Jeremy Runnells Excommunicated

[smac97]

On 4/21/2016 at 2:25 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

Keys are bestowed by the laying on of hands. CFR that this happens and those keys are delegated.

There is no good faith basis to dispute the well-established fact that bishops have authority to excommunicate.  None.  At all.

Come, now.  CFRs need to be presented in good faith.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There is no good faith basis to dispute the well-established fact that bishops have authority to excommunicate.  None.  At all.

Come, now.  CFRs need to be presented in good faith.

Thanks,

-Smac

I was responding to his CFR but I'm not sure you're seeing the difference. I'm not questioning their authority to excommunicate. I'm challenging what it means to excommunicate. I accept they have authority to remove someone's membership but I don't accept that they can nullify saving ordinances. That's the dispute.

[Jeanne]

44 minutes ago, JAHS said:

And yet we can still be saved in heaven regardless of what the answers are or were to those questions. The Gospel is so much bigger than some of those unknown or misunderstood issues. If we focus and obsess to much on those unanswered or incorrectly answered questions we run the risk of throwing out everything and giving up. 

The gospel is only as good as long as the questions in life are answered.  Why learn anything.  Just follow the yellow brick road and don't ask..don't tell..and you will be saved.  Sorry..that doesn't work for me. 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I was responding to his CFR but I'm not sure you're seeing the difference. I'm not questioning their authority to excommunicate. I'm challenging what it means to excommunicate. I accept they have authority to remove someone's membership but I don't accept that they can nullify saving ordinances. That's the dispute.

Kind of like who does the converting?  Well it's really the HG who does the converting not me?  I can see that a mistaken excommunicate could result in God still considering the ordinances accomplished for a mistreated person.  But I also think the leaders' action of excommunication could result in the nullification principle.  Sadly.  Tragically.  But both are possible. 

[JAHS]

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

The gospel is only as good as long as the questions in life are answered.  Why learn anything.  Just follow the yellow brick road and don't ask..don't tell..and you will be saved.  Sorry..that doesn't work for me. 

It worked for Dorothy ;-)   Do you know of something else that works better or has more truth and answers to life's questions?  I don't and I have studied all of them and compared them to the gospel I have now. The alternative is nothing; and that doesn't work for me.

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, JAHS said:

It worked for Dorothy ;-)   Do you know of something else that works better or has more truth and answers to life's questions?  I don't and I have studied all of them and compared them to the gospel I have now. The alternative is nothing; and that doesn't work for me.

JAHS, almost all those essays contradict or gloss over what I was brought up with.  The visions, the wives of Joseph, blacks and priesthood.  This was discussed in my classes..in seminary..this is what I knew!  If the Prophets and leaders are infallable as everyone says, their trust needs to be earned like everyone else.  Not blindly followed.

[ALarson]

36 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

CALL FOR REFERENCES that Bishops and Stake Presidents don't have the keys to nullify Temple ordinances.

I wonder why a sealing cancellation has to take place by the leaders in Salt Lake (not at the local level), if Bishops and Stake Presidents have the keys to nullify temple ordinances?

(This is just a question, not a response to your CFR....just thinking about that and wondering.)

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

JAHS, almost all those essays contradict or gloss over what I was brought up with.  The visions, the wives of Joseph, blacks and priesthood.  This was discussed in my classes..in seminary..this is what I knew!  If the Prophets and leaders are infallable as everyone says, their trust needs to be earned like everyone else.  Not blindly followed.

I think you mean "fallible" (which means "imperfect) versus "infallible" (which means perfect).  Just sayin'.

[Duncan]

Just now, ALarson said:

I wonder why a sealing cancellation has to take place by the leaders in Salt Lake (not at the local level), if Bishops and Stake Presidents have the keys to nullify temple ordinances?

(This is just a question, not a response to your CFR....just thinking about that and wondering.)

maybe the 1st Pres. gave the authority to perform a temple sealing, not the Stake Pres.? But it's the local folks who deal with the two people involved, not the 1st Pres.

[Jeanne]

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I think you mean "fallible" (which means "imperfect) versus "infallible" (which means perfect).  Just sayin'.

