Stopped going to church

[The Folk Prophet]

7 minutes ago, Vort said:

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.

What is the meaning behind "might be...a respite from the condemnation he is heaping upon himself" then?

[anatess2]

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

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.

A release from a covenant does not NEGATE the covenant.  I don't even know how you can negate a covenant in the LDS Church.  That just doesn't make sense.  It's not like Catholics where you can be baptized without understanding so you can negate it claiming you didn't know what you were doing. 

You are released from it.  That means that at the moment you are released, you are not anymore bound to the covenant.  Which also means, God is not bound to that covenant.  And that's why I pointed it out to the OP.  Does she really want to be released from that covenant as it also releases God from the covenant so she wouldn't be able to avail of the blessings.

All other ordinances stands on the baptismal covenant.  Without it, none of the others can apply.  You don't have to be released from it for it to be inapplicable.  When the baptismal covenant is made, the rest of the ordinances can stand on it again.

[The Folk Prophet]

21 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?

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/31.14?lang=eng#p13

What's your read on this scripture?

[anatess2]

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

What is the meaning behind "might be...a respite from the condemnation he is heaping upon himself" then?

It's a respite because he wouldn't have to stand as an agent of Christ at all times in all places.  A person under covenant will be sinning if he is not doing that.  A person not under covenant is not.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

A release from a covenant does not NEGATE the covenant.  I don't even know how you can negate a covenant in the LDS Church.  That just doesn't make sense.  It's not like Catholics where you can be baptized without understanding so you can negate it claiming you didn't know what you were doing. 

You are released from it.  That means that at the moment you are released, you are not anymore bound to the covenant.  Which also means, God is not bound to that covenant.  And that's why I pointed it out to the OP.  Does she really want to be released from that covenant as it also releases God from the covenant so she wouldn't be able to avail of the blessings.

All other ordinances stands on the baptismal covenant.  Without it, none of the others can apply.  You don't have to be released from it for it to be inapplicable.  When the baptismal covenant is made, the rest of the ordinances can stand on it again.

Sounds like a semantic argument to me. Good to know.

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Sounds like a semantic argument to me. Good to know.

It's not a semantic argument.  Negating means it didn't happen.  It got negated.  Releasing means it got stopped.  What's your meaning of it?

[anatess2]

7 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/31.14?lang=eng#p13

What's your read on this scripture?

The same as yours, I'm sure.

So... good that you pointed that out...

Because, the thing that you quoted did not touch on people you got baptized and then got excommunicated.  Rather, it is touching on people who never got baptized at all.

So you're saying that the guy who got excommunicated somehow got a "less repercussions".  So, the question is - do you think Catholics are in a better spot than the Saints?

Of course, I expect the answer to be No - because, then there wouldn't be a reason for us to do missionary work.

So, if the answer is No... then how much more is the guy who became a Saint and then turned away from it (like the scripture)?

So, why do you believe that the guy who got excommunicated somehow got a "get out of hell card" (or whatever it is you were saying about this) for being released from his baptismal covenants?

Or are you saying he shouldn't be released from his covenants - he should continue to be punished for not standing as a witness to Christ even when he is obviously not capable of it anymore?

 

Edited May 25, 2017 by anatess2

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

It's not a semantic argument.  Negating means it didn't happen.  It got negated.  Releasing means it got stopped.  What's your meaning of it?

You are saying it's not a semantics argument and then debating the meaning of words?

Do you know what semantics means?

[Guest]

3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

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

3 hours ago, zil said:

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.  

3 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.

58 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 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.

23 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.

16 minutes ago, Vort said:

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.

That's why I said:

21 hours ago, Carborendum said:

As far as resigning or going inactive, there are statements from a theoretical position.  But in a practical sense there really is no difference.

Theory vs practical.

Theoretically, theologically, there is a difference in that there is something "worse".  But in a practical sense, where you end up at the end of your life is where you end up.  And your eternal judgment awaits regardless if the covenants were violated vs unmade.  You'll still end up in the same place because of who you are at the end... unless...

Are those who were excommunicated or who have resigned, not considered valid candidates for baptism for the dead?

[anatess2]

11 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

You are saying it's not a semantics argument and then debating the meaning of words?

Do you know what semantics means?

Yes I know what semantics mean.  I'm not debating the meaning of words, I'm TELLING YOU what my meaning of those words are and asking you what you mean by it so we can get aligned on our semantics. 

Is this going somewhere?  What's your purpose for pointing out a semantics argument?

