Jeremy Runnells Excommunicated

[cdowis]

42 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

 

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/

This was an excellent essay.  

I take a slightly different view (perhaps you did make this point).  Let us suppose that I know for a fact the identity of my biological parents (e.g. perhaps thru DNA testing).  That is not an assumption to my mind, but a fact.  But what happens if there are others who claim otherwise -- that they bring other facts and questions on my true parentage.  Some of the questions i cannot answer.  They present a convincing argument regarding my "true" parents, including questioning and denying the results of the DNA test.

I have a certain knowledge of the truth, and even if I am only able to give feeble answers to their arguments, I know what I know.  I have no need to compare arguments on the one side vs the other side.  While it may be interesting, and bring up issues previously unknown to me, in the end, I know what I know.

So my response to the detractors, "You can do the DNA test yourself".  But they refuse because they already have built their case.

This is probably a poor analogy.

Edited April 22, 2016 by cdowis

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

Not only "sealers" but only those who have specifically received the sealing keys. That would include sealers, Q12 and First Presidency. Bishops and stake presidents are not given the sealing keys in conjunction with their calling.

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, cdowis said:

This was an excellent essay.  

I take a slightly different view (perhaps you did make this point).  Let us suppose that I know for a fact the identity of my biological parents (e.g. perhaps thru DNA testing).  That is not an assumption to my mind, but a fact.  But what happens if there are others who claim otherwise -- that they bring other facts and questions on my true parentage.  Some of the questions i cannot answer.  They present a convincing argument regarding my "true" parents, including questioning and denying the results of the DNA test.

I have a certain knowledge of the truth, and even if I am only able to give feeble answers to their arguments, I know what I know.  I have no need to compare arguments on the one side vs the other side.  While it may be interesting, and bring up issues previously unknown to me, in the end, I know what I know.

So my response to the detractors, "You can do the DNA test yourself".  But they refuse because they already have built their case.

This is probably a poor analogy, but attempting to balance off evidence on one side with the other side does not, in the case of the Book of Mormon, give us the final answer.

Yes, it's a very poor analogy.

You know what you know based on the best evidence you have. That is very reasonable.

What isn't reasonable is refusing to even consider newer evidence because you already know what you know. That is classic, willful ignorance. Not all new evidence will be good or require a change from what you know, but refusing to even look, you are like the people in Plato's cave who refuse to step outside the cave. You can see the shadows on the wall which tell you everything you need to know so you feel there is no need to see the animals which cast the shadows. You then mock those who step outside the cave to explore and learn because you know what you know and no one can change that.

Believing that you have everything figured out and have absolute knowledge and truth is extremely arrogant.

Has it ever happened that a child who is certain about his biological parents learned he was wrong. Maybe an updated DNA test with better technology and higher accuracy. Maybe he finds the adoption papers. He knew what he knew until he allowed himself to consider there may be something else to know.

[smac97]

On 4/22/2016 at 7:37 AM, consiglieri said:

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.

Earlier in this thread I said this:

Quote

I know it's a popular trend among disaffected members of the Church to attempt to bifurcate "the Church" from God and His saving ordinances.  Hence we have people like Kate Kelly declaring (after her excommunication): "I am, and have always been, a faithful Mormon."  Hence we have Denver Snuffer characterizing his excommunication as a "non issue" (or "non event" or something like that).  But to reduce the Church of Jesus Christ to a mere custodian of "bureaucratic records" is simply wrong.

I think Consig's statement above typifies the attempted bifurcation I was referencing here.

