LDS Freedom Forum

Stahura wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 6:52 pmPerhaps this has been dealt with, but I'll ask anyway.

Suppose a guy named Steve fornicates ALOT , drinks, whatever. He grew up LDS, was ordained a deacon, teacher, priest etc. and yet he went astray at some point.

Say he one day after several years of this lifestyle he decides to turn to God. Maybe it takes him a day, maybe a few days, weeks months, eventually God fills him with Fire and Holy Ghost and he is given instant knowledge by the Power of the Holy Ghost that he has been cleansed of all his sins and forgiven.

Must he still speak with the Bishop and confess?

Mosiah 26:29
29 Therefore I say unto you, Go; and whosoever transgresseth against me, him shall ye judge according to the sins which he has committed; and if he confess his sins before thee and me, and repenteth in the sincerity of his heart, him shall ye forgive, and I will forgive him also.

Alma 17:4
4 And they had been teaching the word of God for the space of fourteen years among the Lamanites, having had much success in bringing many to the knowledge of the truth; yea, by the power of their words many were brought before the altar of God, to call on his name and confess their sins before him.

righteousrepublic wrote: ↑March 9th, 2019, 5:21 am

Stahura wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 6:52 pmPerhaps this has been dealt with, but I'll ask anyway.

Suppose a guy named Steve fornicates ALOT , drinks, whatever. He grew up LDS, was ordained a deacon, teacher, priest etc. and yet he went astray at some point.

Say he one day after several years of this lifestyle he decides to turn to God. Maybe it takes him a day, maybe a few days, weeks months, eventually God fills him with Fire and Holy Ghost and he is given instant knowledge by the Power of the Holy Ghost that he has been cleansed of all his sins and forgiven.

Must he still speak with the Bishop and confess?

Mosiah 26:29
29 Therefore I say unto you, Go; and whosoever transgresseth against me, him shall ye judge according to the sins which he has committed; and if he confess his sins before thee and me, and repenteth in the sincerity of his heart, him shall ye forgive, and I will forgive him also.

Alma 17:4
4 And they had been teaching the word of God for the space of fourteen years among the Lamanites, having had much success in bringing many to the knowledge of the truth; yea, by the power of their words many were brought before the altar of God, to call on his name and confess their sins before him.

In Alma 17:4, the last word and pronoun "him" is referring quite plainly to God. Which begs the question: Why are you quoting this verse? The Mosiah 26 verse has been thoroughly debunked, so the question is begged to be asked, Why would anybody keep quoting that verse?

passionflower wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 9:10 pm

topcat wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 8:51 pm

shadow wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 8:38 pm

Hie'ing to Kolob wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 5:17 pm

14 Have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but have not been?

Probably more in the context of what's taught in the Book of Mormon-

29 Therefore I say unto you, Go; and whosoever transgresseth against me, him shall ye judge according to the sins which he has committed; and if he confess his sins before thee and me, and repenteth in the sincerity of his heart, him shall ye forgive, and I will forgive him also.

See- confess to the Priesthood authority and to God.

A lot of people who hate the church but claim to love the Book of Mormon are either completely ignorant of it's teachings or they're dishonest. The mental gymnastics those people must suffer through is unnecessary.

Anybody can do this, but I've already debunked your interpretation so thoroughly in another thread that the fact you still bring this up raises the question of the sincerity and integrity of your postings here.

Alma is not a bishop. Bishops are not Alma. And yet you deceitfully apparently try to equate the two, despite being corrected.

Alma DOES have a special relationship with the Lord. In this case he actually speaks for the Lord, literally. He is on the Lord's errand.

What bishop do you assert is literally chosen by the Lord and is on His errand?

Your sophistry is self-condemning. And I believe unbecoming.

Thanks for the laugh.
When have you ever EVER debunked any of Shadows "interpretations"? In your dreams?
He takes down every argument you make, every time and with complete ease. I believe your post here deserves a complaint to a moderator. You make so many personal attacks you would think they were going out of style. You call Shadow insincere, lacking in integrity, deceitful, and someone with self condemning sophistry.

