Excommunicatin'

[The Nehor]

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

You are suggesting we ignore it until we get the gold plates so we can be sure to get the right meaning. The gift and power of God helping with the translation is clearly insufficient.

[Damien the Leper]

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

Post #497. Just because you don't like what I said does not make it any less serious. At the very least, I would like to have an original text in RE so that we can determine what the text is saying: exegesis. Considering that we nothing to go off of, there is only eisegesis.

[Damien the Leper]

You are suggesting we ignore it until we get the gold plates so we can be sure to get the right meaning. The gift and power of God helping with the translation is clearly insufficient.

Not ignore but don't take such a hard line on it. By the gift and power of God is a claim and opinion that cannot be tested and verified. Hebrews 11:1 and Moroni 10:3-5, for me, are not enough.

This probably why many on this board and I disagree so much. I don't have the kind of faith or relationship with God that you do. I'm okay with that.

[ERayR]

Not ignore but don't take such a hard line on it. By the gift and power of God is a claim and opinion that cannot be tested and verified. Hebrews 11:1 and Moroni 10:3-5, for me, are not enough.

This probably why many on this board and I disagree so much. I don't have the kind of faith or relationship with God that you do. I'm okay with that.

 

And with that lack of relationship no amount of evidence, empirical or otherwise, will be sufficient.

[Damien the Leper]

And with that lack of relationship no amount of evidence, empirical or otherwise, will be sufficient.

Possibly. I am not disagreeing with you there. I just thought it best that I be reasonable enough to be honest about it.

Edited January 21, 2015 by Valentinus

[Avatar4321]

Not ignore but don't take such a hard line on it. By the gift and power of God is a claim and opinion that cannot be tested and verified. Hebrews 11:1 and Moroni 10:3-5, for me, are not enough.

This probably why many on this board and I disagree so much. I don't have the kind of faith or relationship with God that you do. I'm okay with that.

which is why you won't have that kind of faith or relationship with the Lord.

but how can you have eternal life if you don't know God and Christ?

[Damien the Leper]

which is why you won't have that kind of faith or relationship with the Lord.

but how can you have eternal life if you don't know God and Christ?

From a theological standpoint, I can't. I don't stress about eternal life. I have enough to stress about. I don't mean this disrespectfully.

[The Nehor]

Possibly. I am not disagreeing with you there. I just thought it best that I be reasonable enough to be honest about it.

Why are you trying to discuss it if you consider the question to be unanswerable?

[Avatar4321]

From a theological standpoint, I can't. I don't stress about eternal life. I have enough to stress about. I don't mean this disrespectfully.

and yet if you had the gift of the Holy Ghost o guide and comfort you, you would have significantly less stress.

[Damien the Leper]

Why are you trying to discuss it if you consider the question to be unanswerable?

Why not?

[Damien the Leper]

and yet if you had the gift of the Holy Ghost o guide and comfort you, you would have significantly less stress.

I don't need comfort. I need more hours in a day to study and spend time with loved ones. 24 isn't enough. :-)

[smac97]

Post #497. Just because you don't like what I said does not make it any less serious.

I'm not talking about whether I like it. I'm talking about whether the comment about producing a translation from Reformed Egyptian was serious. It wasn't. You know it. We know it.

Let's review the most relevant posts, shall we?

 

Valentinus (Post 462):

That says absolutely NOTHING about excommunication. If you could provide the Reformed Egyptian term that translates to excommunication then I'll take you a little more seriously.

Pahoran (470):

By which remark, you show that you are merely playing the smart-aleck. How do you expect us to take you seriously?

Valentinus (Post 474):

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.

Scott Lloyd (Post 481):

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.

smac97 (Post 483):

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.

Valentinus (Post 497):

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.

Smac97 (Post 500):

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.

So your comment about Reformed Egyptian is now admittedly "snarky" (defined as "testy or irritable; short" and "having a rudely critical tone or manner", with synonyms such as "cynical", "snide", "irreverent", "spiteful", "scornful", etc.) but also "serious?" You import an impossible condition into the discussion, knowing before doing so that it cannot be met, and we are supposed to take this condition seriously? You double down on demanding a translation from Reformed Egyptian (Post 474), and we are supposed to take that seriously?