Here are my thoughts:

• 1. The Presiding High Priest holds all priesthood keys which have been delegated to the children of men on the earth.
• 2. These keys are "delegable," that is, the Presiding High Priest can authorize other holders of the priesthood to have and exercise some (thought not all) of these keys.
• 3. The keys of the priesthood include the power to "bind" on earth and in heaven (that would include the authority to officiate in sacred ordinances such as "sealings") and also the power to "loose" on earth and in heaven (that is, to suspend or dissolve that which was previously sealed).
• 4. The keys of the priesthood can be delegated severally.  That is to say, some priesthood holders can be delegated the authority to "seal" (including apostles, some other General Authorities, temple presidents, and specifically-called officiators), and some other priesthood holders can be delegated the authority to  "loose" (bishops, stake presidents, district presidents, mission presidents, acting in council with others).
• 5. I do not think there is any requirement in the Restored Gospel for the Presiding High Priest to delegate the "sealing" and "loosing" keys to the same individuals.
• 6. Because the authority of each bishop, stake president, etc. has been delegated to him by the Presiding High Priest, I do not think there is a good faith dispute about the sufficiency of that authority.  This is not to say that a bishop, stake president, cannot err in how he exercises those keys.  It can happen (Arthur Zander springs to mind).  In such circumstances I am not particularly sure what happens.  It has been suggested (elsewhere in this thread, I think) that the saving ordinances must be sealed/confirmed by The Holy Spirit of Promise in order to be efficacious, and therefore perhaps an undoing of those ordinances must also be so sealed/confirmed.  I think that's probably correct.  So perhaps it could accurately be said that a person who has been unfairly or improperly excommunicated (such as Helmut Hubener or Avraham Gileadi) was never actually deprived of the blessings of saving ordinances because the excommunication was not sealed/confirmed by The Holy Spirit of Promise.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[smac97]

On 4/22/2016 at 7:52 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

Not only "sealers" but only those who have specifically received the sealing keys. That would include sealers, Q12 and First Presidency. Bishops and stake presidents are not given the sealing keys in conjunction with their calling.

Agreed.  I was using "sealer" as shorthand for "those who have authority to seal."  I am not sure that "sealer" is actually a calling in the Church.  Is it?  

Thanks,

-Smac

[consiglieri]

40 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Bishops and Stake Presidents, each and every one of them, are called by the First Presidency,

This is news to me.

I am aware of no bishop being called by the First Presidency.

I believe stake presidents used to be called by apostles once upon a time, but that day is long past.

[ALarson]

51 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

In D&C 132:7, it states (regarding the sealing power):

Quote

"I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred."

So, is it just the power to seal that is delegated to those who are set apart as sealers?  They don't actually receive the sealing keys, do they?  

Do  those who are called as sealers have the authority to "unbind" or cancel a sealing?  I thought they were only set apart and given power to seal or bind.  I believe that only the 1st presidency can cancel a sealing.

.

Edited April 22, 2016 by ALarson

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Not only "sealers" but only those who have specifically received the sealing keys. That would include sealers, Q12 and First Presidency. Bishops and stake presidents are not given the sealing keys in conjunction with their calling.

Ok, so maybe this answers my question above.  Sealers are actually given the sealing keys (not just delegated the power to seal)?

But can they bind and unbind, or just bind?  I've never heard of a temple sealer being able to cancel a sealing.

.

Edited April 22, 2016 by ALarson

[ttribe]

9 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.

What an awful thing to say.

[ttribe]

Dup.

Edited April 22, 2016 by ttribe

[smac97]

On 4/22/2016 at 8:23 AM, consiglieri said:

This is news to me.

I am aware of no bishop being called by the First Presidency.

I believe stake presidents used to be called by apostles once upon a time, but that day is long past.

I have an acquaintance who is a bishop, and who has a certificate from the First Presidency.  I have read it.  It provides as follows:

Quote

BISHOPS CERTIFICATE

We, the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, do hereby certify that on {Date of Setting Apart} 

{Name of Bishop} 

was ordained and set apart by President {Name of Stake President} as bishop of the {Name of Ward} of {Name of Stake} of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

In testimony whereof, we hereunto subscribe our names on {Date of Certificate}.

{Signatures of The First Presidency}

Also, in section 19.6 of Handbook 2 of the CHI, we find the following (emphases added):

Quote

19.6 Calling, Ordaining, and Setting Apart Bishops

The stake presidency recommends brethren to be called or released as bishops.

...

Before a new bishop may be interviewed, called, ordained, or set apart, his recommendation must be approved by the First Presidency. The stake president may extend the calling after he receives written approval from the First Presidency. With this approval, the stake president may also ordain and set apart a bishop after ward members have given a sustaining vote. The approval of the First Presidency is also required before a stake president may release a bishop. The stake president may not assign these responsibilities to a counselor.

