Mississippi Bishop Resigns from the Pulpit

[california boy]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I do not discount your experience, but rather note that A) your experience was apparently not a ubiquitous one,

Thanks,

-Smac

How do you know this?  Do you have any data or a study to back up this statement?  

 

[Amulek]

45 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

it also validates the concept of Mormon friendships being an inch deep and a mile wide.

This isn't a "Mormon" thing though - it's a human thing. Nobody is besties with everyone they meet.

Outside of church, I don't hang out with a lot of the people from my ward (my wife does, but not me). But that's no different than any other circle I run in - be that friends from work, parents from my kid's sports teams, etc.

I'm friendly with a lot more people than I am friends with, and I'm friends with more people than I am close friends with, but I think that's how most people are.

 

Quote

Most are not really your friend and if you are not Mormon or they know you don’t believe… definitely not your friend. 

That hasn't been my experience. In fact, when I was a kid, the majority of my friends were not LDS: Catholic, Methodist, Assembly of God, Seventh Day Adventist, agnostic - never made any difference to me.

And my own kids are the same way. They do have friends from church, but most of their friends aren't members.

 

Quote

My old neighborhood growing up no one was Mormon and my parents were not friends with anyone other than to exchange pleasantries.

Maybe I'm way off base here, but isn't that how most neighbors are? They aren't necessarily the best-est of friends, but, you know, they're all just sort of...neighborly towards each other?

 

Quote

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. 

I'm sorry that's been your experience. We have a neighbor who happens to be a former member - was active when we moved into the neighborhood but left the church several years ago - and we get along just fine. In fact, we still have a key to their house for whenever one of their kids forgets theirs and gets locked out or when they go on vacation and need help dog-sitting. As with all things though, YMMV I suppose.

 

[MustardSeed]

Nobody in his ward has spoken to him since his speech? 
I mean, I haven’t spoken to anybody in my ward in about two weeks. Is that so weird?

Also, he made a clean break. It’s hard to know what sort of connection anybody wants when they’ve made a clean break from an organization that you have been a part of together. 
There’s a lot of criticism that I don’t think is necessary under the circumstances. Of course relationships aren’t always super deep at church. The only common you share up in times with your ward. Member is the fact that you are a ward member. If you’re no longer award member then we have nothing in common. It’s not that serious. 
 

If you and I are in a sewing club, and you stand up and you say I’m done with the sewing club, and you walk out, I’m gonna keep sewing. Not much more to it than that. 
 

I had a “friend” that left the church. We certainly didn’t have a deep relationship. It was a typical church occasional indirection friendship. But I did send her a private message, letting her know that I was aware that she had made some big changes in her life which included divorce and moving the church, and I told her that I supported her and loved her .  She never responded. I didn’t expect her to.
 

I mean, what do people want?

[smac97]

11 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

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 

First, I hope his ward can come around and resume some measure of friendship with the fellow.  Regardless of this guy's behavior, his ward members - and all of us - ought to be kind and loving and forgiving.  It may take some time to repair/resume/recreate at least some semblance of their former relationship.

Second, when a person leaves a community, particularly in a big splashy way, it's fairly common for some in the community to construe that as him wanting to . . . leave the community.  To cease or lessen or create some distance in the association/friendship.

Third, I wonder if some in the ward - particularly the adults - felt betrayed my his misappropriation of a sacred convocation.  I also wonder if some in his ward have followed his social media posts, seen his sweary rants about and ugly denigrations of their sacred beliefs, and drawn conclusions therefrom.  Much of his published-to-the-world commentary about the Church has been pretty far beyond the pale of basic civility and respect, and also pretty angry and venting, so perhaps they think that, for now, giving him some space is the best way to go. 

Fourth, imagine if if an ex-Muslim A) stood up during services in his local mosque and renounced his faith, B) thereafter published videos insulting and denigrating Muhammed and the Koran in fairly vile terms, calling Islam "garbage" and "a bottomless pit of hell" from which he has now escaped, and characterizing observant Muslims as being "brainwashed", and C) subsequently expressed confusion and disappointment that the members of his former mosque have "stopped interacting with him."  What happened?  Who knows?  It's a mystery!  Or . . . not.

