Mississippi Bishop Resigns from the Pulpit

[Tacenda]

43 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

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. 

Nope, the church can't wait for the second coming, to join with the Jews. And Jesus was a Jew, so there's that as well.

[Teancum]

On 1/17/2024 at 12:44 PM, Stormin' Mormon said:

This comment is spot on.  It shouldn't be surprising at all that when you remove a major point of commonality in a relationship, it's going to be a struggle to maintain that relationship.  And that's true for religion, work, hobbies, or even families.  

So again seeking out the lost sheep is lip service.   And to make this point, the post you are responding to says nothing about an angry wanting to be left alone disaffected member.

Edited January 22, 2024 by Teancum

[Vanguard]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So again seeking out the lost sheep is lip service.   And to make this point, the post you are responding to says nothing about an angry wanting the be left alone disaffected member.

Well I suppose you could argue this with literally anyone who I know. You make it sound like I should be responsible 24-7 for anyone in my life who is not a practicing member and if I'm not, well lt's all lip service.  Nice, Teancum . : ( Do you appreciate nuance?

[Teancum]

1 minute ago, Vanguard said:

Well I suppose you could argue this with literally anyone who I know. You make it sound like I should be responsible 24-7 for anyone in my life who is not a practicing member and if I'm not, well lt's all lip service.  Nice, Teancum . : ( Do you appreciate nuance?

Uh no. I did not make it sound like a 24-7 job at all.  

[Teancum]

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

 

I have no idea. It it in the sacred books of the religion you claim to believe.  You tell me.  I can tell you from my experience as a former bishop and very involved member who left quietly, there has been almost no attempt from ward members or priesthood leaders to reach out. Are inactive members assigned a ministering brother, or whatever home teaching is called now?  Because I have not heard from such a person only once since I stopped attending. I got a call in 2020 during covid and the man was checking to see if we were all ok.  I have even said I would welcome visits from members.  But nada.

[Vanguard]

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Uh no. I did not make it sound like a 24-7 job at all.  

Ok. So there is nuance under all that. I doubt I'm the only one who believes you need to show that ability a little better.

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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)?

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

So ministering to the lost sheep is only for those who are nice to you then. Is that the case?

I get if someone is openly hostile it makes it more difficult.  But I would guess if one of his ward friends called and said, "Let's grab a sandwich and catch up" he would say sure.

[Stormin' Mormon]

34 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So again seeking out the lost sheep is lip service.   And to make this point, the post you are responding to says nothing about an angry wanting to be left alone disaffected member.

Maybe we can play dueling Jesuses here.  Your Jesus says to seek out the lost sheep; my Jesus says to treat other the way I would want to be treated.  And if I were cutting ties with a community, I'd want that community to respect my desire for separation and just leave me the hell alone and not turn me into some rehabilitation project for the community to pursue.

As with many things in life, we must make room for nuance and individual circumstance.  In some cases, pursuing lost sheep that don't want to be pursued may be the right course.  In others, it may be best to treat the departing community member with the same dignity and respect that we'd wish to be treated were we ourselves departing.  Still others may require a combination of approaches and tactics.  Calling such nuance "lip service" I think is inaccurate and unfair.  The correct manner to approach (or not) each lost sheep is as individualized as the people they are.    

Edited January 22, 2024 by Stormin' Mormon

[smac97]

59 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

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)?

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?

So ministering to the lost sheep is only for those who are nice to you then. Is that the case?

No.  Surely you can appreciate the point I am trying to make?  That some folks who leave the Church might resist - and even resent - members of their former community of faith reaching out to them in a "lost sheep" kind of way?  And might those members may also need some time and space to process and re-evaluate the nature and character of their ongoing (if any) relationship with this guy?

Absent a shared interest in, and appreciation of, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and of the Restored Gospel that it houses, these folks will need to find some alternative basis, some other common ground, upon which to create a new relationship.  Given the "scorched earth" things he has said and done on social media regarding the Church and its members, their immediately treating him like a "lost sheep," hoping to persuade him to return to the fold, may well be seen as insulting, presumptuous, provocative, etc. 

So that leaves . . . what?  A generalized desire to be friends based on . . . what?  Shared interests/values are gone.  Whatever goodwill may have existed previously has likely been marred by his public disparagements of his fellow Latter-day Saints as "brainwashed," of their sacred beliefs being "garbage" and "in the bottomless pit of hell," and all of this coming after be used deceit and subterfuge to misappropriate the Church's meeting and sacred convocation.

