Jeremy Runnells Excommunicated

[JAHS]

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

From what I can tell from the Church Handbook it is the disciplinary council, not just the Bishop, that has the authority to excommunicate:
"A disciplinary council can reach any of the following decisions:
1. No action. A disciplinary council can reach this decision even if a transgression has been committed. As part of this decision, the member may be given cautionary counsel, or he may be referred to his bishop for an interview that might lead to informal discipline.
2. Formal probation
3. Disfellowshipment
4. Excommunication"

And even then ultimate authority is with the First Presidency:

"The First Presidency has ultimate authority over all Church discipline. Decisions of the First Presidency take precedence despite any rules or procedures to the contrary."

 

[JAHS]

6 hours ago, Gray said:

I'm not sure where this comes into play with correlation (maybe it doesn't), but I think that wards used to have a lot more autonomy with their budget and could spend more on those kinds of activities. 

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

They started fazing out in the 80's and 90's but it really depends on the stake. There are some that still do it today if they have the interest and budget,

Roadshows: Are They Gone Forever?

Communities look for a roadshow revival

[cdowis]

8 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't agree. A saving ordinance doesn't receive it's saving power from bureaucratic records.

And there are millions who agree with you that there is no need for organized religion.  Just go to the mountains, or the forest canopy and worship God.  Baptism is a work, unnecessary for salvation.

But I was clearly not addressing my post to you.

I was speaking to those members of the LDS church who understand the importance of the keys of the priesthood, and the necessity of record keeping.  They understand that the "Book of Life" is literal, and is  based on church records here on earth.  In order to gain access to the Celestial Kingdom, the person's church record is a requirement for entry where all of the ordinances are recorded.

If you are not familiar with those concepts, you might ask around.  I can't help you.

Edited April 22, 2016 by cdowis

[rodheadlee]

13 hours ago, ALarson said:

Which ones are you referring to?  Can you quote some of his specific questions that are not "good questions"?

.

Well, right off the top of my head the geography question assumes facts not in evidence. I have never from the very start of my Mormon studies ever thought that the Nephite and Lamanite civilizations took place in upstate New York. i have always believed they were in MesoAmerica. Now maybe I am going to be surprised when I get my next life history lesson but at this point to take the church to task over some perceived coincidences just seems a bit premature.

The 4 versions of the First Vision are no surprise. I have had my own visions and I remember them different every single time.

Many of the "questions" are lectures with a: Shouldn't you have known better? at the end. 

I'm not a scholar so no matter what I say here is not going to sound learned nor do I have the time nor inclination to do a step by step analysis.  So I'll just say, "Yeah they were great questions. I can see he got exactly what he wanted out of the whole deal"  What about you Al? Do you think they were good questions? Good enough to override the Holy Spirit's confirmation of the translation of the BoM, PGP by the Power and Spirit of the Lord? If people are being baptized, confirmed, and sealed without a personal confirmation by the Holy Spirit why are they going through the motions? Isn't that hypocritical?  When people long for the "way it used to be" have they forgotten their spiritual experiences? Is it needful to be a scholar to know if Jesus Christ runs the LDS Church? If it's not true why are there 20 pages of arguing over whether the SP has the power to dissolve Jeremy's ordinances? 

 

[rodheadlee]

13 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Please identify the "bad" questions.

I have no need to make a large list of questions. When I hit full crisis mode I had been serving as bishop for 4 years. I was working hard to find real answers but wasn't finding them on my own. My Stake Pres. was unable to provide good answers. All he could suggest is Read, study, pray, and attend the temple. I was already doing all of those things faithfully as well as performing many hours of service each week in my calling.

So I wrote a letter to Pres. Uchtdorf (because I thought he seemed empathetic) and Elder Nelson (because I had met and had private conversation with him previously). I expressed how lost I felt and how fearful I was of losing my family. I asked 2 questions (not going to share because they are private). I plead for help.

