Mississippi Bishop Resigns from the Pulpit

[Amulek]

15 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

here we have neighborhood parties, fire pits in the driveway etc all the time. First people invited everyone in the street but as soon as a beer came out the Mormons walked away. Got invited again and the Mormons?? They didn’t show up. Now it’s just the heathens who get together and they do bbq, horseshoes bring their kids etc. no Mormons though cuz there’s beer drinking. 

Look, I'm no prude. I go to happy hour with my work friends - even though I think most bar food stinks - but I probably wouldn't take my own kids to a block party where alcohol is being consumed.

If we were at a restaurant, sporting event, or someplace where the people controlling the alcohol have a liquor license on the line then sure - that would be fine. But a neighborhood party where people are casually drinking and alcohol may be accessible to minors is probably one that I would take a pass on as well. Sorry, not sorry.

 

[Teancum]

On 1/16/2024 at 11:19 AM, pogi said:

wasmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/mississippi_ward_bishop_resigns_from_the_pulpit.mp4

This video seems to be making its rounds.  I haven't researched it much but was wondering if anyone here has information about the guy.  I heard that he was an MMA fighter, interestingly.  He mentioned that he is resigning because of things he is being "required to do" that he "can't morally stand by".   Anyone know what he is talking about?   I am also curious to know if he is just resigning his position as a bishop or if he is leaving the church all together. 

It sounds like he has received a lot of support from the exmo reddit community, and he made a follow up thank you video for them the next day.  

Mormon Bishop Resigns at Pulpit in Mississippi Sacrament Meeting - wasmormon.org

A bit from the follow up video gives a little more info: 

Any thoughts on any of this?

 

All I know is he made the video and I have heard he and his family may be resigning but not sure. Dehlin is trying to line him up for an interview.

[Teancum]

On 1/16/2024 at 2:00 PM, pogi said:

Yes, support from the exmo community is a given, I was more commenting that it was good that he was receiving support from some in his ward as well, despite that many might feel betrayed by him.   He mentioned that he is anxious that his kids might lose friends over this.  Those social tribalistic alliances can be pretty sensitive things to deal with.   He will learn who his real friends are through this. 

From my experience, he will lose friends unless he makes the effort to keep them.  And does not bring things up that may challenge their beliefs.  As a former bishop who left very quietly I was surprised how few seemed to really care about it. I still have LDS friends but they are those I was either extremely close to and shared some of my faith journey with along the way, or ones I have made an effort to stay in touch with.  And the latter, I initiate any contact.  They don't.  

[smac97]

On 1/16/2024 at 3:40 PM, smac97 said:

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

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

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

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

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

In yet another TikTok video, he purportedly quotes from George Orwell's 1984: "They fear love because it creates a world they cannot control."  He does not specifically reference the Church in relation to this quote, so I'm not sure what he means by "they."  Also, I did not recall this quote, so I checked the online text of the book and it does not appear to be in there.  A Google search shows that it is heavily quoted on TikTok and other social media platforms, almost always attributed to Orwell, but there are only a few dozen such citations, most fairly recent.

In any event, he goes on to say that this ("love") is "the answer to a lot of our problems."  He also references one of his previous videos (the "angry and sweary" one referenced above) and says he was "in the bathtub and acting like a jack**s," and also states: "Just so you know, I may have eaten a few edibles before I did that video."

He then goes on something of a meander, talking about how he had a bad day and laid around all day "playing the victim card," that he's "going through ... hell," but that good days will come, that people should fix things in their lives, take responsibility, "become and adult rather than an agent child," "be an adult, tell the truth, be honest, true, chaste, benevolent, be virtuous," that we need "justice and compassion, instead of judgment and pity," that he has "haters," but "it is what it is," that he loves people, that he "doesn't care if you're a devil and do terrible, terrible things," but that he's "got a bone to pick ... with those kinds of things," but even these "devils" have "an opportunity to be loved, it just may not be by me."

These vids are not exactly a model of clarity.  Again, I hope he can let his anger pass {and that he abstains from "edibles" before making and posting videos on social media}, and allow for some sort of détente between him and the Church (and its leaders, and its members).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 18, 2024 by smac97

[Tacenda]

24 minutes ago, Teancum said:

All I know is he made the video and I have heard he and his family may be resigning but not sure. Dehlin is trying to line him up for an interview.

Oh please no, anyone but him. That's harsh, hope he isn't following this. It's just the podcasts are too long and he asks too many questions or thinks he has to. Just let the guest speak.

Edited January 18, 2024 by Tacenda

[Teancum]

On 1/16/2024 at 2:31 PM, smac97 said:

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

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

While that is not my style-I left quietly and really am still pretty quiet about it, it is really not your place or mine to tell someone how they should handle their departure.  Your opinion is fine, but no there is no should or should not here.  That decision is up to the individual.  Not you.  Not me.

 

On 1/16/2024 at 2:31 PM, smac97 said:

 

There are segments of society who seem to want to publicize/advertise private/personal matters that previously were kept private.  For some who leave the Church, they want to do so with a bang.  I had one friend who did this by posting a long explanatory FB post.  She later said that she did so with the hope of persuading her extended family and relatives (she comes from a large family) to follow her out of the Church.  My understanding is that she later regretted doing this and deleted the post.  I think part of the regret arose because she had succeeded in influencing some of her younger relatives, and she felt that this amounted to her interfering with how the parents of these youth were trying to guide their children.