...

After the First Presidency has approved the recommendation of a man to serve as bishop, they authorize a stake president, Area Seventy, or General Authority to ordain him and set him apart. The authorized priesthood officer:

1. Calls the man by his full name.
2. States that he is acting by the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood.
3. Ordains the man a bishop (unless he was previously ordained).
4. Sets him apart to preside over the ward and to be the president of the Aaronic Priesthood and the priests quorum, emphasizing his responsibilities for the Aaronic Priesthood and for young women in the ward.
5. Confers on him all the keys, rights, powers, and authority of the office of bishop, referring specifically to the bishop’s duties as a common judge in Israel and as the presiding high priest in the ward.
6. Gives words of blessing as the Spirit directs.
7. Closes in the name of Jesus Christ.

The stake president does the legwork, but the calling comes from The First Presidency.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 22, 2016 by smac97

[rongo]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

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." 

 

You might be surprised to know that I do treat everybody with dignity and kindness.

Let's be honest, though. If you were a priesthood leader, you wouldn't have enforced Church policy or sought to encourage the cessation of public apostate behavior.

Or, have I completely misread you?

[Kevin Christensen]

Something worth remembering, from Hugh Nibley's "Criticizing the Brethren"

Quote

Couldn’t this disruption of the Church by making sport of peoples’ beliefs be punished? Mosiah washed his hands of it. He said, “Behold, I judge them not,” and tossed the hot potato right back to Alma: “I deliver them into thy hands to be judged” (Mosiah 26:12).

Alma was helpless. He “was again troubled; and he went and inquired of the Lord” (Mosiah 26:13), and the answer was clear and explicit: “He that will not hear my voice, the same shall ye not receive into my church” (Mosiah 26:28). Excommunication was the limit of their authority and is the only power to punish which the Church has ever had. It is not the same power of excommunication claimed by the Roman church, where excommunication means the same as damnation. It is for God alone to judge and pronounce a sentence of eternal salvation or damnation, and that only when the time comes, as the Lord told the disciples at Capernaum (cf. Mark 3:28—29). The Lord told Alma that after being cut off from the Church, any who confessed and repented were to be forgiven out of hand, even as often as they repented (Mosiah 26:30—31). After that they were not to be judged or criticized by other members of the Church for what they had done.

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1094&index=18

And later on the same talk:

Quote

A characteristic and familiar situation occurred in the year the Prophet was martyred:

     An individual . . . with . . . [an] abhorrence of evil [joins the Church] . . . . He sets himself upon the watch to detect the failings of others, deeming that he is doing God [a] service in being so employed, and thus is he decoyed into the occupation of the great master of evil, to be the accuser of the brethren. And during the time thus occupied by him, he considers himself actuated by the purest motives, arising from a detestation of sin, . . . . Yet mark the subtlety of Satan in thus leading men into a false position. Such a course, in the first place, probably arose from the purest of motives, and perhaps the individual was instrumental in rectifying some error; he feels a satisfaction in having done so, his self-esteem is gratified, and ere he is aware, he is seeking for another opportunity of doing the same, . . . continually set[ting] himself up as being capable of sitting in judgment upon others, and of rectifying by his own ability the affairs of the kingdom of God.⁶⁴

Joseph said, “The eagerness to accuse is from the devil.”⁶⁵ But Joseph recognized that at all times the defects of the Church are the same we find today. But that’s not the point. “Notwithstanding this congregation profess to be saints yet I stand in the midst of all characters and classes of man . . . . Yes, I am standing in the midst of all kinds of people. Search your hearts & see if you are like god.”⁶⁶

“We have thieves among us, adulterers, liars, hypocrites. . . . As far as we degenerate from God, we descend to the devil and lose knowledge, and without knowledge we cannot be saved, and while our hearts are filled with evil, and we are studying evil, there is no room in our hearts for good, or studying good. . . . The Church must be cleansed, and I proclaim against all iniquity. A man is saved no faster than he gets knowledge.”⁶⁷ Hence, we need revelation to assist us and give us knowledge. We are helpless otherwise. “Ignorance,” Joseph said, “superstition and bigotry placing itself where it ought not, is oftentimes in the way of the prosperity of this Church.”⁶⁸ Why don’t the Church’s enemies circulate Brother Joseph Fielding Smith’s Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith as an anti-Mormon book? It has such strong statements in it.