I suppose I sort of see your point about eisegesis. Then again, not really. We don't have the original text. You know it. We know it. To fault us for interpreting the text we have in 3 Nephi 18:31-32 in English (which you are doing as well when you say "That says absolutely NOTHING about excommunication" - Post 462), and for not presenting the terms used in the original language we don't have, is not serious. It is . . . snarky. Unserious. Not worthy of considered attention.

At the very least, I would like to have an original text in RE

And at the very least, I would like to have an authenticated audio/video recording of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Yes, that would be nice. But it's also not a serious request, is it? Since there's pretty much no chance of me ever getting such a recording. So injecting such a request into a discussion about Jesus Christ, and saying "at the very least I'd like" such a recording, would be met with . . . the same response you received regarding your unserious request for the original text. No serious-minded person would inject impossible terms into a genuine, thoughtful discussion about a serious and important topic. So when you start making impossible demands, and telling us and doubling down on telling us that you are "serious" about those impossible demands, we aren't going to take you seriously.

so that we can determine what the text is saying: exegesis. Considering that we nothing to go off of, there is only eisegesis.

And in other news, water is wet and circles are round.

This is your point? That we can't ever truly, really, super-duper, double-dog know the precise subtleties and nuances of 3 Nephi 18:31-32 and whether it refers to "disfellowshipment" or "excommunication" because it is a translated text and we lack the original source text? Really? All of this unserious nonsense and rancor so that you can make a point about us not having the source text? A point all of us, and I mean every single participant, already knew?

By the way, care to guess how many times the word "excommunicate" and its derivatives are used in the LDS scriptural canon? Once. In D&C 134:10. And "disfellowship" and its derivatives are used in the scriptural canon a grand total of . . . wait for it . . . zero times.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

Why not?

Because it makes you appear to be a time wasting idiot.

I don't need comfort. I need more hours in a day to study and spend time with loved ones. 24 isn't enough. :-)

And apparently you do not have the time to spare.

[Damien the Leper]

I'm not talking about whether I like it. I'm talking about whether the comment about producing a translation from Reformed Egyptian was serious. It wasn't. You know it. We know it.Let's review the most relevant posts, shall we?

Valentinus (Post 462):That says absolutely NOTHING about excommunication. If you could provide the Reformed Egyptian term that translates to excommunication then I'll take you a little more seriously.Pahoran (470):By which remark, you show that you are merely playing the smart-aleck. How do you expect us to take you seriously?Valentinus (Post 474):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.Scott Lloyd (Post 481):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.smac97 (Post 483):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.Valentinus (Post 497):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.Smac97 (Post 500):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.

So your comment about Reformed Egyptian is now admittedly "snarky" (defined as "testy or irritable; short" and "having a rudely critical tone or manner", with synonyms such as "cynical", "snide", "irreverent", "spiteful", "scornful", etc.) but also "serious?" You import an impossible condition into the discussion, knowing before doing so that it cannot be met, and we are supposed to take this condition seriously? You double down on demanding a translation from Reformed Egyptian (Post 474), and we are supposed to take that seriously?I suppose I sort of see your point about eisegesis. Then again, not really. We don't have the original text. You know it. We know it. To fault us for interpreting the text we have in 3 Nephi 18:31-32 in English (which you are doing as well when you say "That says absolutely NOTHING about excommunication" - Post 462), and for not presenting the terms used in the original language we don't have, is not serious. It is . . . snarky. Unserious. Not worthy of considered attention.And at the very least, I would like to have an authenticated audio/video recording of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Yes, that would be nice. But it's also not a serious request, is it? Since there's pretty much no chance of me ever getting such a recording. So injecting such a request into a discussion about Jesus Christ, and saying "at the very least I'd like" such a recording, would be met with . . . the same response you received regarding your unserious request for the original text. No serious-minded person would inject impossible terms into a genuine, thoughtful discussion about a serious and important topic. So when you start making impossible demands, and telling us and doubling down on telling us that you are "serious" about those impossible demands, we aren't going to take you seriously.And in other news, water is wet and circles are round.This is your point? That we can't ever truly, really, super-duper, double-dog know the precise subtleties and nuances of 3 Nephi 18:31-32 and whether it refers to "disfellowshipment" or "excommunication" because it is a translated text and we lack the original source text? Really? All of this unserious nonsense and rancor so that you can make a point about us not having the source text? A point all of us, and I mean every single participant, already knew?By the way, care to guess how many times the word "excommunicate" and its derivatives are used in the LDS scriptural canon? Once. In D&C 134:10. And "disfellowship" and its derivatives are used in the scriptural canon a grand total of . . . wait for it . . . zero times.Thanks,-Smac

Fair enough. I with draw and apologize for the impossible stipulation.