I think this fellow from Mississippi may end up having similar regrets, for similar reasons.

Thanks,

-Smac

He may or may not have regrets about how he left.  But you really are simply projecting.

[Diamondhands69]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

Look, I'm no prude. I go to happy hour with my work friends - even though I think most bar food stinks - but I probably wouldn't take my own kids to a block party where alcohol is being consumed.

If we were at a restaurant, sporting event, or someplace where the people controlling the alcohol have a liquor license on the line then sure - that would be fine. But a neighborhood party where people are casually drinking and alcohol may be accessible to minors is probably one that I would take a pass on as well. Sorry, not sorry.

 

No need to be sorry.. oddly enough in my own experience the only fights (or really stupid drunk people)  have seen in neighborhood parties vs ballgames have 100% been at the games. Liquor license didn’t prevent anything. They can serve you till you can’t hold your liquor. Just last sat eve my family was at a sports bar watching the game and there was a 60 yr old lady stumbling around everywhere drunk off her butt. A license doesn’t prevent anything, just allows the seller to be held accountable for a few things… esp taxes

Edited January 18, 2024 by Diamondhands69
Typos

[rodheadlee]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

And maybe the last thing some members want is to show up to a party and have to deal with the consequences of people drinking.  You are giving a pass to personal biases against missionaries without a thought it seems while coming down hard on members who don’t want to get ambushed by drinking.

one of the worst things in the world is being sober around a bunch of drunks.

PS I have had a lot of experience at it

Edited January 18, 2024 by rodheadlee

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

From my experience, he will lose friends unless he makes the effort to keep them. 

Yep.  That's the natural and foreseeable result when the shared interests/circumstances that gave rise to the friendship are weakened or eliminated.

As I mentioned previously, I have two relatives who have in recent years been divorced.  I am currently attempting to re-build communications and friendships with their former spouses.  These exes are, in some substantial ways, no longer "family," they having chosen to divorce my relatives.  But they were, and they have children who still are, so I feel it is worth "the effort to keep" some semblance of a relationship with them.  It will not be as it was before, but it can be something.

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And does not bring things up that may challenge their beliefs.

Well, yes.  Offering to a friend uninvited critiques and slanders of his (the friend's) religious beliefs is generally not what civilized and polite people do, let alone something that "friends" do.

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

As a former bishop who left very quietly I was surprised how few seemed to really care about it.

Could you clarify what you mean by "it"?  I assume you are referencing your severing yourself from the community of faith of the Latter-day Saints.  Would that be accurate?

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I still have LDS friends but they are those I was either extremely close to and shared some of my faith journey with along the way, or ones I have made an effort to stay in touch with.  And the latter, I initiate any contact.  They don't.  

I think a lot of Latter-day Saints are not sure how to interact with those who leave the faith and are angry about it, for a few reasons.

First, the person has left the community.  This often lessens the "shared interests" upon which friendships are typically based.

Second, observant Latter-day Saints value, even cherish, their religious convictions, and so may be less inclined to associate with someone who holds those convictions in contempt, or speaks against them, or is angered by them.  I have a friend who left the Church some years ago.  He was previously very devoted to it, but thereafter had become very angry about it (he said some pretty terrible things on social media).  I called him and took him to lunch and, after a while, the topic of the Church came up.  After I signaled that I would like to listen to what he had to say, he unloaded in a big way.  Lots of venting, condemnation, even hatred.  He concluded with declaring that anyone who stays in the Church must be either profoundly ignorant (of its doctrines, history, etc.) or profoundly dishonest.  I had, of course, invited him to share his thoughts, and he did.  But it's had an impact still.  Kind of hard to avoid that.  I greatly value the things that define me as a Latter-day Saint, and he hates many of those things.

Third, I think Latter-day Saints sometimes (often?) feel like we are in a damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don't scenario in interacting with those who have left our community of faith (on bad terms, with hard feelings, etc.).  If we reach out to a neighbor, he may feel like a "ward project."  If we avoid him out of deference to his feelings (or out of concern of causing offense), he may feel "ignored" or "shunned."  And if we do nothing ('cuz we're all pretty busy these days), he may feel "ignored" or "shunned" that way, too (even though I, as a Latter-day Saint, don't have much time to hang out with my own family, let alone ward members, or former ward members).

Fourth, there can be judgmentalism, informal "shunning" (by individuals, not the ward or the Church), and other improper reactions to and treatment of those who leave our faith.  This is wrong.  We need to work to avoid these things.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

On 1/16/2024 at 3:22 PM, smac97 said:

I think he has given more than enough reason to not trust him to, in private venues, treat Latter-day Saints and their faith with respect.  I say this because of what he has said publicly about those people and their beliefs.  And he did so deliberately.  Specifically. 