We will see who is actually self condemning himself, OK?

Passion,

Since you've interjected yourself, please contribute in ways other than attempting censorship.

Please share your thoughts. Of note, you personally mock me with the smiley faces, etc. for personal attacks. Feel free to continue your mocking. I just juxtapose your behavior with your accusation.

Sticking with the scripture, please, rebut my rebuttal. This IS an important question, isn't it? With the scriptures (and therefore God) as a witness, very few Mormons will dare argue that confession to a local bishop is required for divine forgiveness. The reason very few will argue is that there are no such scriptures. So all these few can do is try to wrest the scriptures to fit their interpretation and agenda.

First, what's the agenda? We can only speculate. My speculation: to defend the institution's evil practice, they (the institution or its defenders) cannot admit institutional error. "The Church is true", to them, means the institution is near infallible. And the policies (like interviewing youth, or ANY policy) MUST BE defended, because the Lord's true servants run the show and the Brethren's voice is the same as God's, and thus if they're going to pick a side, they're going to pick the Brethren. (As opposed to, the Lord is His own man, and perfect; whereas the Brethren are subject to error, esp when NONE of them say they're on a special errand, as a true "sent" prophet would claim).

Agenda aside, shall we focus on the scripture? Will you, Passion? What can you contribute?

Let's look at the repeated assertion by Shadow (and now YOU, since you say Shadow's take on things "takes down every argument I make, every time and with complete ease." So now YOU have the burden of proof and persuasion).

My argument from a few months ago (in another thread) and still currently is that Mosiah 26:29 in no way refers to or justifies confessing sins to local bishops. Let's hear what YOU have to say, because all Shadow is doing is repeating a good soundbite to try to get some mileage with people who aren't paying attention halfway by reading the context of the verse.

For your convenience, the simple rebuttal is:

1) Local bishops are in no way EQUAL to Alma. In this chapter, after many years of being proven, Alma gets his calling and election made sure. God covenants with Alma to give Alma eternal life. See verse 20.

2) And then in this ad hoc problem that Alma has brought to God, keeping in mind that Alma is now sent on a specific errand and mission from God, God gives Alma a specific commandment about confession and while giving the divine commandment, God actually reviews His own gospel plainly set forth in multiple places in the scripture, which is...

3) "As often as my people repent will I forgive them their trespasses against me. And ye shall also forgive one another your trespasses; for verily I say unto you, he that forgiveth not his neighbor's trespasses when he says he repents, the same hath brought himself under condemnation" (See verse 30-31).

The simple and main questions for you, Passion, are:

1) Do you believe all local bishops (or I'll make it easy for you....EVEN ONE bishop) have the same holy promise of eternal life from the Lord? Can you name one?

Now, there could be, and I HOPE there are many.

But even if there was one or many, there's an "AND". There's a part II question:

2) Do you believe and can you specifically name a bishop who claims he's on a specific mission/ errand from the Lord in which that bishop testifies, "I speak for the Lord, and the Lord says confession of your sins to me is required for divine forgiveness?"

Please respond.

I assume you will have no other response but to side with the scriptures, and confess openly here, that such bishops (as you have alleged vicariously through Shadow) do not exist, and furthermore (going back to the point of our discussion) that there is no middleman (a bishop or any man or woman) required for one to obtain the Lord's forgiveness. You, I assume, are now compelled by the scriptures to acknowledge the principle that Alma re-taught in verses 30-31: "As often as my people repent will I forgive them their trespasses against me. And ye shall also forgive one another your trespasses; for verily I say unto you, he that forgiveth not his neighbor's trespasses when he says he repents, the same hath brought himself under condemnation".

You might look at Stahura's hypothetical above about the fornicator Steve, which to me, illustrates the truth of the matter. I see you didn't care to respond to that comment, which powerfully proves the truth of the matter.