I stand by eisegesis under the circumstance, for me, that the BoM is not historical but allegorical because an original text cannot be provided. I also stand by the fact that how a scripture reads is not necessarily what it says. This leaves room for interpretation, eisegesis and projections to be part of sincere dialogue.

I am very familiar with the fact that excommunication or its verb form nor disfellowship occur in Hebrew or Greek. I contend that the citations provided in this thread infer disfellowship. Excommunication didn't become formal church practice until the 4th and 5th centuries. Condemnation by the apostolic successors, the Bishops, is not the same thing as can be evidenced by Irenaeus, Origen, Athanasius, Ignatius of Antioch.

Edited January 22, 2015 by Valentinus

[Damien the Leper]

Because it makes you appear to be a time wasting idiot.

And apparently you do not have the time to spare.

And you're the guy spitefully and rudely talking to this idiot. Nice ad hominem, Nehor.

I haven't been home since 5am this morning. Between classes I have responded. I am on break at work right now and will be here until 130a and I'll get to do it all over sin tomorrow. I made this choice and I own it. I work and go to school now so that in a few years I can get back to living life. So yes, in between my regular schedule, I take time to respond to you and others. Call my mom or siblings. Tell the boyfriend I love him.

[The Nehor]

And you're the guy spitefully and rudely talking to this idiot. Nice ad hominem, Nehor.

I haven't been home since 5am this morning. Between classes I have responded. I am on break at work right now and will be here until 130a and I'll get to do it all over sin tomorrow. I made this choice and I own it. I work and go to school now so that in a few years I can get back to living life. So yes, in between my regular schedule, I take time to respond to you and others. Call my mom or siblings. Tell the boyfriend I love him.

Ad hominem suggests I am attempting to discredit your arguments by discrediting you. I am not. I am discrediting your arguments and mocking you at the same time. An important distinction.

[Damien the Leper]

Ad hominem suggests I am attempting to discredit your arguments by discrediting you. I am not. I am discrediting your arguments and mocking you at the same time. An important distinction.

Which neither are conducive to constructive dialogue. I suppose this narcissistic foolishness is how you waste your time.

Perhaps there isn't much difference between some posters here and those of equal intelligence at CARM.

Edited January 22, 2015 by Valentinus

[The Nehor]

Which neither are conducive to constructive dialogue. I suppose this narcissistic foolishness is how you waste your time.

Perhaps there isn't much difference between some posters here and those of equal intelligence at CARM.

It is how I profitably spend my time and makes me smile. As to constructive dialogue there is little enough of that in this thread that I did no violence to it.

I reject your insinuation that there is anyone as intelligent as me on CARM.

[Avatar4321]

So why waste time here if you need more time in the day?

[Damien the Leper]

It is how I profitably spend my time and makes me smile. As to constructive dialogue there is little enough of that in this thread that I did no violence to it.

I reject your insinuation that there is anyone as intelligent as me on CARM.

You're right. The comparison was flawed. Lol

[Calm]

So why waste time here if you need more time in the day?

Obviously he is addicted like the rest of us.

[Damien the Leper]

So why waste time here if you need more time in the day?

It humors me. Plus, Calmoriah is wonderful. As is Blue and GG.

[rockpond]

Obviously he is addicted like the rest of us.

 

It is an addiction, isn't it?  But better than other things we could be addicted to on the internet.  

[why me]

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

At least when it comes to what are in the letters of saint paul. We also need to remember that we don't actually know just how these instructions were implements. To think that the local churches were run on a couple of letter from paul would be a mistake. Each church was run by their local leaders who experienced the various problems that any church would experience. And we know that paul did attempt to keep the churches together from divisions from within. I believe that the letters of paul were meant as guidelines since they did lack specifics. And we know that paul wrote more letters than the ones that we have in the bible.

 

So what did the early churches do with wayward members? What policies were put in place in the local churches? I am sure that it comes pretty close to both disfellowshipment and excommunication, if not both.

Edited January 22, 2015 by why me

[smac97]

John Dehlin will be on TribTalk today at 12:15 Mountain Time: http://www.sltrib.com/home/2085731-155/trib-talk-john-dehlin-on-mormon

Thanks,

-Smac