Mississippi Bishop Resigns from the Pulpit

[Duncan]

Just now, Diamondhands69 said:

Nope but two people who claimed with a lot of confidence that the GTE got mentioned in those talks were flat out wrong. And you are one of em. 
 

neither of you have read them otherwise you would have known right off the topics you cited are not from the infamous essays. 

so you are wrong then, just say it already. So two people aren't the church but now we're suppose to believe we are the church, delusional.

I have read them, I haven't memorized them and you seem to think that I am suppose to have. Nonsense

[Duncan]

5 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

I already conceded to you twice now that Ballard mentioned them. You just got lucky on that one cuz the other two you confidently cited were not GTEs. You just didn’t know it. Because you don’t even know what the gospel topics essays are. 

It's telling too you didn't respond to the Elder Renlund mention of the "Mother in Heaven" GTE from Gen Conference in 2022, he said, "Once you have read what is there" meaning he wants us to read it and them. I do know what the GTE are. I doubt you can piece together a coherent sentence or a thought process that isn't mixed up. I'll concede that are delusional and spout total nonsense, bye!

Edited January 22 by Duncan

[Calm]

My deep felt apologies for assuming you meant Gospel Topic entries when you said Gospel Topic essays….

Embedding the “essays” in the middle of many other topics, listing them in the table of context along with the rest is a brilliant strategy to get them ignored by anyone using the Gospel Topics….

Edited January 22 by Calm

[Diamondhands69]

15 minutes ago, Duncan said:

It's telling too you didn't respond to the Elder Renlund mention of the "Mother in Heaven" GTE from Gen Conference in 2022, he said, "Once you have read what is there" meaning he wants us to read it and them. I do know what the GTE are. I doubt you can piece together a coherent sentence or a thought process that isn't mixed up. I'll concede that are delusional and spout total nonsense, bye!

Didn’t respond? You never mentioned it till right now unless I missed it somehow. 
 

just looked at it . He didn’t mention it was a GTE. He said: 

“Very little has been revealed about Mother in Heaven, but what we do know is summarized in a gospel topic found in our Gospel Library application.”

. I’ll give you credit though. He didn’t say it but he did. 

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Emily said:

Ahh, so we finally get to the truth of your posts. Your intent is not to seek education, enlightenment or intellectual discourse, but rather to spread what you believe would be chaos, confusion and ultimately abandonment of faith. 

And you claim to have been actively attending church meetings in the last couple of years. Why? 

Do you just sit around every week, hoping someone will say something to upset the other members of the ward? 

Sadly, your chances of achieving this questionable idea of entertainment around the subject of plural marriage are slim. 

If the members in class have taken Seminary and Institute or read almost any academic book on church history, they will already be well aware of 18th century marriage practices and the various ways the Saints attempted to incorporate plural marriage into their culture. They might be rather surprised by your negative take on the subject, but the history buff members will be rolling their eyes at your limited grasp of the subject.

You may run across the occasional member who missed the CES courses. These members might furrow their brows, then turn to one of the history buffs asking for further explanation. They might even launch into their own research on the subject. But members whose faith is secure would not react in the manner you hope.

Therefore, your plural marriage "bombshells" would only hurt those members who are already struggling with their faith and no longer trust that God will have answers for them, if they ask.

Chances are, these members are already skipping meetings, but if you manage to successfully target one of them, your toxic take on the subject could successfully add further injury to a wounded soul. You might even strike the fatal blow. The blow that will send them down the same path that you seem to traveling. And perhaps they will also adopt the questionable behavior of hanging out in church meetings, carrying bags of popcorn, waiting for a chance to upset their neighbors. 

But I really don't understand how the thought of any of that could sound entertaining. Did you also enjoy bullying vulnerable children in your elementary school years? 

---------------

Oh, on the subject of plural marriage... I've talked to my husband about this, and I actually have a list of requirements ready to go if it's ever reinstated.

