Believing Apostates And Priesthood

[Coreyb]

Is there a revealed reason why a man would lose his priesthood upon being excommunicated from the church? I know that this is an old fundamentalist battering ram, but with all the stuff going on with Denver Snuffer and friends, it brings the question to my mind. Does anybody know?

[The Nehor]

Is there a revealed reason why a man would lose his priesthood upon being excommunicated from the church? I know that this is an old fundamentalist battering ram, but with all the stuff going on with Denver Snuffer and friends, it brings the question to my mind. Does anybody know?

 

A person excommunicated is released from the responsibilities and covenants connected with holding the Priesthood. This is a mercy to them as they are almost certainly breaking those covenants to bits.

[Boanerges]

My understanding is that the priesthood, and the keys thereof, is eternal. That's why even though a man is rebaptized when he returns from excommunication but not reordained - rather his blessings are restored and he is again permitted to exercise his priesthood keys. Therefore, a man never loses his priesthood but is not authorized to use it. If my understanding is correct, then Mr. Snuffer does hold the priesthood still, but he has no authority.

[Duncan]

My understanding is that the priesthood, and the keys thereof, is eternal. That's why even though a man is rebaptized when he returns from excommunication but not reordained - rather his blessings are restored and he is again permitted to exercise his priesthood keys. Therefore, a man never loses his priesthood but is not authorized to use it. If my understanding is correct, then Mr. Snuffer does hold the priesthood still, but he has no authority.

 

 

That's what I was taught as well and I think if you are rebaptized you still need to get the priesthood back but that's done by a seperate ordination or something, i'm not exactley sure

Edited October 17, 2014 by Duncan

[Alan]

Boanerges,

Not quite so.

If the man who is rebaptised had not previously received temple ordinances but had held the priesthood, he is re-ordained to the priesthood (either Aaronic or Melchizedek) after baptism. He receives a restoration of blessings (which includes priesthood, endowment and sealings) only if he had previously received those temple ordinances.

[stemelbow]

Is there a revealed reason why a man would lose his priesthood upon being excommunicated from the church? I know that this is an old fundamentalist battering ram, but with all the stuff going on with Denver Snuffer and friends, it brings the question to my mind. Does anybody know?

I figure people have gotten and will probably get excommunicated wrongly. Kinda like some people get sent to death row wrongly. Human judgment is a fail. So if someone gets excommunicated and should not have, like Snuffer, then I doubt he'll lose his blessings and use of the priesthood.

oh just playing. I don't know whether Snuffer should have been ex'd or not. Just thought I'd say that for funsies.

[Coreyb]

Right, people certainly have been excommunicated wrongly. Of course I don't have the facts or the authority to judge, but from what I have read it seems that avraham gileadi's excommunication may have been "an accident". However my question is more about folks who believe in the restoration, priesthood, and the church, but not how the church operates currently and therefore leave or are excommunicated. Obviously it creates a problem for the Church as an institution if these apostates did have "priesthood", but I can't find a scriptural reason why they wouldn't. Thanks Nehor, but are there some scriptures that back up your logic?

Edited October 17, 2014 by Coreyb

[Boanerges]

Right, people certainly have been excommunicated wrongly. Of course I don't have the facts or the authority to judge, but from what I have read it seems that avraham gileadi's excommunication may have been "an accident". However my question is more about folks who believe in the restoration, priesthood, and the church, but not how the church operates currently and therefore leave or are excommunicated. Obviously it creates a problem for the Church as an institution if these apostates did have "priesthood", but I can't find a scriptural reason why they wouldn't. Thanks Nehor, but are there some scriptures that back up your logic?

 I think it's a really good question, and I'm pretty sure it's addressed in handbook 1, but I don't have access in my current calling. The handbooks don't necessarily back up everything with scripture, though.

[HappyJackWagon]

My understanding is that the priesthood, and the keys thereof, is eternal. That's why even though a man is rebaptized when he returns from excommunication but not reordained - rather his blessings are restored and he is again permitted to exercise his priesthood keys. Therefore, a man never loses his priesthood but is not authorized to use it. If my understanding is correct, then Mr. Snuffer does hold the priesthood still, but he has no authority.

To me, excommunication seems like a person is expelled from an organization but similar to not removing an eternal priesthood, I don't think a man (men) can revoke a sealing ordinance that they didn't have the authority to perform in the first place.

 

In other words, despite being Exed, I think the priesthood ordination and temple ordinances would remain in effect.