Fifth, Bluebell put it well:

Quote

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.

And here:

Quote

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.

Sixth, in the last few years two of my relatives ("Nick" and "Adam") have gone through divorces.  As it happens, I had had more of an ongoing communicative friendship/association with their wives ("Connie" and "Terri") than with the Nick and Adam.  During the divorce proceedings, I had no communication with either Connie or Terri, as I felt that emotions were likely raw and running high, and that it would have been out of place for me to attempt interactions during this period. 

After the divorces were finalized, I reached out to Terri via text and we have been chatting occasionally ever since.  Although the circumstances of her divorce from Nick had been pretty bad, she had not said or done anything to vilify, or express contempt or disdain for, Nick's extended family.  So when I reached out, and she reciprocated, we renewed our friendship, though on fairly different terms than it was before.  Things are going fairly well.

In contrast, for some years I made no effort at all to reach out to Connie, as during the divorce she took a "scorched earth" / "pound of flesh" approach to both Adam and his extended family.  She said and did some pretty horrible things to and about both Adam and his extended family.  She went out of her way to do so.  However, I have recently reached out, fairly tentatively, to see how she is doing.  As noted above, repairing and resuming and recreating relationships can take some time.

I think the guy in Mississippi has been behaving much more like Connie than like Terri.  

Seventh, I have previously commented that "I hope he can let his anger pass, and allow for some sort of détente {that is, 'the easing of hostility or strained relations'} between him and the Church (and its leaders, and its members)."  I don't see this happening yet.  To the contrary, his recent TikTok posts indicate that things are getting worse between him and the Latter-day Saints.  The more "scorched earth" / "pound of flesh" things he does and says about us, the more damage and distance he is creating.  I wonder if his upcoming interview with Dehlin will only further entrench him in hard feelings, resentment, contempt for the Latter-day Saints, etc.  I hope not.  Détente would be better, but sadly, Dehlin's business model depends a lot on his interviews stirring up high emotion, drama, anger, etc., as this makes for more clicks and notoriety and money.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 17, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

6 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.

"Completely honest" does not mean publishing all information available to you.

6 hours ago, Joshua said:

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?

"When we learn the truth" being the operative - and questionable and debatable - wording here.

6 hours ago, Joshua said:

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.

Yes.

6 hours ago, Joshua said:

The bishop was sharing what he believed to be true with people he loved and respected.  

Which is not "the Gospel."

6 hours ago, Joshua said:

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.

There is no justification for his dishonest misappropriation of the Church's sacred convocation.

6 hours ago, Joshua said:

The church taught him to be courageous.

But not to be courageous in doing something wrong.

6 hours ago, Joshua said:

The church taught him to be brave.

But it did not teach him to be dishonest or disobedient.

6 hours ago, Joshua said:

Some men take that stuff seriously.

And some men take correct principles ("that stuff") and misapply it.  

6 hours ago, Joshua said:

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. 

Oh, come on.  If "his new found truth" involved a rejection of the existence of God, the divine sonship of Jesus Christ, the Plan of Salvation, the Restoration of the Gospel, the Book of Mormon, the prophetic calling and mantle of Joseph Smith, etc., would you seriously expect the Church to endorse him appropriating its sacred convocation to "share his ... truth" about such things?

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

almost as though she disappeared overnight. Weird, right?

Not at all imo, for what it's worth.

[Stormin' Mormon]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

This isn't a "Mormon" thing though - it's a human thing. Nobody is besties with everyone they meet.

Outside of church, I don't hang out with a lot of the people from my ward (my wife does, but not me). But that's no different than any other circle I run in - be that friends from work, parents from my kid's sports teams, etc.

I'm friendly with a lot more people than I am friends with, and I'm friends with more people than I am close friends with, but I think that's how most people are.

 

 

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

About a year and a half ago, I left an employer with whom I'd been for over a decade.  I loved the organization and I loved the people I worked with.  We were a small organization, around 50 people or so, and I knew every one of them by name.  But in the year and a half since I left, I have had to put forth an extreme effort to maintain friendships with the 5 or 6 of them that I felt closest too.  I've put way more effort into maintaining those 5 friendships than I have in maintaining any friendship in my current ward or stake. 