I got NOTHING in response. No acknowledgement of any kind. It wasn't even forwarded to my SP. Complete radio silence. I had sent the letter snail mail as well as email to each individual so I find it hard to believe they didn't receive the letter.

Frankly, if they can't take the time to answer 2 questions (difficult but sincere) from a bishop pleading for help, then I have zero desire to prepare a list of questions that will also be ignored.

Great, so people like you who do not believe are keep people like me, who do believe out of the Temple for smoking cigarettes. I hope you had the integrity to step down from your position.

[Rico]

Kevin,

Quote

Kevin: I noticed that while there is a scripture that says "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek and ye shall find, and to him that knocketh it shall be opened," (Matt 7:7) there is not one that says, "Blessed are they that sit like lumps, for they shall be spoonfed, and never caught of guard, and never ever disappointed by anyone." 

The scripture Matt7:7 as it stands is fine.  But inventing your own scripture ("Blessed are they that sit like lumps...etc") and using that as evidence to prove an argument really proves nothing.  Use legit scripture if you want your arguments to be treated with credibility.

Quote

Kevin: Obviously, CES culture has long been disinclined to deal with controversial issues, for the most part (a tendency is not an absolute.. I have a book by a CES employee responding to The Godmakers at length and in detail).  However, CES is an appendage of the church, and is emphatically NOT the church, which is a covenant assembly. From where I stand, the church is not them, but us, all of us. 

Your two legs are appendages that consist part of your body, are you saying they are not part of you?  Is there such a thing as an appendage that is not part of a greater whole?  Your logic is quite a stretch.  Perhaps this is why Runnells cannot seem to trust Mormon apologists.

You are denying that the CES is not the Church.   But then who are you to assert this?   Are you in a position of authority to define what is and is not the Church?  I think if we dig up the documentary evidence that mandate the existence of the CES, that institution has more right, even legal rights to say they are the Church than you do.

Quote

 

Kevin: What is now obvious is that Jeremy Runnells had made up his mind long before he consulted FAIRMormon, and the CES Letter is a cut and paste compilation of anti-Mormon material for which he solicited approval and advice from the ex-Mormon community.  His motive was not to find answers but rather the most effective way of getting his wife and children to join him.

 

Even if it is obvious to you, to Calm, and every apologist here or elsewhere in Mormondom, does that relieve you of the obligation to answer his questions the way the CES Director and Stake Pres Ivins abandoned their duty to Runnells?

If it does, then why do you even mention how you took the burden to answer his questions?  What's the point?  Apparently, his being a full-blown apostate has nothing to do with it.  You have other motives for bothering to answer Runnells.

Quote

 

Kevin: Many members of the church have made personal effort to respond to the CES Letter.  Including me.

 

Exactly my point.  If you guys can do it, why did boththe CES Director and Stake Pres Ivins miserably fail?  That you can easily do it is an evidence that their blunders were totally inexcusable.  You actually confirm how clearly bungled this was.

Runnells asked only three questions to Pres. Ivins during the council.  Let's look at the first one:

Quote

Jeremy Runnells: My experience with President Ivins, unfortunately, the past year and a half, is that he has never answerd my questions. Not a single question. I have asked you 3 questions over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over. 20 times. And the specific questions that I asked is “What error or mistakes in the CES Letter, or on the website, is incorrect so I can publicly correct it?”

Is that a hard question to answer?  Not really.  I will answer Runnells myself as if I am the secretary of Pres. Ivins:

"I have emailed you several times over the past three years.  I asked you to paste this link on your anti-Mormon site so that confused members like you will see I have answered your questions.  The link is www.cesletteransweredbyivins.com.  Why haven't you complied?    To me this is evidence against you that you don't really seek for answers.  You only want faithful members to share your confusion."

I can answer Runnells in less than 30 seconds with less than 50 words while blasting away every silly excuse he has.  But an answer like that requires very good preparation.  Pres. Ivins obviously FAILED to prepare.  That is how he bungled this disciplinary council.

