A General Authority excommunicated?

[clarkgoble]

2 hours 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.

The second anointing has the same relation to the anointing we have in the temple. Just as there is thereafter an endowment there would be the realization of that endowment. If you listen carefully you are endowed/anointed to become a king not as a king in the current ordinances. The anointing is tied to that but the realization of that in which one is crowned is a separate ceremony done by Christ. Until that is done (most likely not in this life for most) it is incomplete. I don't feel comfortable going into more detail. However the key issue isn't the ordinance but the sealing by the Holy Ghost of the ordinance. Of course we can trust God in that but merely having the ordinance is no certainty it has been sealed in that fashion.

The issue isn't whether God is unreliable but whether people who are in such a covenant are unreliable. That is, can they freely choose to fall? The evidence is they can.

• The Holy Spirit of Promise is the ratifying power of the Holy Ghost. When sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise, an ordinance, vow, or covenant is binding on earth and in heaven. (See D&C 132:7) Receiving this “stamp of approval” from the Holy Ghost is the result of faithfulness, integrity, and steadfastness in honoring gospel covenants “in [the] process of time” (Moses 7:21). However, this sealing can be forfeited through unrighteousness and transgression. (Elder Bednar, Ensign, May 2007, 22)
• Realize that a sealing ordinance is not enduring until after it is sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise. Both individuals must be worthy and want the sealing to be eternal. (Elder Scott, "Temple Worship: the Source of Strength in Times of Need," Ensign, May 2009)

Now there's an element here of the question of God's foreknowledge. If (as most assume) God has robust foreknowledge then he'd know whether you'd sin in the future and only seal it if you didn't. For those who accept a far more limited foreknowledge (such as Mormon open theists like Blake Ostler) then when you show you aren't keeping your covenant the blessings and sealing are revoked. The one thing all agree upon though is that it's fulfillment is dependent upon the choices of each individual given the opportunity for these higher ordinances.

There's actually a surprising amount on this at lds.org.

[blueglass]

20 hours ago, Calm said:

Are you speculating completely or do you have reason to believe this?

speculation for sure.  the speculative rationale was that a few remnant followers seemed to hear a dog whistle when he did not mention anything about "renewing covenants" in his talk on the sacrament.   http://reclaimingtherestoration.blogspot.com/2015/10/  and I just don't see the guy murdering, or even having a chance for an adulterous affair - so I thought the dangers associated with the remnant movement would really concern leadership while at the same time allow someone to say they are faithful to the restoration and to Christ.   http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=58089335&itype=CMSID

 

Edited August 9, 2017 by blueglass

[Johnnie Cake]

42 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

Well...there are times when a comparison with Tammany Hall would be appropriate.   There are many similarities with NY politics and how the church is run don't you think?  BTW One of my all time favorite books... The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York

[blueglass]

20 hours ago, blueglass said:

a boilerplate written to deal with the dehlin excommunication drama.

I thought the church updated the entry on church discipline on gospel topics at the same time that john dehlin and kate kelly went public on the disciplinary indictments they had received.   The debate then went back and forth in the public eye between dehlin and the church on the reasons for the excommunication.  "When the member has chosen to air their grievances in public, the Church reserves the right to correct the public record."  10 FEBRUARY 2015   http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-to-john-dehlins-public-comments

[Jeanne]

44 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

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.

Sure it is necessary....and to go to God with humility and shame should be enough. 

Edited to add:  I do believe though that if it requires law enforcement and sin against any child..then everyone should aware/

Edited August 9, 2017 by Jeanne

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Worth reposting here:

I feel so bad for this man, his family and what he is now facing.  I can only imagine how he feels, particularly since he remains a believer.  The depth of his guilt and humiliation has got to be overwhelming

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

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.

This made me think of D & C 46 which talks about Gifts of the Spirit.  You might want to read the entire section.  But this part seemed most appropriate.

 

Quote

 

13 To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world.

14 To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.

 

 

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

The post I was responding to referred specifically to this thread.

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

communication 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.

