Recent Excommunications

[Brian 2.0]

I am saying that they are holding positions that are unavailable to them as faithful Latter-day Saints.

Thank you for asking.

 

So does holding a position unavailable to faithful saints ever "make" them unfaithful?  If a faithful latter day saints starts to hold a number of positions "unavailable to a faithful saint", at what point to they actually become unfaithful?  Or is being unfaithful a completely separate set of standards?

[rockpond]

So does holding a position unavailable to faithful saints ever "make" them unfaithful?  If a faithful latter day saints starts to hold a number of positions "unavailable to a faithful saint", at what point to they actually become unfaithful?  Or is being unfaithful a completely separate set of standards?

I think Russell is working hard at finding language that doesn't violate board guidelines.

[rockpond]

No.It is not.It is a position available to jack Mormons and MINOs.  Or for just generally being a jack Mormon.But the Church does, rightly, remove those who try to proselyte among the Saints for apostate doctrines.For example, the notion of "same sex temple marriage" is an apostate doctrine.Far more so than mere craven surrender to the non-values of a wicked world on the subject of "same sex marriage" in the secular realm.

Ah, so now I'm a jack Mormon or a MINO.

Interesting.

Say, Russell, are you young enough that you'll still be around when Scott's "Dehlin prediction" clock winds down?

[ttribe]

Ah, so now I'm a jack Mormon or a MINO.

Interesting.

Say, Russell, are you young enough that you'll still be around when Scott's "Dehlin prediction" clock winds down?

 

This would seem to apply (emphasis mine):

 

Be respectful of each other. This should be a matter of common sense, but we have a detailed list below of the kind of behavior that won't be tolerated.

• Mocking each others' beliefs
• Judging others
• Personal attacks. You may dispute a member's opinion, but you may not label them for having that opinion.
• Psychoanalyzing others
• Attempting to provoke people
• Posting IRL info about board members
• Profanity and vulgarity
• Pretending to be someone you aren't, namely, posing as an ex-Mormon when you clearly are not. This only leads to feelings of hostility. We will allow inconsistencies in your story to be pointed out for the purpose of protecting anyone here you are trying to deceive.
• Altering members quotes on the board
• Quoting members in your signature without obtaining their permission
• Choosing offensive avatars or signatures
• Copying and pasting material and claiming it as your own or posting anything copyrighted
• Derailing threads with irrelevant or unwanted commentary (i.e. If a discussion is about the nature of the Godhead, don't inject comments like, "There is no God." You can start your own thread about evidences of God's existence.)
• Telling others how to behave. Anything you find objectionable should be reported using the button located in each post.
• Refusing to provide appropriate references to support your statements
• Badgering a participant for an answer when it has already been given
• Creating another user name while you are suspended. This will result in being banned permanently
• Creating another user name to send a private message to a member who has blocked you from doing so. You are not entitled to contact anyone who doesn't want to be contacted.
• Violating standard rules of debate such as extreme comparisons and hyperbole

[Russell C McGregor]

I think Russell is working hard at finding language that doesn't violate board guidelines.

Not nearly as hard as you and your little friends are working at trying to goad me into saying something that does violate board guidelines.

[Russell C McGregor]

Ah, so now I'm a jack Mormon or a MINO.

"It's all about MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!"

I don't quite know how to break this to you, Rocky: but no. It's not.

Sorry.

 

Interesting.

Say, Russell, are you young enough that you'll still be around when Scott's "Dehlin prediction" clock winds down?

Who knows?

 

The thread will be closed if the personal jousting continues.

[Teancum]

No.It is not.It is a position available to jack Mormons and MINOs.  Or for just generally being a jack Mormon.But the Church does, rightly, remove those who try to proselyte among the Saints for apostate doctrines.For example, the notion of "same sex temple marriage" is an apostate doctrine.Far more so than mere craven surrender to the non-values of a wicked world on the subject of "same sex marriage" in the secular realm.

So just to get you straight are you saying:

1: Any Latter-day Saint who personally supports same sex marriage is a jack Mormon and MINO?