In Luke 11:10-13, Jesus taught:  
10 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. 
11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? 
12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? 
13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children...  

Jesus here is saying that even wicked fathers know how to give to their children.  They give what is being asked.  Runnells asked for answers, the Church ignored him.  They only want him excommunicated.  They're worse than the wicked father as per Jesus' standard.  Pres. Ivins as an official representative of the Church to Runnells clearly failed in his fatherly duties to him.
 
Kevin, since you are now boasting of your answers to Runnells' questions, did you volunteer to help Pres. Ivins answer Runnels?  

If not, then why not?

[HappyJackWagon]

8 hours ago, cdowis said:

And there are millions who agree with you that there is no need for organized religion.  Just go to the mountains, or the forest canopy and worship God.  Baptism is a work, unnecessary for salvation.

But I was clearly not addressing my post to you.

I was speaking to those members of the LDS church who understand the importance of the keys of the priesthood, and the necessity of record keeping.  They understand that the "Book of Life" is literal, and is  based on church records here on earth.  In order to gain access to the Celestial Kingdom, the person's church record is a requirement for entry where all of the ordinances are recorded.

If you are not familiar with those concepts, you might ask around.  I can't help you.

Cdowis- is your complete misapplication of what I said intentional? In no way did I say there is no need for organized religion. I'd say it is a nice attempt at a strawman but I can't give you that much credit. I think you just don't comprehend my simple sentence. I'll post again for your review.

Quote

     16 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't agree. A saving ordinance doesn't receive it's saving power from bureaucratic records.

That means that when a baptism is performed it is recorded in heaven even if the church loses the record. It does not mean there is no need for organized religion.

Try to be a little more aware of context and please don't purposely misrepresent me.

Edited April 22, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[cdowis]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That means that when a baptism is performed it is recorded in heaven even if the church loses the record. It does not mean there is no need for organized religion.

Try to be a little more aware of context and please don't purposely misrepresent me.

You know full well that this has absolutely nothing to do with the church "losing a record".  If the record of a member is removed from the church's records (excommunication), it is also removed in heaven.  Those ordinances are no longer in effect for that individual.

I can't help someone who is deliberately pretending ignorance.  I cannot help you. 

Edited April 22, 2016 by cdowis

[HappyJackWagon]

7 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Great, so people like you who do not believe are keep people like me, who do believe out of the Temple for smoking cigarettes. I hope you had the integrity to step down from your position.

People like me? You seem to know a lot about me and my level of belief. What an arrogant and bitter reaction to my personal struggle. I made myself vulnerable by sharing which clearly is a mistake. People like you can't handle a little truth. It's too bad.

In fact I did have the "integrity to step down". I was totally open and honest with my SP and asked to be released, however he encouraged/implored me to continue so I finished out 5 years. It was very difficult but I did it to sustain the SP. Not that it's any of your business but he was comfortable with the way I answer each of the TR questions regarding belief and I remained orthopraxy in my observance.

So if you are bitter for not receiving a recommend because you can't answer the questions, that is your problem, not mine. Maybe it's time to grow up a little and take responsibility for yourself instead of blaming someone "like me" for preventing you from attending. You're preventing yourself. In case you aren't aware, I didn't create the questions.

How old are you?

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, cdowis said:

I cannot help you, 

I suspect you are right. To help, you must first understand.

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Well, right off the top of my head the geography question assumes facts not in evidence. I have never from the very start of my Mormon studies ever thought that the Nephite and Lamanite civilizations took place in upstate New York. i have always believed they were in MesoAmerica. Now maybe I am going to be surprised when I get my next life history lesson but at this point to take the church to task over some perceived coincidences just seems a bit premature.

The 4 versions of the First Vision are no surprise. I have had my own visions and I remember them different every single time.