So for clarity, I'll add Stahura's question here:

3) In context of the hypothetical situation outlined by Stahura above, must Steve still speak with the Bishop and confess?


CONCLUSION:

This is a very important matter. If the Scriptures are crystal clear that the Lord forgives us sinners, and gives no mandate for any man (bishop or any leader) to require confession TO THEM, it raises an earth-shattering, Church foundation-shaking question: WHY DOES THE CHURCH TEACH AND PRACTICE THIS HERESY? What is going on?

The honest person must face this question. Why would the Church INSIST on duping the members into thinking confession MUST be done to your local priesthood "authority"? If you're an honest person, and let's assume you are, Passion, what say you? Why do you think the Church would continue to teach a lie? What could possibly be the agenda?

righteousrepublic wrote: ↑March 9th, 2019, 5:21 am

Stahura wrote: ↑March 8th, 2019, 6:52 pmPerhaps this has been dealt with, but I'll ask anyway.

Suppose a guy named Steve fornicates ALOT , drinks, whatever. He grew up LDS, was ordained a deacon, teacher, priest etc. and yet he went astray at some point.

Say he one day after several years of this lifestyle he decides to turn to God. Maybe it takes him a day, maybe a few days, weeks months, eventually God fills him with Fire and Holy Ghost and he is given instant knowledge by the Power of the Holy Ghost that he has been cleansed of all his sins and forgiven.

Must he still speak with the Bishop and confess?

Mosiah 26:29
29 Therefore I say unto you, Go; and whosoever transgresseth against me, him shall ye judge according to the sins which he has committed; and if he confess his sins before thee and me, and repenteth in the sincerity of his heart, him shall ye forgive, and I will forgive him also.

Alma 17:4
4 And they had been teaching the word of God for the space of fourteen years among the Lamanites, having had much success in bringing many to the knowledge of the truth; yea, by the power of their words many were brought before the altar of God, to call on his name and confess their sins before him.

Mosiah 26: To apply this in the context you are assuming on the text, any sin committed by anyone must be confessed to the Prophet. This is also contradicted by other turnaround stories in the BoM in which people were forgiven absent a private confessional to the Prophet (as bishops didn't exist). Really though, the LDS practice of bishop confessionals was never based on this and the man more familiar than any other with the BoM (Joseph) didn't see bishop confessionals as appropriate.

Alma 17: This has nothing, nothing, nothing to do with private bishop confessionals. It's not even worth a rebuttal.

The Church adopted this practice as part of the Mormon Reformation. Please read about it. You are attempting to back into a justification that was never there at the inception of the practice.

I think church policy will be changed regarding live marriage Temple sealings.

I believe the one year waiting period will be eliminated between a civil marriage and sealing in the temple.

I also think it won’t matter if the honeymoon night is between the civil ceremony and the temple sealing.

Most likely the prohibition of sealing a woman to different husbands will be done away.

I know a lady who was newly married, and whose husband was killed within the first year of marriage. She remarried and had five kids with her second husband and has been married 30+ years, with one of the kids crippled in an accident and her husband came down with MS and is bed ridden so here is a faithful wife and mother who has devoted her whole mortal existence to a husband and kids she can’t have sealed to her...?!?

That’s a crazy policy instituted and left in place by decades of old school prophets...

Let’s hope President Nelson continues to be a revolutionary reformer.

Hie'ing to Kolob wrote: ↑March 9th, 2019, 8:00 amAlma 17: This has nothing, nothing, nothing to do with private bishop confessionals. It's not even worth a rebuttal.

The Church adopted this practice as part of the Mormon Reformation. Please read about it. You are attempting to back into a justification that was never there at the inception of the practice.

I totally agree that Alma 17:4 was not useful for what I intended. I was not feeling good at the time. Irregardless, it's my bad.

