Jeremy Runnells Excommunicated

[smac97]

10 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

Right.  "Unless the 70 already holds the keys which he will be bestowing."  "Unless."

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

Again:  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

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.

I think there is ample "reason to believe the 70 holds those keys."  I think the Seventies hold all keys that are necessary to fulfill their duties as outlined in D&C 107 {EDIT TO ADD: Apparently I was in error on this point, at least to some extent.  Seventies who are not in the Presidency of the Seventy do not hold keys per se, but do have keys delegated to them from time to time.}.  I think those keys are conveyed when a Seventy is ordained to that office, but that some keys are only exercised "under the direction of the Twelve."

Quote

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.

Not really.  I think there is plenty of room for principled and reasonable disagreement about all sorts of things about the Restored Gospel.  But not about everything.  So when critics of the Church claim that Latter-day Saints are not Christian, I will challenge that claim as lacking a good faith basis.  And when a person excommunicated from the Church claims that the council lacked authority to do so, I will challenge that as lacking a good faith basis as well.

That's not arrogance.  That's a refusal to let critics and enemies of our faith distort our beliefs.

Quote

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).

Hmm.  Let's backtrack a bit:

• Russell McGregor said: "CALL FOR REFERENCES that Bishops and Stake Presidents don't have the keys to nullify Temple ordinances."
• You responded: "Keys are bestowed by the laying on of hands. CFR that this happens and those keys are delegated."
• I then chimed in: "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."
• I later added: "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.  And here.  Does this distinction ('suspension' versus 'revocation') matter to you?"
• I also later added more (in response to Consig's suggestion that the First Presidency is "not involved" in the nullification/suspension of saving ordinances wrought by excommunication, and therefore there is no such nullification/suspension): "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."
• Consig chimed in: "I am aware of no bishop being called by the First Presidency."  I responded in some detail to Consig's remark here for the proposition that "{t}he stake president does the legwork, but the calling comes from The First Presidency."

So perhaps we have been talking past each other.  I apologize to the extent I have given offense.  Perhaps we can start over a bit?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 23, 2016 by smac97

[cinepro]

17 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

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. 

As should be pointed out in the context of this thread, Runnells was excommunicated for losing his belief in the Church's doctrines and acting in public opposition to the leadership. 

Whether the reasons he lost belief were true or not are irrelevant.  I don't think the Church cares why you apostatize.

[USU78]

22 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

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. 

For those interested:  https://www.createspace.com/6221667

[smac97]

On 4/22/2016 at 10:22 AM, Jeanne said:

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. 

Could you explain why you are not willing to read the essays by FAIR, Christensen and Peterson?  See here:

Quote

 Mr. Runnells was provided answers to the questions he asked.  Extensively.  Take a look at FAIR's responses to the letter.  And Mr. Runnells knew about and extensively responded to FAIR's treatment of his letter well before his disciplinary council.  Kevin Christensen also responded extensively to the letter (at least twice, in fact), and Mr. Runnells responded to that as well (well, sorta - he had a fellow critic write the response for him).  Daniel Peterson has also addressed the letter (not in a point-by-point kind of way, but rather from a "let's take a step back and look at the broader picture" kind of way), and Mr. Runnells responded to that as well.  

All of these remarks about Mr. Runnells' letter were published well before his disciplinary council.  And yet Mr. Runnells is running around insisting that he's never received an answer to them.  That the Church has been "ignoring" his questions for "3 years."  

Perhaps most significantly, Mr. Runnells claims to have asked his SP to "identify error or mistakes in the CES Letter, or on the website, is incorrect so {he} can publicly correct it."  In his various responses to FAIR, Christensen and Peterson (here, here and here), he does not appear to give any substantive reconsideration to his letter based in response to the points raised by these folks.  I acknowledge that Mr. Runnellsposted a list of 17 trivial "errors" he made in his letter, but he then triumphantly declares that the balance of his letter, "95%," consists of "correct claims."  He declares his opinion to be "correct" at pretty much every turn.  Such self-congratulatory validation is rather problematic. 

