Doctrinal Clarification Needed

[LDS Guy 1986]

What a sec... that makes no sense what so ever. You can be excommunicated for NOT sinning?

Why would they excommunicate you unless you were sinning?

Did I just fall out of reality and into some seriously screwed up universe where logic has been replaced with nonsense?

Whitmer was excommunicating for disagreeing with Joseph Smith since when is disagreeing with a man because he made a poor decision and lost a lot of people there life savings a sin?

Do you even know who David Whitmer is?

Do you know what excommunication is?

Cause your answers make me think not.

Excommunication is being forced out of the Church and stripped of all your ordinances and offices, it is a decision of men and they can excommunicate anyone for any reason they want.

In the early days of the church, simply disagreeing with Smith or Young was grounds for excommunication, now unless you think prophets are perfect all of a sudden you say it is sin to disagree with a man when he is wrong just because he is teh called prophet!

[Mark Beesley]

I never said they are infallible, only that I know at least one Stake in the Church makes sure that this is taught to men seeking to be conferred the Melchizedek Priesthood, so it would be a surprise to me to find out it is against Church Doctrine.

Might I suggest that you assemble the posts from this thread and share them with your Stake President. Then, invite him to the discussion. I'd love to hear from his mouth exactly what it is he is teaching.

P.S. What stake are you in?

Thanks.

[Nathair/|\]

Sadly, it appears the following is necessary for some posters here.

Top Ten Signs That You Are An Unquestioning Christian

1. 
   
   You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of your god.
2. 
   
   You feel insulted and 'dehumanized' when scientists say that people evolved from lesser life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
3. 
   
   You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Trinity god.
4. Your face turns purple when you hear of the 'atrocities' attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in 'Exodus' and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in 'Joshua'

[LDS Guy 1986]

To connect the strict consequences spoken of in section 84 with merely being inducted into the Melchizedek priesthood is, I think, to completely disregard what Joseph and his contemporaries actually thought, based on the best available evidence at our disposal, and to mistakenly project the modern correlated notion of priesthood onto a text where it doesn't belong. I do think this is something the correlation committee overlooked. I think as things are presented in modern manuals and Church teachings it does look as though D&C 84's mention of priesthood refers to the same priesthood that, say, I received just before going on a mission. And, if that were true, then, you're right, any violation of a covenant received by virtue of and through that priesthood would, according to D&C 84, entail the loss of one's ability to be forgiven in this life and the next. But, I don't think that section 84 is talking about that priesthood. I don't think the historical evidence supports that claim.

That is fine and I respect your opinion of the matter, but you are not the Restored Gospel, or the Prophet, or an Apostle, or my Stake President, or my Bishop, or my Elder's Quorum leader. So I take there opinion's over yours and the eternal truths of the Gospel over all.

The Gospel and my local leadership and in complete concurrence and as far as I know the living prophet hasn't made any changes to D&C 84:41 or received any revelation to negate or amend this section on the responsibilities of the Priesthood.

You can go on forever about history, what Joseph though, what Brigham thought, what Hinkley thought, but I follow the living prophet my chosen stake and ward leaders and most importantly the Scriptures. As President Benson taught us a living prophet is more important than a dead prophet.

[ELF1024]

Whitmer was excommunicating for disagreeing with Joseph Smith since when is disagreeing with a man because he made a poor decision and lost a lot of people there life savings a sin?

Do you even know who David Whitmer is?

Do you know what excommunication is?

Cause your answers make me think not.

Excommunication is being forced out of the Church and stripped of all your ordinances and offices, it is a decision of men and they can excommunicate anyone for any reason they want.

In the early days of the church, simply disagreeing with Smith or Young was grounds for excommunication, now unless you think prophets are perfect all of a sudden you say it is sin to disagree with a man when he is wrong just because he is teh called prophet!

'86 as I have stated previously, I am EXCOMMUNICATED. So yes, I am quite familar with excommunication. Yes, I know who David Whitmer is.

There must have been more to his excommunication than just "disagreeing" with the Prophet. You can choose to disagree with the Prophet and not be Excommunicated. Don't you think that excommunicating a man for a simple disagreement is a bit extreme a punishment?!?

[Jason]

Your face turns purple when you hear of the 'atrocities' attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in 'Exodus' and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in 'Joshua'

[LDS Guy 1986]

What stake are you in?

What Stake are you in?

[Mark Beesley]

Whitmer was excommunicating for disagreeing with Joseph Smith . .

CFR

In the early days of the church, simply disagreeing with Smith or Young was grounds for excommunication . . .

CFR

[LDS Guy 1986]

'86 as I have stated previously, I am EXCOMMUNICATED. So yes, I am quite familar with excommunication. Yes, I know who David Whitmer is.

