Jeremy Runnells Excommunicated

[Jeanne]

2 hours 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!  

 

You can tell that Jeremy knew stuff and he gets a big "E" for effort.  But I found it confusing too.  I thought it was just me though.

[consiglieri]

16 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.

 

[ALarson]

23 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

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

Is this really what you believe (that a Bishop or SP can "nullify Temple ordinances")?  Where have you read this?

SMAC's references state that a person's temple ordinances are only "suspended" (not nullified) upon excommunication (and that is still done by the 1st presidency upon their approval of the excommunication, unless I misunderstood what his source stated.)

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, JulieM said:

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?

It looks like a distinction without a difference to me. If a bishop or stake president can "nullify" baptismal, confirmation, and ordination covenants through excommunication, then by extension the temple covenants are also affected. An ordinance called "restoration of blessings" is required for the temple covenants, ordinances, and blessings to be "restored." They have to be taken away before they can be restored. 

While the ultimate authority to seal and loosen rests with the presiding high priest, the authority to make the decision regarding excommunication is local. One might be able to point out to very few anecdotal examples where the FP overturns a local decision, but this is very rare and in extreme cases where there was a miscarriage of the spirit and letter of the law. For all meaningful intents and purposes, bishops and stake presidents most certainly do hold the keys to nullify temple ordinances" if their cause is just and policy is followed. 

[consiglieri]

11 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

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. 

 

Oh-so-very-happy Jack asked a question.

You rejected it with a positive assertion.

One would think if you were so sure you are right, you would be able to provide evidence for your position.

Or are you just making it up as you go along? 

 

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

You can tell that Jeremy knew stuff and he gets a big "E" for effort.  But I found it confusing too.  I thought it was just me though.

Maybe the original letter wasn't confusing (I'd have to read it again), but the debunking efforts back and forth became tedious and confusing (from both sides), IMO.  There was just a lot of "stuff" to weed through to find anything substantial from either side.  

Edited April 22, 2016 by ALarson

[Russell C McGregor]

1 minute ago, consiglieri said:

Oh-so-very-happy Jack asked a question.

You rejected it with a positive assertion.

A CFR is not a positive assertion.

1 minute ago, consiglieri said:

One would think if you were so sure you are right, you would be able to provide evidence for your position.

Or are you just making it up as you go along? 

I leave that to you.

 

[consiglieri]

Just now, Russell C McGregor said:

A CFR is not a positive assertion.

I leave that to you.

 

You can just admit that you are wrong, Russ.

Or that you have no facts to support your position.

You don't have to engage in all these games to hide the fact.

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Maybe the original letter wasn't confusing (I'd have to read it again), but the debunking efforts back and forth became tedious and confusing (from both sides), IMO.  There was just a lot of "stuff" to weed through to find anything substantial from either side.  

I agree.  The original was good and concise (IMO).  The debunking and Fair's response was scattered and kind of chaotic.

[Russell C McGregor]

1 minute ago, consiglieri said:

You can just admit that you are wrong, Russ.

Or that you have no facts to support your position.

Coming from the fellow who argues no facts but merely engages in drive-by sniping, that's funny!

 

[smac97]

On 4/22/2016 at 3:07 PM, Jeanne said:

I agree.  The original was good and concise (IMO).  The debunking and Fair's response was scattered and kind of chaotic.

That's rather the advantage (and intent) of presenting huge lists of short questions which demand long answers.  Responding to such a list becomes unwieldy and impractical.  The questioner (in this case, Mr. Runnells) then gets to crow and pat himself on the back and unilaterally declare his position to be "correct" because his exhausting list of questions (accusations, really) was not answered to his self-serving satisfaction.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 14, 2019 by smac97

[Russell C McGregor]

12 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

 

If you think that was witty, you're half right.

Questioning the bona fides of a habitual troll is not an instance of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Sorry.

 

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, rongo said:

It looks like a distinction without a difference to me. If a bishop or stake president can "nullify" baptismal, confirmation, and ordination covenants through excommunication, then by extension the temple covenants are also affected.

But, upon excommunication, the temple ordinances are not "nullified", they are "suspended".  There is a difference and quite a big difference, IMO.  

