Mississippi Bishop Resigns from the Pulpit

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

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. 

I would like to hear his perspective on what he meant by “brainwashed”.  Because if he is simply saying the same thing that I have been saying in the baptism thread about social conditiong of children, and of being locked in a covenant they aren’t competent to understand or to weigh/compare other options…then I get it.  

I think if he had a chance to explain himself, clarify, or choose a different word choice that is spoken off the cuff or hyperbolic, I get the sense that there is a better explanation.  He seems pretty genuine in loving members because they are “just like us”.

My best guess is it was off the cuff hyperbole in hyper emotionally charged moment.

[pogi]

21 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

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."

If the accusation is that Mormon kids aren't safe being friends with his kids because their dad might disrespect their beliefs, then yes, it is a good defense.  I don't think any of his kids friends parents have anything to worry about.   Even smac acknowledged that if it was said in private, then that would change things. 

 

Edited January 17, 2024 by pogi

[bluebell]

33 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. 

Why does it matter if he was saying it behind their backs and not to their faces though?

[smac97]

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

A Reddit post says he asked for videos to be taken down.

I've looked for this and haven't seen it.  What I did see was the brother saying he took the video down because of how much attention it was getting, then he put it back up.

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

Weird that he would ask people to "recount" such "sins."  That's not typically what bishops do (or what they are supposed to do).

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, pogi said:

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. 

I agree it doesn’t make sense if he was sincere.

What does it say about his sincerity though?

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, pogi said:

I would like to hear his perspective on what he meant by “brainwashed”.  Because if he is simply saying the same thing that I have been saying in the baptism thread about social conditiong of children, and of being locked in a covenant they aren’t competent to understand or to weigh/compare other options…then I get it.  

I think if he had a chance to explain himself, clarify, or choose a different word choice that is spoken off the cuff or hyperbolic, I get the sense that there is a better explanation.  He seems pretty genuine in loving members because they are “just like us”.

My best guess is it was off the cuff hyperbole in hyper emotionally charged moment.

And the rest of the remarks about “garbage” etc?

Edited January 17, 2024 by Calm

[Amulek]

7 hours ago, pogi said:

I picked up on all those cues too, and I think you are probably right.  But you never know, there are many more nuanced members who retain membership while still identifying with the experiences of some exmos. 

I suspect that someone who describes Latter-day Saints as "brainwashed" isn't going to be clinging onto their membership too tightly. Nor would I generally consider someone who believes the same to merely be a "more nuanced member."

 

Quote

With his kid, I think his concern is that they don't have any other avenues of social networking through public school, so their only friends are those in the LDS community and ward.  

I get that, but whose decision was it to forgo a public education and, instead, enroll their children in a faith-based home school system...only to then later decide to leave that faith?

I can appreciate that this obviously wasn't their initial plan, but it's still ultimately a problem of their own making. Limited socialization is one of the obvious (known) risks associated with the decision to home school.

I applaud his integrity to leave the church if he no longer believes, but that means his kids are going to get what they get (whatever that may be) now that they have separated themselves from the clique they used to be a part of. Maybe it will be fine, maybe it won't. But I don't see that so much as a church thing - it's just a people thing.

 

Quote

Perhaps, but it seems more direct than that to me -

Those overnighters are a likely place for abuse to occur, and I don't really see any "programming" or "brainwashing" happening more there than in any other church activity or setting.

I don't deny that as being a possibility, but in context is really seems like he's just talking about pressure. At least that's how I read it.

He states, "My kids are homeschooled, so their friends, I pray that their friends will remain true to them regardless of what they believe. But, I just wont subject my children to the programming anymore. No more FSY trips. No more camps. No, that’s where they abused me. We’re not going to do that. Things are changing."

I take his references to no FSY and no camps to be referring to the (immediately preceding) "programming" that he refuses to subject his children to. FSY is very much a big social / spiritual experience, and I can see how kids might very well feel pressured to conform - especially when they have their big youth testimony meetings at the end of the week. The same sort of things happen at girls camp and on many high adventure outings / longer YM cams as well.

Plus, FSY wouldn't have even been a thing when he was a kid, so if he was abused at FSY then it would to have had to have been in the last year or two.