As for Mosiah 26:29, irrespective of the critical and arrogant downplay this verse has received, I say that it requires research to come to a better understanding of what Christ was saying.

This next bit of information ought to put an end to the bickering.

BD Confession

The scriptures use confession in at least two ways. One is to confess that Jesus is the Christ; that is, a confession or profession of faith; see, for example, Matt. 10:32; 16:16; John 6:68–69; 12:42; Rom. 10:9; Philip. 2:11; 1 Tim. 6:12; Heb. 4:14; 1 Jn. 4:2. A second usage of confession is confession of sin. It is a duty of all persons to confess all their sins to the Lord and, when necessary, to the person or persons sinned against. Sins against the public must be publicly confessed (D&C 42:88–93). Other items may be confessed to a church official (bishop), or in many cases to the Lord alone. Confession to a church official (in most cases the bishop) is necessary whenever one’s transgression is of a nature for which the Church might impose loss of membership or other disciplinary action. The bishop cannot and does not forgive sin, but he may judge the matter and waive the penalty that the Church might otherwise impose against the person. The repentant sinner must still make confession and obtain forgiveness of the Lord.

Is confession enough?

D&C 58:43
43 By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins—behold, he will confess them and forsake them.

I anticipate there will be some deletion of scripture or at least an alteration in meaning. I am referring to scriptures that say anything to the effect that non caucasion skin color relates to curses pronouced because of the disobedience of an ancestor. I believe everything relating to this will be removed from all church teachings. Maybe not at this next GC, but sometime soon.

righteousrepublic wrote: ↑March 9th, 2019, 4:22 pm

Hie'ing to Kolob wrote: ↑March 9th, 2019, 8:00 amAlma 17: This has nothing, nothing, nothing to do with private bishop confessionals. It's not even worth a rebuttal.

The Church adopted this practice as part of the Mormon Reformation. Please read about it. You are attempting to back into a justification that was never there at the inception of the practice.

I totally agree that Alma 17:4 was not useful for what I intended. I was not feeling good at the time. Irregardless, it's my bad.

As for Mosiah 26:29, irrespective of the critical and arrogant downplay this verse has received, I say that it requires research to come to a better understanding of what Christ was saying.

This next bit of information ought to put an end to the bickering.

BD Confession

The scriptures use confession in at least two ways. One is to confess that Jesus is the Christ; that is, a confession or profession of faith; see, for example, Matt. 10:32; 16:16; John 6:68–69; 12:42; Rom. 10:9; Philip. 2:11; 1 Tim. 6:12; Heb. 4:14; 1 Jn. 4:2. A second usage of confession is confession of sin. It is a duty of all persons to confess all their sins to the Lord and, when necessary, to the person or persons sinned against. Sins against the public must be publicly confessed (D&C 42:88–93). Other items may be confessed to a church official (bishop), or in many cases to the Lord alone. Confession to a church official (in most cases the bishop) is necessary whenever one’s transgression is of a nature for which the Church might impose loss of membership or other disciplinary action. The bishop cannot and does not forgive sin, but he may judge the matter and waive the penalty that the Church might otherwise impose against the person. The repentant sinner must still make confession and obtain forgiveness of the Lord.

Is confession enough?

D&C 58:43
43 By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins—behold, he will confess them and forsake them.

It's very nice to see you taking responsibility for your comments and making a concession.

Please notice the conspicuous omission of any scriptural citations in the section of the Bible dictionary definition of confession that you quoted above when it says confession to a bishop is required. There is ZERO scriptural support, and even the BD declares the truth,

The bishop cannot and does not forgive sin...

But then there's this crafty statement:

"Confession to a church official (in most cases the bishop) is necessary whenever one’s transgression is of a nature for which the Church might impose loss of membership or other disciplinary action."

You see, this is the problem. This quote perfectly illustrates how the church lawyers its responses.

The church, as an organization, as a corporation, as a club, as an association, as a legal entity, has every right to include or exclude members as they see fit.

