Mississippi Bishop Resigns from the Pulpit

[webbles]

3 minutes ago, Joshua said:

Is placing flyers on windshields of cars in the temple parking lot disrespectful? 

Did they ask for permission?  It all comes down to permission.  Knocking on a door is the way to ask for permission.  At a temple, grocery store, theater, house, etc, a person who wants to hand out flyers should ask permission of the place.  If you put flyers on cars in a grocery store without permission, you most likely are breaking a law.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Joshua said:

The belief that we are the soul receptacles and sources of good, truth, and light from God is something that we can say with absolute certainty.

CFR that we are the “sole”, meaning “only” receptacles and sources of good, truth, and light from God…especially since scriptures teach all good comes from God.(James 1:17)

Means I want quotes and links, not just your paraphrases.  Since it’s absolute certainty we teach this, you should be able to find quite a few clear and without debate teaching this.

Edited January 24 by Calm

[Calm]

55 minutes ago, Joshua said:

understand that many people here are furious with the Bishop for really standing at the platform to step down as Bishop.

Please identify those here who are “furious” with the former bishop.  To be so angry as to be furious is to be obviously angry, but I am not picking those vibes myself, so please point to those posters…as I must have missed those posts.  

This is another CFR.

Saw a lot of posters who thought what the bishop did in the meeting was against the rules and inappropriate…I am in that group, but it is more shoulder shrugging “oh well” for me.  No anger or even frustration.  I would like to see the furious version, would be interesting.

Since they are posting publicly, I am sure they would appreciate someone recognizing the depth of their feeling, how important it is to them and so will thank you for bringing their positions to the attention of those who missed it.

Edited January 24 by Calm

[Diamondhands69]

46 minutes ago, Joshua said:

I am grateful to you. Do you know if there is anyone on the board who can tell me what he said was wrong or what was disrespectful about what he said? I understand that many people here are furious with the Bishop for really standing at the platform to step down as Bishop. However, I ask if there is anyone on the board who can tell me what he said was disrespectful. Despite the fact that I have listened to his address on multiple occasions, I am unable to identify a single statement in his talk that might be construed as disrespectful. This leads me to assume that those who hold the priesthood, such as Smac, feel the need to smear this individual's character because he had the audacity to stand in front of the ward that he was responsible for and respectfully inform them that he is quitting for the sake of the ward. In reality, he informed the ward that he is resigning from his position as Bishop because, in his judgment, another individual would be more capable of performing the duties associated with the position.

 

According to what I have learned from being on the outside of the church for a number of years now, the Bishop dared to stand at the podium and act as an individual who possesses individual agency, rather than acting as a follower of Christ who has covenanted to only use representative agency, or collective agency, or group agency. This is something that I have learned from my experience of being on the outside of the church. It is obvious that this makes people angry. 

 

I would appreciate it if someone could explain me what the Bishop stated in his address that was so terrible that it goes against what he committed to do in his role as a Mormon bishop.

 

I didn’t hear anything offensive in what he said. That said I can see why some Mormons would be offended. The reason is because as a leader in the church he is obligated to promote faith and faithfulness. He resigned his position from the pulpit and cited (iirc) that he was asked to do something he didn’t feel was right but never said what it was. I think he was as respectful as he could be (kinda like being as honest as we know how to be lol) without waxing poetic in an angry rant like some of his tik tocks. 
 

This hasn’t been discussed around my family but knowing them he is going straight to Mormon hell for this. They would be “shocked” and wouldn’t be impressed in the least with his measured candor. Even if he is telling the 100% truth, that isn’t an honorable thing in the least to do, their position would be that he should lie about his faithfulness and fake it till replaced. 
 

