DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Aleksis** · 06-23-2011, 06:40 AM

Some fact checking:

Homophobia. You got one right.

Excommunication doesn't cut anyone off. The only difference is if you go to church (you can still go to church) you can't take the sacrament. If someone shunned their own family member, that would be against LDS doctrine. Exactly opposite of it in fact.

I'm well aware of what the official church policy is on it. You'll note that they always shove the "blame" for excommunications to the local churches, not the LDS itself. The local church handles all aspects of it. I know of one boy personally who was excommunicated and told not to be in touch with his family or anyone from his church. One of the official reasons for excommunication is to protect family from sin -- they thought his homosexuality was a sin, and accordingly they "protected" the family from the sin with excommunication and made it clear to the family that he is to be cut off from all contact until he repents, etc.

Mormons aren't required to serve missions. Yes, they're "not required".

If they're not required, how come every single mormon I've ever met has done them? They're technically "not required", I know, but you're leaving out the ramifications of not doing it.

Garments (the underwear) is not meant to literally protect a person from harm. There are some stories where it is claimed it did protect a person. It's not doctrine. They are simply to remind the wearer to follow the teachings of Christ without being obvious (like a nun's habit or priest's robe). I've heard both, which to me implies it's left for the interpretation of the cultee. FWIW, Wiki says both.

06-23-2011, 06:40 AM	#15
Aleksis Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 447 Senior Member	Some fact checking: Homophobia. You got one right. Excommunication doesn't cut anyone off. The only difference is if you go to church (you can still go to church) you can't take the sacrament. If someone shunned their own family member, that would be against LDS doctrine. Exactly opposite of it in fact. I'm well aware of what the official church policy is on it. You'll note that they always shove the "blame" for excommunications to the local churches, not the LDS itself. The local church handles all aspects of it. I know of one boy personally who was excommunicated and told not to be in touch with his family or anyone from his church. One of the official reasons for excommunication is to protect family from sin -- they thought his homosexuality was a sin, and accordingly they "protected" the family from the sin with excommunication and made it clear to the family that he is to be cut off from all contact until he repents, etc. Mormons aren't required to serve missions. Yes, they're "not required". If they're not required, how come every single mormon I've ever met has done them? They're technically "not required", I know, but you're leaving out the ramifications of not doing it. Garments (the underwear) is not meant to literally protect a person from harm. There are some stories where it is claimed it did protect a person. It's not doctrine. They are simply to remind the wearer to follow the teachings of Christ without being obvious (like a nun's habit or priest's robe). I've heard both, which to me implies it's left for the interpretation of the cultee. FWIW, Wiki says both.
	Quote