As I said before, perhaps a bit of space and time is what is needed here.  That does not mean the Latter-day Saints only care about ministering to lost sheep who are "nice."  Rather, it may well be the most compassionate and sensible course of action.  Give this guy a chance to calm down, to let his emotions - particularly his anger - dissipate a bit.  There are some folks who manage to harbor resentments against the Church and/or its leaders,, even hard and visceral ones, for a long time.  Years even.  And during that time they may construe a "lost sheep" approach as condescending and/or disrespectful.  Others, however, allow hard feelings to mellow and fade with the passage of time.  Perhaps "reaching out" is most effective when human nature and individual circumstances are taken into account.

59 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I get if someone is openly hostile it makes it more difficult.

By this guy's current reckoning, Latter-day Saints are "brainwashed," their beliefs are "garbage" and "in the bottomless pit of hell."  He is publicly talking about literally burning books.

Doesn't this strike you as indicative of him being "openly hostile"?

59 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But I would guess if one of his ward friends called and said, "Let's grab a sandwich and catch up" he would say sure.

And regarding their sacred and cherished beliefs, he might be of a mind to say to them what he has elsewhere said publicly about such things.

I went through this experience a few years back.  A dear friend, formerly strongly devoted to the Church, spent hours ripping the Church, its leaders, its doctrines, its history, its members, the whole nine yards.  His perspective was that the only people who stay in the Church are A) the profoundly ignorant (who are unaware of "the truth" about the Church) and B) the profoundly dishonest (who are aware of, but don't care about, "the truth").  It was a challenging discussion, and that was many many months after his estrangement from the Church arose.

Yes, the Latter-day Saints need to "reach out," but this guy also needs to demonstrate some minimal level of civility regarding their beliefs.  So far he ain't doing well.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 22, 2024 by smac97

[Amulek]

18 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I have no idea. It it in the sacred books of the religion you claim to believe.  You tell me. 

No, you are the one who thinks that "nearly everyone in the ward" needs to keep interacting with a guy who no longer attends church meetings or church activities, so you tell me - what on earth would the Saints in Mississippi need to be doing to satisfy that expectation in your view?

 

Quote

I can tell you from my experience as a former bishop and very involved member who left quietly, there has been almost no attempt from ward members or priesthood leaders to reach out. Are inactive members assigned a ministering brother, or whatever home teaching is called now?  Because I have not heard from such a person only once since I stopped attending. I got a call in 2020 during covid and the man was checking to see if we were all ok.  I have even said I would welcome visits from members.  But nada.

Okay, so I'm just going to come out and say it: That sucks.

And I'm sorry that has been your experience. If you were in my ward you would have a minister. The only people who don't have assigned ministers are those who have requested no contact from the church. And even then, they are technically assigned a minister - it just happens to be the EQ President; he keeps them all organized in a separate district with himself as their minister, and we honor their wishes (though I think he may send Christmas cards - not with any sort of invite or anything, just a good old fashioned Merry Christmas!).

My wife and I are the assigned ministers for a neighbor of ours who has left the church (but who is still technically a member), and we get along just fine. If I were a betting man, I would put good money on them never coming back into activity. And in some ways that probably makes it easier to just be their friends. And if the church thing ever comes up in the future then I suppose we'll cross that bridge when we get there. I'm really not too worried about it though.

 

[california boy]

4 hours 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.

I don't know what relationships that bishop had with his ward.  But for me, I honestly thought that there were at least some people in my ward that were actually friends of mine and liked me not just because I was a member.  The vast majority of members in the ward, I didn't expect them to keep in contact with me.  We weren't that close.  But for those that I was close to, I was a little hurt they didn't want anything to do with me when they found out I was gay and no longer a member. I wasn't looking for them to focus on bringing me back into the Church and that would be the only reason why they would ever contact me again.  I just thought we had a friendship.  I guess I was wrong.  I moved on.  And I was not surprised.  I always knew that was a real possibility.

Quote

 

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?

 

I would think if they were really friends, it wouldn't matter whether I was still a member of the Church.  They would still want to go on bike rides with me, skiing, sailing, movies, maybe check in on me if I was sick, all the things we did before I left the Church.  Is that a crazy expectation?  

[Stormin' Mormon]

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

They would still want to go on bike rides with me, skiing, sailing, movies, maybe check in on me if I was sick, all the things we did before I left the Church.  Is that a crazy expectation?  

I think the keyword there is "still."  If they never went on bike rides with you before, never went skiing with you, or sailing, or to the movies, there shouldn't be an expectation that the nature of the friendship would change such that those things suddenly do become part of the friendship.  If they were indeed part of the friendship, they ought to continue being part of the friendship.  That's not a crazy expectation.  