It seems as if his stake president knew this was going to happen. I may be wrong but it seems that way to me. If so, the stake pres should have accepted his resignation on the spot and prohibited him from getting up there and saying anything till his issues were resolved. Letting him continue to be a bishop till he got to the pulpit to resign, the stake president displayed an astounding lack of discernment if that is even a real thing. Didn’t work in this case. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Joshua said:

I am grateful to you. Do you know if there is anyone on the board who can tell me what he said was wrong or what was disrespectful about what he said? I understand that many people here are furious with the Bishop for really standing at the platform to step down as Bishop. However, I ask if there is anyone on the board who can tell me what he said was disrespectful. Despite the fact that I have listened to his address on multiple occasions, I am unable to identify a single statement in his talk that might be construed as disrespectful. This leads me to assume that those who hold the priesthood, such as Smac, feel the need to smear this individual's character because he had the audacity to stand in front of the ward that he was responsible for and respectfully inform them that he is quitting for the sake of the ward. In reality, he informed the ward that he is resigning from his position as Bishop because, in his judgment, another individual would be more capable of performing the duties associated with the position.

 

According to what I have learned from being on the outside of the church for a number of years now, the Bishop dared to stand at the podium and act as an individual who possesses individual agency, rather than acting as a follower of Christ who has covenanted to only use representative agency, or collective agency, or group agency. This is something that I have learned from my experience of being on the outside of the church. It is obvious that this makes people angry. 

 

I would appreciate it if someone could explain me what the Bishop stated in his address that was so terrible that it goes against what he committed to do in his role as a Mormon bishop.

 

It’s not what he said at the pulpit in church that people are taking issue with. It’s what he said on some published interviews and TikTok’s after the fact. they’ve been linked to at the beginning of this thread. If you’re really interested, you could go and find them and watch them.

[MustardSeed]

I’m not offended by any of it but I wouldn’t golf or ski with him because drama. 

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Joshua said:

I am grateful to you. Do you know if there is anyone on the board who can tell me what he said was wrong or what was disrespectful about what he said? I understand that many people here are furious with the Bishop for really standing at the platform to step down as Bishop. However, I ask if there is anyone on the board who can tell me what he said was disrespectful. Despite the fact that I have listened to his address on multiple occasions, I am unable to identify a single statement in his talk that might be construed as disrespectful. This leads me to assume that those who hold the priesthood, such as Smac, feel the need to smear this individual's character because he had the audacity to stand in front of the ward that he was responsible for and respectfully inform them that he is quitting for the sake of the ward. In reality, he informed the ward that he is resigning from his position as Bishop because, in his judgment, another individual would be more capable of performing the duties associated with the position.

 

According to what I have learned from being on the outside of the church for a number of years now, the Bishop dared to stand at the podium and act as an individual who possesses individual agency, rather than acting as a follower of Christ who has covenanted to only use representative agency, or collective agency, or group agency. This is something that I have learned from my experience of being on the outside of the church. It is obvious that this makes people angry. 

 

I would appreciate it if someone could explain me what the Bishop stated in his address that was so terrible that it goes against what he committed to do in his role as a Mormon bishop.

 

I think that he had to do what he did, or the rumor mill would massacre him. People will get different ideas about him and maybe some on here want that to happen. Make him be in the wrong. But I haven't been following him much, maybe he's saying anti things or ? Maybe that's what @smac97 and others are getting at. 

[Vanguard]

2 hours ago, Joshua said:

I am grateful to you. Do you know if there is anyone on the board who can tell me what he said was wrong or what was disrespectful about what he said? I understand that many people here are furious with the Bishop for really standing at the platform to step down as Bishop. However, I ask if there is anyone on the board who can tell me what he said was disrespectful. Despite the fact that I have listened to his address on multiple occasions, I am unable to identify a single statement in his talk that might be construed as disrespectful. This leads me to assume that those who hold the priesthood, such as Smac, feel the need to smear this individual's character because he had the audacity to stand in front of the ward that he was responsible for and respectfully inform them that he is quitting for the sake of the ward. In reality, he informed the ward that he is resigning from his position as Bishop because, in his judgment, another individual would be more capable of performing the duties associated with the position.

According to what I have learned from being on the outside of the church for a number of years now, the Bishop dared to stand at the podium and act as an individual who possesses individual agency, rather than acting as a follower of Christ who has covenanted to only use representative agency, or collective agency, or group agency. This is something that I have learned from my experience of being on the outside of the church. It is obvious that this makes people angry. 