Wife number two will need to be a night person so she can keep him company while I go to bed early. She has to love cooking big dinners on Sunday, because I don't. And it would be nice if she liked sweeping and mopping. Neither my husband or I like that particular chore. I could use some help with the gardening, so a gardener would be good. It would also be great if she was musical. We could sing or play duets together. 

I'm actually very enthusiastic about the idea...my husband a bit less so. I manage to upset his routines on a pretty regular basis and another woman would just be extra chaos for him. But he could probably get used to it. 😁

This sounds more like a housekeeper to me than a wife. 

The longer I am married to my husband (33 years this year) the more I want to spend time with him. I cannot imagine giving up time with him. He is my heart, my lover, my best friend, my confidant, and connection. 

The thought of him taking on a second wife absolutely sickens me. If what you describe is the kind of relationship all 3 of you want then I'm ok with letting you have it, but I would hate if it were ever to be a requirement.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Joshua said:

The grounds of the temple are private property that is available to the public

Are they?  They may not have been available to the public, only those with the intent of attending either the visitor center or the temple.  I do not know, but just saying you probably don’t want to make the assumption that the grounds are completely open unless they are marked so or you have other knowledge. 

My memory of eons ago is some fellow students wanted to picnic at the Provo temple and they were asked to leave.  The temple grounds were intended to be used by temple patrons, whether those going inside or visiting and/or waiting for others.

Edited January 22 by Calm

[Raingirl]

1 hour ago, Joshua said:

At the beginning of 1998, I went to a wedding that was held at the temple. While the newlyweds were taking photographs in front of the temple, three Christian street preachers began placing flyers on the windshields of all of the vehicles that were parked in the parking lot. There was a lot of activity on the grounds of the temple, and many of the Mormon men who were standing outside began removing the flyers as soon as the Christians placed them on windshields. Observing it was a very funny experience! However, the very act of the street preachers entering onto the grounds of the temple was enough to offend all of the Mormons who were present on that particular day to take pleasure in spending the day at the temple. The preachers never attempted to enter the visitor's center or the lobby of the temple; rather, security took them from the grounds of the temple because a large number of people were obviously unhappy, including the bride and groom. 

 

Even though the Christian street preachers never attempted to enter the visitor center or the lobby of the temple; however, they were escorted off the property because their actions were deemed to be disruptive to the overall reverence that one expects when going to the temple. At least, that is what I believe what caused them to be escorted off the grounds of the temple, because other than placing flyers on windshields, they were very respectful. The grounds of the temple are private property that is available to the public so why were the preachers removed? 

 

If you don’t understand why the actions of preachers were wrong and offensive, then you’re either not very bright, or being deliberately obtuse. 

[Raingirl]

7 minutes ago, Joshua said:

He calls the visitors center a community center. They definitely say it's open to the public. 

 

 

 

Yes, Visitor centers are open to the public. That doesn’t mean there is carte blanche access across the entire property, or that the types of activities you described, are welcome. 

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, Rain said:

This sounds more like a housekeeper to me than a wife. 

The longer I am married to my husband (33 years this year) the more I want to spend time with him. I cannot imagine giving up time with him. He is my heart, my lover, my best friend, my confidant, and connection. 

The thought of him taking on a second wife absolutely sickens me. If what you describe is the kind of relationship all 3 of you want then I'm ok with letting you have it, but I would hate if it were ever to be a requirement.

Yes, when I read it, I felt bad for the second wife in Emily's scenario. It didn't come off well at all. 

[Tacenda]

8 hours ago, Duncan said:

Elder Snow said we are to know the essays and to share it with our friends. You can't handle the truth that exmormons have been lying to you and you eat that Dehlin et al garbage up, I hope you didn't send him any money.