 

[california boy]

2 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I think the keyword there is "still."  If they never went on bike rides with you before, never went skiing with you, or sailing, or to the movies, there shouldn't be an expectation that the nature of the friendship would change such that those things suddenly do become part of the friendship.  If they were indeed part of the friendship, they ought to continue being part of the friendship.  That's not a crazy expectation.  

Yes, well, that wasn't my experience.  I will give you one example.   I used to bike with the Stake President quite often, like every couple of weeks.  He never asked me if I wanted to go riding with him again.  I could give you a dozen more examples if you want more examples.  

 

[Stormin' Mormon]

21 minutes ago, california boy said:

Yes, well, that wasn't my experience.  I will give you one example.   I used to bike with the Stake President quite often, like every couple of weeks.  He never asked me if I wanted to go riding with him again.  I could give you a dozen more examples if you want more examples.  

 

I don't doubt you at all.  That it happens is rather sucky and I wish it hadn't happened to you or that it didn't happen as often as it does. 

Edited January 23, 2024 by Stormin' Mormon

[california boy]

11 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I don't doubt you at all.  That it happens is rather sucky and I wish it hadn't happened to you or that it didn't happen as often as it does. 

I knew full well all of that was a real possibility.  And maybe it was just what had to be.  Maybe it even helped me realize that given I eventually wanted to find someone I could love and cherish, I had to completely walk away from the Church.  They helped me with that process.  About the only real contact I have with the Church is this site.  Sometimes even that is too much for me to handle.  lol.  

[Calm]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

But for those that I was close to, I was a little hurt they didn't want anything to do with me when they found out I was gay and no longer a member.

Had they been doing things with you outside of church related activities?

Had they been doing things with you and your then wife or just with you as an individual?

From what I have heard and seen, outside of work, school, or church, iow for purely social activities, it is pretty rare that singles and marrieds stay long term friends.

[california boy]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Had they been doing things with you outside of church related activities?

I am not talking about the general members of the ward.  The members that I am talking about are guys that I would ski with, bike, go to movies with, etc.

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Had they been doing things with you and your then wife or just with you as an individual?

It was both.  I would ski and bike with just them.  When we went to movies or plays, it was also the wives.

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

From what I have heard and seen, outside of work, school, or church, iow for purely social activities, it is pretty rare that singles and marrieds stay long term friends.

Usually skiing or biking are activities that your marital status really isn't a factor.  Most were married, but not all of them.  I didn't expect to be invited to go to the show or plays with them.  

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I don't know what relationships that bishop had with his ward.  But for me, I honestly thought that there were at least some people in my ward that were actually friends of mine and liked me not just because I was a member.  The vast majority of members in the ward, I didn't expect them to keep in contact with me.  We weren't that close.  But for those that I was close to, I was a little hurt they didn't want anything to do with me when they found out I was gay and no longer a member. I wasn't looking for them to focus on bringing me back into the Church and that would be the only reason why they would ever contact me again.  I just thought we had a friendship.  I guess I was wrong.  I moved on.  And I was not surprised.  I always knew that was a real possibility.

I would think if they were really friends, it wouldn't matter whether I was still a member of the Church.  They would still want to go on bike rides with me, skiing, sailing, movies, maybe check in on me if I was sick, all the things we did before I left the Church.  Is that a crazy expectation?  

You would expect that even if you telling everybody publicly that they were brainwashed?

Edited January 23, 2024 by bluebell

[filovirus]

12 hours 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 was not allowed to knock doors on my mission. El Salvador. I never knocked one door unannounced. My son in Mexico is not allowed to knock doors. He had a month in Arizona waiting for his VISA, he was not allowed to knock doors there either. Knocking doors is not very productive.

But, nothing wrong with it otherwise. The occupants have their agency to turn them away, or let them in. Seems like the bishop abused the congregants lack of agency with his personal soap box.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

You would expect that even if you telling everybody publicly that they were brainwashed?

I am not really interested in this whole vilification of this former bishop.  I think if members find that comment so appalling then feel free to never talk to the person again.   I only wanted to share that members don't need other reasons like finding something someone said as a reason to never talk to him again.  

I also learned long ago that I could let what other people do to me to control my behavior towards them, or I can choose to decide for myself, despite what the other person does how I want to treat them.

[california boy]

25 minutes ago, filovirus said:

I was not allowed to knock doors on my mission. El Salvador. I never knocked one door unannounced. My son in Mexico is not allowed to knock doors. He had a month in Arizona waiting for his VISA, he was not allowed to knock doors there either. Knocking doors is not very productive.

But, nothing wrong with it otherwise. The occupants have their agency to turn them away, or let them in. Seems like the bishop abused the congregants lack of agency with his personal soap box.