[Sleeper Cell]

To me, excommunication seems like a person is expelled from an organization but similar to not removing an eternal priesthood, I don't think a man (men) can revoke a sealing ordinance that they didn't have the authority to perform in the first place.

 

In other words, despite being Exed, I think the priesthood ordination and temple ordinances would remain in effect.

 

If a man did not have the authority to perform an ordination or ordinance in the first place, they were never “in effect.“  So how could they “remain in effect” after the recipient  was excommunicated?  

[Jeanne]

Does this mean that exed priesthood members still hold the priesthood..and devout women cannot?  I not being a stinker..just didn't think that sounded right. 

[HappyJackWagon]

 

If a man did not have the authority to perform an ordination or ordinance in the first place, they were never “in effect.“  So how could they “remain in effect” after the recipient  was excommunicated?  

 

The men who hold disciplinary councils are different than the men with the authority to perform temple ordinances like sealings.

[JLHPROF]

It seems to me that this question is really 2 questions:

 

1. Can a man's priesthood be revoked/removed by presiding authority or only by God for sinful acts?

 

2. Can a man's right to exercise priesthood be revoked/removed by presiding authority while his priesthood office remains?

 

Joseph F. Smith answered them:

 

An officer in the Church in one of the stakes of Zion asks whether a man's Priesthood may be taken from him in any other way than by excommunication. In other words, can a man's ordination to the Priesthood be made null and void, and he still be permitted to retain his membership in the Church; or must he be excommunicated before the Priesthood can be taken from him? The reply must be that only by excommunication in the appointed way can the Priesthood be taken from a person. We know of no other means provided by which a man who has had the Priesthood conferred upon him can be deprived of it. The constituted authorities of the Church may, however, after proper authorized hearing, decide that a man has forfeited his right to act in the Priesthood, and for this cause, he may be silenced, and his certificate of ordination be taken from him, and thus have his right suspended to officiate in the ordinances of the gospel, or to exercise the Priesthood which has been conferred upon him. Then, if he persists in exercising his Priesthood and former calling, he may be taken to account for insubordination and excommunicated. 
Several examples have occurred in the history of the Church where men through transgression, duly proved and decided upon by the constituted authorities, have been stopped from acting in the Priesthood, which is just as effectual as taking away their Priesthood would be, if it were possible; but this has taken no ordination from them, and if in such cases the transgressors should repent and make complete and satisfactory restitution, they would still hold the same Priesthood which they held before they were silenced, or stopped from acting. A person once ordained a bishop, an elder, or high priest, continues to hold those offices. A bishop is still a bishop though he may remove to another ward, or for other reason temporarily lose his calling. But in case he is wanted to act in a new office, or place, and the proper authorities call him to act, it is not necessary to re-ordain him a bishop; he would only need to be set apart for his new calling. So with other officers in the Priesthood, once having received the Priesthood, it cannot be taken from them, except by transgression so serious that they must forfeit their standing in the Church. But, as stated, their right to officiate, may be suspended or stopped. The Lord can take away the power and efficacy of their ordinations, and will do so if they transgress.  No endowments or blessings in the House of the Lord, no patriarchal blessings, no ordination to the Priesthood, can be taken away, once given. To prevent a person for cause from exercising the rights and privileges of acting in the offices of the Priesthood, may be and has been done, and the person so silenced still remain a member of the Church, but this does not take away from him any Priesthood that he held.

JOSEPH F. SMITH. (IE 11:466, April 1908)

[Avatar4321]

President smith seems to answer the question sufficiently.

I'm not sure how one can be a believing apostate. If one believed, they would repent and submit to priesthood authority.

[Duncan]

It seems to me that this question is really 2 questions:

 

1. Can a man's priesthood be revoked/removed by presiding authority or only by God for sinful acts?

 

2. Can a man's right to exercise priesthood be revoked/removed by presiding authority while his priesthood office remains?

 

Joseph F. Smith answered them:

 

 

I agree with him but also point out DC 121, "Amen to the Priesthood", I think it was Hugh Nibley who wrote once, that we never really know who has the Priesthood, because how do we know what is going on in their life?

Edited October 17, 2014 by Duncan

[HappyJackWagon]

I agree with him but also point out DC 121, "Amen to the Priesthood", I think it was Hugh Nibley who wrote once, that we never really know who has the Priesthood, because how do we know what is going on in their life?

Wouldn't it be the case that every man's priesthood would be revoked? Aren't all priesthood holders unworthy in various ways and degrees?