Having a Jeanne moment..Thanks.

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

maybe the 1st Pres. gave the authority to perform a temple sealing, not the Stake Pres.? But it's the local folks who deal with the two people involved, not the 1st Pres.

But the "local folks" can't cancel the sealing for the "two people involved" (nor can they perform a sealing unless they are set apart and given authority to use the sealing keys).  It appears that has to come from the 1st presidency.  

Remember what happened with Hyrum when he performed a sealing without receiving this authority?

So, how can one who hasn't received that authority, cancel a sealing?

Edited April 21, 2016 by ALarson

[Duncan]

Just now, ALarson said:

But the "local folks" can't cancel the sealing for the "two people involved".  It appears that has to come from the 1st presidency.  

yeah, the stake presidency fills out some form and sends it off and bingo bango the sealing is nixed, if all checks out

[JAHS]

22 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

This was discussed in my classes..in seminary..this is what I knew! 

That's what was known then. It took a lot of research and revelation but now we know more.

[Russell C McGregor]

19 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I wonder why a sealing cancellation has to take place by the leaders in Salt Lake (not at the local level), if Bishops and Stake Presidents have the keys to nullify temple ordinances?

(This is just a question, not a response to your CFR....just thinking about that and wondering.)

The Sealing ordinance is substantially different from all the others.

Excommunication, of course, nullifies baptism, confirmation and all other saving ordinances the person has received. This is a non-controversial fact.

It doesn't nullify the Sealing ordinance. Naturally if the person does not live up to that covenant (which would include repentance, rebaptism and restoration of blessings) it will be of none effect after this life, but it is not nullified by excommunication.

I don't know why that is, but I have a couple of theories.

 

[Duncan]

Just now, JAHS said:

That's what was known then. It took a lot of research and revelation but now we know more.

there's this too from 2 Nephi 29:8-9

8 Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word?...And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man...

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

yeah, the stake presidency fills out some form and sends it off and bingo bango the sealing is nixed, if all checks out

Yes, I agree.

The question is if that has to take place by the 1st presidency and not at a local level, how does a Bishop or SP have the power to cancel or nullify temple ordinances upon excommunication?  

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

The Sealing ordinance is substantially different from all the others.

Excommunication, of course, nullifies baptism, confirmation and all other saving ordinances the person has received. This is a non-controversial fact.

It doesn't nullify the Sealing ordinance.

Interesting.  I thought those who are excommunicated are told their sealing is nullified or cancelled at that time.

So if someone is rebaptized, their sealing does not have to be performed again?

.

Edited April 21, 2016 by ALarson

[Jeanne]

5 minutes ago, JAHS said:

That's what was known then. It took a lot of research and revelation but now we know more.

That is so easy to say..research and revelation.  But do you understand the lives this affected?  My horrible self looked down on blacks.  My grandmother and aunt disowned a cousin for marrying a black man.  I swore up and down to many people that there were just so many women that BY married them to take care of them.  I believed and defended so many things to others that are no longer taught.  Joseph and one wife???  In 1974, that wasn't even a discussion in my seminary class.  Enuf said..we have lived in different worlds I guess.

[smac97]

On 4/21/2016 at 2:37 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

I was responding to his CFR but I'm not sure you're seeing the difference. I'm not questioning their authority to excommunicate. I'm challenging what it means to excommunicate. I accept they have authority to remove someone's membership but I don't accept that they can nullify saving ordinances. That's the dispute.

I think the Church's position on the effect of excommunication is that it "suspends" saving ordinances.  Excommunication "looses" what was previously "bound."  See, e.g., here:

Quote

After the rebaptism of a person who has not been endowed in the temple, his or her membership record shows the original baptism date, with no reference to the excommunication. A man who previously held the priesthood but was not endowed should generally be ordained to his former priesthood office. Again, his membership record will show his original ordination date, with no reference to excommunication.

A person who was endowed in the temple before being excommunicated may regain priesthood and/or temple blessings only through the ordinance of restoration of blessings. This is a special ordinance performed by a General Authority as directed by the First Presidency. Afterwards, a new membership record is created, showing the original dates of baptism, endowment, sealing, and (if applicable) priesthood ordinations—with no reference to excommunication.