I would appreciate it if someone could explain me what the Bishop stated in his address that was so terrible that it goes against what he committed to do in his role as a Mormon bishop.

 

Joshua - Be careful not to 'strawman' this beyond recognition. For one, I don't note any "furor" about him and secondly, while many of us do not agree with his using the pulpit for his personal commentary in this way, the primary issue is how he characterizes the church on social media afterward. 

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on whether a bishop should be able to pursue his own agenda at the pulpit in this way. I hear no concession from you that parameters should be honored so I am left to wonder whether you believe there are any? And if you do, what is the basis for your drawing the line there?  

[california boy]

18 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm talking about the members of your ward, when you stopped attending and came out.  You feel justified in condemning them for the way they treated you (and I agree with you) but you accused me of vilifying the bishop for bringing up an unkind thing he did. 

Why are you justified in condemning a member for the way that they acted after you left but when I do the same thing to an ex-member it's "vilification"? 

I didn't condemn anyone in my ward by they way they treated me.  I didn't post about some of the nasty rumors that floated around some members about me.  Should I tell you about some of the crap they spread about me?  I only reported what happened and pointed out that members don't need other reasons like finding something someone said as a reason to never talk to him again. 

 

18 hours ago, bluebell said:

 

I think that sometimes there are justifiable reasons for stepping away from a relationship when the parameters change and sometimes people do that for unjustifiable reasons. I would guess that your loss of friendship was mostly due to you coming out as gay when you left the church and I don't think it was justifiable.  

Maybe the members of my ward did me a favor.  I wouldn't want to feel like they were obligated to be my friend when they thought that being gay was a reason enough to not be friends with me any longer.  I moved on and found new friends that didn't care whether I was gay or not.  It seemed like those friendship were built on honesty.  I would say the worse thing about trying to pretend to be straight for my ward is that I could never really trust their love or friendship. I always wondered if they knew that I was gay, would they still love me and want to be friends with the real me.  I found out the answer to that question.  If there was any condemnation in my mind, it was directed to the Church who told me that if I marry, I would no longer be gay.  And a Church that pressured me to put up a false front in order to fit in.  That is what I regret.  I should have never pretended to be straight in order to stay a part of the Church.

Edited January 24 by california boy

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

This hasn’t been discussed around my family but knowing them he is going straight to Mormon hell for this.

This has been discussed around my Utah Mormon family (husband born and bred in Utah Valley, his dad from Panguitch, all political conservatives).  No one cared about what he did in the SM, odd, but hardly earthshaking.

Edited January 24 by Calm

[california boy]

18 hours ago, bluebell said:

Have you been able to watch the bishop's tik tocs that he made after he left?  (I'm only asking because I can't tell if you are speaking from a position of personal knowledge about what the bishop said and how he acted or if you are just going off of what people have mentioned on here).

I haven't watched a single tic toc message the bishop has posted because frankly I don't care.  I only read his remarks that he directed to his ward members.  I personally thought it reasonable to give his ward his reasons for resigning from being their bishop and leaving the Church.  I think he owed them that explanation.  

I don't think you are getting the fact that I am not really all that motivated to vilify anyone in this situation.  And like I said earlier, if ward members want to completely cut off friendship with the Bishop for what he has said, then they are certainly welcome to do so.  You don't see me digging through social media trying to find some disparaging comment a ward member directed at the bishop do you?

[Stormin' Mormon]

2 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

This hasn’t been discussed around my family but knowing them he is going straight to Mormon hell for this.

That's a relief.  Mormon hell has an end; it has an exit.  There are so many worse Hells he could have ended up in.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I think that he had to do what he did, or the rumor mill would massacre him. People will get different ideas about him and maybe some on here want that to happen. Make him be in the wrong. But I haven't been following him much, maybe he's saying anti things or ? Maybe that's what @smac97 and others are getting at. 

