Mississippi Bishop Resigns from the Pulpit

[california boy]

As someone who has left the Church, I have a much different perspective on what is going on. So I am throwing in my two cents.

When you feel like you have been betrayed by the Church and what it teaches and facts prove to not be what you were taught to believe your entire life, it can feel like you want to start to take control of your own life.  You want to leave the Church on your own terms and not the forced hierarchy that seemed so important most of your life.  The last thing I wanted is for the Church to continue to control of anything in my life.  i had given them way too much power over me already.

I can see why a bishop in charge of a congregation, would want to be honest and frank and tell his congregation exactly why they were resigning and not give the Stake President any power to control that narrative.  This whole to sacred of meeting to express any honest beliefs just sounds like, WE want to continue that control over you and the congregation.  I have heard things on a regular basis in Sacrament meeting and especially testimony meeting all my life that wasn't sacred and no one had a problem with that.  

Freaking out about someone daring to be honest with the congregation does sound like it is all part of the Church correlation program designed to paint a very narrow path of what a person is allowed and not allowed to say in Church meetings.  If it didn't go through the correlation committee, then it is inappropriate and should be seriously shut down.  I can certainly see why someone would consider that they have been brainwashed.  I think many feel like they were taught to not question things that bothered them about the Church.  Just put it on a shelf somewhere.  And now that they no longer believe that narrative, they also no longer feel compelled to support that narrative.  There is probably a lot bottled up in his mind that he wants to finally be able to tell on his own terms.  

It doesn't mean that there is nothing of value in what the Church teaches or does.  What it does mean is that there is a lot in the Church that just isn't right or morally honest.

 

 

 

[california boy]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Third, A bishop typically does not go "fishing" for confessions at all, let alone confession of misconduct previously addressed by ecclesiastical leaders.  

I don't know what Church you grew up in, but my bishop was always on a fishing expedition.  Starting when i was 12, he would ask questions like am I masturbating, did I look at porn. had I ever been inappropriate with a girl, did I live the Word of Wisdom, and on and on.

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, california boy said:

As someone who has left the Church, I have a much different perspective on what is going on. So I am throwing in my two cents.

When you feel like you have been betrayed by the Church and what it teaches and facts prove to not be what you were taught to believe your entire life, it can feel like you want to start to take control of your own life.  You want to leave the Church on your own terms and not the forced hierarchy that seemed so important most of your life.  The last thing I wanted is for the Church to continue to control of anything in my life.  i had given them way too much power over me already.

I can see why a bishop in charge of a congregation, would want to be honest and frank and tell his congregation exactly why they were resigning and not give the Stake President any power to control that narrative.  This whole to sacred of meeting to express any honest beliefs just sounds like, WE want to continue that control over you and the congregation.  I have heard things on a regular basis in Sacrament meeting and especially testimony meeting all my life that wasn't sacred and no one had a problem with that.  

Freaking out about someone daring to be honest with the congregation does sound like it is all part of the Church correlation program designed to paint a very narrow path of what a person is allowed and not allowed to say in Church meetings.  If it didn't go through the correlation committee, then it is inappropriate and should be seriously shut down.  I can certainly see why someone would consider that they have been brainwashed.  I think many feel like they were taught to not question things that bothered them about the Church.  Just put it on a shelf somewhere.  And now that they no longer believe that narrative, they also no longer feel compelled to support that narrative.  There is probably a lot bottled up in his mind that he wants to finally be able to tell on his own terms.  

It doesn't mean that there is nothing of value in what the Church teaches or does.  What it does mean is that there is a lot in the Church that just isn't right or morally honest.

 

 

 

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with what you’ve expressed or feeling the way that you’ve shared. It’s a sincere assessment of honest emotions.

But it seems like the only people that are allowed to have honest emotions and express sincere opinions are members of the ex Mormon community.

Members aren’t allowed to be upset when a ex member says disparaging things about them.  We shouldn’t care when our meetings are used to make claims against our doctrines or our leaders.  We cannot call our beliefs facts while the ex Mormon community should be allowed to do so without any pushback.  We should want to still hang out with people who say bad things about us while those people should be free to shun us if they want, without judgment, because we won’t agree with them. Etc. etc.

