Mississippi Bishop Resigns from the Pulpit

[smac97]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

The only thing I was able to find out about it was the accusation that the video was put up by his brother without his permission, and then taken down quickly.

From an "exmo" reddit post (purportedly written by the fellow's brother) :

Quote

Last night when I originally posted this video of my brother resigning his position as bishop I got nervous when I saw it start to take off. So I pulled it down. This morning I was flooded by private messages from people who expressed love, admiration, and words of encouragement and many people saying how this is giving them courage. It is helping others so it deserves to be here.

I couldn’t be prouder of my brother for showing such courage. I love my brother and look up to him.

This doesn't sound like the brother took it down because it was "put up ... without {the man's} permission."

I am curious whether the man's brother, who posted the video, also recorded it during Sacrament Meeting.  This, as is fairly common knowledge, is prohibited by the Church:

Quote

29.8

Photographs and Video Recordings of Meetings

To preserve the sacredness of Church meetings, no one should take photographs or make video recordings of sacrament meetings or stake conferences.

For information about stream recordings of meetings, see 29.7.

The video is taken from what looks like the front pew.  And it's a pretty good recording, not jerky or grainy.  All things considered, it looks like this was a deliberate and coordinated and premeditated and orchestrated stunt.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 16, 2024 by smac97

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Calling members (of any kind) brainwashed does not convey safeness and respect to me.

Agreed.  

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

And yet he still "resigned" publicly.  In front of the entire ward, including the youth.  I wonder if that has created confusion, hurt feelings, anger, etc. by the kids and/or their parents.

 

He resigned from being bishop to his ward.  I wouldn't consider that to be public or unreasonable. 

I was in my parents ward when their bishop (of only a couple of months) was suddenly released and a new one called.  The stake president showed up to reassure people that the previous bishop had done nothing wrong and was still a member in good standing.  Yes, it made that meeting a bit weird (especially because it also happened to be Easter Sunday), but when a bishop leaves suddenly like that, telling the congregation over the pulpit makes sense.  

As far as this man was releasing himself, it made sense to me that he tell his ward that in person on Sunday, the same way it made sense to me that the stake president did what he did in my parents ward when he released a bishop in an unusual way.

Now, filming it and publishing that to the public was completely uncalled for.  I'm glad that he wasn't behind that (if the rumors are true).

Edited January 16, 2024 by bluebell

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

The fact that he is telling exmos to not bash on members beliefs... that says a lot, I think.  

Isn't calling someone brainwashed bashing on their beliefs though?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Keep the context in mind - he is speaking to exmos. 

I don’t care. I don’t call exmos brainwashed when I am talking to only apologists, I wouldn’t call them that in any place I talk in.  There are things you should never say about a group of people no matter where you speak if you truly respect them and are not just putting on an appearance of respect. 

Edited January 16, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Keep the context in mind - he is speaking to exmos.    He was not speaking to members, and I think he has made it explicitly clear in the same video that he wants to protect members and is even encouraging exmos to not bash their beliefs, but simply to love them.  

I don't think there is any reason to believe based on the information that we have that a child in his home would be at risk having their beliefs disrespected.  The fact that he is telling exmos to not bash on members beliefs... that says a lot, I think.  

Someone is safe not because they are being politically correct, making sure they don’t say anything inappropriate in a particular setting imo, but because they fundamentally respect a person, including respecting they are intelligent and thoughtful (at least for their age and mental capacity). Saying behind someone’s back that you think they are brainwashed is not respecting their beliefs or thought processes as reasonable. 

Someone is safe imo because I can trust what they say is really what they mean and that they are not just humoring me. 

Edited January 16, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

He resigned from being bishop to his ward.  I wouldn't consider that to be public or unreasonable. 

I was in my parents ward when their bishop (of only a couple of months) was suddenly released and a new one called.  The stake president showed up to reassure people that the previous bishop had done nothing wrong and was still a member in good standing.  Yes, it made that meeting a bit weird (especially because it also happened to be Easter Sunday), but when a bishop leaves suddenly like that, telling the congregation over the pulpit makes sense.  

As far as this man was releasing himself, it made sense to me that he tell his ward that in person on Sunday, the same way it made sense to me that the stake president did what he did in my parents ward when he released a bishop in an unusual way.

Now, filming it and publishing that to the public was completely uncalled for.  I'm glad that he wasn't behind that (if the rumors are true).

I agree. The two cases in my experience of bishops being released early where nothing was explained, in both I later learned they had affairs. Unfortunately that is where my mind now goes first because of those experiences.  I would try to give them the benefit of the doubt until I learned more one way or the other, but the thought would be there in the back of my brain. Something like that gets erased by knowledge, not by willpower in my experience. 