He's saying anti-things.  He has published videos of himself saying them.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I didn't condemn anyone in my ward by they way they treated me.  I didn't post about some of the nasty rumors that floated around some members about me.  Should I tell you about some of the crap they spread about me?  I only reported what happened and pointed out that members don't need other reasons like finding something someone said as a reason to never talk to him again. 

 

Maybe the members of my ward did me a favor.  I wouldn't want to feel like they were obligated to be my friend when they thought that being gay was a reason enough to not be friends with me any longer.  I moved on and found new friends that didn't care whether I was gay or not.  It seemed like those friendship were built on honesty.  I would say the worse thing about trying to pretend to be straight for my ward is that I could never really trust their love or friendship. I always wondered if they knew that I was gay, would they still love me and want to be friends with the real me.  I found out the answer to that question.  If there was any condemnation in my mind, it was directed to the Church who told me that if I marry, I would no longer be gay.  And a Church that pressured me to put up a false front in order to fit in.  That is what I regret.  I should have never pretended to be straight in order to stay a part of the Church.

Going off of everything you've said about your ward over the time you've posted here, I believe you when you implied they behaved badly.  You've painted them in a very unflatteringly light as long as I can remember you speaking about them, and it sounds like it was deserved.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Joshua said:

I am grateful to you. Do you know if there is anyone on the board who can tell me what he said was wrong or what was disrespectful about what he said?

Pretty much the entirety of it.  He used deceit and subterfuge to misappropriate the Church's facilities and sacred convocation.  He betrayed the trust of the Church and his obligations he owes as its agent and representative.

I have already addressed this:

Quote

Quote

If a bishop finds himself not believing in the dogma of his Church, what should he do?

What he should not do is misappropriate the Church's sacred convocation.

Quote

Of course he could simply be released and quietly disappear, but that would lead to all sorts of confusion, speculation, and rumors about why he disappeared. And those are bad things, right?

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

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

Quote

So I have to wonder. Why is it wrong for the youth to know the truth about why the bishop left?

I think such matters ought to be left to the parents of the youth, and not foisted on the youth in a way that contravenes the implicit trust the parents typically repose in a bishop.

Quote

I don't think it's just a matter of time and place--

No, but "time and place," and manner, are part of the equation.  Other portions of the equation involve the misappropriation of the Church's meeting, the violation of the parents' trust, the likelihood of confusion to youth, and so on.

A few months ago I attended a meeting at Encircle House in Provo.  I went there to listen to varying perspectives on LGBT issues.  Would you approve of me standing up in one of those meetings to declare that I believe homosexual behavior contravenes the will of God, and that everyone there should go out and buy a copy of The Family Proclamation and have it framed and hung up in their homes?  Or might that be a misappropriation of Encircle's meetings and facilities?  Might that be a breach of the trust implied in inviting people to attend Encircle events/meetings?

Quote

So why do you think this have been handled privately?

See above.  The Church's sacred meetings are . . . the Church's sacred meetings.  They are not intended as a forum for McKenna Denson to spout her nonsense, or for Savannah Ward to make a "coming out as gay" announcement, or for this guy to announce his "self-release" or whatever it's called, or for these folks to surreptitiously record their disruptions of our sacred convocations and publish them to the world.

I view his TikTok stuff quite differently.  Although I find much of what he is saying there to be offensive and unfair, I respect his right to Free Speech.  He can say what he likes in that forum.

2 hours ago, Joshua said:

I understand that many people here are furious with the Bishop for really standing at the platform to step down as Bishop.

"Furious?"  Who?

2 hours ago, Joshua said:

However, I ask if there is anyone on the board who can tell me what he said was disrespectful.

See above.

2 hours ago, Joshua said:

Despite the fact that I have listened to his address on multiple occasions, I am unable to identify a single statement in his talk that might be construed as disrespectful.

