A General Authority excommunicated?

[strappinglad]

It is my understanding that if one receives the second anointing and then sins ( with the exceptions which HJW has mentioned,), that that person must suffer themselves for said sins in a similar manner as Christ paid. Am I misinformed?

[clarkgoble]

Just now, strappinglad said:

It is my understanding that if one receives the second anointing and then sins ( with the exceptions which HJW has mentioned,), that that person must suffer themselves for said sins in a similar manner as Christ paid. Am I misinformed?

That's a common interpretation. I'm not sure I buy it. It doesn't make much sense when you stop and think about it.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

This is an interesting post... have you seen evidence of jeering mobs who are celebrating?  It seems that everyone here has universally agreed that this is a sad situation.  And, most also seem to agree that the church's choice to take "Scenario 2" was done to protect members from damage to their faith.

 

The fact you don't see the jeering mobs here does not mean they don't exist. This is not the most toxic place on the Internet as pertaining to the Church of Jesus Christ. 

Edited August 9, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ksfisher]

10 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

That's a common interpretation. I'm not sure I buy it. It doesn't make much sense when you stop and think about it.

That interpretation would seem to imply that those sins would no longer fall under the atonement, which we believe to be universal.  It doesn't make sense.

[clarkgoble]

Just now, ksfisher said:

That interpretation would seem to imply that those sins would no longer fall under the atonement, which we believe to be universal.  It doesn't make sense.

Well I was more thinking of why on earth someone would want it. If you have to suffer if you accidentally swear when you fall down and cut your knee? More importantly there's zero theology of why this would be the case. As you note it's an universal atonement, although honestly it's not at all clear what Jesus does in his acting of atoning. Behind this interpretation of C&E seems to be a penal theory of atonement which I confess I also think has big problems. For most other interpretations of the atonement this interpretation makes no sense at all. i.e. the healing/sanctifying theory of atonement where Christ learns how to help us overcome our flaws.

 

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

Scenario 1: Church says nothing at all concerning the excommunication. Rampant speculation about loss of testimony and apostasy runs amok.
Scenario 2: Church says excommunication not about apostasy. Rampant criticism of the Church for saying anything at all ensues.
As with many others here, I choose door #2 as being the preferred door.

It would be better if one of the faithful among our leadership (or any member at all) were not so deeply caught in a snare of the Adversary as to require excommunication. But one was and the critics and jeering mobs will have their moment of "celebration". Such is far more a commentary on them than it is of the Church. This "celebratory" moment will be but a flash in the pan. I, for one, will cease to offer attention to feed their revelries and hope a quick withering on the vine of discussion for this thread.

A more accurate scenario and one more in sync with reality...is the use of Excommunication as a tool of dealing with those the church perceives as sinners in and of itself promotes speculation.  And as long as the church uses excommunication, church courts and other disciplinary processes to deal with those that the church classifies as sinners...there will be speculation as to what exactly did the so called sinner do to warrant such a penalty.

We're it up to me, I would remove excommunication and church courts form the repentance process. It is a barbaric institution...and should be thrown on the ash heap of history. Those who seek repentance should be instructed that they confess their mistakes to their god and that whatever they did is a matter between their maker and themselves. No one else should ever be involved.

Edited August 9, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[strappinglad]

According to my reading, there are a couple of sins which cannot be forgiven neither in this world nor the next. That strongly implies that the Atonement is universal with some exceptions ( seems appropriate to this thread  ).

[clarkgoble]

Worth reposting here:

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

This would, ostensibly, make the second annointing of little worth.  It's like saying:  You are sealed up unto eternal exaltation... unless you do something wrong - then you aren't.  Basically the same promise we all have.  Perhaps that's why it's kept a secret.

Nope, because it gives blessings as well. Also, doing something wrong and being excommunicated are synonymous in the vast majority of cases. If it were I would have to be baptized and have my blessings restored on a near-daily basis.

[ksfisher]

10 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

 Those who seek repentance should be instructed that they confess their mistakes to their god and that whatever they did is a matter between their maker and themselves. No one else should ever be involved.

Working with your fellow human beings has always been part of the repentance process.  Working with another person as part of that process serves to strengthen those who are repenting.  It never hurts to have another person in your corner so to speak.

