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

[_The Nehor]

Admit you were wrong.

I never realized you valued my opinion so highly. The feeling is not mutual. Okay, I should have said Stazi instead of Holocaust. I was wrong.

[_Polygamy Porter]

This dude kicks ass! I have followed him as Samuel the Utahnite for over two years now.

Those Mormons did not know who they were f'cking with!

One more black mark for the PR campaign of both LDS Inc and Romney!

[_Jason Bourne]

Wait a minute... I thought the church didn't hide things like Joseph Smith' polyandry! I thought only lazy members didn't already know about it!!

Someone from MAD needs to call these local leaders and tell them the new party line.

If all he said was that Joseph Smith had multiple wives there wouldn't be a problem.

But why can he say only this? Why can he not point out that Joseph married other mens wives and practices polyandry? Why can't he say that he married the Kimball girl and promised her and her family exaltation if she would marry him? What is not true about these statements?

[_Jason Bourne]

I am completely and utterly shocked that this is being announced.

My understanding is that this is against Church policy. What goes on in a disciplinary council is suppose to stay there.

Well not really. The GHBI says that usually a DC is non announced and only those that may call upon a person to pray, serve, etc, are told. That may be limited to only some members of the PEC committee.

BUT, the SP/Bishop have the discretion to make a broader more public announcement if someone is perceived as a threat. In a case such as a sexual predator, a more general announcement may be made. With apostasy, if the person vocal or a threat leaders can, and do as we see, make a larger more public announcement.

[_Jason Bourne]

Lyndon Lamborn is some what of an activist. He has his own blog...

http://mormontruth.blogspot.com/

And he seems to like youtube

]

This is not Lamborn it is another agry ex LDS Samual the Utahnite

[_Jason Bourne]

He could attend public meetings if his conduct is orderly, but would be denied giving any talks, offering prayers, partaking of the sacrament or voting.

Why would he be denied sacrament?

In LDS teaching sacrament is to renew covenants made at baptism. So technically no non member should take it. However, we do let kids who are not bapized take it as well as potential converts. So withholding the sacrament/communion is punitive for this fellow.

[_rcrocket]

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

[_Dr. Shades]

This dude kicks ass! I have followed him as Samuel the Utahnite for over two years now.

Michael Lamborn and Samuel the Utahnite are two different people.

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.

How was he perverting the gospel of Christ when all he did was share undisputed historical information?

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.

If that's really true, then why haven't they excommunicated Richard L. Bushman?

[_rcrocket]

In answer to your questions, Dr., I have only reported to you New Testament polity and procedure. I don't know what this Arizona fellow has been teaching, and all I have to go on is what he is saying to the press. But the Church, following New Testament principles, is empowered and entitled to decide upon whether its members adhere to or violate norms necessary to retain membership.

You, who are out of the Church, may mock and ridicule that right, but certainly it is an inherent right respected and acknowledged by theologians and governments around the world. When a religion violates the law, then there may be something outsiders can criticize.

I work for one of the largest Hindu organizations in California. I see how they worship, and how they exclude worshippers who trouble management of their temples. Surely you wouldn't feel very comfortable mocking and deriding the worship and polity of Hindu practice; why Mormons?

As far as why Lambourne and why not somebody else (me, Bushman or anybody else), you simply lack standing to raise that question. Do you challenge the right of the Pope to appoint or elect a particular cardinal, or demote or change one's assignment? Why transfer this cardinal from the Vatican, and not that one? Why defrock this priest and not that one? Membership in the Church is an acknowledgment that you accept the right of leaders above you to make certain decisions about who is adhering to norms of conduct and whom is not.


rcrocket

[_karl61]

In answer to your questions, Dr., I have only reported to you New Testament polity and procedure. I don't know what this Arizona fellow has been teaching, and all I have to go on is what he is saying to the press. But the Church, following New Testament principles, is empowered and entitled to decide upon whether its members adhere to or violate norms necessary to retain membership.

You, who are out of the Church, may mock and ridicule that right, but certainly it is an inherent right respected and acknowledged by theologians and governments around the world. When a religion violates the law, then there may be something outsiders can criticize.

I work for one of the largest Hindu organizations in California. I see how they worship, and how they exclude worshippers who trouble management of their temples. Surely you wouldn't feel very comfortable mocking and deriding the worship and polity of Hindu practice; why Mormons?

As far as why Lambourne and why not somebody else (me, Bushman or anybody else), you simply lack standing to raise that question. Do you challenge the right of the Pope to appoint or elect a particular cardinal, or demote or change one's assignment? Why transfer this cardinal from the Vatican, and not that one? Why defrock this priest and not that one? Membership in the Church is an acknowledgment that you accept the right of leaders above you to make certain decisions about who is adhering to norms of conduct and whom is not.


rcrocket

But Church Courts are so subjective. The same person doing the same thing may be excommunicated in one stake where in another he may be disfellowshiped where another one may be told not to take the sacrament for six months like what happened to my cousin. Some girls/women are excommunicated for getting pregnant where others may not be as it's the bishops call. How the person takes it alot of times depends on how supportive the environment is. I believe the emotional toll on the person is completely different. The Church's history of who it excommunicates and doesn't would cause any thinking person to wonder if justice is served. One excommunication for the MMM. Filing a law suit in a federal court during BY's day could get you excommunicated. Advocating public school in BY's day could get you excommunicated. It's really a crap shoot as to what happens to you.