Many people have already spent considerable time and effort addressing the CES Letter.  Why, then, are you unwilling to read those materials and instead request that defenders of the Church duplicate these previous efforts?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Jeanne]

8 minutes ago, cinepro said:

As should be pointed out in the context of this thread, Runnells was excommunicated for losing his belief in the Church's doctrines and acting in public opposition to the leadership. 

Whether the reasons he lost belief were true or not are irrelevant.  I don't think the Church cares why you apostatize.

This is so true.  I remember in my packet for resignation, a long letter and my reasons.  I don't believe they were ever looked upon and of course, what difference would it have made.?  Straight and narrow is the way.

[Jeanne]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Could you explain why you are not willing to read the essays by FAIR, Christensen and Peterson?  See here:

Many people have already spent considerable time and effort addressing the CES Letter.  Why, then, are you unwilling to read those materials and instead request that defenders of the Church duplicate these previous efforts?

Thanks,

-Smac

I will look this over.  And for your info, I have read Fair, and Jeremy's rebuttal.

[ALarson]

33 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

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. 

I didn't see any "lies" in the CES letter.  The material he presented was quite factual, but he presented it with a negative spin (IMO).  He also came to different conclusions than many and that's what I feel people object to or disagree with.

Have you read the CES letter?  For me, there was nothing new with what he presented.

ETA:

I just saw your post above and see that you have read Jeremy's material.  I think the "debunkings" back and forth became ridiculous and almost impossible to follow!  

 

Edited April 22, 2016 by ALarson

[smac97]

On 4/22/2016 at 10:53 AM, Jeanne said:

I will look this over.  And for your info, I have read Fair, and Jeremy's rebuttal.

Okay.  I did not mean to offend, and I apologize if I did.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Jeanne]

9 minutes ago, USU78 said:

For those interested:  https://www.createspace.com/6221667

Thank you for this..if I am not on the board for awhile..it is because I am reading this and refreshing things in my mind. 

[Jeanne]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I didn't see any "lies" in the CES letter.  The material he presented was quite factual, but he presented it with a negative spin (IMO).  He also came to different conclusions than many and that's what I feel people object to or disagree with.

Have you read the CES letter?  For me, there was nothing new with what he presented.

ETA:

I just saw your post above and see that you have read Jeremy's material.  I think the "debunkings" back and forth became ridiculous and almost impossible to follow!  

 

This is what I aim to do today.  Reread the CES from a perspective that is outside the non-mormon box.  I really want to understand and be fair to both sides.  Like you, I feel a lot of the questions and things came from mormon sights but with a perspective that was not entirely fair. 

[Jeanne]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  I did not mean to offend, and I apologize if I did.  

Thanks,

-Smac

No offending.  You did not  know.  But I would never have read Jeremy's rebuttal without reading Fair first. 

Edited April 22, 2016 by Jeanne

[ALarson]

30 minutes ago, USU78 said:

For those interested:  https://www.createspace.com/6221667

I doubt that any of those who were "bamboozled" will be reading this, (I do love the word "bamboozled" though, lol).

I also doubt it will contain much (if anything) that Fair didn't already cover in their responses to the CES letter.

This could be interesting though:

Unfortunately, the reason the “CES Letter” has enjoyed any success is that most Latter-day Saints have never been exposed to some of the more complex matters in early Mormon history. On average, the typical Latter-day Saint has never needed to think outside of the box on Mormon-related philosophical, historical, or scholarly issues.

“Bamboozled by the ‘CES Letter’” explains why these controversial issues need not kill a testimony.

 

Edited April 22, 2016 by ALarson

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

Taken from a discussion with my stake president who has personal knowledge on this subject. 