"You are a real piece of work"

There is a lot of that going around

But for a long while when the essays came out, they weren't mentioned really. And when Elder Ballard spoke about them and knowing them like the back of your hand it wasn't to the general membership, but I did appreciate him doing that because I'm thinking when they first came out, it wasn't an easy thing to do since the essays have cause some to leave. So it's walking a fine line, but the more it's known members will come around. And even have ammunition for when their ex or non believing friends or foes tell them something about church history or what's in the essays, and they'll be...."I knew that". 

It's a good inoculation for the youth, because to me, Brigham Young's polygamy didn't phase me or at least what I knew about it, it bothers me now though. So the sooner they know of Joseph Smith's polygamy it won't phase future members so much. It's all there to see, and then it's up to the members to decide. And that's Dehlin's beef according to him that the new members need to know what they're signing up for. 

[Duncan]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

But for a long while when the essays came out, they weren't mentioned really. And when Elder Ballard spoke about them and knowing them like the back of your hand it wasn't to the general membership, but I did appreciate him doing that because I'm thinking when they first came out, it wasn't an easy thing to do since the essays have cause some to leave. So it's walking a fine line, but the more it's known members will come around. And even have ammunition for when their ex or non believing friends or foes tell them something about church history or what's in the essays, and they'll be...."I knew that". 

It's a good inoculation for the youth, because to me, Brigham Young's polygamy didn't phase me or at least what I knew about it, it bothers me now though. So the sooner they know of Joseph Smith's polygamy it won't phase future members so much. It's all there to see, and then it's up to the members to decide. And that's Dehlin's beef according to him that the new members need to know what they're signing up for. 

What are your thoughts though about the general membership not really knowing about them as they weren't really talked about but yet it caused some to leave, how did the ones who knew about them who then left hear about them but not the general membership at large? was it a secret group who heard and then left?

I could care less about Brigham's polygamy and I knew about it years and years ago as well. Some folks care and some don't

Edited January 22 by Duncan

[Stormin' Mormon]

1 hour ago, Joshua said:

On the contrary, I am aware that the actions of the street preachers were both insulting and inappropriate. I'm just trying to get you to understand that if it's inappropriate for Christian street preachers to place flyers on windshields on private property that is open to the public, then it's also inappropriate for Mormon missionaries to enter private property in order to give away free copies of the Book of Mormon or to try to convert the homeowners. 

 

Do you find it offensive when Mormon missionaries enter the property of a Jewish family in an attempt to convert them to the Mormon religion, despite the fact that the mezuzah that is placed on the jamb of the door is clearly there to inform visitors that the house they are about to enter has been blessed and sanctified, just as the Mormon temple is blessed and sanctified? 

 

1. Is it only Mormon missionaries who violate the sanctity of a home when they knock on a door, or do others do this as well?  Does a travelling accordion salesman violate the sanctity of a home when he knocks on the door in an attempt to sell one of his instruments?  Neighborhood kids looking for a friend to play with?  A 12 year old in pigtails trying to sell girl scout cookies?  Where do you draw the line on what kind of door-knocking is a violation of sanctity and which is not?

2. Is the violation of sanctity lessened if the alleged violator first asks permission to enter?  In your example of temple protestors, would the scenario have played out differently if the street preacher had first asked for and gained permission from the temple presidency before distributing flyers? 

These are points made and questions asked several pages back, that you have yet to address.  In order to further this discussion, getting your views on these follow-up questions is essential.  Otherwise, we're just gonna be stuck in a loop of is-not-is-too blathering.   

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Are they?  They may not have been available to the public, only those with the intent of attending either the visitor center or the temple.  I do not know, but just saying you probably don’t want to make the assumption that the grounds are completely open unless they are marked so or you have other knowledge. 

My memory of eons ago is some fellow students wanted to picnic at the Provo temple and they were asked to leave.  The temple grounds were intended to be used by temple patrons, whether those going inside or visiting and/or waiting for others.

Ì know at one time all church buildings in Utah were completely closed, including grounds and parking lot, one day a year so that they remained private and not public.  I haven't lived in Utah for 10 years so I don't know if it is the same or not. 