They excluded blacks for many years from holding the priesthood. It was their legal right to do that. They could only allow people who are 6 ft 3 in tall to be members, if they so declared it.

What is NEVER clarified is that the institution, the corporation, etc. is completely separate from the Lord, or from the Church of the Firstborn.

But everything is spun and calculated to get members to conflate the two. Granted, many leaders ignorantly conflate the two. Though I have a hard time believing that the top leadership are ignorant.

topcat wrote: ↑March 9th, 2019, 5:13 pmIt's very nice to see you taking responsibility for your comments and making a concession.

Finally, finally someone has noticed that I do take responsibility for things I say especially when I go back and find claimed errors to actually be errors, because I'm the best judge for that. If someone points out what they think is in error and I know I am correct, it remains, I will defend no matter the number of counters bombarding me. However, I am not opposed to admitting to my own mistakes made after doing my own research to find out why.

topcat wrote: ↑March 9th, 2019, 5:13 pmWhat is NEVER clarified is that the institution, the corporation, etc. is completely separate from the Lord, or from the Church of the Firstborn.

Is anyone suggesting that the church sprung up from the ground and then grew like a wild weed? The Lord, our Savior, Jesus Christ says he has a church. Either it is this one or it is some other church. If it is some other church, where is it? What name does it go by. Christ named his church his own name:

3 Nephi 27:7,8
7 Therefore, whatsoever ye shall do, ye shall do it in my name; therefore ye shall call the church in my name; and ye shall call upon the Father in my name that he will bless the church for my sake.
8 And how be it my church save it be called in my name? For if a church be called in Moses’ name then it be Moses’ church; or if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel.

Has this spoken by Christ ever changed? Let's see:

D&C 115:4
4 For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Not the church of Moses, not the church of a man, but the name of Jesus Christ. I suppose he could have named it "The Church of Jehovah of Latter-day Saints" and it would still be valid as long as his gospel is being taught therein.

As for the Church of the Firstborn, only those that have come to a point in life where they will receive Celestial Glory will be known as TCOTFB or the Church of Enoch.

D&C 76:50-70
50 And again we bear record—for we saw and heard, and this is the testimony of the gospel of Christ concerning them who shall come forth in the resurrection of the just— Notice, it doesn't say Latter-day Saints only. However, you do have to become a member of the just, being clean, pure, spotless and white through the blood of the Lamb.

51 They are they who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on his name and were baptized after the manner of his burial, being buried in the water in his name, and this according to the commandment which he has given— baptism by immersion, essential

52 That by keeping the commandments they might be washed and cleansed from all their sins, and receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the hands of him who is ordained and sealed unto this power; Those who have repented from all sin and received the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands. Which church can perform this laying on of hands with power and authority?

53 And who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and true. All who are just and true? Are all LDS just and true? Not hardly. We have fault finders, backbiters, scoffers and ranters among the masses.

Now get ready for this:

54 They are they who are the church of the Firstborn. They are the very elect D&C 84:34 And these are they who took upon them the name of Christ. SEE: Moroni 4:3

55 They are they into whose hands the Father has given all things— Wow!

56 They are they who are priests and kings, who have received of his fulness, and of his glory; Received fulness and glory of Father? Amazing.

57 And are priests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the order of the Only Begotten Son. Did we all get this?

58 Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God— SEE: Romans 8:17

59 Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s. Pretty well laid out.

60 And they shall overcome all things. Not just a few things, but all things.

61 Wherefore, let no man glory in man, but rather let him glory in God, who shall subdue all enemies under his feet. Pretty clear.

62 These shall dwell in the presence of God and his Christ forever and ever. Not just a few days and then go off to who knows where, but to dwell in the presence of deity for ever and ever.

63 These are they whom he shall bring with him, when he shall come in the clouds of heaven to reign on the earth over his people. Wow, to be raised off the face of the earth to greet Christ when he comes to reign.