Under your scenario a church member could murder or abuse children (yes, I recognize those are extreme examples) and continue to serve in their calling.  Why would this be ok?

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

I don't think that qualifies as "gossipy speculation".

We have an ordinance in the church that seemingly guarantees exaltation to the recipient.  It seems like a fair question to ask how such an individual could be excommunicated if they had received such an ordinance.

Have you ever looked up the etymology of the word profane? It literally means outside the temple. 

There are words and concepts belonging to the temple that ought not be chattered about outside the temple -- not even on public message boards by people who think they are perfectly entitled to do so. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The second anointing ordains an individual as a king and priest to the most high God. It is not a future event. It is not a promise. It is done. The only way it is said to be forfeit is in the case of taking innocent blood or becoming a son of perdition.

Are you suggesting that God is unreliable and untrustworthy when having this ordinance performed by authorized servants? Are you suggesting that he can change his mind or change the qualifications or expectations?

The issue of the second anointing is a big one and a valid question. Perhaps the church leaders should state once and for all whether or not they have the power and authority to perform the ordinance as described.

Taking something from someone (like an ordinance of glory), when they haven't broken the condition of the gift, is theft and would appear to be an attempt at unrighteous dominion.

I disagree with your premises about the ordinance. I honestly wish we had done a better job about keeping it hidden. I feel wrong even discussing it.

An understanding of the ordinance, like the rest of the temple ordinances, is reserved for the faithful. They cannot be understood except by revelation. And I do not mean written and dostributed revelation. No one will ever get them unless God chooses to share.

So I cannot give a rebuttal even if I have one. Sorry.  

[ksfisher]

15 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

 

We're it up to me, I would remove excommunication and church courts form the repentance process. It is a barbaric institution...and should be thrown on the ash heap of history. T

Excommunication serves as a "reset button" to those who have broken the covenants that they've made with God.  In this sense it is merciful.  Despite the pejorative terms that you use it is both fitting and proper for some people to be released from those covenants.

[The Nehor]

17 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

According to my reading, there are a couple of sins which cannot be forgiven neither in this world nor the next. That strongly implies that the Atonement is universal with some exceptions ( seems appropriate to this thread  ).

I know this may look like splitting hairs but I disagree. The atonement is infinite and can heal any sin. There are unforgivable sins but they are unforgivable because they so alter the sinner so that the person cannot repent. They have driven so far off the path that there is no impulse to return and no way for that impulse to reappear. This is a rare condition. If Lucifer repented he would be forgiven. He will not.

[thesometimesaint]

12 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

A more accurate scenario and one more in sync with reality...is the use of Excommunication as a tool of dealing with those the church perceives as sinners in and of itself promotes speculation.  And as long as the church uses excommunication, church courts and other disciplinary processes to deal with those that the church classifies as sinners...there will be speculation as to what exactly did the so called sinner do to warrant such a penalty.

We're it up to me, I would remove excommunication and church courts form the repentance process. It is a barbaric institution...and should be thrown on the ash heap of history. Those who seek repentance should be instructed that they confess their mistakes to their god and that whatever they did is a matter between their maker and themselves. No one else should ever be involved.

We mortals are ALL sinners. The least of all sins can put us in jeopardy of the Judgement. We don't know, and it is none of our business this man's sins are. Just that they weren't for apostasy.. Every social organization from governments to contracts to religions to your local Koffee Klatch has rules for maintaining membership in good standing. If you don't want to or can't abide by those rules. They are under no obligation to permit you to remain a member.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

The question doesn't pertain specifically to Elder Hamula.  I see the question as a doctrinal matter:  How is it that a person who has received the second annointing can be excommunicated?  Whether or not that is the case with Elder Hamula is unknown and, as you point out, not something that we need to speculate over.  But the question remains as valid.

Why? I would think it is none of our business.

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

So, do some here really believe that apostasy is worse than any other excommunicable offense?  Worse than commiting adultery or commiting a felony?  Worse than abusing a child?

I read statements like this and interpret them that way:

"Making a public announcement was necessary to protect the Church and its members and an act of honesty and kindness to Elder Hamula and those who know him. Rumor, gossip, speculation, and innuendo serve no one well."

What about the gossip and speculation caused by narrowing it down to a sexual transaction or fraud or a felony?  Was that an act of kindness and honesty to Elder Hamula?

