Mississippi Bishop Resigns from the Pulpit

[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? 

 

As someone who converted from Judaism, your equivalency between a temple of the church and a private home is incorrect. And, again, missionaries only enter a home AFTER being invited in. A point you continue to willfully obtuse about.  Dishonesty is never a good look. 

[smac97]

21 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Quote

In our ward we just discussed section 132 and polygamy in Elder's quorum that Sunday .

I can’t wait for the day we discuss it for real at church. In all my fifty plus years it has never been discussed to any substantive depth at least whenever I have been there. 

Do you also yearn for particularized and focused discussions during Sunday School about circumcision?  Animal sacrifice?  Levirate marriages?  If not, why not?

Given the overtly hostile tone of virtually all of your posts here, I suspect that you "can’t wait for the day we discuss it {polygamy} for real at church" not because you have a good faith belief that such a "discussion" during the Church's formal meetings would be productive in terms of the instruction of Mosiah 18:21 "that there should be no contention one with another, but that they should look forward with one eye, having one faith and one baptism, having their hearts knit together in unity and in love one towards another."

Rather, I suspect you want such a "discussion" because you relish the thought of making it a point of controversy and division, to use to to potentially creating discomfort, to raise hackles, to appropriate Sunday School to overtly object to a challenging (and, in terms of practice, currently dormant) doctrine, to foment discord, or some such untoward notion.  Am I wrong?

Thanks,

-Smac

EDIT TO ADD: I just saw your comments here (emphases added) :

Quote

Quote

I don't understand why you are waiting for an "substantive depth" discussion on plural marriage in a 30 minute Gospel Doctrine class.

I’m thinking it would be very entertaining to see the reactions on people’s faces when they learn Joseph as a 37 year old was marrying 14 year old girls, other mens wives while they were on a mission, mother and daughter duos. Sister duos, getting married to two sisters with Emma’s consent who he was already married to etc. 

all the lies involved in plural marriage. Once people see what a crummy guy JS was many will be very disappointed. Likely many have heard a few of these things but to get it officially from the church along with a sales job of this was a good thing ( we can’t criticize prophets) will be something else. People like you I imagine admire his shenanigans. 

I just wanna watch with a bowl of popcorn. 

• "Very entertaining."
• "All the lies..."
• "What a crummy guy [Joseph Smith} was..."
• "Many will be very disappointed..."
• "I just wanna watch with a bowl of popcorn."

Yep, pretty much what I figured.

Next up: Sunday School lessons focusing on Noah's nakedness, Abraham's banishing of Hagar and Ishmael, Moses killing the Egyptian, Jonah's contempt for the people of Nineveh, Paul's participation in the stoning of Stephen, and more.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 22 by smac97

[smac97]

17 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. 

I wonder if it's a bit of both.  The Church has multiple essays about polygamy largely because concerns about it are "a cultural issue."  But I don't see it as a particularly noteworthy topic meriting emphasis during the (very limited) formal instruction time the Church has on Sundays.  We don't currently practice it, after all.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

16 hours ago, Emily said:

I don't understand why you are waiting for an "substantive depth" discussion on plural marriage in a 30 minute Gospel Doctrine class.

Are you also waiting for a substantive discussion on the practice of animal sacrifice, or a really nitty-gritty lecture on circumcision? How about a definitive and in-depth discussion on clean and unclean animals?

Heh.  I had the same thoughts, except that I cited animal sacrifice, circumcision and "levirate marriages."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Stormin' Mormon]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 Animal sacrifice? 

Joseph Fielding Smith taught that animal sacrifice will be briefly restored as an ordinance to complete the Restoration.  This is hinted at in D&C 13.  

https://www.thechurchnews.com/1993/1/30/23258734/law-of-sacrifice

Seeing as how the practice of animal sacrifice looms in our future, I would think we should be clamoring for more discussion on this topic so that we can be prepared for it.  It must be AT LEAST as pertinent to current members' needs as would a discussion on plural marriage.  Weird, then, that nobody ever demands this discussion in Sunday School.  

Edited January 22 by Stormin' Mormon

[smac97]

15 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Quote

CFR for where there were "explicit instructions in the teachers manual not to discuss polygamy".

