- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I noticed an inconsistency in my thinking when I read this in the comments section at Rock Waterman’s blog today: Quote:The idea that any group of humans has the power to bind God’s hands and forcibly remove His blessing is, of course, preposterous.
I’m happy when the process is flowing in the opposite direction. I’m on board for calling God’s blessing down on me, my efforts, my family, and don’t see it as preposterous to claim authority to do so. But if I were excommunicated today, I would probably be thinking: Okay, I understand that y’all need to do the paperwork. The sadness would be in losing my place and function in the community, but I wouldn’t believe for a minute that I had lost my eternal family or the gift of the Holy Ghost or whatever the revocation of blessings claims to take from me. So why do I believe that I didn’t get – or at least recognize -that Holy Ghost until my father laid his hands on my head on my baptism day? (I do treasure that moment.) I assume that’s where the belief that a “group of humans has the power” came from – the fact that we feel it when it’s bringing us into a defined relationship with God. But once we’ve experienced it, we tend to regard it as something indestructible.
Great question! I look forward to other points of view. I’m not sure there’s a clear cut answer. I think the ultra-orthodox view probably has something to do with “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” That same ultra-orthodox view would also hold that the current prophet holds the keys of binding/loosing and that some authorization or keys related to binding/loosing also rest with bishops and stake presidents as judges in Israel. The binding part, at least, also rests with temple presidents and certain temple workers (sealers).
To me the real question is if any man really does hold that power beyond earth. I see a difference in the earthly church/kingdom and the heavenly church/kingdom. To some extent I agree that those in earthly power need to have some authority over the organization – and I sustain the current president of the church as such, as well as local leaders (although I don’t always agree with their decisions – I don’t agree with all of any given U.S. president’s decisions, either).
There are very few things that I would testify of using the words “I know.” But this I do know – the influence of the Holy Ghost, and of God in general, is not limited in any way to members of the COJCOLDS. I think some argument could be made for the “Gift of the Holy Ghost” but I also think outsiders could make an argument for what we consider that gift to be also, but that’s really another subject.
So, I do believe the earthly church can remove one’s membership in the church (as can any other church). I don’t believe excommunication affects one’s personal standing with God – I think that really is personal and has nothing to do with the church, bishops, stake presidents, apostles or prophets. Hence, I don’t believe the earthly church has any influence on the eternal nature of marriage or relationships.
I once stymied a bishop by telling him he was very much like Satan – the only power he holds over me is the power I let him hold. He really was speechless. While I don’t expect to be excommunicated, it really has no affect on me and my relationship with God – it only holds the power I let it hold.
As a side note, I believe Waterman should have been excommunicated. I don’t think he believes the church holds any eternal power, either, and I believe he wanted to be excommunicated.
DarkJedi wrote:Great question! I look forward to other points of view.
Me too.
DarkJedi wrote:As a side note, I believe Waterman should have been excommunicated. I don’t think he believes the church holds any eternal power, either, and I believe he wanted to be excommunicated.
I listened to his interview and I agree he does not really care, but wants the SP/HC to specifically tell him what he is saying that is incorrect doctrine. He knows they just don’t like what he is saying, but can’t say it quite that way.I do agree that in general you give people power over you. I think if you are talking about excommunication, you can get away with a lot if your bishop isn’t too authoritarian. But short of that, I do see that they can make life inconvenient and bothersome by pulling or not issuing a temple recommend. That keeps more people in line than the fear of excommunication. I recall a few weeks ago that an Ordain Women organizer (on the board?) was told to take her profile down or she would not be able to attend her brother’s wedding and she did so in order to go to the wedding – and then talked about it openly in the blogosphere.
Great question. I’ve thought for some time that if a temple sealer has authority to bind on earth and in heaven for all eternity, then why would a mere bishop (or stake president for M. priesthood holders) have power to excommunicate and to nullify something that a higher authority put in place? To me, the way the church exercises excommunication is not logical. However – I do understand the need for organizations to expel members, including churches. But I don’t see how our church can say the sealing power is the power of God Himself, but yet a fairly low administrator can claim to render sealings void. Expel members yes, cancel sealings and break apart eternal families, no.