 

Edited January 17, 2024 by Amulek

[Diamondhands69]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

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. 

If I could upvote this a thousand times I would… 

kinda like 

"lazy learners and lax disciples will always struggle to muster even a particle of faith."

or the

“playing church” 

commentary we see on the “faithful” side. 

 

sorry bout the font situation. I’m on my phone and too dumb to fix it

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

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

I suppose for reasons similar to why weddings are "celebrated" and divorces are not.

And because "leaving" should not involve the misappropriation of the Church's facilities and sacred gatherings.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

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.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

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.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

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.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

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?

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

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.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 17, 2024 by smac97

[pogi]

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Why does it matter if he was saying it behind their backs and not to their faces though?

Because the question was if he could be trusted to not influence your kids against the church

[CV75]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.

 

I was just testing you  !

[smac97]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

It was in the same video.  Not “elsewhere”.  

Oh.  That's worse, then.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

That is good evidence to me that he genuinely intended his message for the example community (whom he addresses).

We'll see, I suppose.  His brother re-posted the video, and there's no indication he opposed that.  And he's still posting videos about himself and his anger/vitriol against the Church and its teachings, leaders, etc.  He's going to record an interview of John Dehlin. 

The notion that he intended his public announcement to be "public" to just his ward seems mighty farfetched.  He's courting attention.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

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.

I'm skeptical that a member of his ward just happened to be recording Sacrament Meeting from the front pew (in violation of the Church's policies), that this person just happened to be seated so as to get a good close-up of the bishop during his big announcement, that this recording then just happened to fall into the hands of the bishop's brother, who just happened to decide to post it online.

I think it is far more likely that all of this was staged and orchestrated, both before and after the meeting.  This isn't a new schtick.  McKenna Denson did it.  Savannah Ward did it.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Why else would he say what he said about not bashing them and just loving them?  

See Britannica's entry for "lip service": "support for someone or something that is expressed by someone in words but that is not shown in that person's actions."  See also "to mouth platitudes."

Or he could just be flagrantly hypocritical in his in "bash{ing} the beliefs of members" while elsewhere telling other people not to do that.

Personally, I think the most likely explanation is that he is really, really angry right now, so he is lashing out due to anger, high emotion, etc.  I sure hope that he has aspirations toward "just loving" the Latter-day Saints, but at present he is denigrating them as Latter-day Saints and the sacred beliefs that warrant their categorization as such.  Again, 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).

1 hour ago, pogi said:

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. 

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

50 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Plus, FSY wouldn't have even been a thing when he was a kid, so if he was abused at FSY then it would to have had to have been in the last year or two.

They had similar stuff by a different name in the 70’s. Can’t remember the name, just remember I hated it.  Besides the overall sense of extreme discomfort (I have always been a homebody no matter how much I want to be otherwise), the only thing I remember is Kieth Merrill spoke as the main speaker iirc.

But I agree with you that in context, it sounds to me more like he is calling the teaching style and teachings of youth gatherings, etc abusive.

Edited January 17, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

If I could upvote this a thousand times I would… 

kinda like 

"lazy learners and lax disciples will always struggle to muster even a particle of faith."

or the

“playing church” 

commentary we see on the “faithful” side. 

 

sorry bout the font situation. I’m on my phone and too dumb to fix it

 

I have condemned the “playing at religion” comment on this board as did quite a few other posters***.  That so hit the wrong notes and was so, so arrogant and close minded imo.  Still bugs me.
 

However, I wouldn’t disagree with the basic idea that lazy learners and lax disciples won’t end up with much faith, but I wouldn’t assume that those who don’t have faith are inherently lazy learners or lax disciples.  One of the most dedicated seekers I have known, including investing in a massive library of LDS books and actually studying them, never did receive a spiritual witness and so never became a member (at least last I heard and he had been studying the Church seriously for a couple of decades iirc).

The context that Pres Nelson shared the lax learners comments seems to me to be pushing the first…one has to work for faith….and not the second…if you don’t have faith, you didn’t work at it.

Quote

Your mountains may be loneliness, doubt, illness, or other personal problems. Your mountains will vary, and yet the answer to each of your challenges is to increase your faith. That takes work. Lazy learners and lax disciples will always struggle to muster even a particle of faith.

