Notatbm

I told you two times I don’t have proof. I don’t care if you don’t believe it. you can read thru this if u like : https://mrm.org/mormon-missionary-strategy-gone-wrong#:~:text=“These British boys thought they,seek parental permission at all.&text=Unlike the recent ploy of,were undoubtedly baseball-baptism boys.&text=Perhaps the four overly-enthusiastic,Mexico need to hear that. The church can tell them exactly what to do. Stake president or not, they answer to the Q15

sounds like the ministering program is killing it. Have not attended in about 1.5 yrs. No one talks to me. I live within a literal baseball throw of I think six active families… six he is wearing garments… kinda hard to waltz into a bookstore and buy them without a recommend I suppose. Last time i bought them ( many moons ago). Had to present my recommend. I thought the church had to authorize the wear of garments or is that just an old wives tale? why would he wear garments if he wasn’t an active member anyway. I guess there are wierd people out there. so the church does not retain any child known child molesters? You faith in the force is weak Luke

To make sure we are on the same sheet of music a generation is approx twenty years: my understanding is the church counts someone on the roles as a member if they were baptized AND they have not yet reached the age of 110. If that is true, a person baptized at age 8 and never darkens the doorway of the church for the rest of their lives will remain a member in the rolls until the age of 110. That is FIVE generations they could be on the rolls so yea it is possible. A neighbor of mine hasn’t been to church since she graduated high school… she is in her late 60s so she has been inactive for two generations. My understanding is he is an inactive member.

if one had the “right” to be a member then how does the church go about excommunicating someone? I made it clear I had no proof so no CFR. Google it. Baseball baptisms, chile eliminated 30 stakes etc. what? Even if he (who) has what? church prob should have exed them earlier

If bishops and EQPs are doing their jobs, they will learn who many of them are. Relief society presidents get all the drama from the wives so there is another source. It isn’t hard. The George Zinn fellow (old guy with child porn) was well known all over Utah as getting picked up by the cops on a regular basis. The church knows how to retain child molesters so maybe the kirton mckonkie help line be a good start. the church can do anything it wants to do with a little addition of the power of the priesthood or do you not believe that?

Do you pay tithing? Do you do anything that would indicate you want to remain a member? Why don’t you attend? Doesn’t sound like it is what a devout believer would do unless it is for health reasons or being in a geographical area where there is no access to the church. Yes. What positive outcome can happen from keeping a child molester on the rolls of the church… or a beer swilling jack Mormon who doesn’t pay tithing? I do know one can point at those two examples and say- they are Mormons. It would be a bit tougher if they were not members.

The Mormon church regularly cites ~17million ish members, but many if not a majority of members are inactive and haven’t attended in decades or even a generation or two. I personally believe it is safe to say about 25% or less attend and probably an even smaller percentage pays a full tithe if any at all. So why keep people on the rolls if they by their own behavior demonstrate they don’t want to be? Some would say they should resign their membership and I may agree. Perhaps the church should do what I believe was done in England, Chile and the Philippines ( no proof but anecdotally I feel it happened) and purge the church of those who do not attend for whatever reason. Also, why not purge the rolls of those who are habitual criminals for example? Ex them and let them come back on their own terms if they decide to get it together. The reason I bring this up is this past week the church has had to face admitting the Charlie Kirk shooter is a member. Also in the same incident another guy (old man) is arrested at the scene for confessing to the shooting as a way of distracting law enforcement. He was hauled off and somehow his pants got pulled down and he was wearing his Gs. People got upset at another newspaper for an article mocking garments… isn’t this kinda the same thing? Allegedly this dude is a long time trouble maker in Utah and well known. Jim Bennet even knows of him. He has been arrested several times for stuff like bomb threats. And if that wasn’t bad enough the old man was found to have child porn on his phone and is now facing charges for that. I bet he has a current recommend. The temple film maker turned child molester is yet another. Why is the church holding on to these guys? it is tough enough for the church to have to parry away criticism over this stuff, why make it even more of a burden by keeping inactive and criminals on the rolls? It isn’t a good look. One would think it would be better to have a smaller number of members who are all-in as opposed to keeping no participants on the roster. Heck with this criteria just my non-attendance and non tithe paying would get me purged. anyway-discuss if you will.

Exactly…. Sooo dumb of a change it makes the Cracker Barrel sign thing look like a good idea.