Knocking on doors is kinda like spamming.  Most people are annoyed to have a stranger intrude on them to hear their sales pitch.  It isn't very effective.  But if you contact enough people, eventually you will find someone that will agree to listen.  

Nothing wrong with it otherwise.  Occupants have their agency to turn them away/hang up, or let them give their sales pitch.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

The members that I am talking about are guys that I would ski with, bike, go to movies with, etc.

I had not read the post where you went into detail on the relationship, but this was a sincere question that I believe people should use when thinking about the loss of any relationship, whether due to loss of their shared interests, loss of proximity (a lot of people have great difficulty maintaining long distance relationships, especially if not into written correspondence), changes in life situations (more kids means less time and energy for friendship nurturing, chronic illness restricts what shared activities can happen).  I think people have a lot of guilt and confusion and anger over loss friendships when they shouldn’t.  My best friend in high school and through college which I thought would be for life (a nonmember who even came to BYU to study) could not maintain the same sense of closeness once I married though for me it didn’t seem like it need change anything as at that point it was a long distance relationship and we were just writing letters to each other.  We held on until she married and had a child (both were a surprise to me) and then suddenly the letters went to straight chit chat….like I cared about that.  That letter was honestly like she had slapped me, I had a very physical reaction to it.  She had stopped sharing who she really was with me.  Took me awhile to understand but she was someone who was very all in and she likely needed that with her husband and child.  Still have a lot of sorrow and anger surrounding that relationship, both for her not trying to be open about what was going on with her and for me giving up rather than trying to find something new and casual we could share.

Quote

Usually skiing or biking are activities that your marital status really isn't a factor.  Most were married, but not all of them

My understanding is it is not just whether or not the spouse comes along, it’s other factors as well such as a single being able to have a more flexible schedule usually because they only have their own activities to track or a partner’s willingness for them to invest a lot of resources and attention to something they don’t see as contributing to the relationship/family…the spouses also being at least friends if not as involved helps, but I am too lazy to dig up references tonight, sorry.

Edited January 23, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Knocking on doors is kinda like spamming.  Most people are annoyed to have a stranger intrude on them to hear their sales pitch.  It isn't very effective.  But if you contact enough people, eventually you will find someone that will agree to listen.  

Nothing wrong with it otherwise.  Occupants have their agency to turn them away/hang up, or let them give their sales pitch.

General thought cb’s comment triggered….

I hate billboards, they ruin many a drive that could otherwise be pleasant.  I see missionaries knocking on doors as no more intrusive in my headspace, maybe even less because I can turn my back on them and send them away, but if I am driving I am always going to be aware of billboards because I can’t close my eyes and focusing on the road gets too hypnotic for me so my eyes must travel across the landscape at least some and text grabs my attention, a very deep programming that is never going to change since I am constantly rewarded by many things even if also punished by things less attractive and interesting like billboards.  It was much more fun and relaxing driving in Canada with its much fewer billboards (and better roads).  So many reasons after crossing the border I relaxed.

This is just to say there are tons of things in our environment that we have to train ourselves not to waste mental and emotional energy on.  I could fume every time I get in the car knowing I am about to be subjected to the onslaught.  Or I could just deal with the unpleasantness by turning on music if alone or having a fun conversation so even if the surroundings aren’t attractive, I am still enjoying myself.

If you have the time and resources to meaningfully actively campaign against something (like me sending letters to representatives and encouraging others who feel likewise to do so) and not just pound your head against a wall where no one notices you (as in me whining about the billboards every time I get in the car or worse going online to do so, thus subjecting myself to even more of their intrusion in my life than is necessary), I think you (generally speaking here) should go for it.  Otherwise why create useless negative drama for yourself about it, the universe has enough of that.  Focus on the good stuff.  A small attractive sign will resolve the issue of people knocking on your door and you can use that mental energy for something that makes you happy.  Why waste even more time and energy complaining about it where nothing changes, except perhaps increasing frustration and bitterness.

Edited January 23, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

I am not really interested in this whole vilification of this former bishop

Is it vilifying when you pay attention to actual behaviour and not invent or over dramatize it?

Quote

I only wanted to share that members don't need other reasons like finding something someone said as a reason to never talk to him again.  

But is it fair to assume it’s the members’ fault and blame them as the guilty party, that they all will automatically be the ones dropping off the friendship just because some members do when there is another solid and understandable reason they might feel uncomfortable being around this particular person?

Being aware of bad behaviour on one person’s part doesn’t mean one is giving a pass for bad behaviour on another’s…it is paying attention to context rather than depending on stereotypes for judgment.

Edited January 23, 2024 by Calm

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, Vanguard said:

Ok. So there is nuance under all that. I doubt I'm the only one who believes you need to show that ability a little better.

Whatever.