Many of the "questions" are lectures with a: Shouldn't you have known better? at the end. 

I'm not a scholar so no matter what I say here is not going to sound learned nor do I have the time nor inclination to do a step by step analysis.  So I'll just say, "Yeah they were great questions. I can see he got exactly what he wanted out of the whole deal"  What about you Al? Do you think they were good questions? Good enough to override the Holy Spirit's confirmation of the translation of the BoM, PGP by the Power and Spirit of the Lord? If people are being baptized, confirmed, and sealed without a personal confirmation by the Holy Spirit why are they going through the motions? Isn't that hypocritical?  When people long for the "way it used to be" have they forgotten their spiritual experiences? Is it needful to be a scholar to know if Jesus Christ runs the LDS Church? If it's not true why are there 20 pages of arguing over whether the SP has the power to dissolve Jeremy's ordinances? 

 

I'm assuming Jeremy was baptized at 8 yrs. old.  At that age I highly doubt the child will go through those experiences to know for asurety the church is true.  Many get that when serving in the mission field and many get them through service elsewhere.  But IMO, manifestations that the church is true isn't as common as one would think, unless you're going by the warm feelings you've been told are the HG speaking to you usually in a church setting.

[ALarson]

7 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Well, right off the top of my head the geography question assumes facts not in evidence. I have never from the very start of my Mormon studies ever thought that the Nephite and Lamanite civilizations took place in upstate New York. i have always believed they were in MesoAmerica. 

Ok.  What have past and present church leaders stated about this?  You have to see why there is confusion regarding the topic and why someone may have questions about it.

7 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

The 4 versions of the First Vision are no surprise.

Learning about the actual recorded different versions is surprising and troubling for many members.   So, questions about this are not "bad questions" to ask.  Also, I'd imagine for many who have read the letter, this may have been something new for them and they had questions too.  

7 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

I have had my own visions and I remember them different every single time.

Ok.  I'm not sure what that has to do with asking questions regarding the first vision.

7 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

 What about you Al? Do you think they were good questions?

I think they were questions that Runnells had.  I also think they are questions and topics that many members are searching for answers for.  You seem to disagree, and that's fine.

 

I do feel that the church is trying to address some of these topics (with the essays and new seminary lessons, etc.).  I think that's great.

.

Edited April 22, 2016 by ALarson

[Duncan]

5 hours ago, Rico said:

Kevin,

The scripture Matt7:7 as it stands is fine.  But inventing your own scripture ("Blessed are they that sit like lumps...etc") and using that as evidence to prove an argument really proves nothing.  Use legit scripture if you want your arguments to be treated with credibility.

Your two legs are appendages that consist part of your body, are you saying they are not part of you?  Is there such a thing as an appendage that is not part of a greater whole?  Your logic is quite a stretch.  Perhaps this is why Runnells cannot seem to trust Mormon apologists.

You are denying that the CES is not the Church.   But then who are you to assert this?   Are you in a position of authority to define what is and is not the Church?  I think if we dig up the documentary evidence that mandate the existence of the CES, that institution has more right, even legal rights to say they are the Church than you do.

Even if it is obvious to you, to Calm, and every apologist here or elsewhere in Mormondom, does that relieve you of the obligation to answer his questions the way the CES Director and Stake Pres Ivins abandoned their duty to Runnells?

If it does, then why do you even mention how you took the burden to answer his questions?  What's the point?  Apparently, his being a full-blown apostate has nothing to do with it.  You have other motives for bothering to answer Runnells.

Exactly my point.  If you guys can do it, why did boththe CES Director and Stake Pres Ivins miserably fail?  That you can easily do it is an evidence that their blunders were totally inexcusable.  You actually confirm how clearly bungled this was.