“6. Plural marriage

The following information is provided to help you address questions class members may have about the practice of plural marriage. This topic should not be the focus of the lesson.”

That looks like what i was referring to. Not bad memory for being about 25 years ago. 

There is a fair distance between the Church giving - as you claim - "explicit instructions ... not to discuss polygamy" and the Church giving fairly extensive information about polygamy, followed with the common-sense note that polygamy should "not be{ing} the focus of the lesson."

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Quote

Animal sacrifice? 

Joseph Fielding Smith taught that animal sacrifice will be briefly restored as an ordinance to complete the Restoration.  This is hinted at in D&C 13.  

https://www.thechurchnews.com/1993/1/30/23258734/law-of-sacrifice

Seeing as how the practice of animal sacrifice looms in our future, I would think we should be clamoring for more discussion on this topic so that we can be prepared for it.  It must be AT LEAST as pertinent to current members' needs as would a discussion on plural marriage.  Weird, though, that nobody ever demands this discussion in Sunday School.  

To paraphrase a guy: "{Animal sacrifice} is a modern topic. It is still current doctrine, just not practiced."  Okay.  Next Sunday I will ask the bishop to set aside time for the members of the ward to all go out to our building's parking lot so we can evaluate potential locations for a sacrificial altar.

And the Sunday after that. I'll figure out  a way to get the entire ward talking about the particulars of circumcision.   

Thanks,

-Smac

[Raingirl]

9 minutes ago, Joshua said:

Like Smac, I believe that everyone should "respect the facilities and sacred convocation" of all religious groups. This includes respecting the religious views and spirit that can be found in a home. Just because you're a Mormon doesn't mean that the only things that deserve respect are the ones you think do. 

 

Are you aware that there are community chats and Facebook pages set up to let people know when Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormon missionaries are in the area trying to convert people? I'm sorry, but that's a big problem! The brethren need to think again about how they're trying to convert people to Mormonism! 

 

I'm not criticizing the church; I'm just unhappy with how it converts people. A Baptist, Presbyterian, or Jewish person has never come to my door to try to convert me to their faith. But if I wanted to join, like most people, I know where to go. They respect the sacred convocation found within a home.

 

The Mississippi Bishop was in charge of the people who lived in his ward. He should have told the ward what he thought they needed to hear if he truly believed that was what God wanted him to do. Smac is angry because the Bishop probably spent most of his life listening to what the brethren wanted him to say—thousands of hours, if not tens of thousands of hours if he's a return missionary—and when he decides to leave Mormonism, he gives an eight-minute speech telling everyone why he's leaving, which some Mormons, like Smac, think is disrespectful. It's not right that the church can have so much power over someone's life that they can work for thousands of hours to build up the kingdom of God but can't give an eight-minute speech to explain why they want to leave without some priesthood holders making them out to be a really bad person. . The things that are making Smac mad start to remind us of how Scientology controls its most loyal followers. Do you think it's ok for a member who has dedicated thousands of hours to the building up of the church to give an emotional eight-minute speech about why they're leaving? If no, in that case, what did the bishop say about the church that was bad? I've listened to what he said three times now and he didn't say anything against the church. 

 

 

Again, it’s obvious you are here only to attack the church and its members. You just regurgitate the same nonsense and lies over and over again, and completely ignore the points that other posters are making.  You are not worth wasting any more of my time on. 

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, Joshua said:

Like Smac, I believe that everyone should "respect the facilities and sacred convocation" of all religious groups.

I'm glad we agree on the principle.  Next up: the application.  To wit...

26 minutes ago, Joshua said:

This includes respecting the religious views and spirit that can be found in a home.

There is nothing disrespectful about knocking on a door and asking permission to share a message.

26 minutes ago, Joshua said:

Just because you're a Mormon doesn't mean that the only things that deserve respect are the ones you think do. 

Oi.

26 minutes ago, Joshua said:

Are you aware that there are community chats and Facebook pages set up to let people know when Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormon missionaries are in the area trying to convert people? I'm sorry, but that's a big problem! The brethren need to think again about how they're trying to convert people to Mormonism! 

Door-knocking is one of the least effective methods of missionary work, and the Church has spent a lot of time and effort and resources trying to find better ways for missionaries to spend their time.