Edited May 25, 2017 by anatess2

[The Folk Prophet]

5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

That's why I said:

Theory vs practical.

Theoretically, theologically, there is a difference in that there is something "worse".  But in a practical sense, where you end up at the end of your life is where you end up.  And your eternal judgment awaits regardless if the covenants were violated vs unmade.  You'll still end up in the same place because of who you are at the end... unless...

Are those who were excommunicated or who have resigned, not considered valid candidates for baptism for the dead?

I don't think that those under covenant are worse off in sin than those not is theoretical.

[Guest]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

I don't think that those under covenant are worse off in sin than those not is theoretical.

I'm not sure if I got what you said.  There was a double-and-a-half negative I'm trying to figure out.

My position is that we're talking about being at 2.5 vs 3 on a scale of 10,000.  You can think of it as worse.  But as a practical matter, it really doesn't amount to a hill-o-beans.

See, "Take Two" of the following link. http://www.cvaieee.org/html/humor/comprehending_engineers.html

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Yes I know what semantics mean.  You accused me of a semantic argument.  Point to the semantic argument.  I pointed how Negate versus Release is NOT just a semantic argument. 

Is this going somewhere?  What's your purpose for pointing out a semantics argument?

To my thinking "negate" a contract and "release from" a contract means the exact same thing. So if you think they have different meanings then it is, clearly, a semantic argument.

My purpose is pointing out that if you think one is not "released" from their obligation to obey the covenant upon excommunication then we agree. If you think that one is released from that obligation then whether you call it "negate" or not isn't important, we disagree.

I may be wrong in thinking it was a semantic argument, I suppose.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

I'm not sure if I got what you said.  There was a double-and-a-half negative I'm trying to figure out.

My position is that we're talking about being at 2.5 vs 3 on a scale of 10,000.  You can think of it as worse.  But as a practical matter, it really doesn't amount to a hill-o-beans.

See, "Take Two" of the following link. http://www.cvaieee.org/html/humor/comprehending_engineers.html

I do not think the difference in covenant making is .5 on a scale of 10,000. If they mean so little, then why are they so key?

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I do not think the difference in covenant making is .5 on a scale of 10,000. If they mean so little, then why are they so key?

The topic (I thought) was not about covenant making, but of willfully violating vs abandoning a covenant that was already made.  And could you explain the 2.5 negative?

Edited May 25, 2017 by Guest

[The Folk Prophet]

18 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The same as yours, I'm sure.

So... good that you pointed that out...

Because, the thing that you quoted did not touch on people you got baptized and then got excommunicated.  Rather, it is touching on people who never got baptized at all.

So you're saying that the guy who got excommunicated somehow got a "less repercussions".  So, the question is - do you think Catholics are in a better spot than the Saints?

Of course, I expect the answer to be No - because, then there wouldn't be a reason for us to do missionary work.

So, if the answer is No... then how much more is the guy who became a Saint and then turned away from it (like the scripture)?

So, why do you believe that the guy who got excommunicated somehow got a "get out of hell card" (or whatever it is you were saying about this) for being released from his baptismal covenants?

Or are you saying he shouldn't be released from his covenants - he should continue to be punished for not standing as a witness to Christ even when he is obviously not capable of it anymore?

 

What do you mean by "the thing that you quoted"? What "thing"?

I am not saying that the guy excommunicated has "less repercussions". Why would you think I'm saying that? I said explicitly the opposite.

I do not believe the guy who got excommunicated somehow got a "get out of hell card". Where are you pulling this from. I don't think you understand me. I'm just asking you to source the comment that excommunication releases us from our covenants.

I do not believe the excommunicated person is released from his obligation to stand as a witness of Christ because he IS capable of it.

[The Folk Prophet]

4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

The topic (I thought) was not about covenant making, but of willfully violating vs abandoning a covenant that was already made.  And could you explain the 2.5 negative?

I do not understand what you are saying with your statement and don't understand the question you're asking. Can you clarify?

[Vort]

55 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

 

1 hour 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.

I guess this looks to me to be true by definition. Is it better to marry and then commit adultery, or refuse to marry and fornicate? Both are sinful, but the first seems to garner a much greater condemnation than the second. So is it better to make a covenant with God and the willfully turn your back on that covenant, or not to make the covenant at all? I think the second.