And this:

Quote

“Many, when they arrived here, were dissatisfied with the conduct of some of the Saints, because everything was not done perfectly right, and they get angry, and thus the devil gets advantage over them to destroy them. . . . But if they would bear with my infirmities and the infirmities of the brethren, I would likewise bear with their infirmities.”⁷⁴

And this:

Quote

While “it is the privilege of every Elder to speak of the things of God,”¹¹⁰ says Joseph, God calls or elects particular men for particular works on whom to confer special blessings. He’s aware of their defects. “If others’ blessings are not your blessings, others’ curses are not your curses.”¹¹¹ So if you think any of the Brethren seem to be underendowed in any particular gift or knowledge, know that God has chosen that brother for other gifts, and God will endow him with the gifts he needs as the occasion arises.

And of course, this:

Quote

The Brethren have their work cut out for them, and strenuous work it is. It calls for studying the gospel and to see that the greatest possible number of people in all parts of the world get to hear the first principles. This requires constant repetition of first principles to fresh audiences wherever General Authorities go; they cannot be expected to set forth advanced ideas or front-line research. This poses a dilemma, for no men are more in touch with developments in various fields where the Church might be benefitted. On my first day in Provo, President Joseph Fielding Smith was having lunch with LeRoy Robertson at Edna Mae’s [a Provo cafeteria on Fifth North and University], where I later joined them; and during the lunch, Joseph Fielding made a remark I will never forget: “We are rapidly coming to be known as a mediocre people.” Since then we have made giant strides in the direction of mediocrity! But whose fault is that?

That very same first week, I had my first meeting with some of the faculty. Some of them complained of the mediocrity of our literature and art—the Harry Anderson school in the Church. I took the liberty to point out to the speaker, one of the most eminent on the faculty, that the Brethren would have no objection at all to his writing an immortal drama or poem or even a great American novel; in fact, nothing would delight them more than to have the present company produce an outpouring of those masterpieces whose absence they so deplored. They, not the Brethren, were responsible for the famine. That was rather surprising; they had not thought about it that way. But the knee-jerk reaction was, when upset, to blame the Brethren.

And as a pleasant surprise, this:

Quote

Joseph Smith retained his sanity by dealing with this type of situation in high good humor. We have some examples. “Don’t be limited in your views with regard to your neighbor’s virtue, but beware of self-righteousnes, and be limited in the estimate of your own virtues. . . . You must enlarge your souls towards each other. . . . We must bear with each other’s failings, as an indulgent parent bears with the foibles of his children.”¹¹⁹ You see, we’re at school. We must be allowed to make mistakes. “There are mistakes in the essays and the reports that are handed in,” you say. So should we disband the schools? These mistakes are the whole point of it. We’re here to search out the nitty-gritty. We need to find out where we’re wrong and why. Such a practice will prepare us for the long pull ahead and hereafter. Overriding all else is that grand feeling of love which makes life a joy, and everything I read about Joseph Smith reflects that promise. “I see no faults in the church,” he said, “Let me be resurrected with the Saints, whether to heaven or hell.”¹²⁰ The Church, taken as a whole, is the way things stand right now. A particular fault is neither here nor there. “What do we care if the society is good? . . . Friendship is the grand fundamental principle of Mormonism, to revolution[ize and] civilize the world, [to] pour forth love. . . . I do not dwell upon your faults. You shall not [dwell] upon mine. . . . [If] Presbyterians [have] any truth, embrace that. Baptist, Methodist, &c. Get all the good in the world. Come out a pure Mormon.”¹²¹

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[smac97]

On 4/22/2016 at 8:32 AM, ALarson said:

In D&C 132:7, it states (regarding the sealing power):

So, is it just the power to seal that is delegated to those who are set apart as sealers?  They don't actually receive the sealing keys, do they?  