Nullify:  make of no use or value; cancel out

Suspend:   temporarily prevent from continuing or being in force or effect

And the 1st presidency are the ones who approve the recommendation for excommunication and suspends the ordinances, not the Bishop or the Stake President (unless I misunderstood what SMAC posted).  And, only the 1st presidency can actually cancel (nullify) a sealing.

So, Russell is not correct if he believes a Bishop or Stake President can nullify a temple ordinance.

.

Edited April 22, 2016 by ALarson

[rongo]

17 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Is this really what you believe (that a Bishop or SP can "nullify Temple ordinances")?  Where have you read this?

SMAC's references state that a person's temple ordinances are only "suspended" (not nullified) upon excommunication (and that is still done by the 1st presidency upon their approval of the excommunication, unless I misunderstood what his source stated.)

What is the functional difference between "suspending" temple ordinances/covenants (which have to be "restored" through priesthood keys), and "nullifying" (or eliminating them)?

Again, a distinction without a difference.

ETA: ALarson, this doubles as a response to your reply. I didn't notice that you had replied until mine posted.

Edited April 22, 2016 by rongo

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

What is the functional difference between "suspending" temple ordinances/covenants (which have to be "restored" through priesthood keys), and "nullifying" (or eliminating them)?

Again, a distinction without a difference.

Of course there is a difference.

Nullify is the same as a sealing cancellation.  The sealing no longer exists and would have to be completely redone for it to exist again since it was cancelled.

Suspending someone's temple ordinances means they still exist and only need to be restored, not redone.

Bishops and Stake Presidents cannot cancel sealings, nor can they nullify sealings.

Edited April 22, 2016 by ALarson

[smac97]

On 4/22/2016 at 2:13 PM, ALarson said:

But, upon excommunication, the temple ordinances are not "nullified", they are "suspended".  There is a difference and quite a big difference, IMO.  Only the 1st presidency can cancel (nullify) a sealing.

Nullify:  make of no use or value; cancel out

Suspend:   temporarily prevent from continuing or being in force or effect

And the 1st presidency is the one who approved the recommendation for excommunication and suspends the ordinances, not the Bishop or the Stake President (unless I misunderstood what SMAC posted).

So, Russell is not correct if he believes a Bishop or Stake President can nullify a temple ordinance.

In such matters I'm not sure there is a clear-cut distinction here.  A person who is excommunicated must be re-baptized, so the excommunication clearly has the effect of nullifying that saving ordinance.  Priesthood ordination and temple ordinances, on the other hand, are - IIRC - "suspended" according to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism {EDIT TO ADD: the CHI uses the word "revoked" to describe the effect of an excommunication on priesthood/temple blessings} and can only be received again through "the ordinance of restoration of blessings" (CHI 1, sec. 6.15).  Such persons "are not ordained to priesthood offices or endowed again, since all priesthood and temple blessings held at the time of excommunication are restored through the ordinance."  This restorative ordinance is performed by a General Authority or the person's stake president, but officiating duties can also be delegated to the relevant Area Seventy.

We are using verbs like "suspended" and "revoked" and "nullified," but I am not sure if any of them have the precise meaning needed to address the issues at hand.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 22, 2016 by smac97

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Of course there is a difference.

Nullify is the same as a sealing cancellation.  The sealing no longer exists and would have to be completely redone for it to exist again since it was cancelled.

I understand that, and you're correct as far as the semantics. But, then, those temple blessings have to be "restored" by an ordinance. Whether "nullified" and re-done, or "suspended" and "restored," what is the difference (other than semantic precision)?

Suspending someone's temple ordinances means they still exist and only need to be restored, not redone.

See above. 

Bishops and Stake Presidents cannot cancel sealings, nor can they nullify sealings.

Technically, you are right. Point cheerfully conceded! But again, the practical outcome of formal bishop and stake president disciplinary action is indistinguishable between the two. Either way, if one dies without the ordinance of restoration of blessings, one is in the same boat in either case.

[JulieM]

This seems very confusing and complicated!  It is still the first pres. who cancels or suspends temple ordinance, is that correct?  The bishop or stake president submit their findings from the court and the leaders in Salt Lake make the final decision.  Am I understanding this right?

[Jeanne]

50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That's rather the advantage (and intent) of presenting huge lists of the short questions which demand long answers.  Responding to such a list becomes unwieldy and impractical.  The questioner (in this case, Mr. Runnells) then gets to crow and pat himself on the back and unilaterally declare his position to be "correct" because his exhausting list of questions (accusations, really) was not answered to his self-serving satisfaction.