 

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with what you’ve expressed or feeling the way that you’ve shared. It’s a sincere assessment of honest emotions.

But it seems like the only people that are allowed to have honest emotions and express sincere opinions are members of the ex Mormon community.

Members aren’t allowed to be upset when a ex member says disparaging things about them.  We shouldn’t care when our meetings are used to make claims against our doctrines or our leaders.  We cannot call our beliefs facts while the ex Mormon community should be allowed to do so without any pushback.  We should want to still hang out with people who say bad things about us while those people should be free to shun us if they want, without judgment, because we won’t agree with them. Etc. etc.

 

I don't know if I told you about the pickleball ladies I play with. I do love playing 2 or 3 times a week with them. We play at a church during the winter. Today we were talking about how nice it is to play in the church and someone mentioned how not all churches are equipped for it. In my dumbness, I mentioned my church had carpet. Well it's been a long while since I've been, and in my head I thought it did, it's really, really old and even has two levels with the nursery in the basement. Well one of the ladies knew where my church is and even went there years ago, and I realized I made a mistake in my head, and said wait, it didn't have carpet now that I think of it. And then I realized that now I needed to fess up and tell them I have been inactive ever since covid. Well the one friend must have been thinking of those in the branch, her husband is branch president, and said those people are just lazy. She may not have realized that in a way she was calling me lazy too, it was a difficult morning, but I think they still like me hopefully. So members can say stuff too, haha.  

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

I've never argued otherwise.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

I've never argued otherwise.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

Just as long as he makes sure to shield everyone, especially the youth, from hearing or understanding why the bishop lost his faith, right?

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

I've never argued otherwise.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

The fact that you see it this way illustrates my point: testimonies are fragile things, especially when the brainwashing process is still in the early stages.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

No, but "time and place," and manner, are part of the equation. 

Of course, and I understand your position well enough to know this would be the focus of your response. That is why I said, "I don't think it's just a matter of time and place." (emphasis added)

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

"Violation of the parents' trust"? "Likelihood of confusion to youth"? The assertion that learning about a bishop's loss of faith would be these things illustrates the thesis of the classic essay, "The Believer and the Apostate":

There is quite possibly no greater threat to the believer than the existence of the apostate. In order to reduce dissonance, the true believer must assume that their own particular system of faith is so obviously true that no open-minded seeker who is fully appraised of the facts can fail to accept it. The apostate represents the real-world disconfirmation of this assumption. It is possible to ascribe the existence of non-believers to several sources – the work of the Enemy, or a deliberate (and thus rebellious) close-mindedness or even, in some cases, non-election. The apostate, however, is in a different class altogether.

The apostate is defined as a person who, at one time, fully accepted the dogma and tenets of the particular system, who participated in its rituals, and who defended it from the attacks of unbelievers. However, the apostate at some point reached the conclusion that the system was intellectually bankrupt, and defected from the faith, either for another tradition, or for a system of freethought.

Thus, the apostate cannot exist in the worldview of the believer. There is no place in their psychological makeup for someone who was fully appraised of all the dogma of the tradition, who accepted all its pronouncements implicitly, and yet who later rejected the system. The very existence of such a person poses a threat to the careful mental balancing act in which act believers are engaged.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

A few months ago I attended a meeting at Encircle House in Provo.  I went there to listen to varying perspectives on LGBT issues.

That's fantastic. Big kudos for going and listening. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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?

Of course not. But if you would have been the top leader of Encircle House and then after a number of years came to the conscientious decision that you had to resign, I think you would have earned the right to explain to your own people why you could no longer support the organization. And ideally, everyone there would be genuinely and deeply interested about understanding your position.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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?

There is no such thing as a perfect analogy, but a bishop sharing his sincere and considered thoughts with his own ward is categorically different than crashing somebody else's meeting to preach a message of religious dogmatism. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

See above.  The Church's sacred meetings are . . . the Church's sacred meetings.

I've never argued otherwise.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

They are not intended as a forum for McKenna Denson to spout her nonsense...