To do anything well requires effort. Becoming a true disciple of Jesus Christ is no exception. Increasing your faith and trust in Him takes effort. May I offer five suggestions to help you develop that faith and trust.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2021/04/49nelson?lang=eng

***https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/74332-brad-wilcox-fireside-to-alpine-youth-on-feb-6/?do=findComment&comment=1210079910

 

Edited January 17, 2024 by Calm

[JustAnAustralian]

33 minutes ago, Amulek said:

He states, "My kids are homeschooled, so their friends, I pray that their friends will remain true to them regardless of what they believe. But, I just wont subject my children to the programming anymore. No more FSY trips. No more camps. No, that’s where they abused me. We’re not going to do that. Things are changing."

What is the still-mo youth scene like in Mississippi? Do church youth regularly hang out and visit each other outside of school/church run events?

Just a lack of regular contact can turn "friends" into no-longer-"friends". The number of "friends" from my educational years (K-12+university) that are still "friends" is zero. If church functions were the only time they interacted, then it will likely end up with them no longer associating.

[Diamondhands69]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

They had similar stuff by a different name in the 70’s. Can’t remember the name, just remember I hated it.  Besides the overall sense of extreme discomfort, the only thing I remember is Kieth Merrill spoke as the main speaker iirc.

But I agree with you that in context, it sounds to me more like he is calling the teaching style of youth gatherings, etc abusive.

It was EFY. 
longest week of my life

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

It was EFY. 
longest week of my life

Nope, I graduated high school in 1976, which was when EFY got inaugurated.  It was at least one year earlier, but likely two or three.  I am thinking my sophomore year fits best (my older sister was there for one thing and I wasn’t working that summer nor was my sister doing pageant, which she did summer 1975).

As far as I and my sister remember, it was just referred to as “Youth Conference” and was held at Mills College.

Edited January 17, 2024 by Calm

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I've looked for this and haven't seen it.  What I did see was the brother saying he took the video down because of how much attention it was getting, then he put it back up.

Weird that he would ask people to "recount" such "sins."  That's not typically what bishops do (or what they are supposed to do).

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

He seems to claim that he was being asked to have people recount their sins by the stake or other higher ups. And that he was uncomfortable with doing it because he agreed with you and didn’t think it was something he should do.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Quote

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."

If the accusation is that Mormon kids aren't safe being friends with his kids because their dad might disrespect their beliefs, then yes, it is a good defense.  I don't think any of his kids friends parents have anything to worry about.   Even smac acknowledged that if it was said in private, then that would change things. 

There's some distance between parents not having "anything to worry about" and "that would change things."

Normally, a generally mature and civilized and reasonable person is more constrained in his public expressions of disagreement/dislike, as compared to private expression of such things.  The fellow in Mississippi is fairly unrestrained in his public denigrations of the Church and its leaders and members.  He is going out of his way to make these various videos and post them online.  If he cannot constrain himself from denigrating Latter-day Saint beliefs publicly, I think it would not be unreasonable to suspect that his private communications about such things are going to worse.

I would hope that he, and his wife, and his children, would exercise tact, decorum and self-control in interacting with other Latter-day Saints, particularly young ones (such as those who might do home schooling stuff together).  This guy's public behavior, however, is not headed in that direction.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

57 minutes ago, pogi said:

Because the question was if he could be trusted to not influence your kids against the church

Oh, sorry for the confusion. That’s not the question that I am referring to. I’m referring to him saying that he loves latter-day Saints, and telling people not to disparage their beliefs. But at the same time he’s saying disrespectful things about latter-day Saints and disparaging their beliefs, so how does that work?

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Diamondhands69 said:

If I could upvote this a thousand times I would… 

kinda like 

"lazy learners and lax disciples will always struggle to muster even a particle of faith."

or the

“playing church” 

commentary we see on the “faithful” side. 

 

sorry bout the font situation. I’m on my phone and too dumb to fix it

 

When I heard that talk about lazy learners, I assumed he was speaking to me, and other members who needed to be reminded that having a relationship with God takes work.  

But yeah, the playing at church thing was horrible and pretty much everyone I talk to about it agreed.