There must have been more to his excommunication than just "disagreeing" with the Prophet. You can choose to disagree with a the Prophet and not be Excommunicated. Don't you think that excommunicating a man for a simple disagreement is a bit extreme a punishment?!?

Not in the Early days of the Church!

In these days yes, there has to be more than simple disagreement, but following the Kirtland Trust and Savings Crisis, many were excommunicated as dissenters (aka people disagreed with the Prophet since his bank failed) including The Three Witnesses, Oliver Cowdry, Martin Harris, and David Whitmer.

[Mark Beesley]

What Stake are you in?

San Diego California North

Your turn.

[LDS Guy 1986]

CFR

CFR

History of the Church, wikipedia your pick it's common knowledge that people were excommunicated in the early days of the Church for disagreeing with the decisions of Smith and the Apostles especially in regards to the Kirtland Savings and Trust crisis.

[LDS Guy 1986]

San Diego California North

Your turn.

Raleigh North Carolina

[ELF1024]

Not in the Early days of the Church!

In these days yes, there has to be more than simple disagreement, but following the Kirtland Trust and Savings Crisis, many were excommunicated as dissenters (aka people disagreed with the Prophet since his bank failed) including The Three Witnesses, Oliver Cowdry, Martin Harris, and David Whitmer.

At this point I am going to stop this conversation. You have taken an untenable position and refuse to see logic. I wish you well in your life, and I hope that you may at some point come to a better understanding of the Gospel. We have nothing further to discuss, please have a blessed existance.

[Mark Beesley]

History of the Church, wikipedia your pick it's common knowledge that people were excommunicated in the early days of the Church for disagreeing with the decisions of Smith and the Apostles especially in regards to the Kirtland Savings and Trust crisis.

Could you be a bit more specific? For example, where, in the History of the Church, can I find a statement by any member of the disciplinary council which excommunicated Wthitmer that says their action against him was taken because he disagreed with Joseph Smith?

(Your common knowledge is at odds with tons of stuff I used to know but have found, with the passage of time, I only thought I knew.)

[ELF1024]

Could you be a bit more specific? For example, where, in the History of the Church, can I find a statement by any member of the disciplinary council which excommunicated Wthitmer that says their action against him was taken because he disagreed with Joseph Smith?

(Your common knowledge is at odds with tons of stuff I used to know but have found, with the passage of time, I only thought I knew.)

Maxwell Institute

All right. Let it be conceded, once and for all, that David Whitmer rejected Mormonism as it developed after, roughly, the mid-1830s. He repudiated Brigham Young and polygamy. He thought Joseph Smith ended his life as a fallen prophet. (A fallen prophet, be it noted

[LDS Guy 1986]

Could you be a bit more specific? For example, where, in the History of the Church, can I find a statement by any member of the disciplinary council which excommunicated Wthitmer that says their action against him was taken because he disagreed with Joseph Smith?

(Your common knowledge is at odds with tons of stuff I used to know but have found, with the passage of time, I only thought I knew.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Whitmer

Here is wikipedia on Whitmer

[LDS Guy 1986]

Maxwell Institute

Sounds like there was more to it than just a simple disagreement...

Not to me, if I lose faith in a Prophet that isn't breaking the covenant of the Priesthood, nor the baptismal covenant.

Also Maxwell Institute of course would say anyone who disagreed with Smith or Young on doctrine has rejected Mormonism, but that is a biased opinion.

Whitmer's never broke any commandment, he only lost faith in Smith and the Church over the Kirtland Saving and Trust and felt that Smith was a fallen prophet.

He believed in the Book of Mormon, till his dying breath, had faith in Christ till his dying breath.

How is it a sin to disagree with a man?

Since when does being prophet make you incapable of being wrong or making mistakes that would cause people to lose faith in you?

[Senator]

At this point I am going to stop this conversation. You have taken an untenable position and refuse to see logic. I wish you well in your life, and I hope that you may at some point come to a better understanding of the Gospel. We have nothing further to discuss, please have a blessed existance.

I wonder is Guy LDS senses a peculiarity in the fact that he seems to be a odds with nearly everyone; from one end of the spectrum to the other.

[SilverKnight]

LDS Guy 1986,

There's been a variety of opinions expressed, and you seem to be still actively participating in this discussion, so I would like to re-ask my questions from before:

1. Do you still maintain that a priesthood holder breaking the Priesthood Covenant is a worse sin, more serious in the eyes of God, than the murder of innocents?

2. Do you still maintain that ultimately failing to honor your covenants qualifies you for outer darkness, a fate worse than the vilest murderer gets?

3. Do you sill maintain that neglecting your home teaching, or otherwise failing to magnify your priesthood in some minor way, counts as breaking your priesthood covenant, thus qualifying you for an eternity in outer darkness, whilst Jeff Dahmer and Adolf Hitler enjoy a comparatively leisurely stint in the Telestial Kingdom?

