Mississippi Bishop Resigns from the Pulpit

[Diamondhands69]

12 hours ago, Amulek said:

I'm pretty sure that "the eyes of the church" are aware of the instructions listed in their own handbooks, so I'm sorry, but it's still the case you are mistaken about this.

Either that or, as I suspect may be the case, you are just playing word games with the term "hallowed." Perhaps you would care to offer a definition or explain what you believe the word "hallowed" means?

So if dedicating a home there is no record kept ( which I am aware of) and you don’t need any kind of priesthood whatsoever to do it what is the point of doing it besides making sure your family knows ur on the covenant  path or whatever kind of signal one wants to project?

im thinking the church deems it to be more significant since their first go to in the manual is a melchezedic priesthood holder. 
 

if it isn’t important than they shouldn’t mention it. If I understand the policy correctly, one can have the local reiki practitioner do a dedication for you which  is just as valid as if the prophet himself did it. 

Edited January 20, 2024 by Diamondhands69

[Diamondhands69]

12 hours ago, Amulek said:

People outside of the church are incapable of "any joy." Srsly?

So, despite what we believe the scriptures say about the matter, I guess there was no joy in heaven when our Father announced the plan of salvation. And no joy accompanied the world at its creation. Nor when the Savior was born.

in heaven there was no Mormon church. Now that we are here on earth, the Mormon church has proclaimed it is the only source of true joy and happiness. 

12 hours ago, Amulek said:

No, if you are to believed, joy didn't come into the world until April 6, 1830 when the church was established and people could finally be Mormon.

Riiiiiiiight.

Bednar:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2019/12/jesus-christ-the-source-of-enduring-joy?lang=eng

“How Is Joy Obtained?

 I believe the contrast between righteous joy and worldly fun is instructive and helps us better understand the nature of true joy. Joy comes from exercising faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, worthily receiving and faithfully honoring sacred ordinances and covenants, and striving to become deeply converted to the Savior and His purposes.”

 

the part of worthily obtaining ordinances specifically identified Mormons who are eligible. Remember every single church is false with false and corrupted ordinances except the Mormon church…. So yes only Mormons can have joy

“A Joyful Promise

 Enduring joy is not a blessing reserved for a select few. Rather, every member of the Lord’s restored Church who is striving to remember and honor sacred covenants and keep the commandments can receive this gift, according to God’s will and timing.”

 

Every menber of the church can receive this gift. Sounds like Mormons are the only ones who can have true joy. If other people have joy and it doesn’t come through their membership in and participation in ordinances of the Mormon church then they are not experiencing true joy. If their joy isn’t true….  Theeeeen it isn’t joy. 
 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/happiness?lang=eng

“As we seek to be happy, we should remember that the only way to real happiness is to live the gospel. We will find peaceful, eternal happiness as we strive to keep the commandments, pray for strength, repent of our sins, participate in wholesome activities, and give meaningful service.”

 

here we go again.. only way to real happiness is to live the gospel. Only people who have the true gospel is Mormons… Mormons are the only people who can be truly happy 

Edited January 20, 2024 by Diamondhands69

[smac97]

5 hours ago, Amulek said:

Quote

If it isn’t priesthood ordinance it is not recognized by the church. As such, any blessing not performed by a melc priesthood holder is no more valid than if a catholic priest did it. At least in the eyes of the church .

Unlike temples, home dedications are neither recorded nor in any other way officially recognized by the church. Seriously, try asking your Ward Clerk for a printout of which homes in the ward have yet to be dedicated and see if you are met with anything other than laughter (or possibly confusion if it's someone old and they think you're being serious).

Which is why, as quoted in the church's own handbook on the subject, the church advises families that even without a Melchizedek Priesthood holder present they can dedicate their homes as "sacred edifices where the Holy Spirit may reside and where family members can worship, find safety from the world, grow spiritually, and prepare for eternal family relationships."

I'm pretty sure that "the eyes of the church" are aware of the instructions listed in their own handbooks, so I'm sorry, but it's still the case you are mistaken about this.

Either that or, as I suspect may be the case, you are just playing word games with the term "hallowed." Perhaps you would care to offer a definition or explain what you believe the word "hallowed" means?

