are saying that you don't know that if you get excommunicated and you go back to church, you are getting re-baptized?  I just want to understand what your confusion on the matter is.  This is a pretty basic LDS teaching.

I'm pretty sure, based on this, that I am not the one that is confused. I am not saying this, and don't quite follow how you would presume I am. I am (duh) well aware that someone who has been excommunicated must be re-baptized to join the church again. What I am not aware of, and it seems neither is anyone else as they cannot provide any backing sources on the matter, is that when one is in the state of excommunication that they are "released" from the responsibility they have to repent, obey God, and keep the promises they have made to Him.

Clearly there are semantics involved (as typical), but the implication of being "released" from a covenant to me implies that one no longer has the obligation to do whatever they had promised per their side of said covenant. My stance is simple. If someone is excommunicated after making covenants and then dies in their sins, they will be more accountable than those who never made such covenants, and will be just as accountable as those who are still faithful to their covenants. Do you disagree?

16 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Yes, I was being condescending because I felt you were condescending on your "Source?" question.  I apologize if you didn't intend that to be a scoffing statement.

Putting aside the "two wrongs don't make a right" side of this, my intentions (condescending or not -- which I do not believe they were...but...) are irrelevant to the truth of the matter.

[anatess2]

21 minutes ago, Vort said:

I agree with your feelings. The idea that we are somehow better off being excommunicated is a questionable assertion. If a man actively plans to live contrary to the commandments of God, then yes, he is better off not being under covenants that he will knowingly and willingly break. In such a case, I suppose excommunication might be, if not a mercy, at least a respite from the condemnation he is heaping upon himself.

But outside of such a case, loss of one's Church membership and the Spirit (which are inextricably intertwined) are grievous burdens, quite the opposite of some merciful lifting of a load, as some would characterize excommunication. it's nothing of the sort.

EDIT: Some will take the above to mean that I believe excommunication to be punitive in nature. Well, yes, I suppose it is, to an extent. But I don't see it primarily as punitive. Rather, it's a natural extension of this truth: God will not be mocked. God gives himself freely, on condition that you accept his gift. Mockery, whether in the guise of hypocrisy or simply the derisive laughter and vicious vulgarity that so characterize our generation, is the opposite of Godliness. God will have none such, for such cannot dwell in his presence. Christ invites all to come to him -- but coming to him means leaving behind such mockeries.

I'm confused why this is a conundrum.

Does any Saint believe that people who choose not to get baptized because they don't want to give up their sinfulness is somehow... in a better spot than the Saints?

Or is it merely that our... jealousy?  sense of unfairness?...  of the un-baptized somehow getting away with their sins without punishment clouding our understanding?

Why are we worried about what punishment/reward the un-baptized will be facing?  Isn't that the Lord's judgment alone?  Do we not have faith that the Lord is just and merciful?

Are we not to DESIRE that these people outside of covenant be forgiven of their sins, come to the fold, and qualify for celestial glory?

I guess I just don't get the sentiment.

 

 

Edited May 25, 2017 by anatess2

[The Folk Prophet]

33 minutes ago, Vort said:

It is logical because the Church is, literally, the kingdom of God on Earth. Membership in the kingdom is granted by God through ordinances. If you formally renounce those ordinances (through apostasy), or utterly abandon them (through sin), or are stripped of them (through excommunication), you are no longer a member of the kingdom of God. How do we know excommunication strips the effects of the ordinances? Because one is no longer a member of the kingdom of God. Losing your Church membership means losing your place among the Saints -- a place granted in the first instance by covenant, and not breakable except through dissolution of that covenant.

That's my view at this time, anyway.

I think this logic conflates things that are distinct. I won't re-iterate my obligation to a promise made post excommunicated thoughts...but that would be my response.

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I, actually, don't know for sure what I think one way or the other. What I do think is that such a claim needs to be supported by something more that mortal logic. The church has given explicit reasoning(s) for excommunication.

1. To aid the transgressors' repentance, thereby helping them receive the Savior's Atonement for personal sins.

2. To identify unrepentant predators and hostile apostates and thereby protect innocent persons from harm they might inflict.

3. To safeguard the integrity of the Church.

To release them from their covenants, as far as I know, is not a given reason -- ever. I'm merely asking for some support other than what I consider questionable mortal logic for such a view.

I don't follow. The parable of the vineyard relates to payment for differing times of work. What does that have to do with whether one is accountable for a promise they made or not post excommunication?

We are commanded to declare repentance, commanded to teach the truth, commanded to lift our fellow man, commanded to understand right from wrong. I'm not sure how sticking our heads in the sand concerning anyone else's need to repent or not can accomplish any of that.