I've never argued otherwise.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

...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 agree--that isn’t the intended purpose of the meeting.

You’ll be happy to know that in general I share you sensibilities on the purpose of Church meetings and the right of people to worship in the way they want to. When I left the Church I did so privately. When I made the decision to leave the Church the stake presidency wanted to talk to me about it. They weren’t too interested in hearing my thoughts, but they did exhort me to continue attending, but only on the condition that I would pretend to believe, or at least keep my thoughts to myself whenever I was at church meetings. 

As a personal anecdote that shows my IRL sensibilities about this, a couple of months ago I was going through security at LAX to take a 3-hour flight home. By pure coincidence a sister missionary was right in front of me while going through security. I could tell she was a little beat up and was coming home from a foreign mission. I smiled and said something like, “it looks like you’re coming home from an adventure.” She agreed and wanted to talk more, but I made a beeline to the lounge. 45 minutes later, I ran into her again at the plane’s gate, and she waved me over to talk. We talked about pleasantries for about 10 minutes until it was time to board.

We get on the plane and by pure coincidence, she was assigned to sit directly next to me. She asked me lots of questions about what I knew about missionaries, what I knew about the Church, etc. Only because she asked, I tersely answered her questions--I knew about missionaries because I was one. She asked me if was still active and I said no, not at all. Do I believe? No, not at all. Then she asked why not. I asked “do you really want to know?” She said yes, she really wanted to know. I said, “Are you sure?” and she said yes. So I told her a little bit about why I don’t believe. I held back. I didn’t want to lecture her for 3 hours about why her church was false. After 5 or 10 minutes I asked her about her beliefs. What her favorite part of her mission was. What she meant by getting to know Christ, etc. She asked me more about my mission and I told her. After originally telling me how wonderful her mission was, she admitted that for the first three months, she cried herself to sleep, every single night. I understood.

She had the aisle seat and I had the window. When we got off the plane she waited for me. She wanted to keep talking. I walked with her half way to the exit from security, and then told her I was going to hurry ahead (she was walking slow and gingerly because of a twisted ankle). I said hi to her family when I exited security. I told them she’d be there in about one minute. I told them what a wonderful daughter they had and how proud they should be. Her mom cried and said she wanted to hug me. So I hugged her. I then left before the missionary came out of security. The ritual of a family welcoming home a returning missionary is the ritual of a family welcoming home a returned missionary, and I didn’t belong there.

Edited January 17, 2024 by Analytics

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I don't know if I told you about the pickleball ladies I play with. I do love playing 2 or 3 times a week with them. We play at a church during the winter. Today we were talking about how nice it is to play in the church and someone mentioned how not all churches are equipped for it. In my dumbness, I mentioned my church had carpet. Well it's been a long while since I've been, and in my head I thought it did, it's really, really old and even has two levels with the nursery in the basement. Well one of the ladies knew where my church is and even went there years ago, and I realized I made a mistake in my head, and said wait, it didn't have carpet now that I think of it. And then I realized that now I needed to fess up and tell them I have been inactive ever since covid. Well the one friend must have been thinking of those in the branch, her husband is branch president, and said those people are just lazy. She may not have realized that in a way she was calling me lazy too, it was a difficult morning, but I think they still like me hopefully. So members can say stuff too, haha.  

We definitely can!  And we say dumb and unkind (and unthinking) things all the time. Everyone does.  We all need compassion.

(Funny enough, just tonight I was having a conversation with my husband about our gym being carpeted and whether or not the stake gym was.  I couldn't remember, even though I had been there just a couple of weeks ago.  It's hard to remember sometimes when you aren't focused on the detail!).

Edited January 17, 2024 by bluebell

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

We definitely can!  And we say dumb and unkind (and unthinking) things all the time. Everyone does.  We all need compassion.

(Funny enough, just tonight I was having a conversation with my husband about our gym being carpeted and whether or not the stake gym was.  I couldn't remember, even though I had been there just a couple of weeks ago.  It's hard to remember sometimes when you aren't focused on the detail!).

You make me feel better, thanks!! 