I think the idea behind the picnic is to keep it more of a place to worship and feel God rather than become a recreation area, though here in Mesa couples of other faiths and prom goers have been allowed to take pictures on the grounds.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Yes, when I read it, I felt bad for the second wife in Emily's scenario. It didn't come off well at all. 

I think Emily had herself in same way, but with doing separate tasks and a different time spent with her husband. Some people may be happy that way, but it's not something we could be happy with.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Joshua said:

They definitely say it's open to the public. 

There is open to the public for anything and open to the public for visiting…my impression is the Church is generally restrictive of what gets done on temple grounds. 

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Rain said:

Ì know at one time all church buildings in Utah were completely closed, including grounds and parking lot, one day a year so that they remained private and not public.  I haven't lived in Utah for 10 years so I don't know if it is the same or not. 

I think the idea behind the picnic is to keep it more of a place to worship and feel God rather than become a recreation area, though here in Mesa couples of other faiths and prom goers have been allowed to take pictures on the grounds.

Yep

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Joshua said:

Do you find it offensive when Mormon missionaries enter the property of a Jewish family in an attempt to convert them to the Mormon religion, despite the fact that the mezuzah that is placed on the jamb of the door is clearly there to inform visitors that the house they are about to enter has been blessed and sanctified, just as the Mormon temple is blessed and sanctified? 

I'm pretty sure that a mezuzah does not mean that "the house [you] are about to enter has been blessed and sanctified." It's an educational tool which acts as a reminder of God's commandments. Some people do believe there is a protective aspect to it, but it's not analogous to what you are describing in terms of LDS temple dedications.

Plus, I know from my time as a missionary, that having a mezuzah on your door doesn't mean that you are Jewish - just that the home had, at one point, likely been occupied by an observant Jew.

 

[smac97]

On 1/21/2024 at 5:23 AM, Joshua said:

Quote

People ought not dishonestly misappropriate the facilities and sacred convocations of a religious group.

The fact 

What you recite here is not a "fact."  It is your hostile and tendentious imputation of motives and thoughts onto me, which I do not hold.

On 1/21/2024 at 5:23 AM, Joshua said:

that you want people, both Mormon and non-Mormon, to respect the facilities and sacred convocation of your religious group,

This part is mostly accurate.  I think people should "respect the facilities and sacred convocation" of all religious groups.

On 1/21/2024 at 5:23 AM, Joshua said:

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,

That is not so.

On 1/21/2024 at 5:23 AM, Joshua said:

is something that I find quite humorous.

There is nothing disrespectful about knocking on a door and asking permission to share a message, and then acquiescing to the decision of the homeowner.  And missionaries do not use subterfuge and false pretenses to gain entry to the home.

On 1/21/2024 at 5:23 AM, Joshua said:

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.

"My opinion" being the operative wording here.

Missionaries do not, to my knowledge, proselytize other houses of worship.  

Your attempted comparison between what Latter-day Saint missionaries do and what the former bishop in Mississippi did is not working very well.

On 1/21/2024 at 5:23 AM, Joshua said:

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?

That would be inappropriate, as it contravenes the license the Church gives to invitees to its properties.

On 1/21/2024 at 5:23 AM, Joshua said:

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. 

Okay.

The missionaries in your scenario are seeking permission of the property owner.  The guy is Mississippi did not do that.  Instead, he resorted to deceit and subterfuge and misappropriated both the Church's facilities and its sacred convocation.  Missionaries don't do that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 22 by smac97

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Joshua said:

At the beginning of 1998, I went to a wedding that was held at the temple. While the newlyweds were taking photographs in front of the temple, three Christian street preachers began placing flyers on the windshields of all of the vehicles that were parked in the parking lot.

That was inappropriate.  They likely did not seek, nor did they obtain, permission from the property owner to do this on the Church's property.