From the churches standpoint your points are valid...however what you haven't taken into account is how a court impacts the individual, the depth of his humiliation within his tribe,  the humiliation of sharing his sins with his fellow GA's, the prying of past sins that would need to be exposed to name just a few.  I've sat in on way too many church courts...I am familiar with these barbaric processes...I rue the day I agreed to participate in them. I am well aware of the public shaming that they foster, the pain and humiliation imposed on innocent family members.  for all the great talk here of how wonderful courts of love are...my experience was just the opposite...those that I sat in judgement on...were crushed, spiritually raped, humiliated, ground up like hamburger by this claimed loving process.   Several were put on suiside watch by their families for what we did to them. Strong men were reduced to mere jell-o....these courts are terrible inhumane inquisitions...They are officiated by untrained men loyal only to the institution with no caring or compassion for the what their believed process is doing to the claimed sinner. As I stated earlier they should be abandoned and thrown on the ash heaps of history...no one should ever have to be subjected to these destroyers of human self worth again.

Edited August 9, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Worth reposting here:

Thanks... I returned to the thread to see if this had been shared.  I'm not sure if he posted in multiple places but I came across it in the Mormon Stories Podcast Community on Facebook.  He gave permission to post it elsewhere.  I think it's worth noting that most of the MSPC members were protective of Brother Hamula's privacy and offered their concern and prayers to him and the family.

[Calm]

42 minutes ago, blueglass said:

speculation for sure.  the speculative rationale was that a few remnant followers seemed to hear a dog whistle when he did not mention anything about "renewing covenants" in his talk on the sacrament.   http://reclaimingtherestoration.blogspot.com/2015/10/  and I just don't see the guy murdering, or even having a chance for an adulterous affair - so I thought the dangers associated with the remnant movement would really concern leadership while at the same time allow someone to say they are faithful to the restoration and to Christ.   http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=58089335&itype=CMSID

 

There is a post on the MS Facebook page (no time to pull it up) that was posted by his nonbelieving brother-in-law iirc where he states that there were no problems with the Brethren, again iirc.  If so, seems unlikely this was an issue.

My apologies for not sourcing it, I need to run errands.

add-on:  lol, clarkgoble posts it above

Edited August 9, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, blueglass said:

I thought the church updated the entry on church discipline on gospel topics at the same time that john dehlin and kate kelly went public on the disciplinary indictments they had received.   The debate then went back and forth in the public eye between dehlin and the church on the reasons for the excommunication.  "When the member has chosen to air their grievances in public, the Church reserves the right to correct the public record."  10 FEBRUARY 2015   http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-to-john-dehlins-public-comments

Makes sense, if someone else doesn't get to it first, I will see if I can get a confirmation or correction from former bishops I know.

Wish I had perfect recall, read Handbook 1 back in the 90s and then again in 2005ish.

[HappyJackWagon]

54 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The second anointing has the same relation to the anointing we have in the temple. Just as there is thereafter an endowment there would be the realization of that endowment. If you listen carefully you are endowed/anointed to become a king not as a king in the current ordinances. The anointing is tied to that but the realization of that in which one is crowned is a separate ceremony done by Christ. Until that is done (most likely not in this life for most) it is incomplete. I don't feel comfortable going into more detail. However the key issue isn't the ordinance but the sealing by the Holy Ghost of the ordinance. Of course we can trust God in that but merely having the ordinance is no certainty it has been sealed in that fashion.

The issue isn't whether God is unreliable but whether people who are in such a covenant are unreliable. That is, can they freely choose to fall? The evidence is they can.

• The Holy Spirit of Promise is the ratifying power of the Holy Ghost. When sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise, an ordinance, vow, or covenant is binding on earth and in heaven. (See D&C 132:7) Receiving this “stamp of approval” from the Holy Ghost is the result of faithfulness, integrity, and steadfastness in honoring gospel covenants “in [the] process of time” (Moses 7:21). However, this sealing can be forfeited through unrighteousness and transgression. (Elder Bednar, Ensign, May 2007, 22)
• Realize that a sealing ordinance is not enduring until after it is sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise. Both individuals must be worthy and want the sealing to be eternal. (Elder Scott, "Temple Worship: the Source of Strength in Times of Need," Ensign, May 2009)

Now there's an element here of the question of God's foreknowledge. If (as most assume) God has robust foreknowledge then he'd know whether you'd sin in the future and only seal it if you didn't. For those who accept a far more limited foreknowledge (such as Mormon open theists like Blake Ostler) then when you show you aren't keeping your covenant the blessings and sealing are revoked. The one thing all agree upon though is that it's fulfillment is dependent upon the choices of each individual given the opportunity for these higher ordinances.