[Vanguard]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I don't know if I told you about the pickleball ladies I play with. I do love playing 2 or 3 times a week with them. We play at a church during the winter. Today we were talking about how nice it is to play in the church and someone mentioned how not all churches are equipped for it. In my dumbness, I mentioned my church had carpet. Well it's been a long while since I've been, and in my head I thought it did, it's really, really old and even has two levels with the nursery in the basement. Well one of the ladies knew where my church is and even went there years ago, and I realized I made a mistake in my head, and said wait, it didn't have carpet now that I think of it. And then I realized that now I needed to fess up and tell them I have been inactive ever since covid. Well the one friend must have been thinking of those in the branch, her husband is branch president, and said those people are just lazy. She may not have realized that in a way she was calling me lazy too, it was a difficult morning, but I think they still like me hopefully. So members can say stuff too, haha.  

As long as you stay out of 'the kitchen' during the pickleball rallies they'll still like you! ; )

[Diamondhands69]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

I don't know what Church you grew up in, but my bishop was always on a fishing expedition.  Starting when i was 12, he would ask questions like am I masturbating, did I look at porn. had I ever been inappropriate with a girl, did I live the Word of Wisdom, and on and on.

Yep every time. As new 12 year olds he would ask (worthiness interviews for deacon) if we did that and if we didn’t know what it was he would describe how it’s done… you know to explain what it was, then ask you again . Oh man it was wierd.
 

In fact later in life in a galaxy far far away I had another bishop that would do that . He was so into asking it, he outright accused the elders quorum in my ward of the same thing. He comes in one Sunday, interrupts the lesson and goes on a rant about his all the men in the ward are looking at porn and jerking off (his words). He said he better start seeing a line by his door so he can straighten out the priesthood in the ward. Some old dude stood up and gave him about three seconds to retract his accusation or he’d go down the hall and get the stake pres to jerk a knot in his tail… omg it was a mess. He retracted his statement and walked off. My wife told me on the way home that the bishop showed up in relief society and admonished the wives to turn their husbands in. I guess the assumption was the wives were letting them do it?? I dunno. Was one of the strangest things I’ve ever seen at church. 

Edited January 17, 2024 by Diamondhands69
Typo

[Diamondhands69]

I was listening to Mormon stories on my way home from work today. Dehlin mentioned how he has had a few convos with this bishop guy and he said he might be going on the show. He also said the bishop said nearly everyone in the ward has stopped interacting with him. He said it was like the ward disappeared overnight. Will be an interesting show for sure. This was on episode 1851.. first 15 min or so 

[Diamondhands69]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I can see why a bishop in charge of a congregation, would want to be honest and frank and tell his congregation exactly why they were resigning and not give the Stake President any power to control that narrative.  

Exactly 

[mfbukowski]

42 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

As long as you stay out of 'the kitchen' during the pickleball rallies they'll still like you! ; )

Worst sin of all:

Causing a "false alarm"!

(Hereabouts it can cost a couple of $ kilobucks in fines when they show up with a hook and ladder. )

QUICK! start a fire to justify it!! You've got 5 minutes!

At last! Boy Scouts becomes useful!

(JUST KIDDING!!)

....you never know .... 🤫

Edited January 17, 2024 by mfbukowski

[JustAnAustralian]

30 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

He also said the bishop said nearly everyone in the ward has stopped interacting with him. He said it was like the ward disappeared overnight.

The New Year period couldn't possibly have anything to do with a lack of interaction right? 

Edited January 17, 2024 by JustAnAustralian

[Diamondhands69]

1 minute ago, JustAnAustralian said:

The New Year period couldn't possibly have anything to do with a lack of interaction right? 

What is  “the new year period?”

im thinking he normally has much more interaction with actual friends who are lds and he has been ghosted. Time will tell as he says on his tik tocs he will be explaining everything. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, JustAnAustralian said:

The New Year period couldn't possibly have anything to do with a lack of interaction right? 