From the handbook:

Quote

18.2

Other Ordinances and Blessings

Other ordinances and blessings make it possible for God’s children to receive His power, healing, comfort, and guidance. These ordinances and blessings are listed below:

• Naming and blessing children

• The sacrament

• Conferral of the Aaronic Priesthood and ordination to an office (for young men and men)

• Setting apart members to serve in callings

• Consecrating oil

• Administering to the sick

• Blessings of comfort and counsel, including father’s blessings

• Dedicating homes

• Dedicating graves

• Patriarchal blessings by ordained patriarchs

This references "ordinances and blessings," and the list includes "{d}edicating homes." Though it does not specify whether it is an "ordinance" or a "blessing," I'm not sure that distinction matters.

Quote

18.15

Dedicating Homes

Church members may have their homes dedicated by the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood. Homes do not need to be owned or free of debt to be dedicated. Unlike Church buildings, homes are not consecrated to the Lord.

"{H}omes are not consecrated to the Lord."

"Consecrated" = "Hallowed"?

Quote

18.15.1

Who Performs the Dedication

A home is dedicated by a Melchizedek Priesthood holder. If there is not a Melchizedek Priesthood holder in the home:

• A family may invite a close friend, relative, or ministering brother who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood to dedicate the home. The person does not need to seek approval from a priesthood leader.

• A family might gather and offer a prayer as guided by the Spirit. The prayer could include the elements mentioned in 18.15.2, number 3.

"A family might gather and offer a prayer as guided by the Spirit."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Diamondhands69]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

"{H}omes are not consecrated to the Lord."

 

What if the homeowner and wife have gone through the temple? In there they covenant to consecrate their lives and all they have to the church. Is their home now consecrated to the Lord or any other home they end up in? Whether they dedicate the home or not? 

[Stargazer]

15 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

You are not wrong. Earlier he was bragging about playing with his telephone during priesthood EQ. 

 

LOL, I play with my phone during priesthood, too! In my case I am following the discussion topic, but there's bound to be someone thinking I'm playing Solitaire or something.

[gopher]

22 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Maybe you're having a bad day, and that's leading you to take things personally that were not meant to be so, but when I read what he posted I didn't know about the nekkid poster, but still got it that he wasn't accusing you of anything like that. 

That's the danger of forums, anyway. Things I've written here in the past (and it surely will happen again) have been called racist, homophobic, and whatever insult was current at the time, when I am none of those things. My skin is perhaps thicker than yours.

Besides, who here knows who you are, anyway? You're just some anonymous internet personage whose entire raison d'etre seems to be using this forum as a safe place to vent. Not unlike some others, and so you're in good company.

Thanks.  There seem to be many former believers out there that feel angry, disappointed, betrayed, etc.  I don't want to be responsible for adding to those feelings.  Maybe they expect to feel that way for the rest of their lives, but I recently saw an example of someone who was able to overcome those feelings.  A sister in the ward has a husband who left the church while he was serving in the Bishopric in their previous ward.  His issues were mainly Joseph Smith and church history.  For 20 years he was kind of a jerk to her about the church since she continued to attend alone.  He felt the church had lied to him and tried to convince her to leave too.  A few years ago an inspired Primary president recommended calling them both to teach the Sunbeam class.  He agreed only to please his wife and would show up for class and quickly leave when it ended.  Four months ago he got up in F&T meeting and shared an emotional testimony that he said he knows Joseph Smith was a prophet.  His wife was shocked along with the rest of the ward.  He has gotten up every month since then to bear his testimony of the church, scriptures, revelation, etc.

I'm not suggesting this will happen to every former believer, but it provides some hope that it can happen.  I also have an uncle that came back after 50 years.  He was a RM and left with my aunt shortly after marrying in the temple.  He shared many of the common concerns and became very antagonistic towards the church.  My aunt returned after 10 years, but he was in his mid 70's when he accepted a calling to serve with her in the nursery.  Now in his 80's, he's a temple worker.

I'm sure there are other examples that don't involve unleashing the full power of the Junior Primary to help regain testimonies, but it's been interesting to see the changes that can quickly happen after serving with the little ones.

Edited January 20, 2024 by gopher
left a sentence unfinished

[Diamondhands69]

37 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

LOL, I play with my phone during priesthood, too! In my case I am following the discussion topic, but there's bound to be someone thinking I'm playing Solitaire or something.

Pretty much everyone is on their phones . The substance in the lessons is boring and the whole meeting (in my ward) is dominated by a handful of high priests who can’t stop talking about all the great works they do. It’s like a competition of one-upping. 