Do  those who are called as sealers have the authority to "unbind" or cancel a sealing?  I thought they were only set apart and given power to seal or bind.  I believe that only the 1st presidency can cancel a sealing.

First, I think D&C 132 is speaking of priesthood keys generally, not just the keys pertaining to sealing.  The Presiding High Priest is the one referenced in verse 7 (“… there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred”).  He holds all of them, and he can delegate some of them (but, per verse 7, not all of them) to others.  So yes, a temple worker called as a sealer "receive{s} the sealing keys" by delegation.  He holds them under authority from The Presiding High Priest.

Second, it is my understanding that the authority to excommunicate resides with 1) bishops (including the Presiding Bishop) and branch presidents, 2) stake presidents and district presidents, and 3) mission presidents.  These keys must be exercised in council (meaning the bishop cannot excommunicate a person by himself).  (EDIT TO ADD: Interestingly, it would seem the Presiding High Priest holds the keys to excommunicate, but does not utilize them and instead, in the economy of the Lord, leaves their use to those listed above.)

Third, it is my understanding that bishops, stake presidents, etc. are not authorized to be simultaneously called as temple workers.  So I think there is zero overlap between those with authority to "loose" (excommunicate) (bishops, stake presidents, etc.) and those with authority to "seal" (temple workers set apart to officiate in sealings).  

Fourth, I am reconsidering what is meant by "loose" in the scriptures.  I think it can refer either to the "suspension" of saving ordinances (which is what I think happens at excommunication) and the "cancellation" of saving ordinances (which is what I think the First Presidency does when it cancels sealings).  I would appreciate input from others on this point.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 22, 2016 by smac97

[rongo]

37 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

This is news to me.

I am aware of no bishop being called by the First Presidency.

I believe stake presidents used to be called by apostles once upon a time, but that day is long past.

I have in my possession, both letters signed by the First Presidency authorizing my stake president to call me as bishop. Without that letter, the stake president can't do it. The stake president recommends, but the First Presidency approves or declines. We have had visiting general authorities tell stories of times when the First Presidency has declined a bishop call for no explicable reason (worthiness, etc.), but which later turned out to be inspired and prophetic.

Does that help?

[HappyJackWagon]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Agreed.  I was using "sealer" as shorthand for "those who have authority to seal."  I am not sure that "sealer" is actually a calling in the Church.  Is it?  

Thanks,

-Smac

Of course Temple Sealer is an official position and calling. They receive specific keys to seal. Bishops do not specifically receive keys to loose.

Smac- Yourr 6 points above are reasonable (even if I don't fully agree). But I will take issue with the way you continue to say there is no "good faith" reason to dispute these things. You are suggesting that there is no reasonable position other than your own as if all people will only see things one way. If we don't have "good faith" we must be raising these issues in "bad faith". At the very least it's very rude to carry on a conversation when you assume the worst intentions of those with whom you're communicating.

This conversation raises another question which I will raise in "GOOD FAITH". Maybe you can give me the benefit of the doubt on that.

How are priesthood keys bestowed? It seems like a simple question, right? Joseph Smith received priesthood keys directly from angelic messengers by the laying on of hands which would lead me to believe the laying on of hands was important. Presidents of priesthood quorums Deacon-First Presidency all receive the keys by laying on of hands. It seems essential that each person who receives keys must receive them from someone who already holds the keys. Therefore only the Bishop can bestow keys to the president of the Deacon and Teacher's quorum. He cannot delegate to his counselor. Only the SP can give keys to an EQ Pres. He cannot delegate to a counselor. Only the Q15 can give keys to a new apostle. Any disagreement yet?

But this rule/procedure is often broken when Stake Presidents are called and given keys. Presumably only someone holding the keys can bestow them upon the SP. That would typically be the Q15 or Presidency of the 70, yet sometimes the visiting 70 who doesn't hold the keys presides and calls a new stake president. The 70 bestows keys, which he doesn't personally hold, upon the SP who then functions in those keys to bestow keys on others throughout his term.