😳😏🤭

[JustAnAustralian]

1 hour ago, Joshua said:

speak his new found truth

Can you quote any of this "new found truth" from his exit-testimony? Because I'm not seeing any.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Joshua said:

Speaking as a Mormon man for the majority of my life, we were taught to be completely honest in all of our dealings and interactions. We learned not to lie or speak half truths in primary, young men's, the Boy Scouts, our mission, the temple and the scriptures. Are you suggesting that when we learn the truth about church history and church doctrine we should start to ignore everything we were taught and not share the information we have learned if we think it might help our loved ones? If that's what you believe, you don't see that as hypothetical? Our entire mortal lives as Mormons, is based around the concept of sharing the gospel to as many people as possible. The bishop was sharing what he believed to be true with people he loved and respected. The courage to stand at the podium in front of all his friends and family at church and speak his new found truth was taught to him by church doctrine and principles The church taught him to be honest. The church taught him to be courageous. The church taught him to be brave. Some men take that stuff seriously. Apparently he takes it seriously, and shared his new found truth with the people he loves. If the church doesn't want harsh critics, they shouldn't teach men to be spiritual warriors. 

Nope that’s not what I’m saying.

[Amulek]

8 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

He also said the bishop said nearly everyone in the ward has stopped interacting with him. He said it was like the ward disappeared overnight.

I remember breaking up with this girl in high school because I was interested in dating someone else. Strangely, when I left her for that other girl, it was like my ex-girlfriend suddenly stopped interacting with me - almost as though she disappeared overnight. Weird, right?

Interesting fact (not about ex-girlfriend(s)): the bishop in my current ward lives down the street from me, just over a block away. Now, maybe that's a common thing in Utah or other places with large LDS populations, but it's certainly not the norm here in Texas. Anyway, I want to say that, in the last five years, I've had no more than one or two interactions with him outside of church. Don't get me wrong, I like the guy (and his family) - it's just that we're not close personal friends. If he were to resign and stop attending church / church functions, he would effectively disappear from my life - even though I would continue to interact with him the exact same amount as I did before.

 

[teddyaware]

2 hours ago, Joshua said:

Speaking as a Mormon man for the majority of my life, we were taught to be completely honest in all of our dealings and interactions. We learned not to lie or speak half truths in primary, young men's, the Boy Scouts, our mission, the temple and the scriptures. Are you suggesting that when we learn the truth about church history and church doctrine we should start to ignore everything we were taught and not share the information we have learned if we think it might help our loved ones? If that's what you believe, you don't see that as hypothetical? Our entire mortal lives as Mormons, is based around the concept of sharing the gospel to as many people as possible. The bishop was sharing what he believed to be true with people he loved and respected. The courage to stand at the podium in front of all his friends and family at church and speak his new found truth was taught to him by church doctrine and principles The church taught him to be honest. The church taught him to be courageous. The church taught him to be brave. Some men take that stuff seriously. Apparently he takes it seriously, and shared his new found truth with the people he loves. If the church doesn't want harsh critics, they shouldn't teach men to be spiritual warriors. 

The Savior also taught us that it’s wrong to cast sacred pearls of truth before swine, lest the swine trample on those precious pearls of truth, and then viciously attack the man who unwisely revealed the truth without discretion. In the scriptures, there are many examples of truth being withheld from the unworthy and the unprepared. So no, it isn’t always right to be “completely honest.” I only bring this point up to set the record straight.

… It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him. (Alma 12:9)

[Diamondhands69]

45 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I remember breaking up with this girl in high school because I was interested in dating someone else. Strangely, when I left her for that other girl, it was like my ex-girlfriend suddenly stopped interacting with me - almost as though she disappeared overnight. Weird, right?
 

it also validates the concept of Mormon friendships being an inch deep and a mile wide. Most are not really your friend and if you are not Mormon or they know you don’t believe… definitely not your friend. 

45 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Interesting fact (not about ex-girlfriend(s)): the bishop in my current ward lives down the street from me, just over a block away. Now, maybe that's a common thing in Utah or other places with large LDS populations, but it's certainly not the norm here in Texas. Anyway, I want to say that, in the last five years, I've had no more than one or two interactions with him outside of church. Don't get me wrong, I like the guy (and his family) - it's just that we're not close personal friends. If he were to resign and stop attending church / church functions, he would effectively disappear from my life - even though I would continue to interact with him the exact same amount as I did before.