Edited January 20, 2024 by Diamondhands69

[Stargazer]

1 minute ago, gopher said:

Thanks.  There seem to be many former believers out there that feel angry, disappointed, betrayed, etc.  I don't want to be responsible for adding to those feelings.  Maybe they expect to feel that way for the rest of their lives, but I recently saw an example of someone who was able to overcome those feelings.  A sister in the ward has a husband who left the church while he was serving in the Bishopric in their previous ward.  His issues were mainly Joseph Smith and church history.  For 20 years he was kind of a jerk to her about the church since she continued to attend alone.  He felt the church had lied to him and tried to convince her to leave too.  A few years ago an inspired Primary president recommended calling them both to teach the Sunbeam class.  He agreed only to please his wife and would show up for class and quickly leave when it ended.  Four months ago he got up in F&T meeting and shared an emotional testimony that he said he knows Joseph Smith was a prophet.  His wife had seen He has gotten up every month since then to bear his testimony of the church, scriptures, revelation, etc.

I'm not suggesting this will happen to every former believer, but it provides some hope that it can happen.  I also have an uncle that came back after 50 years.  He was a RM and left with my aunt shortly after marrying in the temple.  He shared many of the common concerns and became very antagonistic towards the church.  My aunt returned after 10 years, but he was in his mid 70's when he accepted a calling to serve with her in the nursery.  Now in his 80's, he's a temple worker.

I'm sure there are other examples that don't involve unleashing the full power of the Junior Primary to help regain testimonies, but it's been interesting to see the changes that can quickly happen after serving with the little ones.

In one branch (now ward) I was serving in during my mission, there was this one brother who was estranged from the church, but just to please his wife he would attend a couple times a month, always with a grumpy face. Next time I saw him, a few years later, he was the ward's bishop. I don't know if the Primary had anything to do with it, though.

[Stargazer]

2 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Pretty much everyone is on their phones . The substance in the lessons is boring and the whole meeting (in my ward) is dominated by a handful of high priests who can’t stop talking about all the great works they do. It’s like a competition of one-upping. 

Do you participate in the discussions in priesthood? Based on your participation on this board, it doesn't appear that you're too shy to chime in. 

Once upon a time, I was the instructor in our high priests group, and there were a couple of members who had rather unconventional opinions and observations, and without them the lessons would have been much less useful. One of them started not showing up for priesthood, and I asked him about it (I was his home teacher and we got along well), and he said he was worried that his participation was derailing things too much. I told him that I wanted his unconventionality. And I truly did.

I know you're not a believer, but if you're going to be there, I think you would still have useful input to give. Why not do so? That would make it less boring for you, perhaps. 

Although I'm a bit perplexed that you even attend church, with the input you've been giving here. Is someone threatening you if you don't show up?  

[Diamondhands69]

23 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Do you participate in the discussions in priesthood? Based on your participation on this board, it doesn't appear that you're too shy to chime in. 

Once upon a time, I was the instructor in our high priests group, and there were a couple of members who had rather unconventional opinions and observations, and without them the lessons would have been much less useful. One of them started not showing up for priesthood, and I asked him about it (I was his home teacher and we got along well), and he said he was worried that his participation was derailing things too much. I told him that I wanted his unconventionality. And I truly did.

no im not shy.. 1st instance is our instructor shared how his bishop in his other ward made a rule anyone participating in the sacrament had to be wearing a coat. He bragged how they were obedient and went to goodwill and deseret industries to get suit jackets and blazers for all the kids so they would be allowed to participate. He shared how he thought it was so cool they obeyed the bishop. I chimed in and said it would have been more impressive for someone to call out the bishop as the Pharisee he is, refuse to comply and report him to the SP. I got some pretty interesting looks over that one. My EQP came over after church and told me I needed to be more diplomatic. I told him people need to man up and call out people who abuse their authority and those who pass around the abuse as some sort of virtue. He agreed but said to knock it off. 
 

Sun school lesson last year when we got to sec 132 we discussed eternal marriage. They stopped at the point the section gets into polygamy and the instructor asked if we had any input. I chimed in and said we should discuss the history of polygamy ... instructor says yea we are not talking about polygamy. 
 

another person in EQ brought up the sec scandal. Everyone looked up like WTF is that? I chimed in and explained the scheme, the involvement of the 1st  presidency and the fine. EQP (same one as before) stood up and said it wasn’t up for discussion. 
 

so there we have legit topics Mormons are frightened of and got shut down. I don’t say anything anymore. 
 

this is where I got referred to bishop by my EQP. I told the bishop I felt the first pres was corrupt re the sec thing and a few other things. This is also in conjunction with the complaint I made to the church about the sealer who married me and the wife. He has committed an excimmunicable offense before we were married and I have witnesses. Church refuses to communicate with me about it. 

