Excommunicatin'

[Pahoran]

This is disfellowship, not excommunication. Keep the citations in their proper context. Membership doesn't exist in the first century church as it does in the modern LDS church.

The citations you provide are precisely accurate answers to both USU and Pahoran.

No, they are precisely accurate answers to you.

You claimed that the scriptures supported your position.

They do not.

You are clearly just trying to brazen it out.

It's not going to work.

Your self-serving and unsupported assertions mean nothing.

The Church has every right to excommunicate those who flout their covenants. Your shrill denials are valueless.

Regards,

Pahoran

[bluebell]

I am serious. If a direct translation can be provided that literally denotes excommunication then we can have a serious discussion but until then we can go no further.

 

It seems like, with the absence of a direct translation, what you are saying is that your interpretation of this scripture isn't anymore valid or reasonable (or invalid or unreasonable) than Pahoran's.

 

Therefore, both of your arguments are completely equal in plausibility and that is why you can't go any further-you can't prove he's wrong and he can't prove you're wrong.  Is that what you mean?

[why me]

This is disfellowship, not excommunication. Keep the citations in their proper context. Membership doesn't exist in the first century church as it does in the modern LDS church.

The citations you are precisely accurate answers to both USU and Pahoran.

Is it really disfellowship? How do you know? And what is the difference between the both. No one is forbidden to come to church. Both are still fellowshipped in the church. My point was simple: there were rules in place when the community was affected by the member's behavior. It wasn't a live and let live attitude back in paul's time.

 

I think that you lost this argument.

Edited January 21, 2015 by why me

[ERayR]

This is disfellowship, not excommunication. Keep the citations in their proper context. Membership doesn't exist in the first century church as it does in the modern LDS church.

The citations you provide are precisely accurate answers to both USU and Pahoran.

 

Using your own reply  show where the word disfellowship is used. 

 

I am serious. If a direct translation can be provided that literally denotes excommunication disfellowship then we can have a serious discussion but until then we can go no further.

[The Nehor]

I am serious. If a direct translation can be provided that literally denotes excommunication then we can have a serious discussion but until then we can go no further.

Yes we can. We can dismiss your argument is idiotic. I will now proceed to do so.

[Scott Lloyd]

I am serious. If a direct translation can be provided that literally denotes excommunication then we can have a serious discussion but until then we can go no further.

And I am serious when I say it's becoming clearer with each post you make that you don't have an accurate idea of what excommunication is when practiced in the Church of Jesus Christ.

[cinepro]

Here is an interesting essay on why it is important that we are clear on why Dehlin is facing a disciplinary council (and why some liberal LDS aren't thrilled with the narrative John is creating):

 

The Real Reason Why One Mormon Is On Trial

 

 

Henrichsen's motive for questioning Dehlin is simple: He fears that Dehlin's narrative is causing a "chilling effect" that undermines the cause of LDS liberals who favor gay marriage. Henrichsen wants more liberal Mormons to speak out, and so he thinks it's important for them to know that "advocating on public issues, even when disagreeing with the Church, is not something that puts one at risk of excommunication." He believes, quite simply, that "gay rights is too important to become a public relations football."

The examples of Evans and Henrichsen ([two liberal LDS bloggers] who are not known to have faced any Church discipline) suggest that Dehlin's support for gay marriage or women's ordination are not central to his pending disciplinary council.

 

The issue is Dehlin's attacks on fundamental doctrinal claims such as the existence of God, the role of Jesus as Savior, and status of the Book of Mormon. Dehlin stated on a "post-Mormon" site in a thread titled "Yes, John Dehlin has left the Church" that he and his wife "no longer are willing to act or appear as though we believe the fundamental truth claims [of the LDS Church]." John Dehlin's opposition to Mormonism, by his own account, extends well beyond the politics of gender and sexual orientation and his private doubts have become public pronouncements.

Edited January 21, 2015 by cinepro

[smac97]

I am serious. If a direct translation can be provided that literally denotes excommunication then we can have a serious discussion but until then we can go no further.

 

No, you're not serious.  Yours is not a serious, considered position, nor is your demand for "a direct translation" from Reformed Egyptian serious.  Or reasonable.  Or even made in good faith.

 

The participants on this board are not afraid of addressing difficult issues pertaining to the LDS Church, its doctrines, history, practices, etc.  And they are willing to have such discussions with people who have opinions which are hostile or adverse to the LDS Church.  But such discussions are predicated on a presumption of good faith and seriousness.  Your comments on this point lack both.  

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[Calm]

Dehlin has openly repudiated core teachings of the Mormon faith, been instrumental (in his own estimation) in leading "many more people" to leave than to stay, and has garnered a reputation among the post- and ex-Mormon community for his deliberate work to do just that.

 

Yep….