Thanks,

-Smac

This may be true..but that works both ways.  Fair's response wasn't the best...but they thought so. 

[smac97]

On 4/22/2016 at 3:01 PM, JulieM said:

This seems very confusing and complicated!  It is still the first pres. who cancels or suspends temple ordinance, is that correct?  The bishop or stake president submit their findings from the court and the leaders in Salt Lake make the final decision.  Am I understanding this right?

"Cancels" as in "totally eliminates permanently," no.  "Suspends," yes.  The bishop or stake president (acting in council) conducts a disciplinary council which has the effect of "suspending" or "revoking" all blessings.  The First Presidency can later authorize an ordinance that "restores" those blessings.

A "cancellation of sealings" is typically done only when the person desires to be sealed to someone else.  A friend of mine is currently going through the process of requesting that The First Presidency cancel her sealing to her ex-husband so that she can be sealed to her current husband.  Oddly enough, the sealings of my friend and her ex-husband to their children will remain intact even if her sealing to her ex is cancelled.  Per CHI, Book 1, sec. 3.6.1:

Quote

Status of Children When a Sealing Is Canceled or Revoked

 

Children who are born in the covenant or sealed to parents remain so even if the sealing of the parents is later (1) canceled or (2) revoked by the excommunication or name removal of either parent. Children who are born after their parents’ sealing is canceled or revoked are not born in the covenant. These children need to be sealed to their parents after their parents’ blessings are restored (if applicable) and any other obstacles are removed

Weird, eh?

Also, I note that the CHI uses the verb "revoked" to characterize the effect of an excommunication.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 25, 2016 by smac97

[smac97]

On 4/22/2016 at 3:02 PM, Jeanne said:

This may be true..but that works both ways.  Fair's response wasn't the best...but they thought so. 

The FAIR folks voluntarily spent their own time and effort (which in the aggregate was probably rather extensive) to address Runnells' letter.  A letter which, I think, is not presented in good faith, is designed to overwhelm defenders of the Church with huge numbers of vague / short / loaded questions that touch on complex and difficult issues, and which therefore call for long, detailed answers.

I'll not fault FAIR for their efforts.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Jeanne]

Just now, smac97 said:

The FAIR folks voluntarily spent their own time and effort (which in the aggregate was probably rather extensive) to address Runnells' letter.  A letter which, I think, is not presented in good faith, is designed to overwhelm defenders of the Church with huge numbers of vague / short / loaded questions that touch on complex and difficult issues, and which therefore call for long, detailed answers.

I'll not fault FAIR for their efforts.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I concede that it was a good thing to take that time and effort that they did.  It is no black mark on Fair. They did the best they could.

[smac97]

On 4/22/2016 at 3:13 PM, Jeanne said:

I concede that it was a good thing to take that time and effort that they did.  It is no black mark on Fair. They did the best they could.

I appreciate that.  I also think that to the extent FAIR's response could stand to be improved, I do not think it is because they lack sufficient evidence/material/argument to work with in defending the doctrines of the Church.  I think the Church's doctrines are eminently defensible.  But context matters.  Good faith and fairminded and reasonably-framed and -presented inquiries matter.

Mr. Runnells did not provide any of that.  He loaded the deck.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[rongo]

30 minutes ago, JulieM said:

This seems very confusing and complicated!  It is still the first pres. who cancels or suspends temple ordinance, is that correct?  The bishop or stake president submit their findings from the court and the leaders in Salt Lake make the final decision.  Am I understanding this right?

Technically, yes, from an ultimate authority standpoint (all priesthood keys are delegated, after all). But, the FP very, very, very rarely overturns or amends the action at the local level. And when it does, there had to have been a major problem with the process or outcome. 

The First Presidency doing anything other than functionally rubber-stamping the outcome at the local level almost never happens. Quibbling over who actually authorizes an excommunication is silly, because it is the stake/district president-bishop/branch president-mission president's decision that rules the day (barring an egregious miscarriage of some sort). If someone is excommunicated, they are excommunicated. It's not like there is any suspense in waiting for "the ruling on the field to be confirmed."

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

You can just admit that you are wrong, Russ.

Or that you have no facts to support your position.

You don't have to engage in all these games to hide the fact.