Our new Stake was created in October 2015 by a member of the 2nd quorum of 70. I had the opportunity to ask the 70 about this because I've been wondering about it for a while. I asked if he had keys temporarily bestowed upon him by Q15 or Pres. of 70 so he could bestow them on the new SP. His response surprised me.

He did not have keys bestowed upon him. He received a letter in the mail from the office of the President of the Q12. The letter assigned him to come to our stake, interview, call, sustain, set apart and bestow keys on the new SP. So by virtue of the assignment, he claimed to have the keys temporarily delegated to him to bestow on the new SP. This doesn't fit the model and importance with which God previously bestowed keys by sending angels. Apparently, instead of the laying on of hands the priesthood keys were temporarily delegated via letter.

Admittedly this is very strange to me. Thoughts?

 

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Second, it is my understanding that the authority to excommunicate resides with 1) bishops (including the Presiding Bishop) and branch presidents, 2) stake presidents and district presidents, and 3) mission presidents.  These keys must be exercised in council (meaning the bishop cannot excommunicate a person by himself).  

While priesthood leaders counsel with the council, the ultimate decision rests with the key-holder --- even if there is not unanimity with the decision. That is, people in the council may disagree with the decision, and the key-holder can still make an authorized, valid decision. The purpose of the council is to provide counsel.

I recall being in one where I disagreed with the decision, although I sustained the action. It wasn't acrimonious. When I have presided, my decisions have been unanimous with my council, although my mind has been been changed by excellent and inspired counsel and points I hadn't seen before. I've learned not to go into councils with expected pre-determined outcomes. The process is a special and unique dispensation of the Spirit through the priesthood.

[ALarson]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

First, I think D&C 132 is speaking of priesthood keys generally, not just the keys pertaining to sealing.  

Andrew F. Ehat writes this (after relating how Hyrum performed a sealing without authority to do so):

Quote

 

Hyrum's intentions in the matter were honorable but that did not lessen the forcefulness of Joseph's rebuke,  He told Hyrum that if he ever did it again, "he would go to hell and all those he sealed with him." 

Twelve days later, when the revelation on Celestial Marriage was first written, Hyrum was again reminded of those strict rules by the words:  "I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of the priesthood are conferred" (D&C 132:7).

 

From that, it seems obvious that "this power"  referred to here, is the sealing power.

.

Edited April 22, 2016 by ALarson

[Jeanne]

14 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Our stake still does them.

Really??? How cool!!

[Jeanne]

29 minutes ago, rongo said:

While priesthood leaders counsel with the council, the ultimate decision rests with the key-holder --- even if there is not unanimity with the decision. That is, people in the council may disagree with the decision, and the key-holder can still make an authorized, valid decision. The purpose of the council is to provide counsel.

I recall being in one where I disagreed with the decision, although I sustained the action. It wasn't acrimonious. When I have presided, my decisions have been unanimous with my council, although my mind has been been changed by excellent and inspired counsel and points I hadn't seen before. I've learned not to go into councils with expected pre-determined outcomes. The process is a special and unique dispensation of the Spirit through the priesthood.

A big plus here from Jeanne that you have since tried to not be pre-determined.  I have often wondered after decisions were made if there were any sleepless nights for decisions that were made.  I am talking in general, not about Jeremy in particular.  What does happen if the spirit speaks differently to two individuals..at what point does one consent to authority over the spirit?

[smac97]

On 4/22/2016 at 9:07 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

Of course Temple Sealer is an official position and calling. They receive specific keys to seal. Bishops do not specifically receive keys to loose.

CFR, if you please, about "Temple Sealer" being "an official position and calling."  I had thought sealers were temple workers specifically authorized by The First Presidency to hold the sealing power and to officiate in sealings, but I am happy to be corrected on that point.

Bishops, meanwhile, are are given "keys," including that of being "judges in Israel."  Perhaps, though, you are correct to the extent that the authority to excommunicate is held severally by a bishop in council with others (his counselors).

Quote

Smac- Yourr 6 points above are reasonable (even if I don't fully agree). But I will take issue with the way you continue to say there is no "good faith" reason to dispute these things.

To clarify, I have said: "There is no good faith basis to dispute the well-established fact that bishops have authority to excommunicate."