Expulsion from a community, no different than getting fired from a job for any number of reasons, including gross insubordination. We call that apostasy, and Waterman absolutely is grossly insubordinate. He is like Snuffer in that regard – someone who is so conservative they are apostate.
Frankly, if we are going excommunicate people (and I believe we have to have that option, at least), I am glad we now are equal opportunity excommunicating and not just focusing on one type of insubordination. I think we excommunicate too many people, but I do want both sides to be addressed equally.
LookingHard wrote:I do agree that in general you give people power over you. I think if you are talking about excommunication, you can get away with a lot if your bishop isn’t too authoritarian. But short of that, I do see that they can make life inconvenient and bothersome by pulling or not issuing a temple recommend. That keeps more people in line than the fear of excommunication. I recall a few weeks ago that an Ordain Women organizer (on the board?) was told to take her profile down or she would not be able to attend her brother’s wedding and she did so in order to go to the wedding – and then talked about it openly in the blogosphere.
Yes, the TR can be used as a weapon and for many that is a very real power held by local leaders. It’s not currently a big issue for me – but I have one that I don’t use and I’m not in the position where I think it’s in danger. I suppose in more extreme cases the threat of church discipline, including excommunication, could also be used as such a weapon.
Roadrunner wrote:I’ve thought for some time that if a temple sealer has authority to bind on earth and in heaven for all eternity, then why would a mere bishop (or stake president for M. priesthood holders) have power to excommunicate and to nullify something that a higher authority put in place? To me, the way the church exercises excommunication is not logical.
I’ve thought about this, too. I think there are some semantics involved, and it seems to me that excommunication is more of a suspension of the “blessings” than a nullification. When someone comes back, these blessings are restored (interestingly at the stake level, not the temple) and not redone. That line of thinking really complicates the issue – does excommunication really do anything eternally? Is it possible that the blessings can be restored in the next life? And who really holds what keys?
I am admittedly quite new to the fringe scene, so is it just me, or have there been A LOT of excommunications lately? I had heard about the September Six, but then it seemed like things were pretty quiet until Kate Kelly, John Dehlin, the Calderwoods, etc, etc. Is this the norm and I was just enjoying ignorant bliss, or is there some major cracking down going on? On the actual topic of this conversation, I remember my dad talking about a feminist who was excommunicated in the 90’s and how she would certainly be going to outer darkness. I think he even equated her punishment to a “cast off forever” kind of thing, along with mass murderers, devil-worshippers, and, you know, fornicators. Eternal damnation stuff.
As I’ve been thinking about life and afterlife and all of the stuff that goes along with the evaluation of faith, I keep coming back to this central idea: God is love. God loves us. I believe that the last thing God would ever want to do is destroy love. Our views are so very limited, so what makes us think that we would ever have the power or authority to separate someone from God’s love?
NonTraditionalMom wrote:As I’ve been thinking about life and afterlife and all of the stuff that goes along with the evaluation of faith, I keep coming back to this central idea: God is love. God loves us. I believe that the last thing God would ever want to do is destroy love. Our views are so very limited, so what makes us think that we would ever have the power or authority to separate someone from God’s love?
:thumbup: Well said.To answer your other question, I don’t think there is any kind of a “purge.” There have been these few high profile cases in the past year, but frankly I think at least some of them are in it for the show – and that’s how they got where they are anyway. I’m not going to try to judge anyone’s sincerity or testimony, but most people who I know of that have been ex’ed don’t say a word about anything leading up to it, the proceedings themselves, or the aftermath. The internet has undoubtedly created a readily available (and often sympathetic) audience which allows for the propagation of the actions of these few. As connected as I am, I will say that in my stake there have been no excommunications of any kind in well over a year (at least). The general membership and the general public is mostly unaware of church discipline and that is as it should be. I sincerely doubt the percentage of excommunications has increased over time, however it could be expected that as membership grows the actual number of excommunications will also grow.