I think it speaks to overall great dedication of those who accept the calling of bishop as well as effective vetting that so few do get released early, but that means the few that do happen tend to create a greater impression than they probably should. 

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Isn't calling someone brainwashed bashing on their beliefs though?

And their ability to reason or to seek out the truth. 

Edited January 16, 2024 by Calm

[CV75]

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

He resigned from being bishop to his ward.  I wouldn't consider that to be public or unreasonable. 

I was in my parents ward when their bishop (of only a couple of months) was suddenly released and a new one called.  The stake president showed up to reassure people that the previous bishop had done nothing wrong and was still a member in good standing.  Yes, it made that meeting a bit weird (especially because it also happened to be Easter Sunday), but when a bishop leaves suddenly like that, telling the congregation over the pulpit makes sense.  

As far as this man was releasing himself, it made sense to me that he tell his ward that in person on Sunday, the same way it made sense to me that the stake president did what he did in my parents ward when he released a bishop in an unusual way.

Now, filming it and publishing that to the public was completely uncalled for.  I'm glad that he wasn't behind that (if the rumors are true).

Except a stake president has the proper authority to release a bishop and call for common consent on that motion, whether a matter of keys or procedure/order, and transfer the bishopric to a new set of priesthood holders approved through the proper order at the same time, also by common consent.

[smac97]

It looks like the fellow has a reddit account and is posting to it.  One quote from it (in a thread asking redditors to "give the Mississippi Bishop some privacy" and "not make him the poster boy of r/exmormon") :

Quote

This is helping us so much. We are not seeking fame or some kind of special attention.

Huh.  Then perhaps he should not have done the "resign from the pulpit" stunt, have it recorded and have his brother post (or re-post) the recording online, and then follow up with further video explanations of what he is doing and why, and post multiple TikTok videos denigrating the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, etc.  All that sure looks like someone "seeking fame or some kind of special attention."

His most recent TikTok video is an angry and sweary rant against Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, including that while in the Church he was a "frickin' scholar" but did not realize that he was "in a bottomless pit to hell," and that he has, during the last 42 years "betrayed" his "soul" with "that garbage," but that he is now in an enlightened state and recognizes "how wonderful it is, and how it's a gift that I get to have right f&**ing now," that "it's not evil" and that "it is to be like God, to live with pure agency, but in that agency to have nothing but good intent, to spread love" (I really don't know what he is saying here).  There is also a comment to the video that he will be recording an interview for Dehlin's podcast "in early Feb."

In another TikTok video, posted a week ago, he points to a set of bookshelves in a room in his house with many books (about the Church), which he said he previously would have rescued if the house caught fire, but now "all I can think about is lighting them on fire," that the teachings of the Church are "all lies."

In yet another TikTok video, he and his wife briefly talk about how "angry" and "p&^%ed off" they are.  

I question the utility of publicly venting about this stuff, particularly since he elsewhere professes to want to show kindness and love to the Latter-day Saints.  Pro tip: Publicly denigrating our beliefs as "garbage," our church as "a bottomless pit to hell," and expressing a desire to literally burn books about the Church, is not putting your best foot forward.

Quote

We truly want to be a voice where others can not.

Hmm.  So you do want "some kind of special attention" after all?

Quote

If we can do that then we will give it our best to help anyone who might find themselves in this terribly difficult place. We know this will pass. But that doesn’t make it any easier.  Unlike most Mormon leadership. We want to be in the trenches with you. You are our people, And we are yours!!

"Unlike most Mormon leadership."

Oi.  It's like he can't help himself.  

He's immersing himself in the "exmo" community, and looking to them for community and support and love.  I hope they don't rile him up to further anger and acrimony (it sounds like his interview with Dehlin will be pretty harsh).  In time, I hope he can let his anger pass, and allow for some sort of détente between him and the Church (and its leaders, and its members).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 17, 2024 by smac97

[Vanguard]

42 minutes ago, bluebell said:

He resigned from being bishop to his ward.  I wouldn't consider that to be public or unreasonable. 

I was in my parents ward when their bishop (of only a couple of months) was suddenly released and a new one called.  The stake president showed up to reassure people that the previous bishop had done nothing wrong and was still a member in good standing.  Yes, it made that meeting a bit weird (especially because it also happened to be Easter Sunday), but when a bishop leaves suddenly like that, telling the congregation over the pulpit makes sense.  

As far as this man was releasing himself, it made sense to me that he tell his ward that in person on Sunday, the same way it made sense to me that the stake president did what he did in my parents ward when he released a bishop in an unusual way.