2: Anyone who personally hopes that some day the LDS prophet will receive a revelation sanctioning same sex marriage personally beleives an apostate doctrine and thus are less faithful than say someone like you who opposes such a view (which if I recall was the point of an entire thread you started)?

Thank you ahead for your expected clarifications.

[Teancum]

Not nearly as hard as you and your little friends are working at trying to goad me into saying something that does violate board guidelines.

Little friends......snicker, snicker....

You are such a cuddly fellow Russell.

[Brian 2.0]

Not nearly as hard as you and your little friends are working at trying to goad me into saying something that does violate board guidelines.

 

I don't care about guidelines myself and it would be sad if you were banned, and I would be annoyed if you had something you wanted to say to clarify but couldn't because of board guidelines.  I'm not setting a trap here, just trying to understand your position.

[ttribe]

Not nearly as hard as you and your little friends are working at trying to goad me into saying something that does violate board guidelines.

 

Nonsense.

 

Edited June 19, 2015 by ttribe

[Russell C McGregor]

I don't care about guidelines myself and it would be sad if you were banned, and I would be annoyed if you had something you wanted to say to clarify but couldn't because of board guidelines.  I'm not setting a trap here, just trying to understand your position.

My position is that fidelity to the Gospel requires that we align ourselves with Gospel principles, even -- or especially -- when those principles are unpopular, under attack, or "on the wrong side of history."

My position also takes into account the fact that people are not Vulcans, and frequently have opinions, views or actions that are mutually contradictory or otherwise logically inconsistent. There are Mormons who support wrong-headed social policies, Catholics who support Marxism and even atheists who do charitable works.

But I further recognise the teaching of Jesus that "no man can serve two masters." All who halt between two opinions will one day have to choose between them.

[Russell C McGregor]

So just to get you straight

Pun not intended?

are you saying:

1: Any Latter-day Saint who personally supports same sex marriage is a jack Mormon and MINO?

I did not say that, and if you trouble yourself to read what I wrote in response to Brian 2.0, you will realise that to accuse me of saying that is to quite brazenly misrepresent my actual position.

2: Anyone who personally hopes that some day the LDS prophet will receive a revelation sanctioning same sex marriage personally beleives an apostate doctrine and thus are less faithful than say someone like you who opposes such a view (which if I recall was the point of an entire thread you started)?

Thank you ahead for your expected clarifications.

See my response to Brian, above.

[Teancum]

Pun not intended?I did not say that, and if you trouble yourself to read what I wrote in response to Brian 2.0, you will realise that to accuse me of saying that is to quite brazenly misrepresent my actual position.See my response to Brian, above.

Do you mean this response:

Brian 2.0, on 18 Jun 2015 - 8:32 PM, said:

I don't care about guidelines myself and it would be sad if you were banned, and I would be annoyed if you had something you wanted to say to clarify but couldn't because of board guidelines. I'm not setting a trap here, just trying to understand your position.

Russell says:

My position is that fidelity to the Gospel requires that we align ourselves with Gospel principles, even -- or especially -- when those principles are unpopular, under attack, or "on the wrong side of history."

My position also takes into account the fact that people are not Vulcans, and frequently have opinions, views or actions that are mutually contradictory or otherwise logically inconsistent. There are Mormons who support wrong-headed social policies, Catholics who support Marxism and even atheists who do charitable works.

But I further recognise the teaching of Jesus that "no man can serve two masters." All who halt between two opinions will one day have to choose between them.

Teancum says:

Well since my post was posted before you made this post it was tough to see the answer and read it when I asked the questions.

I was not accusing you of anything by the way. Just asking for clarification. But your post that I responded to certianly implied what I asked .

Also it is not illogical at all for an athiest to do charitable work.

[Russell C McGregor]

Well since my post was posted before you made this post it was tough to see the answer and read it when I asked the questions.

That's true, but the point is that I've answered Brian, and so I see no need to repeat myself.

 

I was not accusing you of anything by the way. Just asking for clarification. But your post that I responded to certianly implied what I asked .

