Believing Apostates And Priesthood

[HappyJackWagon]

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

I don't disagree with you but that is our personal line for what level of unrighteousness is acceptable and what level isn't. Are we certain God's line is exactly the same as ours?

[mfbukowski]

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.

Nails it imo. End of story.

[mfbukowski]

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...

Nope.

You also have to be sustained by your brethren.

A disciplinary council can sustain you right out again.

It takes 15 affirmative votes of your brethren to get ex'ed - unanimity between The high council and stake presidency.

Edited October 18, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Coreyb]

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.

That's a nice ideal, but it does happen. I personally know a man who was ex'ed for believing in Adam God doctrine and the neccesity of plural marriage. He was quite old, never attempted to become a polygamist, and the most leading astray he ever did was mentioning Adam God in a testimony meeting. Wrong, maybe, but all it takes is 15 over zealous high priests I guess. One unanimous vote and wham! There goes the priesthood of a man in his seventies, served two missions, was a temple worker for years.

[JLHPROF]

That's a nice ideal, but it does happen. I personally know a man who was ex'ed for believing in Adam God doctrine and the neccesity of plural marriage. He was quite old, never attempted to become a polygamist, and the most leading astray he ever did was mentioning Adam God in a testimony meeting. Wrong, maybe, but all it takes is 15 over zealous high priests I guess. One unanimous vote and wham! There goes the priesthood of a man in his seventies, served two missions, was a temple worker for years.

 

Honestly, I think priesthood is the power to act in God's name.  If God still approved of him, then personally I believe he still held the priesthood, regardless of whether 15 overzealous high priests prevented him from exercising it with permission.

[Coreyb]

Right, but now should he be called to bless the sick, participate in ordinations, baptisms, confirmations, temple work, etc. he can't. And if he did anyways, good luck being rebaptized.

[Boanerges]

Nope.

You also have to be sustained by your brethren.

A disciplinary council can sustain you right out again.

It takes 15 affirmative votes of your brethren to get ex'ed - unanimity between The high council and stake presidency.

Having sat on a few of those councils, I'd say it's more of a consensus than unanimity. Nevertheless, the high council does in the end sustain the action once consensus is reached. I fully recognize, of course, that some leaders are going to be much more forceful than others in asserting that the voices of individual high councilors are not heard and in pushing their own conclusion.

[mfbukowski]

Having sat on a few of those councils, I'd say it's more of a consensus than unanimity. Nevertheless, the high council does in the end sustain the action once consensus is reached. I fully recognize, of course, that some leaders are going to be much more forceful than others in asserting that the voices of individual high councilors are not heard and in pushing their own conclusion.

Whatever you want to call it, 15 hands get raised.

 

In any case, it's NOT this:

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