The Latest From Grant Palmer

[Damien the Leper]

That would be the first amendment.

In Guinn v. Church of Christ of Collinsville, the Oklahoma Supreme Court stated:

Also:

From here:

http://church-discip...-of-christ.html

This is exactly why ecclesiastical abuse is so stupid! If any church seeks to excommunicate rather than accept a resignation, based on the First Amendment as argued above, that church should be punished for violation of rights.

[mfbukowski]

The church is true! The church is true! The church is true!

At the same time I could see it not being true yet them remaining true. Even if it is not true, which it is, this is a great cause. This is a movement started by Joseph Smith Jr. to change the world.

As far as the post, it sounds like complete garbage. The GA's are mostly all millionaires to begin with. Frugal men(mormon standard) and good careers makes them easily millionaires.

Well since God himself told me it is true, I don't care much that Grant Palmer tells me it isn't.

Truth is, I accepted the gospel as a philosophy even before God decided to wonk me upside the head with a spiritual two-by-four.

Even if Palmer is telling the truth, I guess I need to start my own church with all the same beliefs based on my personal revelations alone.

[tyler90az]

When I was considering resignation a few years ago, I met with my bishop and stake president on several occasions. On one occasion, I met with the stake presidency all together. The 2nd Counselor, a man I had grown up knowing, and I never really got along too well because, to him, my beliefs were too radical and divergent. He often had the attitude of believe and obey when we would discuss issues. Any way, I had made the decision to resign and I informed both the bishop and the stake president. Now, this is a rumor I had heard but I'm not sure the 2nd Counselor would be stupid enough to try this crap but I was told that he had proposed excommunication to the stake president. My resignation was received and we parted ways on good terms.

If a member of the church is choosing to resign then the church should honor that choice without taking the low road and excommunicating someone instead. That would just be ridiculous.

I often wonder when people get excommunicated if they rip the church in the hearings. It would be interesting to witness a hearing.

[Pandorian]

Wouldn't a 70 knowing it is NOT true stand to make a reasonable amount of money writing a Tell-All Book. I mean everyone who is Exmormon or New Order would surely want to get a copy?

[why me]

I'm just saying that, if these men are/were unbelievers, I'm a leprechaun. In their private conversations and in their families as in their public statements, they come across as utterly sincere and completely faithful.

.

Happy Saint Patrick's Day! Thanks Dan for posting. Your posts are a great help for many people. I also agree with you. These men are too much in the open to cover up such a thing. And they all have huge families who are practicing members of the church. They would have to be the most disgusting people on earth to cover up such a fraud. Thanks again for sharing your experience with the GAs.

[mfbukowski]

What would have happened if he went to church and took the Sacrament anyway? Nothing?

Haven't you noticed all the chapels lately getting struck by lightning? Why do you think that is?

[MormonMason]

This is exactly why ecclesiastical abuse is so stupid! If any church seeks to excommunicate rather than accept a resignation, based on the First Amendment as argued above, that church should be punished for violation of rights.

You can be excommunicated without it being abuse if there are moral issues involved along with a desire to remove one's name from the rolls. It was in the CHI last time I checked some years back.

[Duncan]

https://www.lds.org/...ounced?lang=eng

I am trying to figure out who would be the General Authority who would even say this ( for the record I think this whole thing is totally BOGUS)

what does "a number of years" even mean, 5, 10, 20? There are only a handful of brethren who were called prior to 2000. Elders Amado, Porter, Vinas, Maynes, Zwick, ****son. But All of them except for one is out serving in the world so wouldn't have been around for these meetings. Elder Porter is a saint and I know that from reading his book, the King of Kings and from others who know him personally so it can't be him. I doubt its Elder Maynes either

Edited April 8, 2013 by Duncan

[ERayR]

Wouldn't a 70 knowing it is NOT true stand to make a reasonable amount of money writing a Tell-All Book. I mean everyone who is Exmormon or New Order would surely want to get a copy?

I think you may have unintentionally hit on the reason for Palmer's action. He may be trying to boost book sales.

Edited April 8, 2013 by ERayR

[thesometimesaint]

This is exactly why ecclesiastical abuse is so stupid! If any church seeks to excommunicate rather than accept a resignation, based on the First Amendment as argued above, that church should be punished for violation of rights.

What rights are being violated with excommunication from the Church?

[USU78]

United Nations Commission on Human Rights

The Committee observes that the freedom to 'have or to adopt' a religion or belief necessarily entails the freedom to choose a religion or belief, including the right to replace one's current religion or belief with another or to adopt atheistic views [...] Article 18.2^[5] bars coercion that would impair the right to have or adopt a religion or belief, including the use of threat of physical force or penal sanctions to compel believers or non-believers to adhere to their religious beliefs and congregations, to recant their religion or belief or to convert.^[6]

^---

Besides, what would be the benefit to excommunicate somebody who resigns? Spite? hatred? disappointment? The person will not care one way or the other. Just let them walk and not harm the image of the church.

Say what?