Runnells asked only three questions to Pres. Ivins during the council.  Let's look at the first one:

Is that a hard question to answer?  Not really.  I will answer Runnells myself as if I am the secretary of Pres. Ivins:

"I have emailed you several times over the past three years.  I asked you to paste this link on your anti-Mormon site so that confused members like you will see I have answered your questions.  The link is www.cesletteransweredbyivins.com.  Why haven't you complied?    To me this is evidence against you that you don't really seek for answers.  You only want faithful members to share your confusion."

I can answer Runnells in less than 30 seconds with less than 50 words while blasting away every silly excuse he has.  But an answer like that requires very good preparation.  Pres. Ivins obviously FAILED to prepare.  That is how he bungled this disciplinary council.

In Luke 11:10-13, Jesus taught:  
10 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. 
11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? 
12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? 
13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children...  

Jesus here is saying that even wicked fathers know how to give to their children.  They give what is being asked.  Runnells asked for answers, the Church ignored him.  They only want him excommunicated.  They're worse than the wicked father as per Jesus' standard.  Pres. Ivins as an official representative of the Church to Runnells clearly failed in his fatherly duties to him.
 
Kevin, since you are now boasting of your answers to Runnells' questions, did you volunteer to help Pres. Ivins answer Runnels?  

If not, then why not?

if Runnells feels that strongly about it do you think he'll appeal the decision?

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

if Runnells feels that strongly about it do you think he'll appeal the decision?

There was no decision, he resigned.  (So there's nothing to appeal.)

But, if they had recommended excommunication, there is an appeals process.  IIRC, both John Dehlin and Kate Kelly appealed the decision to excommunicate them..

[cdowis]

5 hours ago, Rico said:

Even if it is obvious to you, to Calm, and every apologist here or elsewhere in Mormondom, does that relieve you of the obligation to answer his questions the way the CES Director and Stake Pres Ivins abandoned their duty to Runnells?

We  have  no such duty.  That is something that he himself must resolve, between himself and the Lord.  Our only duty is to remind him of that.

If it does, then why do you even mention how you took the burden to answer his questions?  What's the point?  Apparently, his being a full-blown apostate has nothing to do with it.  You have other motives for bothering to answer Runnells.

I am not Kevin, but apologetics is simply a hobby, hot a religious duty or activity.

snip

Jesus here is saying that even wicked fathers know how to give to their children.  They give what is being asked.  Runnells asked for answers, the Church ignored him.  They only want him excommunicated.  They're worse than the wicked father as per Jesus' standard.  Pres. Ivins as an official representative of the Church to Runnells clearly failed in his fatherly duties to him.

He is not his father, he is not his mommy.  His duty is to call him to repentance, and if he refuses and continues his efforts to discredit and to attempt to destroy the church, then to have his record deleted/ removed / expunged/ cleansed from the church records and to leave final judgement to God.  

He was successful in doing his duty with love and patience.
 

 

Edited April 22, 2016 by cdowis

[Kevin Christensen]

5 hours ago, Rico said:

Kevin,

The scripture Matt7:7 as it stands is fine.  But inventing your own scripture ("Blessed are they that sit like lumps...etc") and using that as evidence to prove an argument really proves nothing.  Use legit scripture if you want your arguments to be treated with credibility.

 

Rico,

You apparently miss the point that I was not inventing my own scripture, but simply pointing out something that is emphatically not scripture.  That seems obvious.  And I learned long ago that no matter how much legit scripture I use, if a person misunderstands my arguments, or simply refuses to take them seriously, all they need to do is ignore me or say, "So what?"

Quote

Your two legs are appendages that consist part of your body, are you saying they are not part of you?  Is there such a thing as an appendage that is not part of a greater whole?  Your logic is quite a stretch.  Perhaps this is why Runnells cannot seem to trust Mormon apologists.

You are denying that the CES is not the Church.   But then who are you to assert this?   Are you in a position of authority to define what is and is not the Church?  I think if we dig up the documentary evidence that mandate the existence of the CES, that institution has more right, even legal rights to say they are the Church than you do.