It doesn't, actually.

You may have chosen to infer that; but that was your choice. My post "implied" only what I intended, and nothing else.

 

Also it is not illogical at all for an athiest to do charitable work.

Arguably it is. But that's another topic.

[Brian 2.0]

Arguably it is. But that's another topic.

Please please please, let's start another thread on that topic. I would love it.

As an atheist, you are right of course. An atheist who performs charitable work is holding a position unavailable to an true atheist.

[Russell C McGregor]

Please please please, let's start another thread on that topic. I would love it.

As an atheist, you are right of course. An atheist who performs charitable work is holding a position unavailable to an true atheist.

I don't believe I said that.

Far be it from me to lecture you about your own religion.

And anyway, I would never say anything to discourage anyone from performing acts of charity.

However logically inconsistent it may be for them to do so.

 

[carbon dioxide]

Why not change the purpose of excommunication. Instead of VOIDING all covenants and blessings for eternity perhaps the church could simply view it as a removal of membership from the church.

All covenants and blessings are meaningless in situations of apostasy.  I the Lord and bound when you do what I say, but when you do not what I say, ye have no promise.

[HappyJackWagon]

All covenants and blessings are meaningless in situations of apostasy.  I the Lord and bound when you do what I say, but when you do not what I say, ye have no promise.

I suppose that would depend on what one has apostatized from.

[rockpond]

Not nearly as hard as you and your little friends are working at trying to goad me into saying something that does violate board guidelines.

 

Not true.  I do not want to see you locked/banned again.  I'm certainly guilty of getting overzealous in my opinions at times and saying things that I shouldn't.  I think your voice needs to stay on these boards.  Although I wouldn't mind some things being toned down a bit.  

Edited June 19, 2015 by rockpond

[BookofMormonLuvr]

All covenants and blessings are meaningless in situations of apostasy.  I the Lord and bound when you do what I say, but when you do not what I say, ye have no promise.

That is why it's a fool's errand to judge someone covenant status before the LORD- as only the LORD and the individual know whether the person is truly in apostasy or not, whether they have done what HE has asked or not.

[carbon dioxide]

That is why it's a fool's errand to judge someone covenant status before the LORD- as only the LORD and the individual know whether the person is truly in apostasy or not, whether they have done what HE has asked or not.

I disagree.  An individual can declare their status by the very words or deeds they do.  If a person declares the Book of Mormon to be false or Joseph Smith to be a false prophet, i think its pretty clear that they are outside the boundaries.  We are required to judge righteously.  We all make mistakes but putting one stake in the ground and making a declaration is not a mistake. 

Edited June 19, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[carbon dioxide]

I suppose that would depend on what one has apostatized from.

I suppose so.  Simply not agreeing with the position the Church has on an issue of not great importance is not apostasy.  Disagreeing with foundational issues that are critical to the Church and even worse trying to promote that disagreement to others probably is apostasy.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I disagree.  An individual can declare their status by the very words or deeds they do.  If a person declares the Book of Mormon to be false or Joseph Smith to be a false prophet, i think its pretty clear that they are outside the boundaries.  We are required to judge righteously.  We all make mistakes but putting one stake in the ground and making a declaration is not a mistake. 

I would agree there. But many of these recent exing don't fall within that.

[Scott Lloyd]

Say, Russell, are you young enough that you'll still be around when Scott's "Dehlin prediction" clock winds down?

It's not my prediction. By definition, it is his.

 

I merely started a clock on it. And by the way, that countdown clock now stands at 39 years, 7 months, 3 weeks, 1 day, 5 hours, 44 minutes and 8 seconds.

Edited June 19, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

It's not my prediction. By definition, it is his.

 

I merely started a clock on it. And by the way, that countdown clock now stands at 39 years, 7 months, 3 weeks, 1 day, 5 hours, 44 minutes and 8 seconds.

 

Thanks for the update.  And sorry if I made it sound like it was your prediction.  I thought that my (likely inappropriate use of) quotation marks made it clear that it was Dehlin's prediction.