Now, filming it and publishing that to the public was completely uncalled for.  I'm glad that he wasn't behind that (if the rumors are true).

I disagree. It now appears he left because he bears animus against the teachings of the church. Assuming he was upfront about this with his upline, I do not think it appropriate to give him the pulpit to announce his departure. A bishop needing to leave for reasons arguably beyond his control and for reasons that have nothing to do with a waning testimony is entirely different than one leaving because he wants to wholly remove himself and his family from anything having to do with the Latter-Day Saint gospel. I wish him and his family the best though please do not misappropriate the 'power of the pulpit' to announce your departure.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Except a stake president has the proper authority to release a bishop and call for common consent on that motion, whether a matter of keys or procedure/order, and transfer the bishopric to a new set of priesthood holders approved through the proper order at the same time, also by common consent.

We don't use common consent to release people. The person at the pulpit releases them and then we all say "thanks for your service" with a show of hands, but no one is asked to sustain or oppose the action.  The stake president didn't need to say anything about the old bishop to formally release him and any call a new one.  He talked about the suddenness of the previous bishop's release anyway.  I'm guessing he did that because the release was very odd and providing some explanation for it was reasonable and necessary.

 

[smac97]

38 minutes ago, bluebell said:

He resigned from being bishop to his ward.  I wouldn't consider that to be public or unreasonable. 

I don't see how it was not "public," particularly given that he had the whole thing recorded, his brother posted it, etc.

As for "unreasonable," I will respectfully disagree.  I think it was unreasonable and disrespectful for him, using false pretenses and subterfuge, to misappropriate a sacred meeting of a religious group to engage in conduct he knew to be inappropriate.  

38 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I was in my parents ward when their bishop (of only a couple of months) was suddenly released and a new one called.  The stake president showed up to reassure people that the previous bishop had done nothing wrong and was still a member in good standing.  Yes, it made that meeting a bit weird (especially because it also happened to be Easter Sunday), but when a bishop leaves suddenly like that, telling the congregation over the pulpit makes sense.  

Do you see any material differences between A) a stake president, acting in his representative capacity for the Church, doing what you describe above, and B) what the fellow from Mississippi did (both during the Sacrament Meeting and after)?

38 minutes ago, bluebell said:

As far as this man was releasing himself, it made sense to me that he tell his ward that in person on Sunday, the same way it made sense to me that the stake president did what he did in my parents ward when he released a bishop in an unusual way.

So you don't see it as a misappropriation of the meeting?

38 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Now, filming it and publishing that to the public was completely uncalled for.  I'm glad that he wasn't behind that (if the rumors are true).

Do you suppose that the recording was a spontaneous thing?  I think it much more likely that the fellow contrived to have someone there, situated on or near the front pew, to record his announcement (in violation of the Church's policies).  And the Reddit scuttlebutt from the guy claiming to be his brother is that he (the brother) took the video down because it was "taking off," but then re-posted it.

As for the guy's subsequent TikTok videos, I have no qualms with them, except that they substantially undermine the lip service he paid about showing "love" to the Latter-day Saints.  Even if he no longer values our beliefs, we still do.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Vanguard]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It looks like the fellow has a reddit account and is posting to it.  One quote from it (in a thread asking redditors to "give the Mississippi Bishop some privacy" and "not make him the poster boy of r/exmormon") :

Huh.  Then perhaps he should not have done the "resign from the pulpit" stunt, have it recorded and have his brother post (or re-post) the recording online, and the follow up with further video explanations of what you are doing and why, and of what you think of Latter-day Saints and their beliefs, post multiple TikTok videos denigrating the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, etc.  All that sure looks like someone "seeking fame or some kind of special attention."

His most recent TikTok video is an angry and sweary rant against Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, including that while in the Church he was a "frickin' scholar" but did not realize that he was "in a bottomless pit to hell," and that he has, during the last 42 years "betrayed" his "soul" with "that garbage," but that he is now in an enlightened state and recognizes "how wonderful it is, and how it's a gift that I get to have right f&**ing now," that "it's not evil" and that "it is to be like God, to live with pure agency, but in that agency to have nothing but good intent, to spread love."  There is also a comment to the video that he will be recording an interview for Dehlin's podcast "in early Feb."

In another TikTok video, posted a week ago, he points to a set of bookshelves in a room in his house with many books (about the Church), which he said he previously would have rescued if the house caught fire, but now "all I can think about is lighting them on fire," that the teachings of the Church are "all lies."

In yet another TikTok video, he and his wife briefly talk about how "angry" and "p&^%ed off" they are.  