Broadly speaking, even if a property owner grants permission for someone to be on their property, that someone can become a trespasser if he exceeds the scope of the permission given.  For example, Disney allows patrons to visit Disneyland, and in doing so grants them a "license."  If a patron goes do Disneyland, his conduct must stay within the intended parameters of the license.  For example, he can't go into Disneyland and stage a protest, or set up a hot dog stand, or stand on a soapbox and tell other patrons to repent.  These things would exceed the parameters of the license, and would turn the licensee/invitee into a trespasser.

3 hours ago, Joshua said:

There was a lot of activity on the grounds of the temple, and many of the Mormon men who were standing outside began removing the flyers as soon as the Christians placed them on windshields. Observing it was a very funny experience! However, the very act of the street preachers entering onto the grounds of the temple was enough to offend all of the Mormons who were present on that particular day to take pleasure in spending the day at the temple.

I suspect "the very act" that created concerns for the Latter-day Saints was not "entering onto the grounds of the temple" (since the grounds are open to the general public), but rather the behavior of the preachers while on the Church's property.  Do you see the distinction here?

At any time during business hours I am free to enter the local Wal-Mart store.  However, if I enter it and begin screaming and making a scene, then the manager of the store can order me to leave.

The permission given to the invitee/licensee is contingent upon, and limited to, the invitee/licensee staying within  the intended parameters of the invitation/license.

3 hours ago, Joshua said:

The preachers never attempted to enter the visitor's center or the lobby of the temple;

But they nevertheless acted outside the bounds of the invitation/license given to them by "placing flyers on the windshields of all of the vehicles that were parked in the parking lot."  It was this behavior, and not their mere presence, that created a problem.

3 hours ago, Joshua said:

rather, security took them from the grounds of the temple because a large number of people were obviously unhappy, including the bride and groom. 

Okay.

3 hours ago, Joshua said:

Even though the Christian street preachers never attempted to enter the visitor center or the lobby of the temple;

This does not matter.  They engaged in inappropriate behavior elsewhere on the Church's property.

3 hours ago, Joshua said:

however, they were escorted off the property because their actions were deemed to be disruptive to the overall reverence that one expects when going to the temple.

Likely so.  Do you find this problematic?

3 hours ago, Joshua said:

At least, that is what I believe what caused them to be escorted off the grounds of the temple, because other than placing flyers on windshields, they were very respectful.

Do you understand, though, that it was the "placing flyers on windshields" that created the problem?  That had they not done this, they would not have been removed from the Church's property?

3 hours ago, Joshua said:

The grounds of the temple are private property that is available to the public so why were the preachers removed? 

Because they exceeded the scope of the license given to them by the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

21 hours ago, Teancum said:

So what you are saying is that the ideal of seeking out the lost sheep is just lip service apparently.

I think the point being made here is that some whom we consider "the lost sheep" disagree with that characterization, and explicitly or implicitly communicate to other Latter-day Saints that they do not want to be treated that way, that they want to be left alone, that they do not want to associate with us, etc.

Just look at some of the comments in this thread.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

1. I don’t want anybody knocking on my door to try to sell me anything OR To offer me a “better” way of life. I would never go on a door knocking mission.
I do not consider my home sacred space; however, the past 10 years, unsolicited visitors have become so rare that it’s alarming.  Where I live, you risk a shotgun in your face.   Dior knockers unannounced better just be a friend, family, member, or somebody who needs help. Not someone with an agenda. 

2.  Emily I’m sure was talking lightly on the unsavory topic of polygamy.  
 

 

 

[Raingirl]

2 hours ago, Joshua said:

On the contrary, I am aware that the actions of the street preachers were both insulting and inappropriate. I'm just trying to get you to understand that if it's inappropriate for Christian street preachers to place flyers on windshields on private property that is open to the public, then it's also inappropriate for Mormon missionaries to enter private property in order to give away free copies of the Book of Mormon or to try to convert the homeowners. 