 

23 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Although I'm a bit perplexed that you even attend church, with the input you've been giving here. Is someone threatening you if you don't show up?  

I am in a Mormon power family. We have regular interaction with general authorities and many family members in significant church positions. Being obviously not in will result in significant shunning and all kinds of grief. It is like the mafia. It is better for me and my wife/kids if I play along. Everyone who is not active or self proclaimed gay or whatever has pretty much been put on ignore and no one even discusses their existence. 
 

threatening? No but there are consequences

Edited January 20, 2024 by Diamondhands69

[Stargazer]

19 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

no im not shy.. 1st instance is our instructor shared how his bishop in his other ward made a rule anyone participating in the sacrament had to be wearing a coat. He bragged how they were obedient and went to goodwill and deseret industries to get suit jackets and blazers for all the kids so they would be allowed to participate. He shared how he thought it was so cool they obeyed the bishop. I chimed in and said it would have been more impressive for someone to call out the bishop as the Pharisee he is, refuse to comply and report him to the SP. I got some pretty interesting looks over that one. My EQP came over after church and told me I needed to be more diplomatic. I told him people need to man up and call out people who abuse their authority and those who pass around the abuse as some sort of virtue. He agreed but said to knock it off. 

Perhaps that other bishop needed to read section 18.9.3 in the Handbook. It doesn't get too specific, but the only things it says about dress in administering the sacrament is "Those who administer the sacrament should be well groomed and clean." Nothing about any uniform appearance. It goes on to say about passing the sacrament "The passing of the sacrament should be natural and not overly formal. For example, certain actions (such as holding the left hand behind the back) or appearances (such as dressing alike) should not be required."

I kind of understand the bishop's motivation, though. He's responsible for the decorous and reverent administration of the sacrament, which some members, do not seem to realize is the most important priesthood ordinance of all. We may treat temple ordinances with a large degree of respect, but the sacrament of the Lord's Supper is the most important of them all. And should be treated as such.

Which does not mean that it should be bound about with pharisaic rules, however. You're right about that. And your EQP was right that you should have been more diplomatic about how you expressed it. It does no good to make a great contention over it.

19 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Sun school lesson last year when we got to sec 132 we discussed eternal marriage. They stopped at the point the section gets into polygamy and the instructor asked if we had any input. I chimed in and said we should discuss the history of polygamy ... instructor says yea we are not talking about polygamy. 

LOL, yes that's a tough subject. I wish to heck I had been the instructor. I would have delved into it a bit, and thanked you for bringing it up. And as you might not know, I've contributed to discussions in this forum about the matter in which I've been accused of being a misogynist because of my thoughts. It's a legitimate part of the history of the church, so it needs to be discussed, at least occasionally. The fact that we don't practice it at this time, does not mean it should be a taboo subject.

But on the other hand, I can understand your instructor's desire not to touch what can be a live wire topic.

I'd guess you wanted to bring it up precisely because it could be contentious. Or perhaps you just wanted to stir the pot a bit to see what happened! I wish I knew which ward you were in, so I could come watch.

19 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

another person in EQ brought up the sec scandal. Everyone looked up like WTF is that? I chimed in and explained the scheme, the involvement of the 1st  presidency and the fine. EQP (same one as before) stood up and said it wasn’t up for discussion.

Good grief. They just going to let the members stumble on this stuff on their own and get blindsided? 

Out here in the hinterland of England we don't get much in the way of anti-Mormon activity, so we might not need it as much, but it would be better for some of these matters be openly discussed -- if not impromptu during a normal meeting, then at least with some planning and preparation. When the church first put out that Gospel Topics section on the website (or whatever it was called -- now it's Topics and Questions), our bishop made a point of bringing to the ward's attention via a 5th Sunday joint meeting where he went over a number of the articles. My current stake has held firesides for similar purposes.

19 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

 so there we have legit topics Mormons are frightened of and got shut down. I don’t say anything anymore. 

Yeah. Happens in political matters, too. We're only human.

