Hasa Diga Eebowai wrote:This is the bizarre situation as it exists at the moment. The Church Handbook instructs leaders to excommunicate people who are acting in these ways, supposedly to protect members of the Church yet the Church receives bad PR for doing so.
So which is more important PR or supposedly protecting members from wolves in sheep's clothing?
We heard all the lame justifications for why Tom Phillips hasn't been excommunicated yet from so-called defenders but if they will go after someone like Lyndon Lamborn, while leaving Tom Phillips to continue doing what he is doing with no Church sanction it just seems odd.
So D. Michael Quinn deserved Church sanction but Tom Phillips doesn't?
Thanks,
Hasa Diga Eebowai
My understanding is that Quinn was "officially" ex'd for homosexual activity.
So you're chasing around a fly and in your world, I'm the idiot?
"Friends don't let friends be Mormon." Sock Puppet, MDB.
Music is my drug of choice.
"And that is precisely why none of us apologize for holding it to the celestial standard it pretends that it possesses." Kerry, MDB _________________
The Church loses PR-wise without some excommunications because such only encourages the dissenters.
And God knows the Church can't tolerate free thought or dissenters. A house of cards can't take much shaking.
Good thing the Church is not that. But when an organization cleans house of those who block it's mission or teaches against it's beliefs then is that really a sign of a house of cards? I think not.
Hasa Diga Eebowai wrote:This is the bizarre situation as it exists at the moment. The Church Handbook instructs leaders to excommunicate people who are acting in these ways, supposedly to protect members of the Church yet the Church receives bad PR for doing so.
So which is more important PR or supposedly protecting members from wolves in sheep's clothing?
We heard all the lame justifications for why Tom Phillips hasn't been excommunicated yet from so-called defenders but if they will go after someone like Lyndon Lamborn, while leaving Tom Phillips to continue doing what he is doing with no Church sanction it just seems odd.
So D. Michael Quinn deserved Church sanction but Tom Phillips doesn't?
Thanks,
Hasa Diga Eebowai
If Tom had received his second anointing according to LDS doctrine as long as he does not shed innocent blood he will be exalted. He can commit any other sin and still be a god. He will be turned over to the buffeting of Satan and suffer for his sins but in the end still a god.
bcspace wrote:Good thing the Church is not that. But when an organization cleans house of those who block it's mission or teaches against it's beliefs then is that really a sign of a house of cards? I think not.
Problem is the Church is not doing this all as much as it used to. 25 years ago Kate Kelly and crew would be long gone. So would Dehlin, Brooks and so many others.
The Church not only fears the PR backlash but they fear losing the NOMers. Unlike you BC they want to keep them. Just listen to Uchdorf. They want us and they want our tithing money. The days the hard asses like you are dying. You are a dinosaur.
Problem is the Church is not doing this all as much as it used to. 25 years ago Kate Kelly and crew would be long gone. So would Dehlin, Brooks and so many others.
Yes. They are more "wheat with the tares".
The Church not only fears the PR backlash but they fear losing the NOMers. Unlike you BC they want to keep them.
The tipping point where the loss of one or the other has been reached. Time to ex.
Just listen to Uchdorf. They want us and they want our tithing money. The days the hard asses like you are dying. You are a dinosaur.
No doctrine has changed. We will be back to exing shortly as the Church figures out that not exing doesn't work. Give an inch, take a mile, etc. These types of things have happened before where the Church experiments to see if the issue can be deflected and then goes back to the tried and true if the agitators are merely encouraged.
Bcpace - we are all wheat with tares or another way of saying it is we are all unprofitable servants; even those who don't masturbate. If God's mercy, grace and forgiveness is needed by all then it is needed by all.
bcspace wrote:Yes. They are more "wheat with the tares".
Yes they are the wheat. You and yours are the tares.
The tipping point where the loss of one or the other has been reached. Time to ex.
Sure have at it.
Just listen to Uchdorf. They want us and they want our tithing money. The days the hard asses like you are dying. You are a dinosaur.
No doctrine has changed. We will be back to exing shortly as the Church figures out that not exing doesn't work. Give an inch, take a mile, etc. These types of things have happened before where the Church experiments to see if the issue can be deflected and then goes back to the tried and true if the agitators are merely encouraged
.
You must really dislike Uchdorf. But he is the future of the Church. The most loved FP member, probably most members favorite GA. Why? Because the man really does emulate Christ like love and teaches the gospel of Jesus not the gospel of rigid LDS extremism.
I never said any doctrine had changed (in this context. It most certainly has in others in spite of your nonsensical denials). I think you are wrong that the church would turn back to ex’ing much more though I know you are hoping with glee that they do. But if they do it will be interesting to watch it increase the already high disaffection rate especially among the millennial crowd.
Just listen to Uchdorf. They want us and they want our tithing money. The days the hard asses like you are dying. You are a dinosaur.
bcspace wrote:No doctrine has changed. We will be back to exing shortly as the Church figures out that not exing doesn't work. Give an inch, take a mile, etc. These types of things have happened before where the Church experiments to see if the issue can be deflected and then goes back to the tried and true if the agitators are merely encouraged
You must really dislike Uchdorf.
Anyway, Uchtdorf is of the Old World --- Europe. Suspicious, by default. Even he may call the 'billion' as milliard...
Jason Bourne wrote: But he is the future of the Church.
Far, far, very far future. (He currently serves as the Second Counselor in the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and is the eleventh most senior apostle in the ranks of the church, 74 yo ... no chance) The next one is Packer. --- nom d'un nom ---
by the way What does "nom d'un nom" mean? Other than literal, there isn't any other translation. As you say, it's a figure of speech, a commonly used expletive. In English we might say For goodness' sake or For crying out loud or something similar. But it's like Sacre Bleu - sacred blue - it's very idiomatic. It's not like Dieu where you CAN say what does it mean? It means "God." Another feature of non d'un nom is I think it's a Frenchman's way of avoiding saying a specific swear word; he can just keep saying name of a name of a name without specifying the name! A bit like our bleep bleep bleep ... Originally Nom de Dieu or In the name of God. However in medieval France this would be considered blasphemy, so 'Dieu' or 'God' would be replaced by 'Nom' or 'name'. 'The Name' would mean 'God' so the saying nom d'un nom would be like saying 'In the name of 'The Name', without actually mentioning God.
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco - To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
ludwigm wrote:by the way What does "nom d'un nom" mean? Other than literal, there isn't any other translation. As you say, it's a figure of speech, a commonly used expletive.
Hopefully this expletive does not apply to American nom d'un nom inational Churches. (Apologies in advance since I know idiomatic humor does not translate at all).
--------------------------
We probably need to turn to Bcspace for doctrinal clarification, but isn't the act of women being uppity to male leadership or coveting the prized Priesthood grounds for excommunication? Is there a doctrinal basis for postponing the excommunications till the press isn't looking?