Excommunication for apostasy

[CV75]

41 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

IMO there is a significant difference between being an apostate of Jesus and being an apostate of the church.

As I've stated numerous times before, I don't necessarily have a problem with the institutional church maintaining its institutional boundaries however it chooses; even if I don't agree with the way it chooses. Like others have said, defining "apostasy" is often quite subjective. At what point does it become severe enough that discipline is necessary? That judgement will vary from Bishop to Bishop and SP to SP. I have a much bigger problem with the church claiming to not only remove a person from institutional membership, but also rescinding saving ordinances. IOW- If a person accepts Jesus and is baptized and maintains the belief and commitment to following Jesus, I wouldn't consider that person an apostate of Christ simply because he disagrees with church leadership and the policies they enact. IMO it would be inappropriate to cancel that person's baptism. That person may apostatize from sustaining the men who lead the church, while still maintaining allegiance to Jesus. IMO it would be wrong to excommunicate this person because he exhibits a lack of faith in men, while maintaining faith in Christ. As I've already stated, the judgement of apostasy is subjective and it matters to me whether or not the person has apostatized from Jesus or the institutional church. I know many here won't see that as an important distinction, but it is to me.

Remove a person from church membership but don't claim to remove that person's salvific ordinance. Keep temporal judgements to the temporal world. Don't claim eternal ramifications and enforce eternal consequences in the here and now. Leave that judgement for God. Similarly, that's my main problem with the 2nd anointing as well. It's fallible men making eternal judgements in the here and now when it's totally unnecessary. Leave eternal judgements to God.

I would prefer that the church allow sinners to remain in the church if they choose. We are all sinners. Going after people who speak out against the church makes the church look weak, like they're afraid of disagreement and challenge from its members. Excommunicating someone like Bill Reel or Gina Colvin make the church look like a Goliath hammering down on a David who has no way of defending himself.

If a person is consistently and willfully disruptive to meetings, or if that person presents a physical risk to the congregation, then I have no problem limiting that person's access to the people, but leave eternal judgements to God. I don't believe people need to be protected from differing ideas/opinions. In fact, for a person to truly develop and maintain a meaningful faith they must have the ability to choose. But limiting the judgements of men and preserving the eternal judgements of God will require greater humility.

I think it has to do with D&C 84: 33-38. We fundamentally obtain the priesthood by receiving the ordinances from those who have the keys. Then, “…all they who receive this priesthood receive me, saith the Lord; For he that receiveth my servants receiveth me; And he that receiveth me receiveth my Father; And he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father’s kingdom; therefore all that my Father hath shall be given unto him.” Take away the attitude of receiving the servants in this way, and you take away all that follows. This attitude is very different from one that drives someone to repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.

Of course, any excommunicated person can reject that premise and consider his ordinances perfectly valid.

[HappyJackWagon]

32 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think it has to do with D&C 84: 33-38. We fundamentally obtain the priesthood by receiving the ordinances from those who have the keys. Then, “…all they who receive this priesthood receive me, saith the Lord; For he that receiveth my servants receiveth me; And he that receiveth me receiveth my Father; And he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father’s kingdom; therefore all that my Father hath shall be given unto him.” Take away the attitude of receiving the servants in this way, and you take away all that follows. This attitude is very different from one that drives someone to repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.

 

Of course, any excommunicated person can reject that premise and consider his ordinances perfectly valid.

 

I understand that scripture very well. I taught it "religiously"  

But I don't accept that a person must accept a fallible human leader, and place faith in that human leader, to accept God. That places intermediaries between man and God and I don't believe God really wants anyone to stand between us and Him. In fact, I think that is the primary lesson of the first vision; the heavens are opened, God knows us, we have access to him. Joseph wasn't required to access God through any other person/preacher/leader. He went straight to God. I think we are supposed to learn that we too can and should go directly to God, not simply replace one human leader for another.

Human leaders are not God, nor are they a close approximation. They are not worthy of our faith. The only being worthy of our faith is God. The first principle of the gospel is faith in Jesus Christ. Not in his apostles. Not in any emissary. It's in Jesus. Anyone else (everyone else) is inadequate. Placing faith in a human leader is not the same as placing faith in Jesus. If we make the mistake of equating faith in leaders with faith in God, we will lose faith in God when leaders inevitably fail us in some way.

I agree that any person can reject the church's claimed authority to rescind saving ordinances, but it doesn't change the fact that church leaders believe they have that authority and act in the good faith that they do. It's hard for me to understand why a fallible human would need to make such a judgement. Leaders make mistakes. Why give them the authority to make a mistake that could affect a person's salvation? The obvious answer is that God will fix any errors and all will be made right in the end. I agree with that. And that is true whether fallible people try to pass eternal judgements or not, so IMO they just shouldn't pass that kind of judgement, particular when it's related to apostasy from fallible human leaders and a fallible organization.

[CV75]

47 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I understand that scripture very well. I taught it "religiously"  

But I don't accept that a person must accept a fallible human leader, and place faith in that human leader, to accept God. That places intermediaries between man and God and I don't believe God really wants anyone to stand between us and Him. In fact, I think that is the primary lesson of the first vision; the heavens are opened, God knows us, we have access to him. Joseph wasn't required to access God through any other person/preacher/leader. He went straight to God. I think we are supposed to learn that we too can and should go directly to God, not simply replace one human leader for another.

Human leaders are not God, nor are they a close approximation. They are not worthy of our faith. The only being worthy of our faith is God. The first principle of the gospel is faith in Jesus Christ. Not in his apostles. Not in any emissary. It's in Jesus. Anyone else (everyone else) is inadequate. Placing faith in a human leader is not the same as placing faith in Jesus. If we make the mistake of equating faith in leaders with faith in God, we will lose faith in God when leaders inevitably fail us in some way.

I agree that any person can reject the church's claimed authority to rescind saving ordinances, but it doesn't change the fact that church leaders believe they have that authority and act in the good faith that they do. It's hard for me to understand why a fallible human would need to make such a judgement. Leaders make mistakes. Why give them the authority to make a mistake that could affect a person's salvation? The obvious answer is that God will fix any errors and all will be made right in the end. I agree with that. And that is true whether fallible people try to pass eternal judgements or not, so IMO they just shouldn't pass that kind of judgement, particular when it's related to apostasy from fallible human leaders and a fallible organization. 

I don’t think the scripture is about faith in fallible holders of the priesthood keys, but about placing faith in Christ far above that, and the resulting attributes of character when we receive His priesthood and its effects by receiving His servants.

It is also not about intermediaries, but about the progression of the probation of faith along the priesthood order Christ established.

After Joseph went straight to God, he then received His servants, and the rest is history. He continued to go straight to God within this order. We do the same. We really have no more faith in Church leaders than Joseph did in his angelic ministers, as fallible as they may have been in life.

The Holy Spirit of Promise must validate any ordinance, whether the person retains membership in the Church or not. Sometimes this validation is part of a priesthood action carried out “of him who is anointed.” The Holy Spirit can likewise invalidate any ordinance, and this is also the role “of him who is anointed” carried out through a priesthood action. The keys both bind and seal, and yes, these are given to fallible Church leaders. And fallibility must not be a barrier to either the leader’s or member’s faith. Sometimes this fear of one’s own or another’s mistakes is manifest by inaction as well as reticence, resistance, and opposition.

To remove judgement would remove the performance as well as the revocation of ordinances.