19 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

this is where I got referred to bishop by my EQP. I told the bishop I felt the first pres was corrupt re the sec thing and a few other things. This is also in conjunction with the complaint I made to the church about the sealer who married me and the wife. He has committed an excimmunicable offense before we were married and I have witnesses. Church refuses to communicate with me about it.

Perhaps it's proceeding beneath your notice, though I suspect it isn't. A member of my old ward committed murder (and in the same instance stabbed one of my adult sons), and after he got convicted I expected him to get excommunicated. After some time went by and his name was still on our records. I mentioned it to the bishop and he acknowledged it, but I don't know if anything proceeded from that point. Since the guy committed the crime under the influence of drugs, the stake president and the bishop might have felt that he was not fully accountable at the time, so didn't take action. This has nothing to do with your matter, of course.

19 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

I am in a Mormon power family. We have regular interaction with general authorities and many family members in significant church positions. Being obviously not in will result in significant shunning and all kinds of grief. It is like the mafia. It is better for me and my wife/kids if I play along. Everyone who is not active or self proclaimed gay or whatever has pretty much been put on ignore and no one even discusses their existence. 
threatening? No but there are consequences

Sounds like a sad situation. I sympathize with you quite sincerely. Without a conviction or belief I imagine it is quite taxing in some ways. If you could overcome that latter situation it would probably make a positive difference.

 

[Teancum]

On 1/16/2024 at 8:12 PM, Amulek said:

Plus, FSY wouldn't have even been a thing when he was a kid, so if he was abused at FSY then it would to have had to have been in the last year or two.

Nor was it when I was a kid in the 60s and 70s.  But we did do scout camps.  We did other overnight youth activities like river rafting, camping and hiking in the mountains and attending a rodeo in the area we camped and so on. We did not have EFY as well.  My kids had that though.  But there were a lot of events that sexual predator would be right in their element with.  

[Teancum]

On 1/16/2024 at 8:19 PM, smac97 said:

Bishops are released early all the time.  By a member of the stake presidency.  If there is some concern about "confusion, speculation, and rumors," the member of the stake presidency can speak to (and, if necessary, against) such things.

There are no circumstances where a person ought to misappropriate the Church's sacred convocation.

You know the more I thought about this the more I agree.  I just cannot in my mind see justifying standing up in front on the congregation and announcing a resignation as a bishop.  I think there are better ways to control the narrative if that is needed.

[Diamondhands69]

23 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Nor was it when I was a kid in the 60s and 70s.  But we did do scout camps.  We did other overnight youth activities like river rafting, camping and hiking in the mountains and attending a rodeo in the area we camped and so on. We did not have EFY as well.  My kids had that though.  But there were a lot of events that sexual predator would be right in their element with.  

It may not be sexual abuse either. Could have been hazing, physical abuse or even verbal abuse by other kids or adults. 
 

we had a kid on our ward a couple years older than me while growing up. The other kids would beat him up on campouts and at scout camp. Leaders never did anything about it. His parents didn’t believe him. I never saw it because i was never in the same age group, but they talked about it for years. After that kid graduated HS he disappeared. No one knows where he went to and his parents moved away. 

[Teancum]

Bishop Roulette really.  ANd in fact there are instances where a bishop is REQUIRED to drill into past transgressions and sins.  At least when I was a bishop.  Interviewing a missionary candidate in one.  Readmission to the church is another.  And yes some bishops do delve more into transgressions then they should.  My youngest daughter experienced this with a bishop she had when attending UVU. I would have liked to punched that bishop in the nose.  Another young college woman who was attending BYUI when I was bishop and her RM boyfriend had some law of chastity issues.  I ended up with both of them back in my ward and needed to councill with them. They both had been through a disciplinary council and I needed to pick up the pieces.  I was appalled with what they told me their bishops and SPs had asked them.  APPALLED! I was in a stake council meeting once and a member of the HC and another member, who had been a bishop as well as a counselor in an SP said "I didn't ask the young men whether or not they masterbate.  Iasked them when the last time was that they masterbated. Ugh.

[Stargazer]

12 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

It may not be sexual abuse either. Could have been hazing, physical abuse or even verbal abuse by other kids or adults. 
 

we had a kid on our ward a couple years older than me while growing up. The other kids would beat him up on campouts and at scout camp. Leaders never did anything about it. His parents didn’t believe him. I never saw it because i was never in the same age group, but they talked about it for years. After that kid graduated HS he disappeared. No one knows where he went to and his parents moved away. 