There's actually a surprising amount on this at lds.org.

Clark,

You are mistaken about the second anointing. In the endowment individuals are ordained to "become" something. In the second anointing, they are ordained  as that something. The second anointing is the culmination of the endowment's promises, but instead of receiving that judgment in the next life, it is performed as an ordinance in the here and now. There is nothing future/promised in the second. Previous promises are realized. Exaltation is achieved.

[ksfisher]

32 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

From the churches standpoint your points are valid...however what you haven't taken into account is how a court impacts the individual, the depth of his humiliation within his tribe,  the humiliation of sharing his sins with his fellow GA's, the prying of past sins that would need to be exposed to name just a few.  I've sat in on way too many church courts...I am familiar with these barbaric processes...I rue the day I agreed to participate in them. I am well aware of the public shaming that they foster, the pain and humiliation imposed on innocent family members.  for all the great talk here of how wonderful courts of love are...my experience was just the opposite...those that I sat in judgement on...were crushed, spiritually raped, humiliated, ground up like hamburger by this claimed loving process.   Several were put on suiside watch by their families for what we did to them. Strong men were reduced to mere jell-o....these courts are terrible inhumane inquisitions...They are officiated by untrained men loyal only to the institution with no caring or compassion for the what their believed process is doing to the claimed sinner. As I stated earlier they should be abandoned and thrown on the ash heaps of history...no one should ever have to be subjected to these destroyers of human self worth again.

We obviously don't attend the same church.  

[Scott Lloyd]

37 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The post I was responding to referred specifically to this thread.

That's not clear from the post. 

[Avatar4321]

17 hours ago, rockpond said:

 

 

All we've heard for years regarding disciplinary councils is that the church does not comment publicly. 

Now that they feel the desire to comment publicly on church discipline, we learn that in rare cases exceptions can be made.  Who determines when those exceptions can be made?  The Brethren. 

This is the definition of self-serving.  It serves the interest of protecting the church and its members over following a policy that was put in place to protect the individual.  

Is it the wrong thing for the church to do? Does it mean the church is acting like a cult?  I think that is for individuals to judge.

My perspective is that there is not enough information available to judge either side as being in the wrong. 

I thought you said at one point you were in a bishopric. Shouldn't you be familiar with the fact that their are exceptions for the 'not discussing disciplinary council' rule?

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

We obviously don't attend the same church.  

That's a shallow dismissal of Johnnie Cake's experiences.

[clarkgoble]

25 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You are mistaken about the second anointing. In the endowment individuals are ordained to "become" something. In the second anointing, they are ordained  as that something. The second anointing is the culmination of the endowment's promises, but instead of receiving that judgment in the next life, it is performed as an ordinance in the here and now. There is nothing future/promised in the second. Previous promises are realized. Exaltation is achieved.

Again, there's a distinction between anointing/ordaining and crowning/enrobing. That's all I'm comfortable saying here. At best I'll quote Brigham Young:

"Your endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the house of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth and hell."

That's talking about the endowment. But the point is that until you've gone past those sentinels, things haven't been realized. The endowment is the preparation for that experience. The second anointing the fulfillment of the anointing. While it's sometimes called the second endowment that's misleading. The point is there's a process/ritual yet to come that is different from the second anointing that involves a heavenly ascent. There's lots of hints of this in the scriptures (the interspersion in Rev 2-3 being one example that parallels Merkabah literature) Normally this happens at death but there's compelling reason to think it can happen in life.

There's various ways to interpret that. One obvious way is that the masonic elements in the endowment don't matter as it's merely prepratory and that the signs and token, while important, aren't the actual ones given during the realization of that endowment. (Others, such as Brigham Young, think they are the same and think they persisted in masonry) So whether there is a new endowment or merely using the existing endowment to realize the endowment is a matter of debate.

Edited August 9, 2017 by clarkgoble

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

I thought you said at one point you were in a bishopric. Shouldn't you be familiar with the fact that their are exceptions for the 'not discussing disciplinary council' rule?

I was and I am.

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That's not clear from the post. 

You mean when he said "... in this thread" it wasn't clear?