26 minutes ago, Joshua said:

I'm not criticizing the church; I'm just unhappy with how it converts people. A Baptist, Presbyterian, or Jewish person has never come to my door to try to convert me to their faith. But if I wanted to join, like most people, I know where to go.

There are many examples of people who learned about the Restored Gospel by missionaries knocking on their door.

26 minutes ago, Joshua said:

They respect the sacred convocation found within a home.

A "convocation" is "a large formal assembly of people."

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

26 minutes ago, Joshua said:

The Mississippi Bishop was in charge of the people who lived in his ward.

Yes.

26 minutes ago, Joshua said:

He should have told the ward what he thought they needed to hear if he truly believed that was what God wanted him to do.

Your reasoning gives anyone carte blanche to misappropriate the Church's facilities and disrupt its meetings by claiming they "truly believe that was what God wanted {them} to do."  Do you see that?

26 minutes ago, Joshua said:

Smac is angry

I am not angry.

26 minutes ago, Joshua said:

because the Bishop probably spent most of his life listening to what the brethren wanted him to say—thousands of hours, if not tens of thousands of hours if he's a return missionary—

This does not justify this fellow use of subterfuge and deceit to misappropriate the Church's facilities and disrupt its sacred convocation.

26 minutes ago, Joshua said:

and when he decides to leave Mormonism, he gives an eight-minute speech telling everyone why he's leaving, which some Mormons, like Smac, think is disrespectful.

There are no circumstances in which a person is justified in using subterfuge and deceit to misappropriate the Church's facilities and disrupt its sacred convocation.

26 minutes ago, Joshua said:

It's not right that the church can have so much power over someone's life

First, we are not speaking about "power over someone's life," but rather about the Church's right to own and control the use of its property, the contents of its meetings, and the behavior of its agents and representatives when they are acting on behalf of the Church.

Second, the Church actually has precious little "power over someone's life," both as a practical matter (witness how many people can and do leave the Church, with the Church not being able to do anything about it), and as a point of doctrine.  See D&C 134:10.

Third, I doubt you would be so assertive about this if someone used subterfuge and deceit to misappropriate your home or other property for purposes which you find objectionable.

26 minutes ago, Joshua said:

that they can work for thousands of hours to build up the kingdom of God

Yes, they can.  And if a member of the Church wants to stop doing that, they have that option as well.

What he cannot do, however, is betray and abuse the trust the Church reposed in him as its agent, use subterfuge and deceit to misappropriate the Church's facilities, and disrupt the Church's sacred convocation.

26 minutes ago, Joshua said:

but can't give an eight-minute speech to explain why they want to leave without some priesthood holders making them out to be a really bad person.

I don't think anyone has made him "out to be a really bad person."  In contrast, he has publicly declared that Latter-day Saints are "brainwashed," he has implied we are dishonest if we disagree with that characterization, that our religious beliefs are "garbage" and "a bottomless pit of hell," and so on.

Anyhoo, no, he cannot "give an eight-minute speech" if doing so constitutes a misappropriation of the Church's facilities and meetings.

26 minutes ago, Joshua said:

The things that are making Smac mad

I am not mad.

26 minutes ago, Joshua said:

start to remind us of how Scientology controls its most loyal followers.

Nothing like.  Again, see D&C 134:10.

26 minutes ago, Joshua said:

Do you think it's ok for a member who has dedicated thousands of hours to the building up of the church to give an emotional eight-minute speech about why they're leaving?

On his own property, and on his own time?  Sure!

But not when he is on the Church's property, and not when he is speaking and acting as an agent and representative of the Church, and not during the Church's sacred convocation.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 22 by smac97

[smac97]

On 1/18/2024 at 11:58 AM, smac97 said:

In yet another TikTok video, he purportedly quotes from George Orwell's 1984: "They fear love because it creates a world they cannot control."  He does not specifically reference the Church in relation to this quote, so I'm not sure what he means by "they."  Also, I did not recall this quote, so I checked the online text of the book and it does not appear to be in there.  A Google search shows that it is heavily quoted on TikTok and other social media platforms, almost always attributed to Orwell, but there are only a few dozen such citations, most fairly recent.