I question the utility of publicly venting about this stuff, particularly since he elsewhere professes to want to show kindness and love to the Latter-day Saints.  Pro tip: Publicly denigrating our beliefs as "garbage," our church as "a bottomless pit to hell," and expressing a desire to literally burn books about the Church, is not putting your best foot forward.

Hmm.  So you do want "some kind of special attention" after all?

"Unlike most Mormon leadership."

Oi.  It's like he can't help himself.  

He's immersing himself in the "exmo" community, and looking to them for community and support and love.  I hope they don't rile him up to further anger and acrimony (it sounds like his interview with Dehlin will be pretty harsh).  In time, I hope he can let his anger pass, and allow for some sort of détente between him and the Church (and its leaders, and its members).

Thanks,

-Smac

It particularly makes me fell bad for his children. Much like how active parents should be careful not to inappropriately push their own view of the Gospel onto their children, so too should parents who leave the faith be careful not to push their own departure onto their children. There is of course no way to know if this is the case with this parent, though I am aware of how vulnerable children can be and especially when it involves a radical step such as this.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

I disagree. It now appears he left because he bears animus against the teachings of the church. Assuming he was upfront about this with his upline, I do not think it appropriate to give him the pulpit to announce his departure. A bishop needing to leave for reasons arguably beyond his control and for reasons that have nothing to do with a waning testimony is entirely different than one leaving because he wants to wholly remove himself and his family from anything having to do with the Latter-Day Saint gospel. I wish him and his family the best though please do not misappropriate the 'power of the pulpit' to announce your departure.

I would agree if he had used this opportunity to explain why he was leaving the church. But like I said previously, he didn't explain that at all (people weren't even sure if he was leaving or not after he was done).  Using it to explain you are stepping down as bishop though seems reasonable to me.

You can of course disagree; I'm just explaining why I don't see it as you do.

[Vanguard]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I would agree if he had used this opportunity to explain why he was leaving the church. But like I said previously, he didn't explain that at all (people weren't even sure if he was leaving or not after he was done).  Using it to explain you are stepping down as bishop though seems reasonable to me.

You can of course disagree; I'm just explaining why I don't see it as you do.

No, I'm good. And I appreciate your respectful push back. : ) Of course, it might be nice for me to actually look at the footage, ya' think?!! ; ) Regardless, if here were leaving for reasons that we now know are accurate, I do not believe he had any business announcing anything at the pulpit.

Edited to add: Eeek! Now that I have listened to the other links my stance does not soften. He appeared to be genuinely hurting at the pulpit though I still don't think it more helpful than not to allow him to air his transition in this way. : (

Edited January 16, 2024 by Vanguard

[smac97]

54 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

It particularly makes me fell bad for his children. Much like how active parents should be careful not to inappropriately push their own view of the Gospel onto their children, so too should parents who leave the faith be careful not to push their own departure onto their children. There is of course no way to know if this is the case with this parent, though I am aware of how vulnerable children can be and especially when it involves a radical step such as this.

Yes, there can be something of a "spiritual whiplash" when kids who are brought up by their parents in a religious community with a visible and overt moral framework, and then their parents do a 180 and tell the kids that the Church is - as one fellow recently put it - "garbage" and "a bottomless pit of hell."  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 16, 2024 by smac97

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't see how it was not "public," particularly given that he had the whole thing recorded, his brother posted it, etc.

He has claimed he wasn't behind the recording and I don't see any reason not to believe him.  I'll give people the benefit of the doubt when I can.

Quote

As for "unreasonable," I will respectfully disagree.  I think it was unreasonable and disrespectful for him, using false pretenses and subterfuge, to misappropriate a sacred meeting of a religious group to engage in conduct he knew to be inappropriate.  

I know you disagree and that's fine.  I was just explaining why I don't find your arguments persuasive.  

Quote

Do you see any material differences between A) a stake president, acting in his representative capacity for the Church, doing what you describe above, and B) what the fellow from Mississippi did (both during the Sacrament Meeting and after)?

I don't see a material difference.  But I'm only talking about what happened during the meeting, not after (though there were also rumblings of the stake presidency acting inappropriately during the situation in my parents ward both before and after the release.)

Quote

So you don't see it as a misappropriation of the meeting?

I don't know enough to be able to tell.  Do we know it happened during the meeting and not after?

Quote

Do you suppose that the recording was a spontaneous thing?  I think it much more likely that the fellow contrived to have someone there, situated on or near the front pew, to record his announcement (in violation of the Church's policies).  And the Reddit scuttlebutt from the guy claiming to be his brother is that he (the brother) took the video down because it was "taking off," but then re-posted it.

