Resigning does not remove blessings...

[_Tobin]

The church would never excommunicate someone for not going to church for over six months. If they did that official church membership would drop by almost two-thirds. Even if someone falls of the church’s radar they will keep them on the roles until they are like 100+ years old.

And the Church would never give up polygamy and would never allow blacks to have the priesthood.

[_son of Ishmael]

The church would never excommunicate someone for not going to church for over six months. If they did that official church membership would drop by almost two-thirds. Even if someone falls of the church’s radar they will keep them on the roles until they are like 100+ years old.

And the Church would never give up polygamy and would never allow blacks to have the priesthood.

Giving up polygamy and lifting the priesthood ban was good PR. Lowering the church's membership from 14 million to 5 million would be bad PR. Corporations like good PR.

[_Tobin]

And the Church would never give up polygamy and would never allow blacks to have the priesthood.

Giving up polygamy and lifting the priesthood ban was good PR. Lowering the church's membership from 14 million to 5 million would be bad PR. Corporations like good PR.

Reorganization and reform is also good for corporations too. I view the LDS Church as a very badly managed corporation.

[_son of Ishmael]

"...I view the LDS Church as a very badly managed corporation."


Well, we agree on that

[_ajax18]

Perhaps both. I would hazard for the moment that blessings for good deeds done cannot be lost, often already having been fully given. Obviously, the continuation of blessings associated with Church membership (the Spirit, the temple ordinances, the promises made to those who so covenant, adoption into the house of Israel or Abraham etc.) are lost.

I've always struggled to understand this. Mormons who espouse grace talk about 100% effort being the magic key to salvation. Anything less than this is spoken of as a kind of "hell," or condemnation. This was always difficult for me to grasp. Basically it means that someone who gave 95%, let's say they went on the mission, but they couldn't get up on time 5% of the time. That person wouldn't be eligible for grace and hence his blessings would be little different than someone who refused to go at all. Both would end up in the Terrestrial kingdom. Then comes the question of who can really say he gave 100%? I've heard a few people either bold enough or stupid enough to make this claim. It becomes almost neurotic to the point that nothing is good enough. A simple faith in reaping what you sew seemed more comforting than this.

I wanted to leave my mission a month early so I could start school that fall. My companion rebuked me and said that Jesus Christ requires 100% effort. Perhaps he was right, perhaps he was wrong, but who knows and who is permitted to say? But I do know that that there were other people who did just that, and they weren't real concerned about not reaching the magic 100% stamp. I'm sure they all think they're just as eligible to inherit it all in the big Celestial family as the next guy. They're probably happier now too because they don't torture themselves by allowing other people to tell them they're not trying hard enough. What will the final judgment be? All I know is that I don't agree with most LDS perspectives on the issue. I don't even care to talk about it with most of them, because it too often just comes down to one ignorant person manipulating another.

What specifically are the blessings that are lost or gained with each action or nonaction. I honestly couldn't even answer that as a TBM and it really bugged me that I didn't know. And if I were allowed to question a TBM on this issue, they'd either get angry with me or have to do some real dodging because they don't know either.

I went to Church for the first time in a while. They talked about the importance of understanding the atonement as if everyone understood or should undertand the details of it. From my study, the atonement seems like a nebulous thing that few LDS can really define in much detail. It's very open ended from my perspective on Mormon doctrine/lack of doctrine.

Nobody can ever tell me what good I did in the past has no effect because I don't go to Church or don't pay tithing anymore. But don't think they don't try. I believe all sacrifices made have value. Maybe that doesn't fit with Mormon doctrine on the atonement but it sure fits that Holy Ghost and Spirit of truth thing as I know it. One brother talked about how he viewed this life as something he earned. It was so refreshing to hear the word, "earn," in a Mormon priesthood meeting again. I don't care what the Baptist say, our works or nonworks are of enormous importance. They're not even close to worthless rags, not for anyone in this world.

[_Albion]

Does a false membership claim of 14 million as opposed to 5 million lend any credence to the claims of Mormonism? Either number is microscopic within the context of religions taken as a whole. To me it's kind of like saying 50 million Frenchmen can't be wrong on cuisine because they all eat frogs.

[_Tobin]

Does a false membership claim of 14 million as opposed to 5 million lend any credence to the claims of Mormonism? Either number is microscopic within the context of religions taken as a whole. To me it's kind of like saying 50 million Frenchmen can't be wrong on cuisine because they all eat frogs.

Many Mormons have the misconception that the LDS Church is growing wildly and will grow to include everyone on the planet. That is why I believe there is inertia about the real number of members being published. And I seriously doubt that can happen with the present LDS Church. It would have to change radically and dispose of a lot of false doctrines and practices to be embraced generally. I don't think they are ready for that and it might take a long time or a reformation before that could even be contemplated. If I were to consider a Church that does a good job, it would be the Seventh Day Adventists. I believe if Mormons followed that model they would be a lot more successful.

[_Albion]

Interesting. While I do attend a particular church I am not much into church in the institutional sense preferring not to model my life on churches and their specific sets of denominational rules...often the things that cause separation rather than communion of believers. I do believe that by and large most Christian churches agree on the essentials of the Gospel. I believe that the future church, in America from where I experience it, will be quite different because I see that the younger generation are not as denomination bound as their parents might be. The Mormon Church will indeed have to jettison a great deal of its theology and certainly its elitism as having the corner on truth before it either gains acceptance under the wider Christian umbrella. As an observer I see significant changes already as an effort to move in that direction and thus gain winder acceptance. It will be a long time, I think, before that transition becomes more obvious.

[_Albion]

Just as a point of interest, what church besides the Mormon Church excommunicates people as freely as the Mormon Church? As a believing, participating Christian for more than 25 years I have never heard of anyone being excommunicated in the various churches I have attended. Is God really in the kicking out business?

[_Tobin]

Not really. The Mormon Church has some rather deep New England Puritan roots and so they feel this need to go through this process with undesirables. They really should change the view of membership to that of a privilege that you have to maintain instead of this view that it's a obligation that drags everyone into these excommunication courts.