In any event, he goes on to say that this ("love") is "the answer to a lot of our problems."  He also references one of his previous videos (the "angry and sweary" one referenced above) and says he was "in the bathtub and acting like a jack**s," and also states: "Just so you know, I may have eaten a few edibles before I did that video."

He then goes on something of a meander, talking about how he had a bad day and laid around all day "playing the victim card," that he's "going through ... hell," but that good days will come, that people should fix things in their lives, take responsibility, "become and adult rather than an agent child," "be an adult, tell the truth, be honest, true, chaste, benevolent, be virtuous," that we need "justice and compassion, instead of judgment and pity," that he has "haters," but "it is what it is," that he loves people, that he "doesn't care if you're a devil and do terrible, terrible things," but that he's "got a bone to pick ... with those kinds of things," but even these "devils" have "an opportunity to be loved, it just may not be by me."

These vids are not exactly a model of clarity.  Again, I hope he can let his anger pass {and that he abstains from "edibles" before making and posting videos on social media}, and allow for some sort of détente between him and the Church (and its leaders, and its members).

Thanks,

-Smac

In a more recent TikTok video, the guy in Mississippi has a clip of himself, his wife, and his children having a "family cussing night."  The mother starts out with yelling "Son of a b&^%h!", then one of their daughters yells "Sh&t!"  It continues on from there.  Everyone is eating ice cream and laughing.

Several of the kids are noticeably nervous and reluctant, but the dad is pretty insistent that they join in on the cussing.  One daughter (the oldest?) says she needs to "get rid of the guilt" by dropping an f-bomb, and her dad cheers her on, but she is preempted by one of the younger girls saying it.  The oldest daughter then ends the video by belting it out, to the laughs and cheers of her siblings and parents.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 22 by smac97

[Teancum]

23 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

No, it isn't.  We're glad to seek out the lost sheep.  Lost porcupines who have their quills out for most anything related to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and who spare no pains to tell anyone who will listen that they don't want to be found?  Yeahhhh ... not so much.   If that makes us hypocrites, I suppose we'll simply have to plead guilty.

You cannot tell it from many of the comments from believers on this thread.

Edited January 22 by Teancum

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Not picking that up from you and others here.  So it applies only to the nice lost sheep apparently?

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Joseph Fielding Smith taught that animal sacrifice will be briefly restored as an ordinance to complete the Restoration.  This is hinted at in D&C 13.  

https://www.thechurchnews.com/1993/1/30/23258734/law-of-sacrifice

Seeing as how the practice of animal sacrifice looms in our future, I would think we should be clamoring for more discussion on this topic so that we can be prepared for it.  It must be AT LEAST as pertinent to current members' needs as would a discussion on plural marriage.  Weird, then, that nobody ever demands this discussion in Sunday School.  

Joseph Fielding Smith said lots of things that are probably not worthy of discussion in Sunday School, including:

Quote

We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it. The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen.

I think that most members put his animal sacrifices comment up there with his space/moon comment.  

Edited January 22 by pogi

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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. 

If the door is marked no soliciting and no proselytizing, I would hope no missionaries, salespeople and maybe even neighbour kids would knock on the door as the signs makes it clear that such activity does not take place in that home.

If a stranger came in to visit and saw people from the audience get up and bare their testimonies, if he got up and did the same of his faith (as long as he didn’t trash anyone else’s) I would not accuse him of misappropriation because from all that he could see, it was random people getting up.

But otherwise it is relatively clear in a chapel that talks and such are assigned and those who have been assigned are instructed on the limitations of their talk.

A retiring bishop knows the rules and is therefore accountable when breaking them.

Many homes are viewed sacred by their owners, others are not.  I don’t see why we should consider a home sacred if those within it don’t see it that way…though even if it’s not sacred, we should respect what the residents want their home to be used for.  Unlike a chapel that has limited, well defined purpose and activities in most cases, a house can be host to many different activities.  You can’t tell in most cases if that includes or excludes missionary work.

 If homeowners do view their home as sacred and part of that sacredness is they only want their religious beliefs to be shared within their home, they should make it clear by posting a sign if they don’t want to have to repeat it in person that they don’t accept proselytizing since many homes do, some even are happy to see missionaries.   If I had time, I would invite Jehovah Witnesses and others into my home because I was interested in learning what they taught, I also let them know I was a devout Latter-day Saint and it was unlikely they would change my mind, not wanting them to feel they wasted their time and most just left literature and didn’t bother to come in, which was disappointing as I liked to hear others’ beliefs.