I am not saying we cannot disagree about further particulars (such as whether an excommunication "nullifies" or "suspends" saving ordinances).  And my statement should not be construed as meaning that the bishop has authority excommunicate a person by himself (he must do so in council).  But the general proposition that bishops, as judges in Israel, have priesthood authority to excommunicate is, I think, beyond reasonable dispute.

Quote

You are suggesting that there is no reasonable position other than your own as if all people will only see things one way.

Nope.  I think I am positing the position of the Church.

Quote

If we don't have "good faith" we must be raising these issues in "bad faith".

Nope.  See above.  My reference to "no good faith" was fairly specific.

Quote

At the very least it's very rude to carry on a conversation when you assume the worst intentions of those with whom you're communicating.

I understand you position, and I was not intending to either be rude or "assume the worst intentions."  Rather, I was referencing a specific point.

Quote

This conversation raises another question which I will raise in "GOOD FAITH". Maybe you can give me the benefit of the doubt on that.

How are priesthood keys bestowed? It seems like a simple question, right? Joseph Smith received priesthood keys directly from angelic messengers by the laying on of hands which would lead me to believe the laying on of hands was important. Presidents of priesthood quorums Deacon-First Presidency all receive the keys by laying on of hands. It seems essential that each person who receives keys must receive them from someone who already holds the keys. Therefore only the Bishop can bestow keys to the president of the Deacon and Teacher's quorum. He cannot delegate to his counselor. Only the SP can give keys to an EQ Pres. He cannot delegate to a counselor. Only the Q15 can give keys to a new apostle. Any disagreement yet?

I'm with you so far.

Quote

But this rule/procedure is often broken when Stake Presidents are called and given keys. Presumably only someone holding the keys can bestow them upon the SP. That would typically be the Q15 or Presidency of the 70, yet sometimes the visiting 70 who doesn't hold the keys presides and calls a new stake president.  The 70 bestows keys, which he doesn't personally hold, upon the SP who then functions in those keys to bestow keys on others throughout his term.

CFR that a Seventy lacks authority to set apart a stake president.  That is an important, but not self-evident, point.

Your position would seemingly suggest that the Presiding High Priest (or, rather, the President of the Quorum of Twelve - see D&C 107:34, see below) has not or cannot delegate sufficient/proper authority to a Seventy to set apart a stake president.  Where did you get this idea?

Quote

Our new Stake was created in October 2015 by a member of the 2nd quorum of 70. I had the opportunity to ask the 70 about this because I've been wondering about it for a while. I asked if he had keys temporarily bestowed upon him by Q15 or Pres. of 70 so he could bestow them on the new SP. His response surprised me.  He did not have keys bestowed upon him.

You asked whether he had had "keys temporarily bestowed upon him by Q15 or Pres. of 70," and he said no?  He denied this?

Quote

He received a letter in the mail from the office of the President of the Q12. The letter assigned him to come to our stake, interview, call, sustain, set apart and bestow keys on the new SP. So by virtue of the assignment, he claimed to have the keys temporarily delegated to him to bestow on the new SP.

I don't understand.  You are saying he was only "claiming" this?  Are you suggesting he was wrong?  Lying?

And what about when this Seventy was originally ordained to that office?  By whom was he ordained?

I am not understanding your position.  Are you saying that President of the Quorum of the Twelve lacks authority assign a Seventy to set apart a stake president?  What is your source for this?

I think you may have some misunderstandings about the nature of priesthood keys.  For example, a man who holds the priesthood may hold "keys" but may not be authorized to use them.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

The keys held by the Twelve as prophets, seers, and revelators entitle them to perform the duties given them by the President of the Church. President Joseph Fielding Smith (1876–1972) explained: “The Twelve Apostles may receive revelation to guide them in their labors and to assist them in setting in order the priesthood and organizations of the Church. When they are sent out into a stake by authority, they have all the power to receive revelation, to make changes, and to conduct the affairs according to the will of the Lord. But they do not receive revelations for the guidance of the whole Church, only wherein one of them may succeed to the Presidency. In other words the right to receive revelation and guidance for the whole Church is vested in each one of the Twelve, which he could exercise should he succeed to the Presidency. But this power is dormant while the President of the Church is living” (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [1954–56], 3:157; emphasis added).