 

My ward boundary ( stake too) is very densely populated with Mormons. Every single house my property butts up to is a family in my ward. Across the street front, left, right are all in my ward. 
 

most in my ward know I’m PIMO. I keep my mouth shut for the most part but they know. I’m a ward project. Since it has become known I’m PIMO, virtually none of my neighbors (fellow ward members) even acknowledge me. The missionaries stop by all the time. They will be getting an education pretty soon if that doesn’t stop.
 

The best relationship I have on the entire street is a neighbor caddy corner to me who is not LDS. Over the past few years we became friends and he asked me one time why all “your people” (Mormons) pretty much ignore them even though they see them all the time and live ten feet apart. I just told him it was because he wasn’t Mormon. I was raised that way. My old neighborhood growing up no one was Mormon and my parents were not friends with anyone other than to exchange pleasantries. I did tell him many of them have church callings in addition to work and kids so by design they do not have any time to get to know others as all their free time is devoted to the church. Socializing is what church is for. 
 

I said their main mission in being friendly is to convert you. Once that effort is failed you largely get ignored. Recently he observed that none of the neighbors ever stop by and chat with me in my driveway like they did in the past. I told him my situation and said I was pretty much toxic and like him- not worth their time. 
 

people don’t like that attitude but it is reality. I see my bishop all the time outside of church. He is about a five min walk from my home. While he is a good guy, he has pretty much stopped communicating with me as well. 
 

where I grew up was like where you are at. Low density Mormon pop and if it wasn’t for church would never see but a couple people in my ward ever. 

Edited January 17, 2024 by Diamondhands69

[california boy]

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with what you’ve expressed or feeling the way that you’ve shared. It’s a sincere assessment of honest emotions.

But it seems like the only people that are allowed to have honest emotions and express sincere opinions are members of the ex Mormon community.

I don't think your statement is true.  Who is not allowing you to share honest emotions and express sincere opinions?

Quote

Members aren’t allowed to be upset when a ex member says disparaging things about them.  

Who is saying you aren't allowed to be upset?

Quote

We shouldn’t care when our meetings are used to make claims against our doctrines or our leaders.  

Have you seen the rants that seem to go on and on like this very thread, or Sam Young thread, or any of the other myriad of threads about the CES letter, or Delins or any of the other pod casters?  Has anyone tried to shut down those threads and told you not to criticize any of those you disagree with?

Quote

We cannot call our beliefs facts while the ex Mormon community should be allowed to do so without any pushback.  We should want to still hang out with people who say bad things about us while those people should be free to shun us if they want, without judgment, because we won’t agree with them. Etc. etc.

What are you talking about?  Who says you can not call your beliefs facts?  People might not agree with you, but just who is not allowing you to say anything you want about your religious beliefs? You may be challenged occasionally, but I don't see any evidence that anyone is stopping you from saying what you believe.  

Could you give just one example where someone told you that you are not allowed to express your beliefs or opinions?  I would really like to understand why you feel this and why so many members (given the upvotes you got) believe this narrative.  There must be tons of examples of this for everyone to feel so certain about your statement.

[smac97]

13 hours ago, california boy said:

Quote

Third, A bishop typically does not go "fishing" for confessions at all, let alone confession of misconduct previously addressed by ecclesiastical leaders.  

I don't know what Church you grew up in,

The same one you did, apparently.

13 hours ago, california boy said:

but my bishop was always on a fishing expedition.  

Mine were no.  Nor was I when I served as my ward's bishop.

I do not discount your experience, but rather note that A) your experience was apparently not a ubiquitous one, and also propose that B) the Church has markedly improved its training on these issues, as have bishops improved their performance of their duties.

13 hours ago, california boy said:

Starting when i was 12, he would ask questions like am I masturbating, did I look at porn. had I ever been inappropriate with a girl, did I live the Word of Wisdom, and on and on.

I was never asked about any of these things.  Not once.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

12 hours ago, Analytics said:

You’ll be happy to know that in general I share you sensibilities on the purpose of Church meetings and the right of people to worship in the way they want to.

I'm glad we have common ground on that point.

