- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
[Link deleted. The blog functions as an anti-Mormon blog in practical terms.] “…it is a violation of scripture and Church law for discipline to originate anywhere other than on the local level. In fact, it isn’t even bishops or stake presidents who are permitted to initiate such actions. The accused member must be first accused by another member of the congregation before proceedings are permitted to take place. That’s according to scripture.”
I want to determine the exact scripture supporting the above quote, if any.
Excommunication has originated at various levels ever since the LDS Church was organized – and the Book of Mormon example with Alma directly contradicts the quote. This is a good example of taking cherry-picked passages and extrapolating to a universal truth that doesn’t match the actual historical record in totality. The author of the blog (and other ultra conservative people, Mormon or not) are really good at doing this – and it’s not confined to the conservative end of the spectrum. We all need to be very careful, since it’s really easy to do.
What is the exact verse of this contradiction? I don’t know the source that Rock is referencing but I don’t think that matters much. The church does lots of things that are not strictly by the scriptures. Heck we even do things that are not in the handbook (hence the “unwritten order of things”).
Besides, the church does have the right both legally and in the eyes of the general membership to determine who is a member.
We even have a precident for overriding scripture…as in the quotation “a living prophet always trumps a dead prophet.”
It seems that his whole blog focuses on those aspects of church policy that (seem to him to some degree to) go directly against official church doctrine. Quote:It seems that his whole blog focuses on those aspects of church policy that (seem to him to some degree to) go directly against official church doctrine.
Yes, that is his purpose – and “seem to him to some degree” is the key. It also is instructive that he seems to imply, at least, that once a policy has been taught it cannot be changed legitimately – although I’m positive there are things from the past that have been changed that he would not want to reinstate. It’s a creedal orientation, and he is another conservative apostate.
As for scriptural precedent, the excommunications during Alma’s time as Chief Priest were instigated, apparently, by Alma and the local leaders. Alma 1 (esp. verses 21-24) talks about this, as does Alma 6 (esp. verses 1-3). During Joseph’s time, people were excommunicated for lots of reasons that don’t happen now, including some that seem rather silly and trivial to us – and some of those also were initiated by leaders at all levels. There has never been a simple, exclusive basis for excommunication – and the quote in the original post is patently inaccurate.
The better question is what he uses to justify that claim. It’s a lot easier to address that than to address the quote alone.
I agree there seems to be some rail splitting being done. However, I’d also add that excommunication is doctrinal but it is also managed by policy and tradition. Therefore, not everything that has to do with excommunication is necessarily doctrine, it can be a matter of procedure. Absolutely, DJ – and policy and procedure can and do change regularly. Only the most absolutist, ultra-orthodox personality denies the legitimacy of those sort of changes – and, unfortunately, there are plenty of people in the Church with that sort of personality. There are FAR fewer than many people think, but there are more than enough to make it a real issue. Plausible deniability. That’s the official policy. As to doctrine, no such thing.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.