The Seventy has the priesthood authority but he does not hold the key to set the SP apart.  That is temporarily given to him by assignment from the FP.   Seventies themselves do not hold any keys. 

 

Edited April 22, 2016 by cdowis

[rongo]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

Seventies don't hold keys. Obviously, then, functionally, when a Seventy sets apart a stake president and gives him the keys over his stake, he is able to transfer those keys by assignment, even though he doesn't hold them himself. 

Your question seems to be how this transfer can take place if he doesn't hold them himself. It seems obvious to me that he is only able to transfer the keys on assignment, and this begins and ends with the setting apart of the stake president. It's not technically a lineal "line of authority" in the same sens that a priesthood line of authority would be.

I can understand your not being satisfied with the idea that this delegated transfer can physically take place without actually holding the keys. I think it comes down to whether or not one accepts that the authority to delegate as including having the authority to adjust policies and practices for transferring the keys. It seems to me (although I might be wrong) that you accept that this is so (or at least you accept that the Church regards it as so), even while having personal questions about it. I'm not sure about whether this is a troubling issue for you, but it doesn't seem to me that it is. More of a philosophical/intellectual question.

[cdowis]

The SP receives the keys upon his being set apart in this calling -- it comes with the calling, and no separate ordination is required.

Edited April 22, 2016 by cdowis

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Right.  "Unless the 70 already holds the keys which he will be bestowing."  "Unless."

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

Again:  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?

I think there is ample "reason to believe the 70 holds those keys."  I think the Seventies hold all keys that are necessary to fulfill their duties as outlined in D&C 107.  I think those keys are conveyed when a Seventy is ordained to that office, but that some keys are only exercised "under the direction of the Twelve."

Not really.  I think there is plenty of room for principled and reasonable disagreement about all sorts of things about the Restored Gospel.  But not about everything.  So when critics of the Church claim that Latter-day Saints are not Christian, I will challenge that claim as lacking a good faith basis.  And when a person excommunicated from the Church claims that the council lacked authority to do so, I will challenge that as lacking a good faith basis as well.

That's not arrogance.  That's a refusal to let critics and enemies of our faith distort our beliefs.

Hmm.  Let's backtrack a bit:

• Russell McGregor said: "CALL FOR REFERENCES that Bishops and Stake Presidents don't have the keys to nullify Temple ordinances."
• You responded: "Keys are bestowed by the laying on of hands. CFR that this happens and those keys are delegated."
• I then chimed in: "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."
• I later added: "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.  And here.  Does this distinction ('suspension' versus 'revocation') matter to you?"
• I also later added more (in response to Consig's suggestion that the First Presidency is "not involved" in the nullification/suspension of saving ordinances wrought by excommunication, and therefore there is no such nullification/suspension): "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."
• Consig chimed in: "I am aware of no bishop being called by the First Presidency."  I responded in some detail to Consig's remark here for the proposition that "{t}he stake president does the legwork, but the calling comes from The First Presidency."

So perhaps we have been talking past each other.  I apologize to the extent I have given offense.  Perhaps we can start over a bit?

Thanks,

-Smac

Maybe we are talking past each other.

For example, I'm stating that I'm unaware of 70's (not presidency of the 70) holding keys to which you responded "CFR that a Seventy lacks authority to set apart a stake president." You're CFR'ing something I never said. I never claimed 70's don't have authority to "set apart a stake President." I'm stating that they don't possess priesthood keys, therefore it does not make sense that they could bestow "keys" they don't possess. Bestowing keys and setting apart are 2 different things.

It's difficult to respond to a CFR on a negative proposition, ie- prove they don't have the keys. Likewise, I can say, prove they do. In addition to Section 107, D&C 112:30-34 & D&C 124:123 identify individuals with keys. There is no mention of 70's. These are the revelations accepted by the church as canon. If there are changes to this I'd be interested in seeing the revelations. So if the scriptures, which delineate who receives keys, doesn't mention 70's as key holders, I think it would be your responsibility to show that they are key holders. 107 says the 70 is equal in authority to the 12 but does anyone treat them as equal to the 12? No. And is that what you're basing your assumption that 70's hold keys. D&C 107 specifically states the 12 hold keys. Does not say the same about the 70.