A hypothetical: A prominent gay rights leader, "Harvey," is asked to give a speech at an private executive meeting hosted and paid for by GLAAD.  He has given such speeches many times over the years.  However, unknown to GLAAD, Harvey has quietly decided to disassociate himself from the gay rights movement, and also to renounce his identity as a gay man.  Harvey decides to use his speech at the meeting as a sort of "reverse coming out."  Harvey is also aware that the meeting is not being recorded, and that GLAAD has a policy prohibiting the recording of its private meetings.  However, Harvey chooses to disregard this, and to arrange for a friend of his to secretly record his speech, which is later to be uploaded on social media for the world to see.  Harvey then proceeds with his plan, and it goes off without a hitch.  In his speech he announces his "resignation" from gay rights advocacy, and even from the LGBT community altogether.  He thereafter posts his speech on social media.

Would you characterize Harvey's behavior as "respectful" or "disrespectful?"

2 hours ago, Joshua said:

This leads me to assume that those who hold the priesthood, such as Smac, feel the need to smear this individual's character because he had the audacity to stand in front of the ward that he was responsible for and respectfully inform them that he is quitting for the sake of the ward.

Again, he used deceit and subterfuge to misappropriate the Church's facilities and sacred convocation.  He betrayed the trust of the Church and his obligations he owes as its agent and representative.

Do you disagree with the foregoing assessment?  If you do, please explain your reasoning.  If not, then you are "smearing" this guy.

2 hours ago, Joshua said:

In reality, he informed the ward that he is resigning from his position as Bishop because, in his judgment, another individual would be more capable of performing the duties associated with the position.

That's not how the Church operates.  The release would be announced by a member of the stake presidency.

2 hours ago, Joshua said:

According to what I have learned from being on the outside of the church for a number of years now, the Bishop dared to stand at the podium and act as an individual who possesses individual agency, rather than acting as a follower of Christ who has covenanted to only use representative agency, or collective agency, or group agency.

Let's say that a pair of missionaries visit a former and estranged member of the Church, and offer to do some yardwork, which he accepts.  They come over to his house and clean up the front yard a bit, but then they set up tables and chairs and signage in his front lawn for a "Chat with the Missionaries!" day.  If this fellow found their behavior problematic, would you find it reasonable for the missionaries to say, basically, "Why are you unhappy?  All we are doing is daring to use your property to say and do things which you dislike and did not approve.  And we did so using deceit and subterfuge.  No big deal."?

2 hours ago, Joshua said:

This is something that I have learned from my experience of being on the outside of the church. It is obvious that this makes people angry. 

Do you equate disagreement and/or disapproval with anger?

2 hours ago, Joshua said:

I would appreciate it if someone could explain me what the Bishop stated in his address that was so terrible that it goes against what he committed to do in his role as a Mormon bishop.

See above.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

35 minutes ago, california boy said:

I haven't watched a single tic toc message the bishop has posted because frankly I don't care.  I only read his remarks that he directed to his ward members.  I personally thought it reasonable to give his ward his reasons for resigning from being their bishop and leaving the Church.  I think he owed them that explanation.  

I don't think you are getting the fact that I am not really all that motivated to vilify anyone in this situation.  And like I said earlier, if ward members want to completely cut off friendship with the Bishop for what he has said, then they are certainly welcome to do so.  You don't see me digging through social media trying to find some disparaging comment a ward member directed at the bishop do you?

Well, if that is the case then your comments haven't been relevant to a lot of what the rest of us are talking about (since we have been talking about the stuff he said after his resignation and not just at the pulpit).  It sounds like we are having a more thorough discussion, including information you aren't aware of and don't care about, than you aren't interested in (which is probably why there has been some confusion between us).  

No problem there, you can set whatever parameters on the topic you want.

 

 

[bluebell]

35 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

That's a relief.  Mormon hell has an end; it has an exit.  There are so many worse Hells he could have ended up in.

His family should have sent him to the Protestant and Catholic hell.  It would have been a much more thorough punishment.  Assigning him to Dante's hell would have at least been entertaining I guess. Much more variety there.  If you are going to go to a hell, the mormon hell is the one to aim for, no doubt. 

Seems like his family really missed an opportunity there.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Well, if that is the case then your comments haven't been relevant to a lot of what the rest of us are talking about (since we have been talking about the stuff he said after his resignation and not just at the pulpit).  It sounds like we are having a more thorough discussion, including information you aren't aware of and don't care about, than you aren't interested in (which is probably why there has been some confusion between us).  