[ELF1024]

I wonder is Guy LDS senses a peculiarity in the fact that he seems to be a odds with nearly everyone; from one end of the spectrum to the other.

I consider myself fairly middle ground...

In the grand spread, I feel that the Consig 7 are on the "left" side of the spectrum, and that '86 is now the extreme "right" end.

No offense intented to anyone, nor do I mean to associate any political party with left or right.

[Brade]

You make some very valid points. Too bad pride will keep some from considering them -- heck, what can we possibly learn from an apostate?

Having re-read section 84, and puting verse 41 in the context of the entire section, I am convinced that the reference to receiving the priesthood in verse 41 refers to having one's calling and election made sure under the hand of the Savior. Such an understanding is consistent with our understanding of the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.

I think that section 84, in the context of the doctrinal developments documented of the time, and in the context of later developments involving temple ordinances, at least is referring to a level of priesthood above and beyond mere ordination to the Melchizedek priesthood. To think otherwise is, in my opinion, to completely ignore LDS history. But, apparently 1986 is happy to do just that.

There's a further interesting issue here that poses a difficulty for 1986's view. According to the text of D&C 132 a person who has been sealed up to eternal life by the holy spirit of promise can commit any sin besides murder and, after undergoing a period of punishment, will be forgiven and "they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation". Yet, according to 1986, and very oddly, somebody who violates the oath and covenant of the priesthood by being a dishonest businessman "cannot receive salvation in this life or the next". Did you catch that? An oath and covenant violator cannot even receive salvation. Yet, a whore mongering elected can still receive exaltation.

So, let's paint the picture here. D&C 132 speaks of the highest ordinance possible (that we know of) and says of it that once you take that ordinance and its associated covenants upon yourself you can be forgiven for any sin except for murder. 1986 has, if I understand him correctly, equated D&C 84's oath and covenant as applying to merely being ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood. Merely being ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood is presumably a lower ordinance than being sealed up to eternal life. Yet, according to 1986, this lower ordinance carries with it stricter conditions, since a person bound by the covenants of the lower ordinance will never receive forgiveness for, say, deceitful business practices, but a person bound by the higher ordinance can be forgiven.

[Mark Beesley]

http://en.wikipedia....i/David_Whitmer

Here is wikipedia on Whitmer

I'm sorry. I'm not seeing it. Can you cut-and-paste the section from the Wikipedia article where there is a statement by any member of the disciplinary council which excommunicated Wthitmer that says their action against him was taken because he disagreed with Joseph Smith?

[Doctor Steuss]

Not to me, if I lose faith in a Prophet that isn't breaking the covenant of the Priesthood, nor the baptismal covenant.

Just a brief comment from the heretic nose-bleed section:

To me the scriptures paint a little bit of a different picture in regards to rejecting G-d's messengers.

[Mark Beesley]

I think that section 84, in the context of the doctrinal developments documented of the time, and in the context of later developments involving temple ordinances, at least is referring to a level of priesthood above and beyond mere ordination to the Melchizedek priesthood. To think otherwise is, in my opinion, to completely ignore LDS history. But, apparently 1986 is happy to do just that.

There's a further interesting issue here that poses a difficulty for 1986's view. According to the text of D&C 132 a person who has been sealed up to eternal life by the holy spirit of promise can commit any sin besides murder and, after undergoing a period of punishment, will be forgiven and "they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation". Yet, according to 1986, and very oddly, somebody who violates the oath and covenant of the priesthood by being a dishonest businessman "cannot receive salvation in this life or the next". Did you catch that? An oath and covenant violator cannot even receive salvation. Yet, a whore mongering elected can still receive exaltation.

So, let's paint the picture here. D&C 132 speaks of the highest ordinance possible (that we know of) and says of it that once you take that ordinance and its associated covenants upon yourself you can be forgiven for any sin except for murder. 1986 has, if I understand him correctly, equated D&C 84's oath and covenant as applying to merely being ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood. Merely being ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood is presumably a lower ordinance than being sealed up to eternal life. Yet, according to 1986, this lower ordinance carries with it stricter conditions, since a person bound by the covenants of the lower ordinance will never receive forgiveness for, say, deceitful business practices, but a person bound by the higher ordinance can be forgiven.

Section 132 has always intrigued me. Some 40 years ago, when I approached my father about the promise that one could commit all manner of sin and still be exalted, he pointed to the language of verse 19 which says, " it shall be said unto them

[Mark Beesley]

Just a brief comment from the heretic nose-bleed section:

To me the scriptures paint a little bit of a different picture in regards to rejecting G-d's messengers.

You just need to be more selective about which verses you choose to rely on for your proof text. Tunnel vision is an asset.