Had something like that when I was the Blazer leader. One of the boys (call him Boy 1) would constantly make fun of another one of the boys (Boy 2). There was no physical violence at all, but as I had been bullied in school I knew it was not good. I worked with both of them to stop the behavior and it seemed to help, but I'm sure it didn't entirely cease when I wasn't around. It wasn't until much later that I realized I should have gone to Boy 1's dad about it. I didn't know him very well at the time, but later found that he would have come down on his son firmly about the behavior. Boy 2 later disappeared from church as a young adult, though his family was still around. I suspect the bullying had something to do with it. Or maybe not -- who knows?

Boy 1 stayed in the church, served a mission, moved away, went to Uni, married, had kids, and I didn't see him until years later one day his family popped up in church, and I think they were moving back into the ward. On one of the Sundays after he came back, he saw me, and came up to apologize for his past behavior. He seemed very sincere and all that, but the damage had been long done, and I had no idea where Boy 2 had ended up -- and that's who he should have been apologizing to. I probably could have done a better job of handling the matter back in the day, and that is my regret.

This kind of thing goes on everywhere, though. One of my sons was bullied in school, and was even mistreated by teachers. We got tired of it, when the school wouldn't do zip about it, and took him out to home school him. One of my other sons (younger than the previous mentioned) was actually bullying other kids in school, and when we found that out, we took him out to home school him, too. I later found out that the reason he was bullying other kids was because he saw the bullying going on around him, and decided to be proactive, to get a reputation so no one would mess with him. The school had a bit of a reputation. You wouldn't think a middle school would have a rep as a "stoner school," but this one did. One of my coworkers had a son attending that school who broke his hand defending himself against a bully while their teacher was off doing something. They refused to let him call his mom at work (because it was long-distance), refused to do anything about the bully, and when my coworker found out, she went down to the school to confront the principal. She told me that when they saw her coming, the entire office staff scattered like cockroaches when the light is turned on, and she had to let herself into the principal's office (the staff didn't warn him -- INCOMING!). She was ticked off to the max.

[Teancum]

On 1/16/2024 at 10:05 PM, bluebell said:

But it seems like the only people that are allowed to have honest emotions and express sincere opinions are members of the ex Mormon community.

Members aren’t allowed to be upset when a ex member says disparaging things about them.  We shouldn’t care when our meetings are used to make claims against our doctrines or our leaders.  We cannot call our beliefs facts while the ex Mormon community should be allowed to do so without any pushback.  We should want to still hang out with people who say bad things about us while those people should be free to shun us if they want, without judgment, because we won’t agree with them. Etc. etc.

Do you really think there are a substantive amount of ex or disaffected members that want to restrict you in the harsh terms you outline above?  Some may.  But I doubt many do. 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Diamondhands69 said:

It may not be sexual abuse either. Could have been hazing, physical abuse or even verbal abuse by other kids or adults. 
 

we had a kid on our ward a couple years older than me while growing up. The other kids would beat him up on campouts and at scout camp. Leaders never did anything about it. His parents didn’t believe him. I never saw it because i was never in the same age group, but they talked about it for years. After that kid graduated HS he disappeared. No one knows where he went to and his parents moved away. 

Yes good point. I have seen what you describe your anecdote as well.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Do you really think there are a substantive amount of ex or disaffected members that want to restrict you in the harsh terms you outline above?  Some may.  But I doubt many do. 

Do I really think that a lot of ex-members are very thinned skinned when members speak of them or interact with them, but expect members to be thick skinned when dealing with ex-members?

Yes I do.

Remember that I'm not talking about literally being stopped or literally being restricted.  I'm talking about not being able to do something without condemnation or a moral judgement that ex-members feel comfortable (or justified) in doing themselves.

[Amulek]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

On 1/16/2024 at 7:12 PM, Amulek said:

Plus, FSY wouldn't have even been a thing when he was a kid, so if he was abused at FSY then it would to have had to have been in the last year or two.

Nor was it when I was a kid in the 60s and 70s.  But we did do scout camps.  We did other overnight youth activities like river rafting, camping and hiking in the mountains and attending a rodeo in the area we camped and so on. We did not have EFY as well.  My kids had that though.  But there were a lot of events that sexual predator would be right in their element with.  

I am aware. And if he was ever physically or sexually abused during a church outing that would be reprehensible. 

Still, as I explained previously: given the context of his remark, I don't believe he was claiming that any such abuse ever took place. 