More to the point: If you're married and committing adultery, you should stop committing adultery. But what if you refuse to? What if you have decided you are going to cohabitate with this other woman, no matter the cost to your wife, your children, or your marriage? Should you stay married while you openly violate your marital obligations? Or is it more righteous less sinful to exit your marriage before continuing with your fornications? I suggest the latter is the better course -- "better" in the sense of "less horrific". The same logic appears (to me) to apply to the idea of being a member of the Church while living an explicitly unChristian life.

If you don't see it that way, then I don't think I can dredge up any quotations to change your mind. Which actually is fine, since I'm not looking to make converts to this particular point of view.

[Vort]

46 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

54 minutes ago, Vort said:

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.

What is the meaning behind "might be...a respite from the condemnation he is heaping upon himself" then?

Which is more pleasantly enjoyable: Getting beaten with twenty stripes from a bullwhip, or being beaten with fifty stripes from a cat-o'-nine-tails?

I am suggesting that excommunication might result in someone getting the bullwhip instead of the cat-o'-nine-tails.

[anatess2]

12 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

What do you mean by "the thing that you quoted"? What "thing"?

 

My statement that you quoted here:

 

12 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I am not saying that the guy excommunicated has "less repercussions". Why would you think I'm saying that? I said explicitly the opposite.

I do not believe the guy who got excommunicated somehow got a "get out of hell card". Where are you pulling this from. I don't think you understand me. I'm just asking you to source the comment that excommunication releases us from our covenants.

You said that you don't believe that an excommunicated person is released from his baptismal covenant (which doesn't make sense that he would get rebaptized as mentioned in the link/source I provided) because you think releasing somebody from his covenants equates to "less repercussions" as you stated here:

 

12 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I do not believe the excommunicated person is released from his obligation to stand as a witness of Christ because he IS capable of it.

If he is capable of it, he won't get excommunicated.  He's going to go to disciplinary council or some other repentance process.

[The Folk Prophet]

I think I'm changing my current status in this thread to.

I'm looking for a supportive statement to the idea that we are released from our covenants when excommunicated. I don't consider the idea that we have to be re-baptized logically supportive of the idea. If we are going to state that one of the reasons behind excommunication is for the release of covenants then there needs to be a "why" as to it's importance. Otherwise it becomes a pointless point. If the difference is one type of beating instead of another then there's not much point behind saying to someone on the cusp of excommunication that it will mean a release from their covenants. If that simply means they get the cat-o-nine instead of the bullwhip then how is it a useful point?

The clear (to me) implication of saying such is to imply that it is somehow better to get excommunicated than to continue under covenant. That does not strike me as valid thinking ("better" being a relative word, of course, because it is "better" per the reasons given by the church as to why, none of which reasons are related to the covenants made). Of course this is where it is, indeed, perhaps semantics. Perhaps one means that being under covenant is better even in sin, and is saying so as a deterrent. As that does not strike me as the obvious interpretation, then I would expect such clarification to be made. But my view of what is obvious may be inaccurate. So...oh well. Either way, I have not yet had anyone properly source this idea as a valid teaching of the church, and I have yet to discover support in the idea myself beyond random members expressing it as their view stated as doctrine.

What I find is that the whole contemporary "no one should ever be punished", "God doesn't punish people" un-scriptural ideology has led a great many to try and explain away the punishment factor of excommunication and in doing so make an attempt to explain it as some kind of blessing. If that's not what everyone means by it, it is certainly what some have meant (as they have stated it to be so explicitly at times, even if not in this thread), and so my motive in asking for sourcing on the idea.

So I'll step away from it now...pending some source given.

[Vort]

5 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm looking for a supportive statement to the idea that we are released from our covenants when excommunicated.

When considering the topic of excommunication, what do you think is the difference between someone being released from his covenants and someone not being so released?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I do not understand what you are saying with your statement and don't understand the question you're asking. Can you clarify?

You had stated

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I don't think that those under covenant are worse off in sin than those not is theoretical.

I'm simply having a brain... misfire.  I can't make out this what I'm dubbing as a 'double-and-a-half' negative.  Could you restate this phrase in some other way.  I'm seriously having a mind block trying to read this sentence.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

You had stated

I'm simply having a brain... misfire.  I can't make out this what I'm dubbing as a 'double-and-a-half' negative.  Could you restate this phrase in some other way.  I'm seriously having a mind block trying to read this sentence.

I think that those under covenant are worse off in sin. I do not consider it a theoretical idea.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I think that those under covenant are worse off in sin. I do not consider it a theoretical idea.

Well, this phrase I can get behind 100%.  I don't think that idea was closely related to what I was saying (for or against).

Edited May 25, 2017 by Guest