Our Father in Heaven is pleased to restore former blessings to his sons and daughters when they have demonstrated sincere and complete repentance.

And here (emphasis added):

Quote

A formal disciplinary council can result in four possible outcomes: (1) no action; (2) a formal probation involving restricted privileges; (3) disfellowshipment; or (4) excommunication. Disfellowshipment is a temporary suspension of membership privileges. A disfellowshipped person remains a Church member but may not enter Church temples, hold Church callings, exercise the priesthood, partake of the Sacrament, or participate openly in public meetings. An excommunicated person is no longer a member of the Church, and all priesthood ordinances and temple blessings previously received are suspended. Excommunicants may not pay tithing and, if previously endowed in a temple, may not wear temple garments. They may attend Church meetings. Excommunicants may later qualify for rebaptism after lengthy and full repentance and still later may apply for a formal restoration of their original priesthood and temple blessings.

Does this distinction ("suspension" versus "revocation") matter to you?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Duncan]

Just now, ALarson said:

Yes, I agree.

The question is if that has to take place by the 1st presidency and not at a local level, how does a Bishop or SP have the power to cancel or nullify temple ordinances upon excommunication?  

I've never been involved in any of this kind of thing but I think the SP has the DC and then sends off a report of what happened to SLC and then they review it and if there are any slip ups or mistakes or anything then they would be in contact with the SP. I know of one that was overturned and incidentally the District Pres. got exed, instead of who was on trial. I wonder if there are more DC's then temple sealing cancellations? I don't know. But if you get rebaptized though I think you have to be interviewed by a GA to get your endowments and priesthood back or maybe that is now given to the SP, I don't know

[HappyJackWagon]

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Interesting.  I thought those who are excommunicated are told their sealing is nullified or cancelled at that time.

So if someone is rebaptized, their sealing does not have to be performed again?

.

My understanding is if they are rebaptized they must receive the ordinance of restoration of blessings before their sealing is reconstituted. But they do not go through the sealing process again. Apparently they can flip a switch with excommunication and restoration of blessings. Sealed/not sealed.

When someone is excommunicated they are notified that their baptism and temple blessings are no long in effect. So the individual is no longer sealed to his/her family. However, the other participants in the sealing continue to have the blessings of the sealing (ie- kids are still sealed and enjoy the blessings of being in the covenant)

Edited April 21, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

My understanding is if they are rebaptized they must receive the ordinance of restoration of blessings before their sealing is reconstituted. But they do not go through the sealing process again. Apparently they can flip a switch with excommunication and restoration of blessings. Sealed/not sealed.

When someone is excommunicated they are notified that their baptism and temple blessings are no long in effect. So the individual is no longer sealed to his/her family. However, the other participants in the sealing continue to have the blessings of the sealing (ie- kids are still sealed and enjoy the blessings of being in the covenant)

My bro. is the stake clerk and he said that a detailed report of a DC is written up and then mailed off to the 1st Pres. and they are the ones who approve or not the decision to excommunicate, so in theory someone could be told they are exed but the 1st Pres. doesn't uphold the decision (how often that happens I have no idea) so the SP doesn't technically ex anyone but it's the 1st Pres. 

[carbon dioxide]

5 hours ago, consiglieri said:

The LDS Church has two categories of questions.

Those that may be asked, and those that may not be asked.

The questions that may not be asked are the ones for which the Church has no good answers.

Any questions?

An alternative is that one can ask any question they want.  To demand answers to all questions is not realistic.  Plus answers to questions may be sufficient to one person and not to another.  We are all different.  What I find as a satisfactory answer to a question you might not.  Does that mean the source that gave the answer did not do their job because they did not convince you of the answer?

[flameburns623]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

There is no good faith basis to dispute the well-established fact that bishops have authority to excommunicate.  None.  At all.

Come, now.  CFRs need to be presented in good faith.

Thanks,

-Smac

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/enrichments/enrichment-i-judges-in-israel-watching-over-the-church?lang=eng

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 hours ago, Gray said:

Does anyone know why road shows are a thing of the past?

Our stake still does them.