 

[Stormin' Mormon]

2 hours ago, Joshua said:

The fact that you want people, both Mormon and non-Mormon, to respect the facilities and sacred convocation of your religious group, but you won't extend the same respect to the living spaces of families who have had their homes blessed and sanctified or even consecrated to harness the power of the God that they worship, is something that I find quite humorous. Quite a few religious individuals regard the house and the ground on which it is constructed to be a temple. My opinion is that it is rude for missionaries of the Mormon and Jehovah's Witness faith to knock on the door of a temple that has been blessed as such. Not all temples have Moroni on top.

 

How would you feel if you were on the grounds of a Mormon temple, watching a newly married couple take pictures after being married in the temple, and a group of very kind and respectful Christian street preachers walked up to the dozens of family members who were attending the wedding, and they began handing out pamphlets that read, "The only way for Mormons to gain entry into God's kingdom is to repent now and become a true Christian?" How would you feel about that opportunity? Would you consider that to be disrespectful, despite the fact that the Christians were very kind when they began handing out flyers to Mormons, urging them to repent or else they would be damned to hell?

 

A Mezuzah is usually always used to decorate a Jewish home that has been blessed and sanctified from the inside out. Due to the fact that it is often always fastened to the jamb of the front door at head height, it is impossible for a guest to avoid notice of it. A scroll that has been rolled by hand and contains the Shema prayer written on it is contained within the Mezuzah. Because it serves as a reminder that there is only one God, the Shema prayer is considered to be the most important prayer in Judaism. I have a large number of Jewish acquaintances, and I can confidently say that, more than any other group, they have the most robust family relationships I have ever come across. Consequently, when two Mormon missionaries enter the property of a Jewish family, proceed to the front door, notice the mezuzah, and continue to knock on the door in an effort to persuade the individuals inside that their religious beliefs are incorrect, I find that to be more disrespectful than what the Bishop in Mississippi did when he announced his resignation from his position at the podium. 

 

It might perhaps behoove you to go back and read the responses to the first time you posted this nonsense. Rather than simply repeat what you've already posted, responding to those who respond to you is the essence of discussion. Which is kind of key on a, you know, discussion board.

[Rain]

21 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Perhaps that other bishop needed to read section 18.9.3 in the Handbook. It doesn't get too specific, but the only things it says about dress in administering the sacrament is "Those who administer the sacrament should be well groomed and clean." Nothing about any uniform appearance. It goes on to say about passing the sacrament "The passing of the sacrament should be natural and not overly formal. For example, certain actions (such as holding the left hand behind the back) or appearances (such as dressing alike) should not be required."

I kind of understand the bishop's motivation, though. He's responsible for the decorous and reverent administration of the sacrament, which some members, do not seem to realize is the most important priesthood ordinance of all. We may treat temple ordinances with a large degree of respect, but the sacrament of the Lord's Supper is the most important of them all. And should be treated as such.

Which does not mean that it should be bound about with pharisaic rules, however. You're right about that. And your EQP was right that you should have been more diplomatic about how you expressed it. It does no good to make a great contention over it.

LOL, yes that's a tough subject. I wish to heck I had been the instructor. I would have delved into it a bit, and thanked you for bringing it up. And as you might not know, I've contributed to discussions in this forum about the matter in which I've been accused of being a misogynist because of my thoughts. It's a legitimate part of the history of the church, so it needs to be discussed, at least occasionally. The fact that we don't practice it at this time, does not mean it should be a taboo subject.

But on the other hand, I can understand your instructor's desire not to touch what can be a live wire topic.

I'd guess you wanted to bring it up precisely because it could be contentious. Or perhaps you just wanted to stir the pot a bit to see what happened! I wish I knew which ward you were in, so I could come watch.

Good grief. They just going to let the members stumble on this stuff on their own and get blindsided? 

Out here in the hinterland of England we don't get much in the way of anti-Mormon activity, so we might not need it as much, but it would be better for some of these matters be openly discussed -- if not impromptu during a normal meeting, then at least with some planning and preparation. When the church first put out that Gospel Topics section on the website (or whatever it was called -- now it's Topics and Questions), our bishop made a point of bringing to the ward's attention via a 5th Sunday joint meeting where he went over a number of the articles. My current stake has held firesides for similar purposes.

Yeah. Happens in political matters, too. We're only human.