I have a friend with a family member who apostatized from the church and was excommunicated. My friend said he was surprised to realize how much that experience affected him. He had always thought of his testimony as being founded upon Christ alone, but he realized that some portion of his testimony had been buttressed by this family member – though he had never realized it or thought of it in that way before.

I think others in the church may be in similar circumstances when it comes to their personal testimonies. Perhaps some portion of their testimony is dependent, not on Christ, but on some other party such as a respected church leader or general authority.

If part of the reason for your belonging to the church is because some other faithful, respected person you have put your faith in also believes in the church, then – to the extent that that is the case – your faith may be undermined when that person stops believing.

I could be wrong, but I think the impact on others would be greater if the person being excommunicated were to stop believing entirely than if they were to have merely sinned but maintained the faith.

It’s a good reminder though of why we should always place our faith (in its entirety) upon a firm foundation.

[ksfisher]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I know this may look like splitting hairs but I disagree. The atonement is infinite and can heal any sin. There are unforgivable sins but they are unforgivable because they so alter the sinner so that the person cannot repent. They have driven so far off the path that there is no impulse to return and no way for that impulse to reappear. This is a rare condition. If Lucifer repented he would be forgiven. He will not.

It seems to me that the only sin that you cannot be forgiven for is the sin that you refuse to ask for forgiveness for. 

[thesometimesaint]

2 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

It seems to me that the only sin that you cannot be forgiven for is the sin that you refuse to ask for forgiveness for. 

Exactly.

[Johnnie Cake]

16 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Working with your fellow human beings has always been part of the repentance process.  Working with another person as part of that process serves to strengthen those who are repenting.  It never hurts to have another person in your corner so to speak.

Under your scenario a church member could murder or abuse children (yes, I recognize those are extreme examples) and continue to serve in their calling.  Why would this be ok?

Really?  Always?  Pretty sure the prostitute only dealt with Jesus...who told her to sin no more

[Jeanne]

32 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

A more accurate scenario and one more in sync with reality...is the use of Excommunication as a tool of dealing with those the church perceives as sinners in and of itself promotes speculation.  And as long as the church uses excommunication, church courts and other disciplinary processes to deal with those that the church classifies as sinners...there will be speculation as to what exactly did the so called sinner do to warrant such a penalty.

We're it up to me, I would remove excommunication and church courts form the repentance process. It is a barbaric institution...and should be thrown on the ash heap of history. Those who seek repentance should be instructed that they confess their mistakes to their god and that whatever they did is a matter between their maker and themselves. No one else should ever be involved.

This.  People can return to church if they want..it is a choice and may take some real study or whatever...but ex communication and this sort of what I call humiliation is not necessary.  It is between God and each individual (IMO)

[ksfisher]

4 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Really?  Always?  Pretty sure the prostitute only dealt with Jesus...who told her to sin no more

Which is the same message he has for all of us; sin no more.  I don't think that passage from the scriptures is a complete example of the repentance process.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Nice attempt at spinning my words...but my words they speak for themselves and don't require your spin thank you very much.  the church has had a long standing policy of not commenting and yet when it serves their needs they break this long standing policy.  I'm merely making an observation Robert.

Yes, by falsifying their policy.  A fair observation would have been far more accurate and gracious.  I provided just such a more balanced appraisal.  Even here your tone is very accusatory toward the Brethren.  Do you even bother to read your own words and reflect upon what you are actually saying?  Much of what you say about the Brethren comes across as if you are discussing Tammany Hall.

[The Nehor]

13 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

It seems to me that the only sin that you cannot be forgiven for is the sin that you refuse to ask for forgiveness for. 

Pretty much. Where LDS doctrine seems to disagree is that there is a point of no return beyond which the ability to repent does not exist. Virtue and vice change us and we can go so far down either road that the impulse towards the opposite dies. Few get there in this life on either side.

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

This.  People can return to church if they want..it is a choice and may take some real study or whatever...but ex communication and this sort of what I call humiliation is not necessary.  It is between God and each individual (IMO)

Sometimes humiliation is necessary. For some humiliation before God is enough and healthy. I wish it were not required. Obviously humiliation is not a part of the normal disciplinary process in any case.