It would not be more respectful of my home for missionaries of any type to just walk by without knocking since one of my home’s purpose is to discuss religious beliefs of all types.  Sharing beliefs is part of its sacredness.  I know there are others like me.  I don’t see it as fair or respectful to create an unofficial rule book for homes based on what you want for your home, but ignores the desires of others.

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Joshua said:

Are you aware that there are community chats and Facebook pages set up to let people know when Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormon missionaries are in the area trying to convert people? I'm sorry, but that's a big problem! The brethren need to think again about how they're trying to convert people to Mormonism! 

I hope they also track the other religions that knock on doors.  I've had multiple Christian religions knock on my door or leave a pamphlet.  These aren't Jehovah Witnesses or Latter-day Saints.  They usually are a new Christian church opening up nearby but I've had visits from other Christian sects that aren't new in the area.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Joshua said:

Are you aware that there are community chats and Facebook pages set up to let people know when Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormon missionaries are in the area trying to convert people?

And if everyone in the neighborhood agrees, then put up a sign.  But if there are neighbors for whom missionaries coming by is one of the highlights of their day (I know a few nonmembers, usually older men and women, often those limited to their homes who really liked even their company), isn’t it unkind to remove their pleasure by insisting it is inherently an intrusion?.  It is easy to stop missionaries from even entering your property if you have a fence or knocking on your door if you don’t.  Put up a sign expressing your wishes and no sacredness or other aspect of your home will be intruded upon.

Edited January 22 by Calm

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

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.

Not picking that up from you and others here. 

You're not picking this up, even though I am explicitly stating it?

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So it applies only to the nice lost sheep apparently?

I disagree with your characterization of "seeking out the lost sheep" as "just lip service."  I am sincere in a desire to do this, as I think are most observant Latter-day Saints.  Just look at the parable as recorded in Matthew 18:

Quote

11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
12 How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?
13 And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.
14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

In straightforward terms, this sounds wonderful.  I have a good friend, currently serving in my ward's bishopric, who was a "lost sheep" who returned.  I have several others.  I have many family members and friends who are "lost sheep" whom I truly hope return.  However, as a practical matter, it's hard to do the "seeketh that which is gone astray" thing when these folks do not think of themselves as "lost," and who do not welcome, or are even hostile to, efforts to get them "find" them and persuade them to return.  

I have a good friend who grew up in the Church, served a mission, was later excommunicated, later rejoined the Church, and recently had his name removed from the membership of the Church.  He has had a lot of hard feelings about his excommunication.  He says he still believes in the Restored Gospel, but he does not seem to want to talk about the Church in any sense involving him as a "lost sheep."  He feels like he has made the right decision, and he is not looking for me to persuade him to come back, or even to talk about the Church at all except when he broaches the subject.  He's pretty clear about that.  For my part, though, I see him as a "lost sheep."  Should I approach him in that way?  Should I disregard his wishes and try to persuade him back into the Church?  Alternatively, should my approach to our friendship include within it a respect for the parameters in the preceding paragraph?

I have family members who have announced their separation from the Church, declared that the topic "is not open for discussion or debate" (two of them actually used that exact same phrase, though months apart from each other), and that they do not want to hear about anything pertaining to the Church or the Restored Gospel.  They are fine with having ongoing interactions, provided that these parameters are observed.  

It seems pretty obvious that the parable about lost sheep is not about just finding the sheep, but in having them return to the fold.  Short of that, the wanderer is still "lost."  So to what extend should Latter-day Saints respect parameters like those noted above, and to what extent should we disregard those parameters?

For me, this issue is not about "nice" or other-than-nice "lost sheep."  It's about each of them as individuals.  Some are pretty prickly about the Church and don't want to hear about it.  Some want some continued association with its members, but not in a "help the lost sheep return" kind of way.  Some seem to not want association with Latter-day Saints at all.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Joshua said:

 

 

“Profanity is the effort of a feeble brain to express itself forcibly.”