12 hours ago, Analytics said:

When I left the Church I did so privately. When I made the decision to leave the Church the stake presidency wanted to talk to me about it. They weren’t too interested in hearing my thoughts, but they did exhort me to continue attending, but only on the condition that I would pretend to believe, or at least keep my thoughts to myself whenever I was at church meetings. 

They asked you to "pretend?"  Or did you, in your own mind, equate keeping your thoughts to yourself during church meetings with "pretending?"

12 hours ago, Analytics said:

As a personal anecdote that shows my IRL sensibilities about this, a couple of months ago I was going through security at LAX to take a 3-hour flight home. By pure coincidence a sister missionary was right in front of me while going through security. I could tell she was a little beat up and was coming home from a foreign mission. I smiled and said something like, “it looks like you’re coming home from an adventure.” She agreed and wanted to talk more, but I made a beeline to the lounge. 45 minutes later, I ran into her again at the plane’s gate, and she waved me over to talk. We talked about pleasantries for about 10 minutes until it was time to board.

We get on the plane and by pure coincidence, she was assigned to sit directly next to me. She asked me lots of questions about what I knew about missionaries, what I knew about the Church, etc. Only because she asked, I tersely answered her questions--I knew about missionaries because I was one. She asked me if was still active and I said no, not at all. Do I believe? No, not at all. Then she asked why not. I asked “do you really want to know?” She said yes, she really wanted to know. I said, “Are you sure?” and she said yes. So I told her a little bit about why I don’t believe. I held back. I didn’t want to lecture her for 3 hours about why her church was false. After 5 or 10 minutes I asked her about her beliefs. What her favorite part of her mission was. What she meant by getting to know Christ, etc. She asked me more about my mission and I told her. After originally telling me how wonderful her mission was, she admitted that for the first three months, she cried herself to sleep, every single night. I understood.

So do I.  My mission was both "wonderful" and difficult.  As being a husband/father.  The challenges are, for me, a big part of what makes my faith and my family worthwhile.

12 hours ago, Analytics said:

She had the aisle seat and I had the window. When we got off the plane she waited for me. She wanted to keep talking. I walked with her half way to the exit from security, and then told her I was going to hurry ahead (she was walking slow and gingerly because of a twisted ankle). I said hi to her family when I exited security. I told them she’d be there in about one minute. I told them what a wonderful daughter they had and how proud they should be. Her mom cried and said she wanted to hug me. So I hugged her. I then left before the missionary came out of security. The ritual of a family welcoming home a returning missionary is the ritual of a family welcoming home a returned missionary, and I didn’t belong there.

Thank you for sharing this story.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

11 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Yep every time. As new 12 year olds he would ask (worthiness interviews for deacon) if we did that and if we didn’t know what it was he would describe how it’s done… you know to explain what it was, then ask you again . Oh man it was wierd.

In fact later in life in a galaxy far far away I had another bishop that would do that . He was so into asking it, he outright accused the elders quorum in my ward of the same thing. He comes in one Sunday, interrupts the lesson and goes on a rant about his all the men in the ward are looking at porn and jerking off (his words). He said he better start seeing a line by his door so he can straighten out the priesthood in the ward. Some old dude stood up and gave him about three seconds to retract his accusation or he’d go down the hall and get the stake pres to jerk a knot in his tail… omg it was a mess. He retracted his statement and walked off. My wife told me on the way home that the bishop showed up in relief society and admonished the wives to turn their husbands in. I guess the assumption was the wives were letting them do it?? I dunno. Was one of the strangest things I’ve ever seen at church. 

I wonder if the some of the Church's bishops were in something of a "moral panic" for a while about this sort of thing, and if the institutional Church was not as good as it is now in providing training about how to handle such things.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

was never asked about any of these things.  Not once

Did you ever feel pressure to initiate such conversations or were you just a perfect child- as if anyone is.  
hard to believe anyone raised in the 70s or 80s wasn’t heavily shamed for all things sexual- or the flip side of the same coin, getting zero discussion from parents about sexuality, influenced by purity culture and fear. 
 

Im so so glad the church has changed its approach in the last 10 years or so.