 

Do you find it offensive when Mormon missionaries enter the property of a Jewish family in an attempt to convert them to the Mormon religion, despite the fact that the mezuzah that is placed on the jamb of the door is clearly there to inform visitors that the house they are about to enter has been blessed and sanctified, just as the Mormon temple is blessed and sanctified? 

 

Missionaries only enter a home when invited in. Vastly different from the behavior of the preachers. 
 

I converted from Judaism. Most people have no idea what a mezuzah is.  And it’s no different from the other situations.  Missionaries only enter the home if invited. 
 

You’re clearly here only to attack the church and its members.  Do yo do this with other denominations or religions as well?

[Raingirl]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

There is open to the public for anything and open to the public for visiting…my impression is the Church is generally restrictive of what gets done on temple grounds. 

I don’t understand why this concept is so hard for some to understand. Just because you are allowed in to a space, doesn’t mean any and all behaviors are allowed.  

[Raingirl]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

I'm pretty sure that a mezuzah does not mean that "the house [you] are about to enter has been blessed and sanctified." It's an educational tool which acts as a reminder of God's commandments. Some people do believe there is a protective aspect to it, but it's not analogous to what you are describing in terms of LDS temple dedications.

Plus, I know from my time as a missionary, that having a mezuzah on your door doesn't mean that you are Jewish - just that the home had, at one point, likely been occupied by an observant Jew.

 

I converted from Judaism. I had a mezuzah on my front door when I invited the missionaries in.  Oh, the horror! 😱

[smac97]

16 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I've lead in-depth discussions in both the seminary and gospel doctrine classes I've taught in the last decade. Avoidance of the topic is a cultural issue, not an institutional one. 

Yesterday a sister in my stake, a companion speaker to the High Council speaker, mentioned in her talk that one of her ancestors in the Church had been killed in the Colonies in Mexico.  After Sacrament Meeting I approached her and asked if her ancestor was Agnes Aird Macdonald, wife to Alexander F. Macdonald (my great-great grandfather).  The sister confirmed this, and we had a nice chat.  As it turns out, she was a descendant of Agnes, whereas I am a descendant of Alexander and one of his other wives, Fannie Van Cott.  That our family tree has polygamists in it was not remotely controversial to either of us.

Polygamy is, for some, a difficult topic to address because it was divinely mandated, but sociologically disliked (both then and now).  That there were some elements of deceit in its practice by some makes the matter much more challenging and complex.  Consequently, I have a lot of compassion and empathy for people who are not comfortable with the concept.  I'm not particularly comfortable with it.  I do not understand it.  So much of the Restored Gospel comports with my general, gut-level sense of "right" and "wrong," but polygamy . . . doesn't.

However, neither does animal sacrifice.  Neither does Nephi slaying Laban.  Neither does the slaying of Nehor.  Neither do the deaths described in 2 Kings 2 ("Go up, thou bald head...").  And so on.

There are all sorts of things in play here.  Context matters.  A lot.  Historical context.  Social/cultural context.  Scriptural context.  Gospel context.  So does accuracy in conveyed information.  So do my personal life experiences, as well as the importance of properly characterizing those experiences as finite, blinkered, and not altogether accurate (rather than definitive, perfected and utterly, pristinely correct).

In other words, my sense of unease about this or that topic is not the most reliable moral barometer in the world.  So objectivity helps.  So does resisting the urge to engage in presentism.  So does research.  Lots of research.  And patience.  And humility (at the prospect that my "ick factor" about polygamy and such may be more about me than about the thing I find to be "icky").  And a willingness to re-assess previous assumptions.  But most of all . . . faith.  Lots and lots of faith.

In any event, I think it's a bit odd to expect a particularized emphasis on polygamy during Sunday School in 2023, just as it would be odd to expect some sort of in-depth discussion of the nuances of animal sacrifice.  Both are doctrinal, but neither is in force and effect at present.  

Thanks,

-Smac