No problem there, you can set whatever parameters on the topic you want.

 

 

Exactly.  I am not really interested on picking sides. Both groups have reasons to be upset and the opportunity to dial back the attacks 

[Stargazer]

On 1/21/2024 at 10:20 PM, Diamondhands69 said:

I’m having trouble recalling where I said the church was hiding the polygamy info. 

You were saying that the manual told the instructors to not discuss the topic. Telling instructors not to discuss it sounds like they were hiding it. If that's not what you meant, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

On 1/21/2024 at 10:20 PM, Diamondhands69 said:

2017?  What’s in 2017? I mentioned I was a gospel doctrine teacher in the early 2000s.. that’s over 20 yrs ago and no I didn’t save the manual. Those were turned in upon completion of the calling. I would have tossed it in the trash when done anyway. 

It was just that in the new CFM series the last time DC132 was discussed was in 2017. So, since you said that the manual said the doctrine of plural marriage was not to be discussed, I thought the CFM was what you were referencing. My mistake.

On 1/21/2024 at 10:20 PM, Diamondhands69 said:

I don’t want my house to look like my parents with new era, friend , ensign copies etc dating all the way back to the ‘60s cluttering all the storage space and garage. I would not be surprised if they had accumulated  thousands of copies of all types of church propaganda. They even had a catalogued (labeled with their own version of the Dewey decimal system ) library of all kinds of church books in the living room occupying several book cases. 

Fair enough. Some people do save them. I did at one time, but now I usually recycle them. I perplexed my wife the other day when I started going through old curriculum manuals looking for the one I thought you were referring to. We have a nice collection of old manuals dating back to before I joined the family as my wife's replacement husband (she's a widow). My brother in the gospel, her late husband, was prone to save everything. And I'm sensitive to her feelings when dealing with his old possessions. But no such manual was available in the "archives."

I wasn't searching with a view to disproving your claim, by the way. I was just curious about it. I know that there were some subjects in the past that the Church would just prefer to gloss over. Which I understand, even if I don't necessarily approve of.  

[california boy]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Going off of everything you've said about your ward over the time you've posted here, I believe you when you implied they behaved badly.  You've painted them in a very unflatteringly light as long as I can remember you speaking about them, and it sounds like it was deserved.

Is all I have ever said about my former ward is that only a handful ever talked to me again. I am just reporting what happened. I guess they felt like they were doing the right thing at that time.
 

The Church was way more outwardly anti gay back then. I assume they thought they were doing what God wanted them to do. I know my family thought that as long as I was gay I shouldn’t be around the rest of the family. After 13 years of that they changed their minds. I am now invited to family events 

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

After 13 years of that they changed their minds. I am now invited to family events 

 

I'm glad.

[Stargazer]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm glad.

Just figured it out: UMW always and forever.

UMW = "United Mormon Women," right?

[Stormin' Mormon]

14 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Just figured it out: UMW always and forever.

UMW = "United Mormon Women," right?

I know!  I know!  Unfortunately, the poster who told me that secret back in 2007 also swore me to secrecy, so I can't say nuthin.  I can only express a benign smugness about possessing this small bit of insider knowledge.  

[bluebell]

41 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Just figured it out: UMW always and forever.

UMW = "United Mormon Women," right?

Nope!  It's a secret that I've pledged to take to my grave.  A valiant guess though.

[bsjkki]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Is all I have ever said about my former ward is that only a handful ever talked to me again. I am just reporting what happened. I guess they felt like they were doing the right thing at that time.
 

The Church was way more outwardly anti gay back then. I assume they thought they were doing what God wanted them to do. I know my family thought that as long as I was gay I shouldn’t be around the rest of the family. After 13 years of that they changed their minds. I am now invited to family events 

 

In some ways this pendulum is swinging the other way. I’ve talked with more than one parent whose child has distanced themselves because they won’t leave the church. Sad.