LDS High-ranking Mormon leader excommunicated

[Rescued One]

AGAIN!

High-ranking Mormon leader excommunicated

 

[Rescued One]

Yet no one comments. That's okay. They used to excommunicate anyone who wanted to leave.

 

[withwonderingawe]

It wasn't for apostasy but a personal problem for which he needs to repent. Excommunication is the Lord's formal breaking of the covenant a person interned into on their baptism day. It allows the person to start over. He will go through the process of repenting, more than likely he went in and confessed his sin himself and sometime soon he will be re-baptized.

 

[Ironhold]

Yet no one comments. That's okay. They used to excommunicate anyone who wanted to leave.

Once again, you're not being fair.

This is the first time I was able to *get* to Christian Forums, and it's nearly what - 22 hours after you posted? I didn't get my usual break at work last night, and I spent most of today doing errands after the other part of my shift.

Give people a chance.

 

[drstevej]

It wasn't for apostasy but a personal problem for which he needs to repent.

How do you know this?

more than likely he went in and confessed his sin himself and sometime soon he will be re-baptized.

And how do you know this?

 

[withwonderingawe]

How do you know this?

In the church statement they said it wasn't apostasy which meant it was something else.

And how do you know this?

Generally it happens that way.

 

[Anto9us]

sometime soon he will be re-baptized

Then he'll be an Anabaptist!!

(That is no perjorative term -- I am that myself -- sprinkled as an infant, immersed at 19 when I got saved)

 

[Rescued One]

How do you know this?

And how do you know this?

Click on my link. The article says it wasn't for apostasy.

"They refused to give a reason for Hamula's excommunication, but confirmed it was not because of apostasy."

I imagine it will take quite some time before he can prove he has repented.

 

[drstevej]

Click on my link. The article says it wasn't for apostasy.

Fanny Algier deja vu?

 

[Rescued One]

Fanny Algier deja vu?

That's the problem. If a person isn't excomminicated for apostasy, the only other options are serious sins which must be confessed to the bishop. So church members and people in the know imagine adultery and a few other serious sins.

"Some mistakes, especially those regarding immorality, require confession to the bishop before you can receive the Lord’s forgiveness...
"Sometimes a person will stop doing wrong but never confess, when it is needed, to his or her bishop. As a consequence, the person continues to carry the burden of sin alone, instead of letting the Savior take away the burden."
Why and What Do I Need to Confess to My Bishop? - New Era Oct. 2013 - new-era

 

[Jane_Doe]

AGAIN!

??? You mean for the first time in 38 years???

Yet no one comments. That's okay. They used to excommunicate anyone who wanted to leave.

A completely false statement.

 

[Rescued One]

They used to excommunicate anyone who wanted to leave:

Since 1989, members of the Church desiring to resign or withdraw have had the option of having their names removed from the rolls, upon request. Before 1989, even though departing members could request that their names be removed, the process still required the convening of a court and the judgment of "excommunication," even though the public announcement "merely should state that his name has been removed from the records of the Church at his request."1Thus, departing members were forced to endure the humiliating and adversarial process of excommunication which implied wrong-doing through the fact of excommunication and which, even while granting the request, communicated that one’s personal decision was not valid unless and until it was institutionally validated.

The current General Handbook of Instructions (March 1989, 8-4) creates an administrative procedure that does not require the convening of a Church court nor label the departing member as a wrongdoer. The "adult member" must send the bishop of his or her ward a written request that his or her name be removed from Church records. The bishop must then (1) satisfy himself that the member understands that such an action "cancels the effects of baptism, withdraws the priesthood held by a male member, and suspends temple sealings and blessings" and (2) decide that the member "is not likely to be dissuaded." He completes an "Administrative Action" form and forwards it with the member’s letter to the stake president. The stake president will review the documents and, if he concurs, have the bishop send the member a letter stating that the desired action will be taken if the member does not make a written request "for recission" within thirty days. At the end of the thirty days, the stake president will send the documents to the office of the First Presidency. The handbook makes no provision for confirming that the action has been taken nor does it say what the stake president should do if he does not "concur."
CHAPTER 5 "GETTING THEIR ATTENTION": THE NORMAN HANCOCK CASE

 

[Jane_Doe]

They used to excommunicate anyone who wanted to leave:

Since 1989, members of the Church desiring to resign or withdraw have had the option of having their names removed from the rolls, upon request. Before 1989, even though departing members could request that their names be removed, the process still required the convening of a court and the judgment of "excommunication," even though the public announcement "merely should state that his name has been removed from the records of the Church at his request."1Thus, departing members were forced to endure the humiliating and adversarial process of excommunication which implied wrong-doing through the fact of excommunication and which, even while granting the request, communicated that one’s personal decision was not valid unless and until it was institutionally validated.