I'm pretty sure, based on this, that I am not the one that is confused. I am not saying this, and don't quite follow how you would presume I am. I am (duh) well aware that someone who has been excommunicated must be re-baptized to join the church again. What I am not aware of, and it seems neither is anyone else as they cannot provide any backing sources on the matter, is that when one is in the state of excommunication that they are "released" from the responsibility they have to repent, obey God, and keep the promises they have made to Him.

Clearly there are semantics involved (as typical), but the implication of being "released" from a covenant to me implies that one no longer has the obligation to do whatever they had promised per their side of said covenant. My stance is simple. If someone is excommunicated after making covenants and then dies in their sins, they will be more accountable than those who never made such covenants, and will be just as accountable as those who are still faithful to their covenants. Do you disagree?

Putting aside the "two wrongs don't make a right" side of this, my intentions (condescending or not -- which I do not believe they were...but...) are irrelevant to the truth of the matter.

First google hit:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1990/09/a-chance-to-start-over-church-disciplinary-councils-and-the-restoration-of-blessings?lang=eng

You get excommunicated, that's not the end of Church's work.  They continue to work and work and work so you get REBAPTIZED.  Meaning, when you get excommunicated, you get released from your baptismal covenants.  Because, the Church do not baptize people already under covenant.

What's wrong with that logic?

[The Folk Prophet]

19 minutes ago, Vort said:

If a man actively plans to live contrary to the commandments of God, then yes, he is better off not being under covenants that he will knowingly and willingly break. In such a case, I suppose excommunication might be, if not a mercy, at least a respite from the condemnation he is heaping upon himself.

This is the idea that I want some doctrinal support on. I do not find it logical, despite the logic of others. The idea that I could just use excommunication as a way to sin with less repercussions does not sit well with my understanding of God's justice.

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

This is the idea that I want some doctrinal support on. I do not find it logical, despite the logic of others. The idea that I could just use excommunication as a way to sin with less repercussions does not sit well with my understanding of God's justice.

See, there is this again.

Let me ask you a question.

Do you think a Catholic has "less repercussions" or are in a better spiritual spot than a Saint?

Edited May 25, 2017 by anatess2

[Vort]

7 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Does any Saint believe that people who choose not to get baptized because they don't want to give up their sinfulness is somehow... in a better spot than the Saints?

The answer is yes, there are Saints who believe exactly this. I had a conversation with one such Saint some years back, who actually said (in effect, not an exact quotation) that we should abandon our missionary program and keep our beliefs to ourselves, so as not to invite persecution. After all, everyone will have the gospel preached to them in the next life, where they will be much more able to understand and accept it, and then they can have their work done and gain eternal life. Much more sensible, less expensive, and all around easier than our modern missionary activity.

[anatess2]

Just now, Vort said:

The answer is yes, there are Saints who believe exactly this. I had a conversation with one such Saint some years back, who actually said (in effect, not an exact quotation) that we should abandon our missionary program and keep our beliefs to ourselves, so as not to invite persecution. After all, everyone will have the gospel preached to them in the next life, where they will be much more able to understand and accept it, and then they can have their work done and gain eternal life. Much more sensible, less expensive, and all around easier than our modern missionary activity.

I'm flabbergasted.

But I am 100% sure that TFP does not belief this claptrap.

[Vort]

5 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

This is the idea that I want some doctrinal support on. I do not find it logical, despite the logic of others. The idea that I could just use excommunication as a way to sin with less repercussions does not sit well with my understanding of God's justice.

I don't think anyone here was suggesting that excommunication is a sort of "Get-Out-of-Hell-Free" card for sinning. If anyone was, then I agree with you.

[The Folk Prophet]

4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

First google hit:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1990/09/a-chance-to-start-over-church-disciplinary-councils-and-the-restoration-of-blessings?lang=eng

You get excommunicated, that's not the end of Church's work.  They continue to work and work and work so you get REBAPTIZED.  Meaning, when you get excommunicated, you get released from your baptismal covenants.  Because, the Church do not baptize people already under covenant.

What's wrong with that logic?

Well, for a start, you do not have to re-do all of the other ordinances, If excommunication was, indeed, a release from covenants, then it would stand to reason that all covenants would need to be made again. Instead, the rest of your ordinances are re-instated through an "ordinance of restoration of blessings".

Second, logically, a re-promise doesn't negate the original promise. The need to be re-baptized is simply not a valid logical argument that the original promise made doesn't count any longer.

[The Folk Prophet]

6 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Do you think a Catholic has "less repercussions" than a Saint?

Less repercussions related to what?