Quote

107: 35 The Twelve being sent out, holding the keys, to open the door by the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and first unto the Gentiles and then unto the Jews.

 And then verse 39 sounds like the 12 are specifically designated to ordain evangelical ministers (sounds like a Stake President)

Quote

 107:39 It is the duty of the Twelve, in all large branches of the church, to ordain evangelical ministers, as they shall be designated unto them by revelation—

I'm open to the idea that the 70 hold keys, I really am. But I'm not aware of it and I don't see it. Your only defense of a 70 bestowing keys on others rests on them holding the same keys  themselves.

If I'm wrong and 70's hold keys then I will readily admit I'm wrong and my question goes away. If you're wrong, and 70's don't hold keys, then your questions are just beginning.

Quote

Quote

 

 I think those keys are conveyed when a Seventy is ordained to that office, but that some keys are only exercised "under the direction of the Twelve."

Why do you think keys are conveyed to a 70? What are you basing that on? It's like assuming every man ordained a High Priest also received keys during his ordination.

ETA- https://www.lds.org/youth/learn/yw/priesthood-keys/keys?lang=eng

Quote

What are the keys of the priesthood?

Priesthood keys are the authority Heavenly Father has given to priesthood leaders to direct the use of His priesthood on earth. Jesus Christ holds all priesthood keys. “The keys of this dispensation,” which are necessary to lead the Church, were conferred on the Prophet Joseph Smith (see D&C 110:16). Today the members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles hold those keys. Priesthood keys are also given to the Presidency of the Seventy; presidents of temples, missions, stakes, and districts; bishops; branch presidents; and quorum presidents—including Aaronic Priesthood quorum presidents.

According to this little article on LDS.org only the Presidency of the Seventy are keyholders. Now that's settled, back to my original question. How can a non-keyholder bestow keys he does not possess?

Edited April 22, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Seventies don't hold keys. Obviously, then, functionally, when a Seventy sets apart a stake president and gives him the keys over his stake, he is able to transfer those keys by assignment, even though he doesn't hold them himself. 

Your question seems to be how this transfer can take place if he doesn't hold them himself. It seems obvious to me that he is only able to transfer the keys on assignment, and this begins and ends with the setting apart of the stake president. It's not technically a lineal "line of authority" in the same sens that a priesthood line of authority would be.

I can understand your not being satisfied with the idea that this delegated transfer can physically take place without actually holding the keys. I think it comes down to whether or not one accepts that the authority to delegate as including having the authority to adjust policies and practices for transferring the keys. It seems to me (although I might be wrong) that you accept that this is so (or at least you accept that the Church regards it as so), even while having personal questions about it. I'm not sure about whether this is a troubling issue for you, but it doesn't seem to me that it is. More of a philosophical/intellectual question.

Thank you for this thoughtful response.

It admit it perplexes me how someone who does not possess the key can transfer it to another. It would be like my wife asking me to give the car key to my son but I don't have the key. Unless she gives it to me, I cannot pass it along.

Passing on the keys was so important that John the Baptist, Peter, James & John, Elijah, etc appeared to physically lay hands on the head of Joseph to bestow those keys because they already possessed them. If it could be delegated, it seems like there would have been easier methods to accomplish the task.

Also, I'm not aware of any other circumstance when bestowal of keys can be delegated. Bishop can't delegate to his 1st counselor to bestow the keys on the Deacon's quorum President. The Stake President can't delegate the bestowal of keys for an EQ Pres. to his counselor. The delegation of keys seems to be a new development. I understand the logistical need to have more people able to bestow keys to SP's but it would seem more likely that all who would be performing that function would be given the keys. That would seem to be a more scripturally  consistent method.