― Spencer W. Kimball

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

If the door is marked no soliciting and no proselytizing, I would hope no missionaries, salespeople and maybe even neighbour kids would knock on the door as the signs makes it clear that such activity does not take place in that home.

Agreed.

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

If a stranger came in to visit and saw people from the audience get up and bare their testimonies, if he got up and did the same of his faith (as long as he didn’t trash anyone else’s) I would not accuse him of misappropriation because from all that he could see, it was random people getting up.

Sure.  No ill will there.  No deceit or subterfuge.  No breach of trust.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, Joshua said:

Quote

In a more recent TikTok video, the guy in Mississippi has a clip of himself, his wife, and his children having a "family cussing night."  The mother starts out with yelling "Son of a b&^%h!", then one of their daughters yells "Sh&t!"  It continues on from there.  Everyone is eating ice cream and laughing.

My sister's are devout Mormons and they and their children cuss more than my non mormon kids. What does that mean, Smac?

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

Quote

Profanity

Overview

Profanity is disrespect or contempt for sacred things. It includes casual or irreverent use of the name of any member of the Godhead. It also includes any type of unclean or vulgar speech or behavior.

We should always use the names of Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost with reverence and respect. Misusing their names is a sin. Profane, vulgar, or crude language or gestures, as well as immoral jokes, are offensive to the Lord and to others.

Foul language is both degrading and harmful to the spirit. We should not let others influence us to use foul language. Instead, we should use clean language that uplifts and edifies others, and we should choose friends who use good language. Setting an example will encourage those around us to use clean language. If friends and acquaintances use profanity, we can good-naturedly encourage them to choose other words. If they persist, we can politely walk away or change the subject.

Those who have developed the habit of swearing can break it. They must begin by making a decision to change and then pray for help.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1983/04/profanity-and-swearing?lang=eng

Quote

Which of the Lord’s Ten Commandments is probably broken the most frequently? I believe it would be taking the name of God in vain. (See Ex. 20:7.)

Today I should like to treat the important subject of profanity and swearing.

According to Modern Guide to Synonyms (p. 469), profanity, blasphemy, cursing, obscenity, swearing, and vulgarity all refer to crude or foul language. Profanity and blasphemy usually refer to the irreverent use of the name of Deity.

Socrates said to a young man who was introduced to him, “Talk in order that I may see you.” (Communication of Ideas, p. 72.)

We reveal ourselves with our speech. Shakespeare urged in King Lear, “Mend your speech a little, lest it may mar your fortunes.” (act 1, sc. 1, line 96.) If we err, then remember the words of Confucius: “A man who has committed a mistake and doesn’t correct it is committing another mistake.” (Vital Quotations, sel. Emerson Roy West, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1968, p. 228.)

I desire to read to you many of the Lord’s words given through his prophets over the years so we might understand and think as he does regarding improper words.

“Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.” (Ex. 20:7.)

“But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.” (Col. 3:8.)
...
President McKay speaks clearly regarding profane language: “No parent can consistently teach faith in Christ who profanes the name of Deity. Profanity is never heard in the well-ordered home. Swearing is a vice that bespeaks a low standard of breeding. Blasphemous exclamations drive out all spirit of reverence.” (Gospel Ideals, Salt Lake City: Improvement Era, 1953, p. 420.)
...

The Lord speaks with clarity on this subject through his prophets. President Joseph Fielding Smith states: “Profanity is filthiness. A person is known as much by his language as he is by the company he keeps. … Filthiness in any form is degrading and soul-destroying and should be avoided.” (Doctrines of Salvation, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1:13.)

If we are not most careful with our thoughts and speech, the words we use will use us. Language has its own ethics, and one who communicates truth is like a bright light in the darkness. We must nurture language like that.
...
 

We should—

• enlighten

• edify

• lift

• motivate

• elevate

• build and uplift in all of our conversations and doings.

Now listen to the prophet’s words as I read them, regarding encouraging, lifting, and edifying:

“Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.” (Eph. 4:29.)

“Cease to contend one with another; cease to speak evil one of another.

“… Let your words tend to edifying one another.” (D&C 136:23–24.)