64 These are they who shall have part in the first resurrection. Very important.

65 These are they who shall come forth in the resurrection of the just. SEE: D&C 76:17

66 These are they who are come unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly place, the holiest of all. New Jerusalem. SEE: D&C 84:2

67 These are they who have come to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of Enoch, and of the Firstborn. Church of Enoch and the Church of the Firstborn? SEE: D&C 38:4

68 These are they whose names are written in heaven, where God and Christ are the judge of all. Book of Life

69 These are they who are just men made perfect through Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, who wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood. New and Everlasting Covenant. D&C 45:9

70 These are they whose bodies are celestial, whose glory is that of the sun, even the glory of God, the highest of all, whose glory the sun of the firmament is written of as being typical. SEE: D&C 137:2 (2–4)

Robin Hood wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 5:53 am 22. Temple Recommend bar-codes will be connected to a photo so the uses of recommends by someone other than who the recommend belongs to can be thwarted.
Administrative nightmare

How so? I'm not quite understanding why this would be a nightmare.

5tev3 wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 11:22 am The things we complain about reveal quite a bit about us.

Amen to that!

It seems like I had one when I was called to be a Cub Scout leader. They needed my ss#, too.

Not Church-related, but I had a background check and was fingerprinted for a job I had a few years ago.

I don't think they're any big deal nowadays. Anytime you have anyone vulnerable (the very old, the very young, etc.), most companies are required to have them.

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 2:23 pm I'm a woman and I've had two background checks. One was before I volunteered at my grandchild's school, and the other was before getting my conceal carry permit. My husband routinely has background checks done on people applying to lease property from him, men and women alike. It has nothing to do with being a priesthood holder or a woman. Two-deep should be the rule with adults questioning minors, gender notwithstanding.

Juliet wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 6:59 am The garment issue I can understand if the church has been doing surveys and found them causing issues. I never had issues in UT but where I live now it is more humid and 2 hours just walking outside doesn't work with a layer of moisture collectors in places that need to be kept dry.

If women are going to be given extra roles beneath men, it is going to be an insult. Every apostle has a wife. Why can't she be part of him, the way God made women to function, at her husband's side not in competition. I would like to see the brethren include their wives in all the church work they do. Not call a bunch of women to work underneath them and separate from their husbands. God made women to help men so a man and wife can work together as a team. If it works for leading the family why not for leading the church?

I bet Heavenly Mother works right along with Heavenly Father in the work that He does, as opposed to being assigned a job to do beneath him and copying him so she doesn't feel left out. That is seriously insulting and I would rather women not be included if that is how it will come about.

I live in the Midwest, hot, humid weather + garments are not fun. They never dry out. Garments are also not very functional for women when it comes to their periods, having babies, breastfeeding. We have to wear underwear underneath during our menstrual cycles. I have gotten so many episodes of mastitis because the garment top does not work with breastfeeding. So many issues with women getting uti’s and yeast infections (myself included) because they are not very breathable. It is a huge issue for women, and I would welcome that change in a heart beat! You also have to think about the time and cost it takes for underdeveloped countries who have to wash their garments by hand or in rivers. If they do change it, I do believe those would be the reasons why. I also feel like people have become too judgemental when it comes to “checking” to see if people are wearing their garments or not. They lose focus on what is most important because they are too busy judging others for not wearing them on vacation or because they have sinned and were asked to not wear them for the time being. My mother is the queen at “garment checking” and it drives me crazy.

That’s just my 2 cents.

Silver Pie wrote: ↑March 10th, 2019, 8:13 pm It seems like I had one when I was called to be a Cub Scout leader. They needed my ss#, too.

Not Church-related, but I had a background check and was fingerprinted for a job I had a few years ago.

I don't think they're any big deal nowadays. Anytime you have anyone vulnerable (the very old, the very young, etc.), most companies are required to have them.