The current General Handbook of Instructions (March 1989, 8-4) creates an administrative procedure that does not require the convening of a Church court nor label the departing member as a wrongdoer. The "adult member" must send the bishop of his or her ward a written request that his or her name be removed from Church records. The bishop must then (1) satisfy himself that the member understands that such an action "cancels the effects of baptism, withdraws the priesthood held by a male member, and suspends temple sealings and blessings" and (2) decide that the member "is not likely to be dissuaded." He completes an "Administrative Action" form and forwards it with the member’s letter to the stake president. The stake president will review the documents and, if he concurs, have the bishop send the member a letter stating that the desired action will be taken if the member does not make a written request "for recission" within thirty days. At the end of the thirty days, the stake president will send the documents to the office of the First Presidency. The handbook makes no provision for confirming that the action has been taken nor does it say what the stake president should do if he does not "concur."
CHAPTER 5 "GETTING THEIR ATTENTION": THE NORMAN HANCOCK CASE

Do you have point here?

Maybe you should ask a Catholic how you quit being Catholic.

 

[Rescued One]

Part of the standard excommunication letter read:
This [excommunication] means that you are no longer a member of the Church and all privileges of membership are denied, including the wearing of the temple garments and the payment of tithing and other contributions.

You will not be entitled to speak or offer public prayers, partake of the sacrament, sustain or vote against Church officers, hold a temple recommend, hold any office in the Church, or attend any meeting of Church officers.

This was even sent to people who never had temple garments and the recipient of the letter was encourage to repent whether any sin had been committed or not.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Part of the standard excommunication letter read:
This [excommunication] means that you are no longer a member of the Church and all privileges of membership are denied, including the wearing of the temple garments and the payment of tithing and other contributions.

You will not be entitled to speak or offer public prayers, partake of the sacrament, sustain or vote against Church officers, hold a temple recommend, hold any office in the Church, or attend any meeting of Church officers.

This was even sent to people who never had temple garments and the recipient of the letter was encourage to repent whether any sin had been committed or not.

And???

 

[Rescued One]

"’Getting Out’ of the LDS Church," Sunstone, April 1985, 52; O’Brien, "Pair Tells of Frustrating Attempts," B-3.

I didn't find the 1985 issue online, but I found the following:

The handbook instructs bishops and stake presidents to deliver a written notice to the individual acknowledging a Church court will be held. But the notice "should not imply accusations of misconduct." The handbook continues, "If the court is considering a member’s written request to have his name removed from the records of the Church, all relevant correspondence and evidence of attempts to persuade him to remain in the Church should be heard by the court and noted in minutes. If the members of the court are satisfied that all possible effort has been expended, the request should be granted." Afterwards a written notice is sent stating the request to have a name removed from the records of the Church has been granted.., and it should not include the word excommunication." Furthermore, "any announcement should not include the word excommunication. It should merely state that his name has been removed from the record of the Church at his request." Even so, the word "excommunicated" appears in red across the top of the membership record which is sent to Church headquarters. Saints Alive contends that voluntarily asking to have one’s name removed is "resignation" not "excommunication," a term which implies expulsion. In either sense, says Cahill, they are no longer members of the Church.

Norman Hancock disagrees, saying the term "excommunication" implies transgression. Hancock recently settled an $18 million defamation suit against the Church out of court. As reported in SUNSTONE volume ten number two, Hancock was excommunicated for misconduct when he asked to have his name removed from the records. When he appealed to the Office of the First Presidency, the court’s decision was reversed, and his request was granted.
https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/048-46-65.pdf

 

[Jane_Doe]

Still waiting for the point....

 

[BigDaddy4]

Still waiting for the point....

Is the lds excommunication process Biblical? Or is it man made?

 

[Peter1000]

Is the lds excommunication process Biblical? Or is it man made?

One of the excommunication events in the bible is the death of Ananias and Sapphira. Hope I'm not excommunicated that way.

The bible does talk about repentence, but it does not go through an excommunication process in detail as far as I know.

So LDS rely on current revelation from Jesus Christ and we follow the instructions that he reveals to our prophets. Current instructions for current events is more helpful than instructions given for 2,000 year old events. Although in most cases, the instructions are similar, but not always the same.

That is the problem that the Jews got into. Always looking back and hedging up the Word of God given to them 1400 years before, and therefore not able to bear the current Word of God and changes that needed to be made from the OT to the NT. Jews could not make that jump because it did not match up with their past scriptures. They are basically a dead religion today because they are so stuck in the past and the traditions are so deeply intrenched, it does not allow them to hear the Word of God today.

 

[Peter1000]

Fanny Algier deja vu?

Fanny Alger was the first plural 'wife' of JS. They were married and her family was happy for Fanny and were at the wedding.

There was no affair. There was a formal proposal of marriage and a formal wedding.

We are confident they were legally married, even though there is not a lot of first hand information from JS or FA, or the families. Only 3rd party info. But the one 3rd party was a woman that later married BY and then divorced him and wrote anti-Mormon, anti-plural marriage books. Her name was Ann Eliza Webb Young.

FA lived with Ann for a time, just before her marriage to JS. If there was any steamy affair, Ann would have loved to tell about it in her anti-Mormon books. But she says nothing of it accept that, as her friend, she attended the wedding.

You may be looking for an affair and there are 2 contemporary men who years later wrote they thought there was an affair. Hard to know what their intentions were, so not real reliable information.

So no deja vu, no affair, JS and FA were legally married.