This deals with State-imposed sanctions to compel or forbid belief . . . not an internal procedural mechanism for determining whether somebody should be permitted continued membership in a particular religious organization.

[cdowis]

Once the church receives his request, it has no authority over this individual. It would violate his right to privacy, and, of course, the church would be liable to a civil suit.

[Duncan]

On the other hand...if a General Authority showed up to your house or at least somehow got your confidence and started saying he doesn't believe wouldn't your red flags go up? If I was in Palmer's position I would be skeptical of his sincerity, if I were to believe him I would want some proof of his disbelief

[Garden Girl]

If Grant Palmer actually wrote this, and did so in seriousness, then his mental state is alarming...

One thing that struck me was that it takes a "new apostle" two to three years to figure out the Church is false... and that all the other apostles are unbelievers... Why so long? After all, if the twelve do all this talking among themselves... Oh, I forgot, it took Uchtdorf longer because he was an "outsider." Riiight...

GG

[thesometimesaint]

Once the church receives his request, it has no authority over this individual. It would violate his right to privacy, and, of course, the church would be liable to a civil suit.

True, and the individual has no control over what the Church does.

How is his right to privacy violated? We don't normally publish or otherwise advertize the proceedings of any disciplinary council.

[CASteinman]

That would be the first amendment.

In Guinn v. Church of Christ of Collinsville, the Oklahoma Supreme Court stated:

Thank you very much. I am newly informed by this.

[CASteinman]

I often wonder when people get excommunicated if they rip the church in the hearings. It would be interesting to witness a hearing.

I have never seen that. But I have heard of it being done but not in a very aggressive way.

[CASteinman]

Once the church receives his request, it has no authority over this individual. It would violate his right to privacy, and, of course, the church would be liable to a civil suit.

I agree that the church might be liable for a civil suit... but what I did not know was that there was a court ruling that made this subject to State Regulation.

I am amazed at what the Courts can do sometimes.

[why me]

There was some speculation that it was an April Fool's joke. But usually if this is the case the joke ends rather soon during April Fool's Day. But this now doesn't seem like an April Fool's joke.

[tyler90az]

Say what?

This deals with State-imposed sanctions to compel or forbid belief . . . not an internal procedural mechanism for determining whether somebody should be permitted continued membership in a particular religious organization.

Your a dangerous man to me, you are not suppose to know that much.

[Damien the Leper]

You can be excommunicated without it being abuse if there are moral issues involved along with a desire to remove one's name from the rolls. It was in the CHI last time I checked some years back.

But if a member decides to resign rather than be part of a disciplinary council, they have that right to withdraw. If there is a moral issue involved or not and a person wishes to resign, the church must honor it. IOW, "You want to resign and you committed a sin? No way! We are going to excommunicate you first", doesn't fly. That is ecclesiastical abuse.

[Damien the Leper]

What rights are being violated with excommunication from the Church?

You're misunderstanding. I'm saying that if a person wishes to resign yet the leadership, if they are dumb enough, wants to have an excommunication instead...that is violating the persons rights. The church can't say "No, you can't resign until you are punished for..." The church knows better than to pull a stupid stunt like this.

[escott3564]

For what little it's worth:

I've met and interacted with all of the Twelve and the First Presidency -- with some, of course, more than others. (I chatted with one of them on Saturday between conference sessions.) I've been in the homes of two of them (most recently, on Saturday). I served on a committee chaired by then-Elder Uchtdorf; I knew Elder Maxwell fairly well. I've spoken on programs on both American coasts and in England with Elders Maxwell and Holland. I've known Elder Holland since well before he was even a Seventy. I don't want to exaggerate: I don't pal around with them every Saturday, but at least two of them call me by my first name. (Elder Maxwell always did.) I've spent some time, at least, with Elder Maxwell's widow and one of the most senior current apostles' wives, and I know several apostles' children pretty well.

I'm not saying this to boast.

I'm just saying that, if these men are/were unbelievers, I'm a leprechaun. In their private conversations and in their families as in their public statements, they come across as utterly sincere and completely faithful.

.

Amen to this!

Let me also add....my husband's uncle is a member of the quorum of the twelve. He has a very strong testimony of the Savior, and is one of the most sincere men you will ever meet. There is no question that he has a solid testimony of the restoration.

AND....he did NOT receive a one-million dollar payout!!! That is also a blatant lie. He lives off of a very comfortable retirement from work that he did ON HIS OWN IN HIS FIELD, as do most of the 12. Yes, they do get compensation for travel and some of their living expenses, but it is nowhere near one million dollars, nor is it anywhere near compensation for the amount of personal time they give to their callings.

[Tramper]

I am sure. Grant wrote this piece. The story is not very new. In this video clip from his talk at the Exmormon Foundation you can hear the story from Palmer himself.

[media=]

Edited April 8, 2013 by Tramper

[Marmonboy]

I find it fascinating that these high-level apostates from the highest levels of the church heirarchy are going to a former seminary teacher to spill their guts. And why all the meetings? Wouldn't one suffice to say "We lied--it's not true"?

There is a liar here, and I think we all know who.