Of course an appendage is part of the greater whole.  That is exactly my point. I am member of the church, and so are the good people who contribute to FAIRMormon, and so is Daniel Peterson, so is Neal Rappleye, so is Steve Smoot, and so are many others.  As a member I am a part.  Legally, and by covenant, and my covenants include one of standing as a witness of Christ at all times and using my talents for the church.  And it my talent happens to extend to answering questions, and at times even making contributions, then that is done because I am part of that greater whole. 

Labeling my arguments as "unofficial" is just that, "labeling" rather than responding to them or acknowledging them.  That sort of thought characterizes Position 2 of the 9 Position Perry Scheme of Cognitive and Ethical Growth. 

Quote

POSITION 2 - Multiplicity Prelegitimate.  (Resisting snake)

 

Now the person moves to accept that there is diversity, but they still think there are TRUE authorities who are right, that the others are confused by complexities or are just frauds.  They think they are with the true authorities and are right while all others are wrong.  They accept that their good authorities present problems so they can learn to reach right answers

One of the interesting traits of the first four positions is this:

Quote

ALL OF THE POSITIONS ABOVE FEEL ABANDONMENT IN UNSTRUCTURED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS. WHEN CHANGES IN THINKING START TO HAPPEN, IT CAN BE A DANGEROUS TIME.  (The forbidden fruit has been partaken and one is out of the Garden of Eden.)

And one of the potential responses to the complications of Position 5 is this:

Quote

If the person RETREATS, rage takes over and he loses agency to make sense. He survives by avoiding complexity and ambivalence and regresses to Dualism, position 2, (multiplicity prelegitimate).  He becomes moralistic righteous and has "righteous" hatred for otherness.  He complains childlike and demands of authority figures to just tell him what they want.

I have a link to a Summary of the Perry Scheme on my profile here, if you are curious.  I have referred to it in some of my Interpreter essays.

Quote

Kevin, since you are now boasting of your answers to Runnells' questions, did you volunteer to help Pres. Ivins answer Runnels?  

If not, then why not?

"Boasting?"  [Shrug]

My essays were available, just as many other responses were.   While Runnells claimed that he would personally respond to me, he punted and let his friend Jonny Stephenson do so for him.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/eye-of-the-beholder-law-of-the-harvest-observations-on-the-inevitable-consequences-of-the-different-investigative-approaches-of-jeremy-runnells-and-jeff-lindsay/

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/image-is-everything-pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain/

As part of my lifelong membership in the LDS church, I've become acquainted with the concept of Stewardship.  I do my job, and let other people do theirs, and in fact, I covenant to "sustain" them, in terms of the relative stake, ward, and quorum boundaries.  And I've even looked up "sustain" in a good dictionary so that I know exactly what it means, and exactly what it does not mean.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[consiglieri]

17 hours ago, rongo said:

Keep going with the thought exercise about what you would have done differently.

After treating him with Dignity and Kindness™, would you have 

a) told him "it's all good" and dismissed the council, with no action

or

b) continued with the council and administered formal discipline if he remained unrepentant and defiant?

That's the real question about how you would have done things better. Not whether or not you are a better Dale Carnegie than he, but whether you would have done what needed to be done.

I think treating Jeremy with dignity and kindness would have been the post important thing, regardless of what happened thereafter.

You might be surprised how treating somebody with dignity and kindness can affect a person who is "unrepentant and defiant." 

 

[consiglieri]

17 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

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

HJW raises a legitimate point.

But rather, the burden is on you to prove that bishops and stake presidents DO have authority to nullify temple ordinances.

Smac tried his hand at it, but didn't succeed very well.

I wish you better luck. 

 

 

[consiglieri]

16 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.

 

I think the issue is not about whether the Church has given bishops authority to excommunicate a member.

I think the question is whether a bishop has authority to revoke and annul covenantal ordinances, and especially temple ordinances, received by the excommunicated member.