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/family-home-evening-resource-book/lesson-ideas/profanity?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2006/05/to-the-point/are-there-times-when-swear-words-are-okay?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2001/03/q-and-a-questions-and-answers?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2001/04/standing-up-to-profanity?lang=eng

“No parent can consistently teach faith in Christ who profanes the name of Deity. Profanity is never heard in the well-ordered home. Swearing is a vice that bespeaks a low standard of breeding. Blasphemous exclamations drive out all spirit of reverence.”  -David O. McKay  |  Gospel Ideals, Salt Lake City: Improvement Era, 1953, p. 420.

27 minutes ago, Joshua said:

Quote

Several of the kids are noticeably nervous and reluctant, but the dad is pretty insistent that they join in on the cussing.  One daughter (the oldest?) says she needs to "get rid of the guilt" by dropping an f-bomb, and her dad cheers her on, but she is preempted by one of the younger girls saying it.  The oldest daughter then ends the video by belting it out, to the laughs and cheers of her siblings and parents.

You just explained a typical family home evening at my oldest sisters house. She a Mormon by the way. Are you under the impression Mormons don't cuss? 

No.  I am under the impression that the Church teaches us not to cuss.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Vanguard]

41 minutes ago, Joshua said:

My sister's are devout Mormons and they and their children cuss more than my non mormon kids. What does that mean, Smac?

Your sister actually encourages your nieces/nephews to cuss and presses them to do so even if they're reluctant?!!! Good grief! That's some sister! ;o  Otherwise, your push back here is a ridiculous strawman.

As an aside, I sat each of my three children down at ~8 yros and allowed (in fact encouraged) them to come up with as many curse words as possible and out loud for TWO MINUTES! I also encouraged them to put some of the more colorful ones together in a sentence and modeled for them. It was quite the experience and also quite humorous. Once the 2 minutes were up I then closed by reminding them we do not use these words in our family and also explained to them the practical upside to avoiding such terminology. To this day we joke about it (some 10-15 years later). I remind my oldest that he felt the need to whisper his first horrific word in my ear. You can imagine the surprise when he uttered the mother of all curse words - "poop". Bless his then 8 yros heart... : )

Edited January 22 by Vanguard

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Joshua said:

Quote

"Profanity is the effort of a feeble brain to express itself forcibly.”

― Spencer W. Kimball

Do you agree with Kimball on everything he taught?

The vast majority of what he taught, yes.  

3 minutes ago, Joshua said:

Pretty off-topic, this.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Amulek]

On 1/21/2024 at 12:19 PM, Teancum said:

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

No, what I was commenting on was the former bishop's alleged complaint that, after leaving the church, nearly everyone in the ward stopped interacting with him.

What on earth do you think interaction from "nearly everyone in the ward" ought to look like for someone who no longer attends ward meetings or other church functions? And where, pray tell, do you think these interactions ought to be taking place?

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

No, what I was commenting on was the former bishop's alleged complaint that, after leaving the church, nearly everyone in the ward stopped interacting with him.

What on earth do you think interaction from "nearly everyone in the ward" ought to look like for someone who no longer attends ward meetings or other church functions?

And for someone who has publicly declared "everyone in the ward" (and, for that matter, all other Latter-day Saints) to be "brainwashed" and their sacred beliefs to be "garbage" and "in the bottomless pit of hell"?

Might the ward members think he is not exactly in the mood to socialize in the same ways they did before (particularly in a place like Mississippi, where Latter-day Saints are something of a rarity)?

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

And where, pray tell, do you think these interactions ought to be taking place?

Maybe at this fellow's house?  In the room where he keeps his church-related books?  Which books he has publicly declared he wants to literally burn?

This guys public statements about the Latter-day Saints would understandably make them cautious.  Perhaps a bit of space and time is what is needed here?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 22 by smac97

[Raingirl]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

I hope they also track the other religions that knock on doors.  I've had multiple Christian religions knock on my door or leave a pamphlet.  These aren't Jehovah Witnesses or Latter-day Saints.  They usually are a new Christian church opening up nearby but I've had visits from other Christian sects that aren't new in the area.

Apparently it’s okay for some churches, but not for others. 🙄

As a Jew, there were churches that came to my door and told me I was going to hell because I was a Jew.  I didn’t have anything even remotely approaching that experience with this church.