ETA- this has good info about keys; who holds them, how they're transmitted etc. http://quantumleap42.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-keys-of-priesthood-held-in-church.html

Edited April 22, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[smac97]

Not much time at the moment, but I thought this may be helpful in understanding priesthood "keys" (emphases added):

Quote

There is a difference between being ordained to an office in the priesthood and receiving keys of the priesthood. President Joseph F. Smith taught:

“The Priesthood in general is the authority given to man to act for God. Every man ordained to any degree of the Priesthood has this authority delegated to him.

“But it is necessary that every act performed under this authority shall be done at the proper time and place, in the proper way, and after the proper order. The power of directing these labors constitutes the keys of the Priesthood. In their fulness, the keys are held by only one person at a time, the prophet and president of the Church. He may delegate any portion of this power to another, in which case that person holds the keys of that particular labor. Thus, the president of a temple, the president of a stake, the bishop of a ward, the president of a mission, the president of a quorum, each holds the keys of the labors performed in that particular body or locality. His Priesthood is not increased by this special appointment; … the president of an elders’ quorum, for example, has no more Priesthood than any member of that quorum. But he holds the power of directing the official labors performed in the … quorum, or in other words, the keys of that division of that work” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith [1998], 141; italics in original).

So let me lay out the issue HJW is presenting as I now understand it:

1. Proposition 1: According to the Church, Priesthood keys "are conferred by the laying on of hands by one who holds proper authority and whose authority is known to the Church."  {NOTE: The question, I think, is whether keys can be delegated temporarily by means other than by the laying on of hands.  See Proposition 4 below.}

2. Proposition 2: Members of the Seventy who are not in the Presidency do not hold priesthood keys, but according to the Church "when they receive an assignment from the First Presidency or the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles {per D&C 107:34 {The Seventy are to act in the name of the Lord, under the direction of the Twelve ... in building up the church and regulating all the affairs of the same..."}}, the keys they need to accomplish the task are delegated to them."

3. Proposition 3: Seventies "act by assignment and by the delegation of authority from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles."

4. Proposition 4: Priesthood keys cannot be "delegated" by letter, telephone call, etc., or by any means except by the laying on of hands.

I think this may be the sticking point for HJW, but I'm not able to locate an authoritative source for it.  To the contrary, I think the Church's teachings on this point do allow for the delegation of keys by commission/assignment (presumably per D&C 107:34) as follows (emphases added):

Quote

While all men hold the priesthood who are ordained to any office, yet there are special, or directing, authorities, bestowed upon those who are called to preside. These authorities are called keys.

...

When men are commissioned by the one who holds these keys, then their acts are valid. That which they do is sealed and ratified in the Church both on earth and in the heavens.

...

We should honor those to whom the President of the Church has delegated keys of authority.

[The President of the Church] has the right to delegate authority and to withdraw authority as he sees fit and receives inspiration so to do.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 22, 2016 by smac97

[smac97]

On 4/22/2016 at 0:14 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

According to this little article on LDS.org only the Presidency of the Seventy are keyholders. Now that's settled, back to my original question. How can a non-keyholder bestow keys he does not possess?

By delegation.  The Church teaches that when the Seventies receive an assignment from the First Presidency or the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, "the keys they need to accomplish the task are delegated to them."

Thanks,

-Smac

[rongo]

34 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Thank you for this thoughtful response.

It admit it perplexes me how someone who does not possess the key can transfer it to another. It would be like my wife asking me to give the car key to my son but I don't have the key. Unless she gives it to me, I cannot pass it along.

Passing on the keys was so important that John the Baptist, Peter, James & John, Elijah, etc appeared to physically lay hands on the head of Joseph to bestow those keys because they already possessed them. If it could be delegated, it seems like there would have been easier methods to accomplish the task.