The 50 friendships I had there a year and a half ago used to be easy because we shared an employer in common, but after having removed that point of commonality, the effort needed to maintain just a few of those relationships has required monumental effort.   

 

Edited January 17, 2024 by Stormin' Mormon

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I've put way more effort into maintaining those 5 friendships than I have in maintaining any friendship in my current ward or stake. 

Makes some sense from a missionary perspective, plus imo you HAVE TO maintain a sense of diversity for its own sake. 

It enriches one's life.

 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

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. 

First, I think most friendships arise from a set of shared interests.  If and when those shared interests sufficiently fade, so does the friendship.  I had close friendships with neighbor kids when I was growing up.  Then I moved away and grew up.  I haven't seen or interacted with most of them in 30+ years.  In high school, I had many friends in marching band and debate (nerdy, I know), but at present I am only in communication with one of them, and that's because he is - like me - a practicing attorney.  I struck up good friendships when I was in the Army, but that was 30 years ago, so I only communicate rarely and with a few, and do so via email or social media.  The same goes for mission buddies and friends from college and law school, and former co-workers.  The "shared interests" dissolve, and the friendship fades.  C'est la vie.

Second, there is nothing wrong with the above.  We are all pretty busy and mobile, and so have less time to spend with friends.  We also are communicative with far more people than we can actually have enduring friendships with.

Third, you seem to disparage casual or passing "friendships."  I think that's a mistake, as most friendships fall into this category.  Those that endure do so by the perpetuation of shared interests.  If those interests dissipate, even strong friendships can fade.

2 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

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.

This seems like sort of a mixed message.  Do you want to interact with Latter-day Saints, or not?

If you are "PIMO" and irritated at the Latter-day Saints qua Latter-day Saints (which I construe from your comments about you feeling like "a ward project," you being irritated by missionaries "stop{ping} by all the time," etc.), might they not be picking up on those signals, and responding in ways that you seem to be wanting - that is - to be left alone?

2 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

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. 

Alas, the Latter-day Saints can improve in this.  As can their neighbors.

2 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

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. 

On the one hand:

• "Ward project."
• "{The missionaries} will be getting an education pretty soon if {their pattern of visiting me} doesn’t stop."

On the other hand

• "You largely get ignored."
• "I was pretty much toxic."
• "I was ... not worth their time."
• "{My bishop} has pretty much stopped communicating with me."

Quite a bit of mixed messaging here.  Do you want to have some association with your Latter-day Saint neighbors, or not?  It looks like you damning if they do, damning them if they don't.  Am I wrong in this assessment?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

Did you ever feel pressure to initiate such conversations or were you just a perfect child- as if anyone is.  

Neither.

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

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. 

I don't know what you mean by "shamed for all things sexual."

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

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

Same here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[webbles]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

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. 

I guess I was lucky, then.  My bishop during my early teenager years was my dad.  The number of times he asked me about these things (in either fatherly discussions or bishop interviews) was 0.  After we got a new bishop, the number of times was 1 and that was initiated by me (because he was the only person I felt comfortable asking, not because I felt like I needed to repent).

I know there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that bishops asked these things, but do we have any studies done on how widespread it was?  Did girls receive more questions or did boys?  Was it maybe different areas because of the area presidency focuses.  Was it mostly in Utah?  Or US?  Or globally?

[smac97]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Quote

I do not discount your experience, but rather note that A) your experience was apparently not a ubiquitous one,

How do you know this?  Do you have any data or a study to back up this statement?  

Because I did not share your experience.  

Do you have "have any data or a study" to show that your experience was "a ubiquitous one"?

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

I didn't see your previous post with these other tiktok videos.  After watching those, I am starting to agree with you more.   I gave him the benefit of the doubt from the two videos, but with these tiktok videos, I don't think there is any good excuse for him anymore and this makes his encouragement to not denigrate Mormons and their beliefs ring rather hollow. 

It seems pretty clear that he is angry and feels duped.  It is clear now that he sees members as victims that he wants to help.  

[california boy]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Because I did not share your experience.  

Do you have "have any data or a study" to show that your experience was "a ubiquitous one"?