Perhaps it's proceeding beneath your notice, though I suspect it isn't. A member of my old ward committed murder (and in the same instance stabbed one of my adult sons), and after he got convicted I expected him to get excommunicated. After some time went by and his name was still on our records. I mentioned it to the bishop and he acknowledged it, but I don't know if anything proceeded from that point. Since the guy committed the crime under the influence of drugs, the stake president and the bishop might have felt that he was not fully accountable at the time, so didn't take action. This has nothing to do with your matter, of course.

Was this before conviction? My husband told me about working with someone his mission who had committed a crime. The bishop told him the church wouldn't get involved till after conviction so that it doesn't influence the court. 

21 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Sounds like a sad situation. I sympathize with you quite sincerely. Without a conviction or belief I imagine it is quite taxing in some ways. If you could overcome that latter situation it would probably make a positive difference.

 

 

[Stargazer]

18 minutes ago, Rain said:

Was this before conviction? My husband told me about working with someone his mission who had committed a crime. The bishop told him the church wouldn't get involved till after conviction so that it doesn't influence the court. 

 

I knew this, so waited until he was in prison before mentioning it. Since at the time my job gave me easy access to where anyone was incarcerated in the state.

[Diamondhands69]

23 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Which does not mean that it should be bound about with pharisaic rules, however. You're right about that. And your EQP was right that you should have been more diplomatic about how you expressed it. It does no good to make a great contention over it.

I don’t know any other way to deal with it than head on. Otherwise people may walk out of there possibly thinking this was a good thing the bishop did. Just like leaders correcting from the pulpit. If it doesn’t happen, we just established new truths in some minds. 

23 hours ago, Stargazer said:

LOL, yes that's a tough subject. I wish to heck I had been the instructor. I would have delved into it a bit, and thanked you for bringing it up. And as you might not know, I've contributed to discussions in this forum about the matter in which I've been accused of being a misogynist because of my thoughts. It's a legitimate part of the history of the church, so it needs to be discussed, at least occasionally. The fact that we don't practice it at this time, does not mean it should be a taboo subject.

it is taboo. When I was last a gospel doctrine instructor in early 2000s we had a year where we were going over D&C. There were explicit instructions in the teachers manual not to discuss polygamy. 

23 hours ago, Stargazer said:

But on the other hand, I can understand your instructor's desire not to touch what can be a live wire topic.

I'd guess you wanted to bring it up precisely because it could be contentious. Or perhaps you just wanted to stir the pot a bit to see what happened! I wish I knew which ward you were in, so I could come watch.

exactly. It is doctrine of the church yet people freak out over it. Esp if you get into how they did it back in the day. Eventually the church will man up and make a large lesson module and get it all out there. Women esp will love it. 

23 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Good grief. They just going to let the members stumble on this stuff on their own and get blindsided? 
 

yep it easier to deal with the onesey twosey and marginalize them rather than just confront it all. 

23 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Perhaps it's proceeding beneath your notice, though I suspect it isn't.

it isn’t. The church has completely blown it off. They have said as much in a more diplomatic manner. 

 

23 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Sounds like a sad situation. I sympathize with you quite sincerely. Without a conviction or belief I imagine it is quite taxing in some ways. If you could overcome that latter situation it would probably make a positive difference.

 

That’s the way they roll in the “real church.” Given my families associations with connected people it seems rather normal in these circles. 
 

these are the kind of people who subscribe to that old church axiom about preferring their child come home in a pine box (dead) rather than having lost their virtue. I don’t believe many in practice would really be cool with that but boy they love talking like they do. They are so hardcore. /s

Edited January 21, 2024 by Diamondhands69

[InCognitus]

23 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Sun school lesson last year when we got to sec 132 we discussed eternal marriage. They stopped at the point the section gets into polygamy and the instructor asked if we had any input. I chimed in and said we should discuss the history of polygamy ... instructor says yea we are not talking about polygamy. 

Two main questions first:

1. "Last year" we were supposed to be studying the New Testament, not the Doctrine and Covenants.  Why were you discussing the Doctrine and Covenants "last year"?
2. If you meant the 2021 lessons (when we were actually studying the Doctrine and Covenants), then Section 132 was scheduled for November 8–14, which would have fallen on the second Sunday of the month.  I remember being disappointed that the Section 132 lesson didn't fall on a first or third Sunday when Sunday School is being held (Elders Quorum and Relief Society are supposed to be held on the second and fourth Sunday).  

So how did you manage to have a Sunday School lesson on Section 132 "last year" or even in 2021?