Is it possible that a Seventy similarly holds "dormant" keys until and unless he is specifically authorized to use them?  See here (D&C 107):

Quote

33 The Twelve are a Traveling Presiding High Council, to officiate in the name of the Lord, under the direction of the Presidency of the Church, agreeable to the institution of heaven; to build up the church, and regulate all the affairs of the same in all nations, first unto the Gentiles and secondly unto the Jews.

 34 The Seventy are to act in the name of the Lord, under the direction of the Twelve or the traveling high council, in building up the church and regulating all the affairs of the same in all nations...

So the Seventy with whom you spoke was - by his account and yours - apparently acting "under the direction of the Twelve . . . {in} regulating all the affairs of the {Church}."  So what "rule/procedure" do you think is broken when the President of the Twelve "directs" a Seventy to set apart a stake president?

Quote

This doesn't fit the model and importance with which God previously bestowed keys by sending angels. Apparently, instead of the laying on of hands the priesthood keys were temporarily delegated via letter.

Admittedly this is very strange to me. Thoughts?

I'm not sure what you are saying here.  Are you suggesting keys can only be bestowed by angels?  

What are your thoughts about a stake president, acting with the approval and under the direction of The First Presidency, sets apart a bishop?  Is that improper?  Is a bishop's calling invalid unless he is specifically set apart by The First Presidency?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 22, 2016 by smac97

[smac97]

On 4/22/2016 at 9:21 AM, ALarson said:

Andrew F. Ehat writes this (after relating how Hyrum performed a sealing without authority to do so):

From that, it seems obvious that "this power"  referred to here, is the sealing power.

I think the Church favors a more expansive reading.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.  

In section 132, verse 7, of the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord speaks of the Prophet—the President—and says: “There is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood areconferred.

And here:

Quote

… The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

In section 132 verse 7 of the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord speaks of the prophet—the president—and says:

“There is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred."

And here:

Quote

In the doctrines of the Church we have been told that only one man at a time on the earth can hold all the keys of the priesthood. Said the Lord, “… there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred” (D&C 132:7), meaning the President of the Church, the prophet, seer, and revelator.

And so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the Church favors a more expansive reading.  See, e.g., here:

And here:

And here:

And so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree.  But section 132 is about Celestial Marriage and the sealing power.  Therefore, I believe that is the specific "power" referred to in verse 7.  

Either way, I also believe it can be applied to other powers and keys of the priesthood as well.

.

Edited April 22, 2016 by ALarson

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure what you are saying here.  Are you suggesting keys can only be bestowed by angels?  

-Smac

reread my post. Many of the questions you ask are answered in my post.

I'm saying that the 70 was assigned by the 12 to preside and call a new SP. I'm saying that unless the 70 already holds the keys which he will be bestowing, as is done in each of the multiple examples I provided, the 12 must be delegating priesthood keys via letter which is very strange.

The 12 can assign whomever they wish to preside. I'm questioning the method by which keys are transmitted. Maybe the 70 told me wrong. Maybe they do hold those keys, but I've never seen anything that indicates they do. I'm open to reviewing material if there is reason to believe the 70 holds those keys. If they do my question is moot.

Quote

To clarify, I have said: "There is no good faith basis to dispute the well-established fact that bishops have authority to excommunicate."

You also said,

Quote

Because the authority of each bishop, stake president, etc. has been delegated to him by the Presiding High Priest, I do not think there is a good faith dispute about the sufficiency of that authority.

You seem to like to throw around the idea that if people don't see things the way you do there is no good faith way for them to dispute your position. It's arrogant but you seem to be sticking with it. FYI- if you reread what I was saying I never disputed the authority to excommunicate membership from the church. I'm disputing what excommunication entails (ie nullification of temple ordinances).

[Jeanne]

Outside of Fairmormon, can anybody tell me what was in the CES letter that was not correct?  Leaving out essays and all that has transpired since, what was a lie?  I want to hear it from those of you here.