Thanks,

-Smac

I am not the one that claimed my experience was a ubiquitous one.  That was YOU.

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Not at all imo, for what it's worth.

I completely agree. Which is why I think it's really weird* when I see someone try to characterize the one who did the leaving as, instead, being left by those he abandoned.

*Narcissistic probably fits here.

 

[Stargazer]

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Very weird. Having just had my TR renewed, the questions seem to have been refined/expanded, but the only question in there concerning past sins was one that has been in there for as long as I can remember. And that is: "Are there serious sins in your life that need to be resolved with priesthood authorities as part of your repentance?" The presumption here is that if there are any serious sins in your life that have been resolved, the answer to the question is "No," and that's that. And if the answer is "Yes," then that's the end of the interview with no TR granted until the bishop (or if appropriate) the stake president has signed off on everything being resolved.

The instructions for conducting the interview states:

Quote

 

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.

 

My understanding has always been that the interviewer is not supposed to go haring off with his own preferred questions. And the answers are pretty much "Yes" or "No." If the stake president was, however, asking his bishops to dig into past, presumably resolved, problems, then that's not at all appropriate.

[Stargazer]

18 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

It was EFY. 
longest week of my life

Perfectly understandable for a non-believer.

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

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

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

Everyone who gets judgemental towards members when they express negative emotions and/or messy reactions to family, friends, and ex-compatriots who leave the church and say horrible things about it and the members publicly.  

Quote

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?

I've seen the rants, and--to my point--i've seen the ex-member reactions to them.  They are a good example of what I'm talking about. 

Those who have left want to be able to rant about members on occasion (and even have put in effort to explain why those rants are justified) but they are not as amenable to providing members room to rant about those who leave.  One is morally acceptable and one isn't.

Quote

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.  

Sorry if I wasn't clear.  I'm not talking about being stopped from feeling or saying something (because that would make no sense in the context of our discussion). 

I'm talking about people who won't allow it without saying it means we are insincere people who are unloving, unfriendly judgemental jerks (I believe Diamondhands put it as "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" to the accusation that no one in this bishop's ward has reached out to be friendly towards him after he told them he was done with the "mormon programming").

Quote

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.

Not allowed to express them without condemnation, while ex-members want to be able to express similar things (like you did in your post above) without being condemned for the honest and raw emotions.

[Stargazer]

18 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.

Yes, me too. It reminded me that my lackadaisical attitude towards scripture study, prayer, and suchlike could lead to damage to my relationship with God.

As for "playing at church," I took that as referring to those who attend due to sociality alone, those who accept callings but do not "do" them, and those attend church on Sunday, but the rest of the week act like Gentiles. 

But all in all, I still hope that those who "play at church" continue to attend. And perhaps something will wake them up and make them want to make a difference.

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Yes, me too. It reminded me that my lackadaisical attitude towards scripture study, prayer, and suchlike could lead to damage to my relationship with God.

As for "playing at church," I took that as referring to those who attend due to sociality alone, those who accept callings but do not "do" them, and those attend church on Sunday, but the rest of the week act like Gentiles. 

But all in all, I still hope that those who "play at church" continue to attend. And perhaps something will wake them up and make them want to make a difference.

The "playing at church" comment was made by Brad Wilcox in a fireside, and he was talking about members of other Christian denominations (not latter-day saints).  He described them as “playing church” like the way that children play house.  It was a pretty horrible thing to say.

[Stargazer]

5 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

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. 

You know, you're really good with making sweeping generalizations, as long as they are negative.

I'm quite asocial. I haven't had a ministering visit in my home in years, and I'm happy with that. If I want my minister to know what's going on, I'll tell him. Of course, he's sees me every Sunday anyway, so maybe that's enough. Nobody in my ward is my close friend, though I'm friendly with everyone. That's because I'm a closet recluse, and that characteristic has nothing to do with my religious faith. On the other hand, my wife has close friends everywhere. Members, non-members, doesn't matter. When our cross-the-street non-member neighbor finally became a widow after years of her husband's cancer, for at time my wife was over there at least weekly trying to cheer her up. They're going together on a three-day trip to Lisbon in a couple of weeks. My wife has former work colleagues (she's retired), none of whom are LDS, whom she still socializes with, and cares about. It's because she seems to love everyone. 

