volgadon Posted May 21, 2012 Posted May 21, 2012 Well he does have a name and a face after all- thanks for that Volgadon. I apologize for calling him a sockpuppet, I was wrong.One of the things I like best about you is that if you make a mistake you very graciously apologise.
zerinus Posted May 21, 2012 Posted May 21, 2012 What if it wasn't plainly manifested unto Messeneger? or any ohter person with doubts, trying to do the right thing?I suppose it is possible to sincerely do the wrong thing.
Calm Posted May 21, 2012 Posted May 21, 2012 I suppose it is possible to sincerely do the wrong thing.Way too often from what I've seen.
mfbukowski Posted May 21, 2012 Posted May 21, 2012 (edited) One of the things I like best about you is that if you make a mistake you very graciously apologise.Well thanks but I think I am out of here for a while. If you want to get ahold of me pm me or email me at mfbukowski@live dot com(Doesn't that decrease spam or something- spelling it out instead of leaving it as a link?)Whatever. Edited May 21, 2012 by mfbukowski
Cobalt-70 Posted May 21, 2012 Posted May 21, 2012 (edited) If a sixteen-year-old priest has the authority to baptise, then a Stake President certainly has authority to rescind that baptism.A Stake President would certainly have authority to rescind a baptism, if there were such an ordinance as baptismal rescission. Otherwise, it is hard to imagine how even a priesthood holder could just cause things to be burned into the scrolls of heaven just by force of their mental powers alone, without an ordinance.I fail to see the problem you are having. What do you want, exactly? A bell, book and candle ceremony?Not at all. I'm just wondering whether it might be good policy for church officers to stop implying that they wield the power to rescind ordinances and covenants to which they were not a party.Allowing people to voluntarily take their name off the records of the church is good policy. So is involuntary excommunication of some members. Requiring someone to be rebaptized upon readmission to the church is also good policy. But perhaps claiming the power to, in effect, damn somebody to hell by the stroke of a pen is not. Edited May 21, 2012 by Cobalt-70 1
Damien the Leper Posted May 21, 2012 Posted May 21, 2012 Those requesting removal have probably lost the Holy Ghost a long time ago. When their name is removed, there will be no "sudden" loss. It's already gone.They may feel a slight sense of remorse (as well as relief that it is finally over) when they get the letter, but the enemy will make sure that goes away quickly.Actually, I feel the Spirit and its promptings so much more strongly as a non-member.It is silly when people who speak of those who leave in such a way as this: "You'll be so miserable you won't know you're miserable."
Pahoran Posted May 21, 2012 Posted May 21, 2012 A Stake President would certainly have authority to rescind a baptism, if there were such an ordinance as baptismal rescission. Otherwise, it is hard to imagine how even a priesthood holder could just cause things to be burned into the scrolls of heaven just by force of their mental powers alone, without an ordinance.So you imagine you get to make your own rules. I get it.Not at all. I'm just wondering whether it might be good policy for church officers to stop implying that they wield the power to rescind ordinances and covenants to which they were not a party.Well sorry to disappoint you, and all that, but nobody is trying to "imply" anything. It just so happens that Church officers do have authority to rescind those ordinances and covenants, because they are the authorised officers of the Church, and the Church was in fact a party to those ordinances and covenants.Allowing people to voluntarily take their name off the records of the church is good policy. So is involuntary excommunication of some members. Requiring someone to be rebaptized upon readmission to the church is also good policy. But perhaps claiming the power to, in effect, damn somebody to hell by the stroke of a pen is not.As you perfectly well know, that is not what is claimed.If we accept -- as I'm sure you do -- that an individual's membership in the Church lasts not a nanosecond beyond the moment they decide to leave, then on what grounds do you demand that the effects of their baptism ought to somehow survive their apostasy? There is no "theological problem." All that has happened is that a few rebellious individuals are too proud to accept the rather indisputable fact that the Church's authority to rescind ordinances is exactly as great as its authority to administer them in the first place; and that pride is their own problem, not the Church's.Regards,Pahoran
Cobalt-70 Posted May 21, 2012 Posted May 21, 2012 If we accept -- as I'm sure you do -- that an individual's membership in the Church lasts not a nanosecond beyond the moment they decide to leave, then on what grounds do you demand that the effects of their baptism ought to somehow survive their apostasy? There is no "theological problem." All that has happened is that a few rebellious individuals are too proud to accept the rather indisputable fact that the Church's authority to rescind ordinances is exactly as great as its authority to administer them in the first place; and that pride is their own problem, not the Church's.No, I believe that the baptismal covenant probably does not survive beyond the moment that a person loses his or hear faith. But that is an issue between the person and God. The issue I'm raising is whether or not the stake president, or any other church officer, can rescind a person's baptism by the stoke of his pen.On the second point, the church does have authority to perform ordinances. However, it does not have the authority to accept those ordinances on behalf of God. To be valid, all ordinances have to be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise, which is an unmediated transaction directly between God and the individual. Rescission of baptism is parallel not to the ordinance itself, but to the sealing by the Holy Spirit of Promise.
Grundelwalken Posted May 21, 2012 Posted May 21, 2012 (edited) Never mind. Much too late in the discussion. MW Edited May 21, 2012 by Grundelwalken
ERayR Posted May 21, 2012 Posted May 21, 2012 No, I believe that the baptismal covenant probably does not survive beyond the moment that a person loses his or hear faith. But that is an issue between the person and God. The issue I'm raising is whether or not the stake president, or any other church officer, can rescind a person's baptism by the stoke of his pen.The answer is yes they do. By virtue of the keys and authority bestowed upon them because of their calling their authority extends to binding and loosening. Matt 18:18 18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall abind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Recommended Posts