It just bugs me when some ex members want to be treated better than they have treated others. If it’s bad for somebody to say it about you and your beliefs then it’s equally bad for you to say it about another person and their beliefs. Don’t say horrible things about the church that you’ve left and then wine when you hear members say horrible things about you.  And vice versa (using you in the general sense, and not speaking about you specifically ).

I’ve always struggled with people who want mercy for themselves but justice for everyone they disagree with, regardless of what side of the aisle they’re on.  Hypocrites and double standards are annoying.

[Amulek]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I’m referring to him saying that he loves latter-day Saints, and telling people not to disparage their beliefs.

I took his comment to the exmo community about not disparaging Latter-day Saints to be more about the efficaciousness of doing so - not that he has any real disagreement with those who do.

 

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

He seems to claim that he was being asked to have people recount their sins by the stake or other higher ups.

Any chance of a link to where he is saying this?  The issue here is, as you put it, his claim of asking people to "recount sins they had supposedly been forgiven for."  That just seems farfetched, in a few ways.

First, bishops don't deal with sins being "forgiven."  Declaration of forgiveness appears to be an apostolic function (see John 20:23), and even they hardly seem to use it.  See here:

Quote

Then were the disciples glad. As He was about to depart the Lord gave them His blessing, saying, “Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.” This specification of men sent by authority points directly to the apostles; “And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.”

Second, even if a bishop was instructed "to have people recount their sins," to have them to so for sins "they had supposedly been forgiven for" wouldn't really make sense in the context of John 20:23.

Third, A bishop typically does not go "fishing" for confessions at all, let alone confession of misconduct previously addressed by ecclesiastical leaders.  We have TR interviews, but those are fairly well-defined by and administered pursuant to church policy:

Quote

26.3.3

Conducting a Temple Recommend Interview

The temple is the house of the Lord. Entering the temple and participating in ordinances there is a sacred privilege. This privilege is reserved for those who are spiritually prepared and striving to live the Lord’s standards, as determined by authorized priesthood leaders.

To make this determination, priesthood leaders interview the member using the questions below. Leaders should not add or remove any requirements. However, they may adapt the questions to the age and circumstances of the member.

I have a hard time imagining the higher-up leadership in Mississippi construing the foregoing "adapt the questions" language to "Hey bishop, go ask your ward members about sins of which they have already been forgiven."

There are, I think, some rare circumstances in which a bishop might need to make some inquiries.  I had a few instances of doing this when I served as a bishop, but the circumstances were unique and rare.

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And that he was uncomfortable with doing it because he agreed with you and didn’t think it was something he should do.

I am skeptical that we are getting the whole story here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Any chance of a link to where he is saying this?  The issue here is, as you put it, his claim of asking people to "recount sins they had supposedly been forgiven for."  That just seems farfetched, in a few ways.

First, bishops don't deal with sins being "forgiven."  Declaration of forgiveness appears to be an apostolic function (see John 20:23), and even they hardly seem to use it.  See here:

Second, even if a bishop was instructed "to have people recount their sins," to have them to so for sins "they had supposedly been forgiven for" wouldn't really make sense in the context of John 20:23.

Third, A bishop typically does not go "fishing" for confessions at all, let alone confession of misconduct previously addressed by ecclesiastical leaders.  We have TR interviews, but those are fairly well-defined by and administered pursuant to church policy:

I have a hard time imagining the higher-up leadership in Mississippi construing the foregoing "adapt the questions" language to "Hey bishop, go ask your ward members about sins of which they have already been forgiven."

There are, I think, some rare circumstances in which a bishop might need to make some inquiries.  I had a few instances of doing this when I served as a bishop, but the circumstances were unique and rare.

I am skeptical that we are getting the whole story here.

Thanks,

-Smac

I’m sure we’re not getting the whole story, but the Reddit and ex Mormon stuff seems to be all we have to go off of. We should take that as well as our conclusions from such scanty evidence with a grain of salt.

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I took his comment to the exmo community about not disparaging Latter-day Saints to be more about the efficaciousness of doing so - not that he has any real disagreement with those who do.

 

So he’s fine with saying disparaging things, but he recognizes you get more flies with honey than vinegar.  Well, he’s right, but I think sincerity goes a long way too, and he seems short on that.