In every LDS ward, in every Catholic parish, in every atheist meeting of Mensa you will find them. People who are friendly, but not deeply so, and people who are friendly, and deeply so. I have both in my own household. I see this everywhere. And there's every variation in between.

So stop pretending it only happens among those terrible Mormons.

I should clarify: I do genuinely care about people, and I help when I can. I'm just not very sociable.

 

[Stargazer]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The "playing at church" comment was made by Brad Wilcox in a fireside, and he was talking about members of other Christian denominations (not latter-day saints).  He described them as “playing church” like the way that children play house.  It was a pretty horrible thing to say.

Yes, I agree.

I agree it's a horrible thing to say, and he shouldn't have said it that way. But I do see where he's coming from. 

Have you heard of the Cargo Cults of the south Pacific? Here's an extract from Wikipedia, about the development, beliefs, and practices of participants after WW2:

Quote

With the end of the war, the military abandoned the airbases and stopped dropping cargo. In response, charismatic individuals developed cults among remote Melanesian populations that promised to bestow on their followers deliveries of food, arms, Jeeps, etc. The cult leaders explained that the cargo would be gifts from their own ancestors, or other sources, as had occurred with the outsider armies.

In attempts to get cargo to fall by parachute or land in planes or ships again, islanders imitated the same practices they had seen the military personnel use. Cult behaviors usually involved mimicking the day-to-day activities and dress styles of US soldiers, such as performing parade ground drills with wooden or salvaged rifles. The islanders carved headphones from wood and wore them while sitting in fabricated control towers. They waved the landing signals while standing on the runways. They lit signal fires and torches to light up runways and lighthouses.

In a form of sympathetic magic, many built life-size replicas of airplanes out of straw and cut new military-style landing strips out of the jungle, hoping to attract more airplanes. The cult members thought that the foreigners had some special connection to the deities and ancestors of the natives, who were the only beings powerful enough to produce such riches.

Cargo cults were typically created by individual leaders, or big men in the Melanesian culture, and it is not at all clear if these leaders were sincere, or were simply running scams on gullible populations. The leaders typically held cult rituals well away from established towns and colonial authorities, thus making reliable information about these practices very difficult to acquire.

The people in these cargo cults are attempting to attract wealth by means that cannot attract wealth. Despite all their efforts, they cannot gain what they seek by these methods. They are "playing at attracting wealth."

So, In the certainty that divine authority in salvific ordinances (e.g. baptism) is only available in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Br. Wilcox was of course correct that their baptisms are not recognized by God, even if their intentions are pure.

Jesus said as much when he said "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." Those who don't do the will of Father in Heaven, even if they go through the outward motions is, therefore, playing at church. 

And of course, they tell us all the time that that's what WE are doing. 

Br. Wilcox should not have said it that way. Even if he is correct in essence. And he's somewhat famous for making controversial claims and statements. Perhaps he needs to be vetted for offensive sentiments before he writes and/or speaks in public.

[Craig Speechly]

This is a sad story.  This Bishop served for nearly 2.5 years as a faithful bishop.  He was faced with a double-bind.  Serve the church's aims  or serve his conscience.  He went with his conscience.  He was faced with a moral dilemma and decided that he could not compromise his moral compass. 

Now despite his years of service to his ward family, he is now being shunned by that same ward family.  Instead of reaching out to support him and his family in their time of need, he's getting Crickets.   Sad indeed.

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

This is a sad story.  This Bishop served for nearly 2.5 years as a faithful bishop.  He was faced with a double-bind.  Serve the church's aims  or serve his conscience.  He went with his conscience.  He was faced with a moral dilemma and decided that he could not compromise his moral compass. 

Now despite his years of service to his ward family, he is now being shunned by that same ward family.  Instead of reaching out to support him and his family in their time of need, he's getting Crickets.   Sad indeed.

Have you watched the TikTok’s and heard the things he’s saying about members?

[Stormin' Mormon]

18 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

Instead of reaching out to support him and his family in their time of need, he's getting Crickets.   Sad indeed.

Would it be more sad if the community he was trying to withdraw from didn't respect his wishes to withdraw and instead continued to pester him?