For example, if a divorced member wants a marriage annulled, special permission must be sought and granted from the First Presidency.

So how can a bishop or stake president annul a temple marriage with no First Presidency involvement?

That is the question, I think.

 

[salgare]

1 minute ago, consiglieri said:

HJW raises a legitimate point.

But rather, the burden is on you to prove that bishops and stake presidents DO have authority to nullify temple ordinances.

Smac tried his hand at it, but didn't succeed very well.

I wish you better luck. 

 

 

Someone does not understand the temple very well.  Sealers are a very special calling, few get the Sealing keys required to preform sealing ordinances in the Temple.  Typically only older workers who have worked in the temple for years are called to be sealers and receive the keys.  While a Bishop or SP might have the sealing keys it is not typical.  In pure Mormon theology only a sealer can bind/unbind on earth as in heaven.

[consiglieri]

16 hours ago, Jeanne said:

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.

So you know, I was having a conversation with my 25-year old daughter a while back, and I took the opportunity to ask her if, in her being raised in the Church in Utah, she had ever heard that Joseph Smith was married to more than one woman.

She was flabbergasted.

Brigham Young she knew about.  But not Joseph Smith.

This phenomenon is not restricted to the distant past, apparently.

[consiglieri]

16 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

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

Wrong, my friend.  It is controversial.  For I controvert it.

Your line of reasoning is flawed by your mistaken conflation of church membership with ordinances.

Baptism has little if anything to do with membership, and mostly to do with entering a covenant with Jesus (not the Church) and receiving a remission of sins.

Confirmation has only partly to do with membership; and the balance to do with receiving the Holy Ghost.

A bishop may revoke the part of confirmation having to do with membership, but why should that affect any part of the other ordinances not having to do with membership?

I think HJW has raised a very important point, Russ.

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I think the issue is not about whether the Church has given bishops authority to excommunicate a member.

I think the question is whether a bishop has authority to revoke and annul covenantal ordinances, and especially temple ordinances, received by the excommunicated member.

For example, if a divorced member wants a marriage annulled, special permission must be sought and granted from the First Presidency.

So how can a bishop or stake president annul a temple marriage with no First Presidency involvement?

That is the question, I think.

 

Has any bishop or stake president ever tried to annul a temple marriage without no first presidency involvement?  

As i understand it, stake presidents recommend excommunication but it is the first presidency that actual revokes the blessings.  If that is true, then the bolded question above seems irrelevant.  

[smac97]

On 4/22/2016 at 7:25 AM, consiglieri said:

I think the issue is not about whether the Church has given bishops authority to excommunicate a member.

I think the question is whether a bishop has authority to revoke and annul covenantal ordinances, and especially temple ordinances, received by the excommunicated member.

For example, if a divorced member wants a marriage annulled, special permission must be sought and granted from the First Presidency.

So how can a bishop or stake president annul a temple marriage with no First Presidency involvement?

That is the question, I think.

Bishops and Stake Presidents, each and every one of them, are called by the First Presidency, which delegates to them the authority to act as judges in Israel, which includes the authority to excommunicate (provided they do so in accordance with the instructions in the scriptures and from the Presiding High Priest, which includes exercising that authority only in council).

So the First Presidency is involved.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 22, 2016 by smac97

[smac97]

On 4/22/2016 at 7:27 AM, salgare said:

Someone does not understand the temple very well.  Sealers are a very special calling, few get the Sealing keys required to preform sealing ordinances in the Temple.  Typically only older workers who have worked in the temple for years are called to be sealers and receive the keys.  While a Bishop or SP might have the sealing keys it is not typical.  In pure Mormon theology only a sealer can bind/unbind on earth as in heaven.

CFR, if you please that "only a sealer can bind/unbind on earth as in heaven."

I'm quite interested in this "pure Mormon theology" thing.  Where is it explained/summarized?  Who did the explaining/summarizing?

Thanks,

-Smac