Scouting was the only calling in the church in the US which conducted a background checks. These checks are required be the BSA. In Australia and New Zealand the law requires them of everyone who works with anyone under 18 and that includes Bishops. I was in a ward that had a calling for a new Bishop go south and he had to be released because he was unable to pass the working with children check by the police.

mumoffive wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2019, 10:56 pm or because they have sinned and were asked to not wear them for the time being.

This doesn't ever happen.
Even disfellowshipped members are required to wear their garments.
Only excommunication requires the removal of the garment, and given that an excommunicant is no longer a member of the church, that is pretty obvious.

Robin Hood wrote: ↑March 23rd, 2019, 12:52 am

mumoffive wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2019, 10:56 pm or because they have sinned and were asked to not wear them for the time being.

This doesn't ever happen.
Even disfellowshipped members are required to wear their garments.
Only excommunication requires the removal of the garment, and given that an excommunicant is no longer a member of the church, that is pretty obvious.

Requires the removal of the garments? And just how is that to be enforced pray tell? One of the unintended consequences of excommunication is that the local leaders can loose any influence they might have with the person in question. It sort of the last card to play, once you have set it down on the table your left with nothing.

Now I have known a very few cases where the person has returned and I know of one case where the person moved away and simply pretended to be a new investor but I suspect such situations are the exception and not the rule. Most excommunicated fall out of the reach or influence of the church and so the idea that the church is able at that late stage to “require” anything of him seem to me to be a fallacy.

Robin Hood wrote: ↑March 23rd, 2019, 12:52 am

mumoffive wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2019, 10:56 pm or because they have sinned and were asked to not wear them for the time being.

This doesn't ever happen.
Even disfellowshipped members are required to wear their garments.
Only excommunication requires the removal of the garment, and given that an excommunicant is no longer a member of the church, that is pretty obvious.

Yes, when they are excommunicated. And just because someone is excommunicated doesn’t mean that they aren’t still friends with people at church or won’t still see people from church when out and about or on facebook and that those members aren’t going to garment check when they come across that person. The whole point of that statement are people garment check far too often, they use the garments as a way to judge ones faithfulness in the gospel. it’s all my mom does on Facebook is see who is or isnt wearing their garments and she loves talking about who is or isn’t wearing them that day. And it’s not anyone’s business to judge about why or why not that person may be wearing them at that moment.

mumoffive wrote: ↑March 23rd, 2019, 8:16 am

Robin Hood wrote: ↑March 23rd, 2019, 12:52 am

mumoffive wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2019, 10:56 pm or because they have sinned and were asked to not wear them for the time being.

This doesn't ever happen.
Even disfellowshipped members are required to wear their garments.
Only excommunication requires the removal of the garment, and given that an excommunicant is no longer a member of the church, that is pretty obvious.

Yes, when they are excommunicated. And just because someone is excommunicated doesn’t mean that they aren’t still friends with people at church or won’t still see people from church when out and about or on facebook and that those members aren’t going to garment check when they come across that person. The whole point of that statement are people garment check far too often, they use the garments as a way to judge ones faithfulness in the gospel. it’s all my mom does on Facebook is see who is or isnt wearing their garments and she loves talking about who is or isn’t wearing them that day. And it’s not anyone’s business to judge about why or why not that person may be wearing them at that moment.

I wonder how she can see so clearly what someone is wearing under their clothing? Or is it tanktops and swimwear shes seeing?
Maybe she doesnt really like wearing them herself?

MMbelieve wrote: ↑March 23rd, 2019, 7:33 pm

mumoffive wrote: ↑March 23rd, 2019, 8:16 am

Robin Hood wrote: ↑March 23rd, 2019, 12:52 am

mumoffive wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2019, 10:56 pm or because they have sinned and were asked to not wear them for the time being.

This doesn't ever happen.
Even disfellowshipped members are required to wear their garments.
Only excommunication requires the removal of the garment, and given that an excommunicant is no longer a member of the church, that is pretty obvious.