[Calm]

Here is an interesting essay on why it is important that we are clear on why Dehlin is facing a disciplinary council (and why some liberal LDS aren't thrilled with the narrative John is creating):

 

The Real Reason Why One Mormon Is On Trial

 

 

And this is the rest of the story:

 

http://difficultrun.nathanielgivens.com/2015/01/20/why-john-dehlin-faces-church-discipline/

[Damien the Leper]

No, they are precisely accurate answers to you.You claimed that the scriptures supported your position.They do not.You are clearly just trying to brazen it out.It's not going to work.Your self-serving and unsupported assertions mean nothing.The Church has every right to excommunicate those who flout their covenants. Your shrill denials are valueless.Regards,Pahoran

I sent an email to Bart Ehrman concerning the context of the verses provided. If he replies, I'll gladly post his response. If he doesn't, I'll email Jared Anderson, who studied under Ehrman.

And if their responses are likely to be what I imagine them to be, a "Nuh uh...modern revelation!" response will not only be inadequate but naive and juvenile.

You're right. The LDS church has every right to subject its members to legalism. The best part about this nonsense is that it has no bearing on a person's salvation. If a person gets ex'd, Jesus still wins and gets that person's soul.

Edited January 21, 2015 by Valentinus

[Avatar4321]

So gentiles are disfellowshipped members and not excommunicated?

[ERayR]

And this is the rest of the story:

 

http://difficultrun.nathanielgivens.com/2015/01/20/why-john-dehlin-faces-church-discipline/

 

He is a master manipulator and quite full of guile isn't he?

[Damien the Leper]

No, you're not serious.  Yours is not a serious, considered position, nor is your demand for "a direct translation" from Reformed Egyptian serious.  Or reasonable.  Or even made in good faith.

 

The participants on this board are not afraid of addressing difficult issues pertaining to the LDS Church, its doctrines, history, practices, etc.  And they are willing to have such discussions with people who have opinions which are hostile or adverse to the LDS Church.  But such discussions are predicated on a presumption of good faith and seriousness.  Your comments on this point lack both.  

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Thank you for telling me the truth about myself. How arrogant and audacious!

I made the comment I did because it is obvious that a text cannot be provided to substantiate the interpretation of a translation. There is no possible way to properly exegete the passage. Eisegesis seems to be the same ole same ole with typical apologists.

[Damien the Leper]

And I am serious when I say it's becoming clearer with each post you make that you don't have an accurate idea of what excommunication is when practiced in the Church of Jesus Christ.

I am familiar with how it works with the LDS church and how that is not the same as the first century church. The two are not in the same ball park.

[The Nehor]

And this is the rest of the story:

 

http://difficultrun.nathanielgivens.com/2015/01/20/why-john-dehlin-faces-church-discipline/

I have never seen his photo before. He has one of those faces that is just asking to be punched.

[Calm]

I thought every face looked that way to you.

Edited January 21, 2015 by calmoriah

[Damien the Leper]

It seems like, with the absence of a direct translation, what you are saying is that your interpretation of this scripture isn't anymore valid or reasonable (or invalid or unreasonable) than Pahoran's.

 

Therefore, both of your arguments are completely equal in plausibility and that is why you can't go any further-you can't prove he's wrong and he can't prove you're wrong.  Is that what you mean?

That is the best way of putting it. We don't have a text or historical evidence r to properly determine what the author is saying. We don't have a means by which we can adequately determine how BoM people believed and lived out their faith.

[Damien the Leper]

Is it really disfellowship? How do you know? And what is the difference between the both. No one is forbidden to come to church. Both are still fellowshipped in the church. My point was simple: there were rules in place when the community was affected by the member's behavior. It wasn't a live and let live attitude back in paul's time.

 

I think that you lost this argument.

If there is no difference between the two then it is unnecessary to implement both as a practice.

[ERayR]

That is the best way of putting it. We don't have a text or historical evidence r to properly determine what the author is saying. We don't have a means by which we can adequately determine how BoM people believed and lived out their faith.

 

The Book of Mormon is a very good start.

[The Nehor]

That is the best way of putting it. We don't have a text or historical evidence r to properly determine what the author is saying. We don't have a means by which we can adequately determine how BoM people believed and lived out their faith.

So we can ignore the plain meaning because you say so?

[Damien the Leper]

Using your own reply show where the word disfellowship is used.

I didn't claim disfellowship, the word, was in the text. At best, it can be inferred as a concept.

My request concerning the BoM was snarky, I admit, but was serious nonetheless because we don't have a text to exegete or evidence of a people to historically support the arguments being made here. As I states in a previous post, eisegesis appears to be the tactic.

Edited January 21, 2015 by Valentinus

[Damien the Leper]

The Book of Mormon is a very good start.

No. We cannot exegete the passage without an original text.

ETA: You're right. The BoM can be a good tool as a story, an allegory, a narrative.

As we have no evidence of the literal existence of these people...well, that makes this so much easier and less work to do.

Edited January 21, 2015 by Valentinus

[Damien the Leper]

So we can ignore the plain meaning because you say so?

Of course not. I am suggesting that we not limit ourselves to "plain meaning".

[smac97]

Thank you for telling me the truth about myself. How arrogant and audacious!

I made the comment I did because it is obvious that a text cannot be provided to substantiate the interpretation of a translation.

Then your comment was not serious. Which is what several people here have observed, and which you have previously denied but now admit. Hence my now validated observation about the lack of seriousness and good faith in your comments.

Thanks,

-Smac