Back to God and sinners, I don’t believe “outer darkness” will be the eternal dwelling place of any of these you mention – I think it’s pretty hard to become a son of perdition. I am, in fact, of the opinion that even the likes of Hitler, Stalin, and the 9/11 terrorists will bow their knees and confess that Jesus is the Christ and will obtain a degree of glory – and that many good Mormons will be shocked at that (but shouldn’t be).
Ann, I have wondered myself about excommunication.
In the past, I was told that when someone is excommunicated, their name is removed from the rolls of the church. Yet, years ago, I was also told that when an excommunicated person is re-baptized and confirmed, all their previous blessings are immediately restored — priesthood status, marriage sealing, etc.
Honestly, I haven’t been around enough excommunicated people who came back to know what really happens.
It seems very odd to me that excommunication can mean a total removal off the rolls .. And yet rebaptism can restore ALL previous blessings .. Unless excommunication doesn’t really nullify anything except membership.
Anyone want to give me their 2 cents worth?
The person is removed from the active membership “rolls”, but their record is maintained in order to reactivate it upon re-baptism. The process doesn’t lead to re-activation often enough, which points to a flaw in the application too often (and its validity in quite a few others), but the intent almost always is to provide a way back into full membership.
amateurparent wrote:Ann,
I have wondered myself about excommunication.
In the past, I was told that when someone is excommunicated, their name is removed from the rolls of the church. Yet, years ago, I was also told that when an excommunicated person is re-baptized and confirmed, all their previous blessings are immediately restored — priesthood status, marriage sealing, etc.
Honestly, I haven’t been around enough excommunicated people who came back to know what really happens.
It seems very odd to me that excommunication can mean a total removal off the rolls .. And yet rebaptism can restore ALL previous blessings .. Unless excommunication doesn’t really nullify anything except membership.
Anyone want to give me their 2 cents worth?
I agree with Ray, the intent of excommunication is to give the individual the opportunity to repent, and excommunication can be freeing. It frees a person from obligations and covenants at least temporarily. The restoration of blessings is not immediate and most take at least a year.
Let me re-state my question: If excommunication takes someone’s name off the records of the church .. And re-baptism is required afterwards to re-gain membership .. How come the other ordinances do not need to be repeated also? They are higher ordinances, seems odd to me that a lower ordinance would restore them.
Second question:
When work is done for the dead .. a woman who has been widowed multiple times is sealed to all her husbands. How come a living woman doesn’t get the same consideration? She is sealed for time to her second husband.
BTW .. I have a great great grandfather who had three wives who all applied and received temple divorces AFTER he died … Church sure has changed ..
amateurparent wrote:Let me re-state my question:
If excommunication takes someone’s name off the records of the church .. And re-baptism is required afterwards to re-gain membership .. How come the other ordinances do not need to be repeated also? They are higher ordinances, seems odd to me that a lower ordinance would restore them.
Second question:
When work is done for the dead .. a woman who has been widowed multiple times is sealed to all her husbands. How come a living woman doesn’t get the same consideration? She is sealed for time to her second husband.BTW .. I have a great great grandfather who had three wives who all applied and received temple divorces AFTER he died … Church sure has changed ..
There was a post at By Common Consent a couple of days ago:A number of our practices are odd and not entirely logical, because we are odd and, thankfully, not entirely logical. I am bothered by that when I see it negatively impacting people; I am fine with it when I see it as having a positive impact.
Thus, I like not having to repeat all ordinances for someone who is re-baptized, even though it is illogical.
In a way it’s a testament to my LDS childhood that I’m having trouble taking excommunication at face value anymore. Or, more like it – to the truths I learned as a child, forgot in middle adulthood, and have returned to now. It’s also a fact of modern life in relatively luxurious North America that the impact of being expelled from the community isn’t what it was in times past.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.