Yes, when they are excommunicated. And just because someone is excommunicated doesn’t mean that they aren’t still friends with people at church or won’t still see people from church when out and about or on facebook and that those members aren’t going to garment check when they come across that person. The whole point of that statement are people garment check far too often, they use the garments as a way to judge ones faithfulness in the gospel. it’s all my mom does on Facebook is see who is or isnt wearing their garments and she loves talking about who is or isn’t wearing them that day. And it’s not anyone’s business to judge about why or why not that person may be wearing them at that moment.

I wonder how she can see so clearly what someone is wearing under their clothing? Or is it tanktops and swimwear shes seeing?
Maybe she doesnt really like wearing them herself?

It’s pretty easy to tell sometimes, either by the knee/shoulder lines. Or she will come up to hug those she is closer to and try to feel for their garment lines. This is coming from her own mouth that she does this. It’s twisted. But also the tanks/swimsuits/low neckline/short shorts. It’s constant. “Can you believe so and so isn’t wearing her garments while on a cruise...blah blah blah.”

She won’t even go in the car to head to the swimming pool without her garments on. So it’s not that she doesn’t like wearing them.

Swimsuits? Who wears garments under swimsuits?

gkearney wrote: ↑March 24th, 2019, 6:57 am Swimsuits? Who wears garments under swimsuits?

I seriously thought it was against the rules to wear garments while swimming. Water = Satan so garments and swimming don’t mix. Jk but seriously not even President Nelson would ever wear garments while swimming. Fun fact + street cred here. I’ve met President Nelson multiple times and even once when he was wearing a swimming suit. I can personally attest that he doesn’t wear a shirt while swimming and has the physique of someone 20-25 years below his real age.

gkearney wrote: ↑March 24th, 2019, 6:57 am Swimsuits? Who wears garments under swimsuits?

No, she doesn’t wear them with her swimming suit. She won’t get in her swimming suit at home and drive in the car to the pool because then she wouldn’t be in her garments. She prefers to change into her swimming suit at the pool. She says she’s not protected if she gets in an accident.

mumoffive wrote: ↑March 24th, 2019, 10:23 pm

gkearney wrote: ↑March 24th, 2019, 6:57 am Swimsuits? Who wears garments under swimsuits?

No, she doesn’t wear them with her swimming suit. She won’t get in her swimming suit at home and drive in the car to the pool because then she wouldn’t be in her garments. She prefers to change into her swimming suit at the pool. She says she’s not protected if she gets in an accident.

What about being protected at or in the pool, lake, or ocean? The dangers in those setting are just as real if not even more likely than in a car.

gkearney wrote: ↑March 25th, 2019, 4:33 am

mumoffive wrote: ↑March 24th, 2019, 10:23 pm

gkearney wrote: ↑March 24th, 2019, 6:57 am Swimsuits? Who wears garments under swimsuits?

No, she doesn’t wear them with her swimming suit. She won’t get in her swimming suit at home and drive in the car to the pool because then she wouldn’t be in her garments. She prefers to change into her swimming suit at the pool. She says she’s not protected if she gets in an accident.

What about being protected at or in the pool, lake, or ocean? The dangers in those setting are just as real if not even more likely than in a car.

Well it appears from the church (from this Mormon message) that it’s ok to not wear garments on the way to the beach

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=y5YAwQUmMQw

mumoffive wrote: ↑March 24th, 2019, 10:23 pm

gkearney wrote: ↑March 24th, 2019, 6:57 am Swimsuits? Who wears garments under swimsuits?

No, she doesn’t wear them with her swimming suit. She won’t get in her swimming suit at home and drive in the car to the pool because then she wouldn’t be in her garments. She prefers to change into her swimming suit at the pool. She says she’s not protected if she gets in an accident.

I’d probably feel like doing the same thing if the beach were 4 hours away but not if it was 5-10 minutes to the pool.

Any more details on any of these? Either way, if true, most wouldn't be announced in GC.