[Mystery Meat]

Right, people certainly have been excommunicated wrongly. Of course I don't have the facts or the authority to judge, but from what I have read it seems that avraham gileadi's excommunication may have been "an accident". However my question is more about folks who believe in the restoration, priesthood, and the church, but not how the church operates currently and therefore leave or are excommunicated. Obviously it creates a problem for the Church as an institution if these apostates did have "priesthood", but I can't find a scriptural reason why they wouldn't. Thanks Nehor, but are there some scriptures that back up your logic?

 

I don't see how it would create a problem if the apostates still had the priesthood. In order to have authority to actually use the priesthood for the necessary ordinances they would have to have the proper keys as well. Not much good without them keys.

[stemelbow]

Wouldn't it be the case that every man's priesthood would be revoked? Aren't all priesthood holders unworthy in various ways and degrees?

Sure.

That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

Do we get such authority back when we repent, because it seems to me, we all will do something listed above every so often.

[rpn]

Since we believe the living prophet holds and administers all of the keys, even if the excommunication was not God's will, the excommunication would be valid as done under the keys consistent with the keys.   The excommunicated loses the right completely to have and use priesthood.

 

God can correct this eternally, but  He cannot have it both ways on earth ---- either He has given the keys to bind on earth to the prophet or not.

[Avatar4321]

I agree with him but also point out DC 121, "Amen to the Priesthood", I think it was Hugh Nibley who wrote once, that we never really know who has the Priesthood, because how do we know what is going on in their life?

I think section 121 is referring to priesthood power not just mere authority. Many have been ordained and given authority of the priesthood. Few have received the power as they should have.

I am not convinced I have seen much evidence of having priesthood power in my life, but I know I have authority to act in the ordinances of the priesthood so long as I remain worthy.

[JLHPROF]

Since we believe the living prophet holds and administers all of the keys, even if the excommunication was not God's will, the excommunication would be valid as done under the keys consistent with the keys.   The excommunicated loses the right completely to have and use priesthood.

 

God can correct this eternally, but  He cannot have it both ways on earth ---- either He has given the keys to bind on earth to the prophet or not.

 

I'd still like to know exactly how this works.

 

In order to ordain someone to the priesthood you need:

1. To have permission from the presiding priesthood holder (Bishop, Stake President, etc)

2. You have to hold at least the same office you are ordaining to.

3. You have to lay your hands upon their head.

4. You have to confer the priesthood in the name of Jesus Christ and ordain them to an office therein.

 

If all this is correct (and assuming the recipient is worthy) they now hold the priesthood and office they were blessed with.

This is the ordinance for bestowing priesthood.

 

But to take away something as sacred as priesthood the presiding priesthood authority simply has to say "you are excommunicated" and have a notation placed on their record.  In truth, if someone is being ex'd they've probably already sinned sufficiently to lose priesthood, but if they haven't this doesn't seem a very authoritative way to remove a blessing.  One minute you have a spiritual blessing and authority, the next it's presumed removed.

 

Seems like there is much more to binding than loosing...

Edited October 17, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Coreyb]

Now what if a person is ex'ed for "erring in doctrine"? Is that necessarily a sin? Can a man have his priesthood "amen'd" without sinning just because he is out of the church?

[Duncan]

Wouldn't it be the case that every man's priesthood would be revoked? Aren't all priesthood holders unworthy in various ways and degrees?

 

yeah but it depends, some guy who beats his wife or "any degree of unrighteous dominion" or is indifferent to the Gospel is different than someone who cares for his wife and care about the Gospel

[JLHPROF]

Now what if a person is ex'ed for "erring in doctrine"? Is that necessarily a sin? Can a man have his priesthood "amen'd" without sinning just because he is out of the church?

 

I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine.  - Joseph Smith

 

It is wrong to discipline a member for holding a doctrinal belief that goes against the Church doctrines.  However, that they may be disciplined for teaching and pushing a false doctrine or leading others astray.

[The Nehor]

But to take away something as sacred as priesthood the presiding priesthood authority simply has to say "you are excommunicated" and have a notation placed on their record.  In truth, if someone is being ex'd they've probably already sinned sufficiently to lose priesthood, but if they haven't this doesn't seem a very authoritative way to remove a blessing.  One minute you have a spiritual blessing and authority, the next it's presumed removed.

 

Seems like there is much more to binding than loosing...

 

Yep, there is less ceremony to taking away. If you had to lay hands on head to remove a Priesthood ordination you would face the problem of someone refusing to submit so God lets us do it even in absentia if required.