I'm not comfortable assuming the worst here.  

Quote

As for the guy's subsequent TikTok videos, I have no qualms with them, except that they substantially undermine the lip service he paid about showing "love" to the Latter-day Saints.  Even if he no longer values our beliefs, we still do.  

His subsequent videos paint him in a very unflattering light.  If I was friends with him I would be incredibly hurt by his characterizations and would take a huge step back from interacting with him anymore. 

 

[bluebell]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, there can be something of a "spiritual whiplash" when kids who are brought up by their parents in a religious community with a visible and overt moral framework, and then the parents do a 180 and tell the kids that the Church is - as one fellow recently put it - "garbage" and "a bottomless pit of hell."  

Thanks,

-Smac

That would be very hard, and probably really confusing.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

He has claimed he wasn't behind the recording and I don't see any reason not to believe him.  I'll give people the benefit of the doubt when I can.

Okay.  CFR, please.  I have not seen this.

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

His subsequent videos paint him in a very unflattering light.  If I was friends with him I would be incredibly hurt by his characterizations and would take a huge step back from interacting with him anymore. 

That would be an understandable reaction.

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am not ignoring it.  Rather, I am not giving it much probative weight given his seemingly wanton hypocrisy in "bash{ing} the beliefs of members" while elsewhere telling other people not to do that.

It was in the same video.  Not “elsewhere”.  That is good evidence to me that he genuinely intended his message for the example community (whom he addresses).

He said in the same video that “this is all new to me” speaking of exam redit.  I don’t think he ever considered that a member of his ward would ever be lurking in such places, or that it would go viral.

Why else would he say what he said about not bashing them and just loving them?  Makes no sense whatsoever for him to say that then call them brainwashed if he thought for a second that they would see it.  I don’t buy it for a second. 

[Analytics]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

And yet he still "resigned" publicly.  In front of the entire ward, including the youth.  I wonder if that has created confusion, hurt feelings, anger, etc. by the kids and/or their parents.

He made a public spectacle of what should have been handled privately.

Why? Why is joining a faith group a public event that should be celebrated while leaving "should be handled privately"? 

If a bishop finds himself not believing in the dogma of his Church, what should he do? Talk to the stake president? Okay. But what should the stake president suggest he do? Should he tell the bishop to have more faith? Pretend to believe for a while and see how it goes? Apply the fake-it-till-you-make-it strategy of bearing your testimony until you finally convince yourself you really believe?  I don't see the intellectual integrity in any of that. 

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?

So I have to wonder. Why is it wrong for the youth to know the truth about why the bishop left? I don't think it's just a matter of time and place--surely the Stake President wouldn't say in sacrament meeting, "We'd like to thank bishop X for his service over these last y years. Some of you may be wondering why he was suddenly released. It would be inappropriate to talk about that in this meeting, but for those of you who want to know the truth, there will be a meeting at the public library on Tuesday night at 7:00 where the former bishop will tell his story you can ask any questions that you many have." That wouldn't happen and even if it did, you'd be sure to keep "the youth" from hearing about why he was leaving, so it clearly isn't a simple matter of time and place.

So why do you think this have been handled privately?

From my perspective, the issue might have something to do with brainwashing using psychological techniques to influence somebody to believe things they wouldn't believe had those techniques not been applied. In a TEDx talk entitled "How to tell if you're brainwashed?" (which isn't specifically about Mormonism), Steve Hassan suggests people "seek out deliberately the best critics and former and most high level former members you can find. Why? Because if you are in a mind control cult you're programmed...'don't talk to apostates; they don't know anything.'"

To be clear, I'm not saying that this type of psychological manipulation in Mormonism is anything nearly as intense or pernicious as it is in, say, North Korea or the Unification Church. But the psychology of a testimony can certainly be understood and explained using the same models that explain why people believe in these other groups.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Isn't calling someone brainwashed bashing on their beliefs though?

Yep, that’s why it only makes sense in the context that he didn’t think that anyone but exmos hung out on those threads. 

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  CFR, please.  I have not seen this.

 

A Reddit post says he asked for videos to be taken down. He isn't ready to be a public figure.  Says his brother posted them and reason he quit was asking searching questions and making people recount sins they had supposedly been forgiven for.

This video actually came out a few weeks ago and I was discussing it with people then.  I haven't looked into it since then and I probably couldn't find the reddit post if I tried.

[Stormin' Mormon]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

Yep, that’s why it only makes sense in the context that he didn’t think that anyone but exmos hung out on those threads. 

I don't see how this is much of a defense. "I only said rude things about you behind your back because I didn't think you'd find out."