Why didn't they just make him wear a scarlet A?

[_rcrocket]

But your post appeared to imply that if one disassociates him/her self from an organization, he/she has no legitimate basis to criticize it (this also appears to be what Jason Bourne has argued elsewhere). This argument is just plain silly.

No. I do not say that.

My comments are merely directed to the qualifications for membership. If you eschew LDS membership (and, I know you do not and you remain a member), then you have no moral ground to complain about the way the LDS church defines membership.

By analogy, if you quit the Rotarians, you have no moral ground to complain when the Rotarians impose as a condition of membership a requirement that an applicant first perform three hours of community service.

[_rcrocket]

Your name means nothing to me, Bob. We don't live in the same community. I don't know you, I don't know your family, so anything you say to me might as well be anonymous, in regards to the possible consequences of social disapproval to your behavior.

Kinda like the devil inviting me to don a pair of horns, no?

[_guy sajer]

But your post appeared to imply that if one disassociates him/her self from an organization, he/she has no legitimate basis to criticize it (this also appears to be what Jason Bourne has argued elsewhere). This argument is just plain silly.

No. I do not say that.

My comments are merely directed to the qualifications for membership. If you eschew LDS membership (and, I know you do not and you remain a member), then you have no moral ground to complain about the way the LDS church defines membership.

By analogy, if you quit the Rotarians, you have no moral ground to complain when the Rotarians impose as a condition of membership a requirement that an applicant first perform three hours of community service.

Ok, in this limited context,I agree, with the proviso that we are talking about issues lacking significant moral content. If the Rotarians, on the other hand, used race as a basis for membership (a clear moral issue), then I would argue I do have moral standing to complain/critique.

I agree that organizations have the right, within reasonable legal and moral bounds, to establish membership requirements.

I think the issue here is more the fact that the excommunication was announced from the pulpit rather than the rules governing membership. I think that Church has the right to excommunicate for "apostacy," I have no problem with this. I do, however, have a problem with broadcasting excommunications from the pulpit. This is, IMHO, a violation of privacy, or at least, very bad form.

[_karl61]

"You as Bishop": Why don't you give me your name and profession, and church standing [you are a member, right, in good standing?], so that I can berate you (I wouldn't actually) with those items as you do to me?

rocket

my response on the "least degree of allowance post":

I "grew up" in the Church if that is possible. I went to seminary, was an eagle scout, and went on a mission when I as nineteen. I came home after two months. I faked like I was sick because I didn't know what to do and I wasn't staying or I would have likely killed myself. I didn't know as I do now that I really needed to be on medication. The mission president decided that I should go home and rest, get better and come back. I was not released. After about two months home I was in a situation where I had sex for the first time. I went to the Bishop that night and told him what happened. He said that I needed to see the stake president that sunday and the Stake President told me that they needed to release me. About a month later I got a call that I needed to see the stake president again. He said Salt Lake had called and said techincally that I was a missionary when I sinned so a court needed to be held. I went through a court and was put on probationl. Well I sinned again and I had to meet with one of the stake president counselors about my probation and I told him what happened and he told me that people that do what I did are cast out; I had to go to another court that week and was excommunicated. I remember crying for at least an hour in the bathroom telling God I just wanted to die. This was July 1981, a couple months before I reached age twenty. I went to church for a while but then just faded away. I now look at what was going on with the early leaders of the Church and I say " what the hell". Good grief, I was just a kid who was told my little sex desire was a little train which was lie as it was more like a raging bull and it was sad as I look back because I didn't really understand what was going on with my body. I read about bank fraud, multiple sex partners during the year, attacking people and burning homes and bringing the goods back to the bishops store house, lies, lies and more lies and I'm just left speechless. Later as I kept in touch with my friends from the Church and we talked about our life, I found out one thing: I was the only honest one among us and I was the one on the outside looking in.

[_Runtu]

Wow, I pick up the carpool kids, and when I get back we're calling each other sociopaths. I knew y'all were nuts, but this is a little bit much. ;)

[_beastie]

Kinda like the devil inviting me to don a pair of horns, no?

With the way you view the world, apparently.

I doubt if many others would agree with you, unless they shared your particular agenda.

Really, Bob, think about it. The reason it is preferable, when possible to use one's real name is to demonstrate that one is willing to stand behind their words with their reputation in their community.

You are not risking that at all by using your real name here. Your risk here in terms of your reputation to your community is nonexistent. The only risk to you is that some nutball is going to look up your private information, which they did. And that is why the vast majority of people who post on the internet anywhere - even on boards with no conflict at all, like health boards - post anonymously.

[_beastie]

Wow, I pick up the carpool kids, and when I get back we're calling each other sociopaths. I knew y'all were nuts, but this is a little bit much. ;)

No, no, runtu! Bob didn't call me a sociopath, he say I was "adopting a sociopathic stance."

And he has apologized profusely.

Again, my profuse apologies for posting an email which could be read to say that you are a sociopath. You're not.

"could be read"

Bob, apoglogies count more when you're actually apologizing for the behavior you engaged in, and not the fact that what you, apparently innocently, said "could be read" wrongly by others.

But thank you for clarifying that you don't think I'm a sociopath.

[_Mercury]

A fundamental premise of New Testament Christianity is that Church elders are required to "cut off" those which "trouble you." Galatians 5:10. God also indicates that those which "trouble you" are those who "would pervert the gospel of Christ." Galatians 1:7.

Moreover, Paul says: "God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you." 2 Thess. 1:6. So, the New Testament model speaks to those who "trouble" the Church, those who need to be cut off, and the retribution which will follow. The concept of "excommunication" is one which has been present from the Church in the earliest days.

rcrocket

Oh great, this post has attracted the special ed student.

Crockett, Go back to the shadow!!

[_rcrocket]

I doubt if many others would agree with you, unless they shared your particular agenda.

My only agenda is to expose the truth for what is and expose hypocrisy and bogus argument whereever it may be found.

It's like shooting fish in a barrel to spar with the likes of you and Guy etc etc but I am not preaching to the choir. So, nobody's gonna give me attaboys around here.

Hey Merc, thanks for the picture. Why don't you PM me your WoW avatar?

rcrocket

[_Mercury]

Hey Merc, thanks for the picture. Why don't you PM me your WoW avatar?

Why don't you go F*** yourself.