Also, I'm not aware of any other circumstance when bestowal of keys can be delegated. Bishop can't delegate to his 1st counselor to bestow the keys on the Deacon's quorum President. The Stake President can't delegate the bestowal of keys for an EQ Pres. to his counselor. The delegation of keys seems to be a new development. I understand the logistical need to have more people able to bestow keys to SP's but it would seem more likely that all who would be performing that function would be given the keys. That would seem to be a more scripturally  consistent method.

Given some of the changes within the last several years, I can conceive of a change that would allow counselors to ordain and transfer keys to deacons and teachers quorum presidents. I would be uncomfortable with that, because I think it waters down what it means to be a bishop, but there have been recent changes along those lines. It would be no different, in principle, than a Seventy setting apart a stake president. 

When the initiatory ordinances were changed in the early 2000s, I was a little saddened. But, I recognize the authority to make those changes. I did, from that time on, stop being critical of other churches for not baptizing by immersion. If a church really does have the priesthood authority, then it can make ordinance changes that seem to run counter to essential symbolism or common sense physical aspects (like the example we are talking about with non-key-holders transferring keys). If the Church were to, say, change baptism to sprinkling, that wouldn't really be different than changes to temple ordinances that have been made.

[Russell C McGregor]

5 hours ago, consiglieri said:

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

Yes, but you are only arguing for the sake of being argumentative. The position remains uncontroversial in my view because nobody who's shown the slightest interest in discussing these matters in good faith has tried to controvert it.

5 hours ago, consiglieri said:

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?

This is a completely artificial carve-up of the ordinances that has no basis in LDS doctrine, or indeed in anything else but apostate wishful thinking and self-importance.

The Church has divine authority to administer those ordinances. It has discretionary authority to perform, withhold or revoke them, and the keys of that authority are delegated to local Church leaders.

5 hours ago, consiglieri said:

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

It might be important to you. It looks to me rather like the point of his middle finger.

[Jeanne]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Could you explain why you are not willing to read the essays by FAIR, Christensen and Peterson?  See here:

Many people have already spent considerable time and effort addressing the CES Letter.  Why, then, are you unwilling to read those materials and instead request that defenders of the Church duplicate these previous efforts?

Thanks,

-Smac

Smac, I am reading now..I have read the Fairmormon reply before I read Jeremy's rebuttal.  Although I have seen some of these links before, I am refreshing now and reading again.  Thank you. I am reading all the links you have provided here on the essays, priesthood keys and the afore mentioned info on Jeremy's CES letter.  Though I am probably just replying here to someone else's post, I want you to know that I appreciate your efforts.  We cannot assume what others already know or  have read.

Edited April 22, 2016 by Jeanne

[ttribe]

7 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Yes, but you are only arguing for the sake of being argumentative. The position remains uncontroversial in my view because nobody who's shown the slightest interest in discussing these matters in good faith has tried to controvert it.

This is a completely artificial carve-up of the ordinances that has no basis in LDS doctrine, or indeed in anything else but apostate wishful thinking and self-importance.

The Church has divine authority to administer those ordinances. It has discretionary authority to perform, withhold or revoke them, and the keys of that authority are delegated to local Church leaders.

It might be important to you. It looks to me rather like the point of his middle finger.

Russell, it really is a shame you are in such a different time zone from the majority of the board's participants.  We are truly getting the short end of the stick by not getting more gems like the one above.

[Russell C McGregor]

6 hours 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. 

Nice try.

But since not-so-happy Jack made a positive assertion, not-so-happy Jack bears the burden of supporting it.

Your attempt to shift the burden of proof demonstrates that you don't think he can do it either; you just like his point because it aligns with your agenda. 

 

[JulieM]

1 minute ago, Russell C McGregor said:

It might be important to you. It looks to me rather like the point of his middle finger.

I think HJW has spurred an interesting discussion and he's shown you were incorrect (bishops or stake presidents do not "hold the keys to nullify temple ordinances" ).  Or do you still believe they can?