A General Authority excommunicated?

[rockpond]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And the gossipy speculation about difficult topics and sacred topics continues.

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.

[Johnnie Cake]

2 hours ago, Anijen said:

Happy Jack Wagon and Johnny Cake, my advice is get over it!

The LDS Church has put in place exceptions, (a General Authority, a Seventy being excommunicated definitely fits in with the exception). These exceptions are expressely written into the church doctrine (i.e. see Church Handbook of Instructions or D&C 42:88–93 This exception has been ignored by you two (and some others) so often in this thread and has become almost redundant to even read your posts. 

There are exceptions in everything, just move along already (it's as if your agenda is to bash the church).

Exceptions:

Therapist or Counselor

Other Mental Health Providers

Doctor/Patient

Attorney/Client

Priest/Confessor

BYU Paper on Keeping Confidentiality and Confessions

 

 

So the exception is "When it Serves the Interests of the Church" they can/will disregard their policy of non-disclosure...seems like we're in agreement.

[Bernard Gui]

9 minutes 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.

It would be best to separate this from speculation about Elder Hamula.

The work of salvation continues after this life. God is just and merciful.

He will judge.

 

[rockpond]

16 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

It would be best to separate this from speculation about Elder Hamula.

The work of salvation continues after this life. God is just and merciful.

He will judge.

 

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.

[Nofear]

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.

[The Nehor]

12 minutes 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.

The power to seal on heaven and earth also includes the power to unseal on heaven and earth.

[JulieM]

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?

Edited August 9, 2017 by JulieM

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The power to seal on heaven and earth also includes the power to unseal on heaven and earth.

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.

[ksfisher]

50 minutes ago, rockpond said:

 

I disagree, however, that what they speak... even with a united voice... is "law unto the church just as if it was spoken by Him".  The Spirit must confirm such and common consent needs to be invoked.

"What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."

(D&C 1:38)

"Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets."

(Amos 3:7)

Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.

For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory.

(D&C 21:4-6)

 

The church is governed by common consent, that is, we consent to be governed by those whom the Lord has chosen.  We cannot invalidate the word of the Lord because the Spirit has not confirmed it to each individual or because we don't agree with it.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The power to seal on heaven and earth also includes the power to unseal on heaven and earth.

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.

[rockpond]

8 minutes 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.

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.

 

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

"What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."

(D&C 1:38)

"Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets."

(Amos 3:7)

Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.

For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory.

(D&C 21:4-6)

 

The church is governed by common consent, that is, we consent to be governed by those whom the Lord has chosen.  We cannot invalidate the word of the Lord because the Spirit has not confirmed it to each individual or because we don't agree with it.

 

None of those scriptures say that any time the Brethren speak with a united voice, it becomes law unto the Church as if spoken by Christ himself.  But, it was a good solid attempt.

[pogi]

1 minute 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?

No, it is not a worse sin, but it can affect and influence far more people for the worse. 

[ksfisher]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

None of those scriptures say that any time the Brethren speak with a united voice, it becomes law unto the Church as if spoken by Christ himself.  But, it was a good solid attempt.

You're correct, none of those scriptures used the exact same word that I used. 

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

You're correct, none of those scriptures used the exact same word that I used. 

...exact same wording.  But, thanks.  I think it is an important distinction and we ought to be clear.

Edited August 9, 2017 by rockpond

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

A caveat that didn't apply in this situation.

Says you. 

[rockpond]

Alright all... I think this has gone round and round as much as is worthwhile.

If there is some new development (which I doubt) I may jump back on.  But for now, I'm gonna unfollow.  PM me if you'd like.

Ciao.

[rockpond]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Says you. 

That's a mature response.  I've presented my case with actual information from the link you provided.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

It's not my church.  It's not your church.  It's not the Brethren's church.  It's not the Twelve's church.  It's not the prophet's church.  We are all, however, equal parts of it.

Hmm. Nah. That makes it sound like things can be decided by referendum. Which, of course, is false. 

It's the Savior's Church. Which precludes its being hijacked by some pressure group or other. 

Edited August 9, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That's a mature response.  I've presented my case with actual information from the link you provided.

More like you've presented it by spinning the information. 

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Alright all... I think this has gone round and round as much as is worthwhile.

If there is some new development (which I doubt) I may jump back on.  But for now, I'm gonna unfollow.  PM me if you'd like.

Ciao.

Oh my. He's going to unfollow. Whatever shall we do?

[rockpond]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Hmm. Nah. That makes it sound like things can be decided by referendum.

Nope - not what I said.  I certainly would disagree with anyone arguing that church doctrine can be decided by referendum.

And I agree -- it is the Savior's church.  At least that's how it should be... we aren't all perfect, but I think we're all trying.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

More like you've presented it by spinning the information. 

And you are welcome to demonstrate how I have spun it.

[rockpond]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Oh my. He's going to unfollow. Whatever shall we do?

My goal was that everyone would be reduced to a sobbing mess.  But I doubt that will happen.

But you messed things up by responding to my posts!

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Oh my. He's going to unfollow. Whatever shall we do?

I think he is simply politely saying he won't know if anyone asks him a question, etc. (he can correct me if I misunderstood)

Many people use the follow option to ensure they don't miss responses.

Edited August 9, 2017 by Calm