If he's willing to publicly denigrate the Latter-day Saints as "brainwashed" (and impliedly dishonest if they disagree with that characterization of them and their faith), it seems reasonable to be concerned about what he would say about the Saints and their beliefs privately, behind closed doors.

Sorry but your reaction is the typical knee jerk persecution complex approach.  There is a lot I may say about the church in this forum, to friends or family that I would not say to my LDS friends nor say to their kids.  It was unwise for him to publically make the brainwashing remark but I don't think it reflects on what he may say to and LDS person's children.  Good lord.🙄

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Quote

All I know is he made the video and I have heard he and his family may be resigning but not sure. Dehlin is trying to line him up for an interview.

Oh please no, anyone but him. That's harsh, hope he isn't following this.

He said in a TikTok "comment" that the interview with Dehlin has been lined up for early February.

27 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

It's just the podcasts are too long and he asks too many questions or thinks he has to. Just let the guest speak.

I sure wish Dehlin was a better interviewer.  As much as I find his "platform" problematic, he nevertheless has it. I wish he would make good use of it.  Instead, we get hours and hours of unfocused, meandering content that is a chore and a slog to get through.  I just don't have the patience for it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

On 1/16/2024 at 3:28 PM, smac97 said:

Yes.  In speaking at the pulpit as a bishop, he is speaking as an agent and representative of the Church, not in his personal/individual capacity.  If he wanted to be released, someone from the Stake Presidency would and should have done it.  Instead, he took the "public spectacle" route and misappropriated the pulpit of the Church, during a sacred convocation of the Church, to do and say things that the Church would not want him to do.

Well guess what?  As the still bishop at the time he had the authority to control the pulpit. and he did so.  Good for him! 

My faith started unraveling while I was a bishop. I asked the stake president to release me but he felt that was not the best path and ultimately I agreed.  I am glad I finished out my time as bishop. I was not sure where I was headed and how things would turn out.  I lived serving and enjoyed even the last two years of my time.  But had the decision come been to be released before the normal time span I would have taken some steps to publically clarify WHY I was being released. No way I would have let the narrative run wild.  And this because I am pretty sure where that narrative would have headed.  I would have protected my reputation.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Quote

 

I think he has given more than enough reason to not trust him to, in private venues, treat Latter-day Saints and their faith with respect.  I say this because of what he has said publicly about those people and their beliefs.  And he did so deliberately.  Specifically. 

If he's willing to publicly denigrate the Latter-day Saints as "brainwashed" (and impliedly dishonest if they disagree with that characterization of them and their faith), it seems reasonable to be concerned about what he would say about the Saints and their beliefs privately, behind closed doors.

 

Sorry but

"Sorry but..."  In the South, the phrase used here is typically "bless your heart."  

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

your reaction is the typical knee jerk persecution complex approach. 

My reaction was neither "knee jerk" nor a "persecution complex."

It was not "knee jerk" because I took the time to watch and assess his videos.  Pretty much all of them.  And then I formulated a position and articulated it.  The idiom "a knee jerk reaction" means:

Quote

You experience a knee jerk when your doctor taps your knee with a rubber mallet and your leg automatically kicks out. The idiom "a knee jerk reaction" means that you respond to something in an equally unthinking way.

I did not do that.  My response was not "unthinking."

My reaction was also not a "persecution complex."  See here:

Quote

Persecution complex is an irrational belief that other people are trying to harm or conspire against them. It is associated with delusional beliefs and behaviors.

My reaction was not "irrational," as I was responding to actual statements from this guy, and I did so using evidence and reasoning, not emotionalisms/insults.

My reaction was not a matter of "belief," because I did not imagine or fabricate his TikTok and other videos and commentary about my faith.

My reaction did not include a claim that his guy is "trying to harm or conspire against" my faith.  He said some nasty things, that's all.  Nothing new about that.  You do this all the time, and I respond to you as well.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

There is a lot I may say about the church in this forum, to friends or family that I would not say to my LDS friends nor say to their kids.

There are some good and bad things about that, I suppose.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

It was unwise for him to publicly make the brainwashing remark

I sense a "but" coming.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

but

And there it is!  

He also implicitly suggested that Latter-day Saints who reject the accusation of being "brainwashed" are dishonest.

He also called our faith "garbage" and "a bottomless pit of hell."  Was it "unwise" for him to "publicly" say these things too?

For that matter, why is anything that he is saying about us publicly "unwise" in your view?  I'm genuinely curious.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I don't think it reflects on what he may say to and LDS person's children.

Why not?  He'll say these terrible things about us publicly to the entire world, but will definitely keep a civil tongue about us when he's speaking in the privacy of his own home?  How does that work?

And he just recently admitted that he posted one of his sweary/ranty videos while hopped up on "edibles."  And yet the video is still posted and available to the public.  So is it unreasonable to be concerned about him getting hopped up on edibles again, and saying something nasty about the Latter-day Saints in front of them and/or their children?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 18, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Yes.  In speaking at the pulpit as a bishop, he is speaking as an agent and representative of the Church, not in his personal/individual capacity.  If he wanted to be released, someone from the Stake Presidency would and should have done it.  Instead, he took the "public spectacle" route and misappropriated the pulpit of the Church, during a sacred convocation of the Church, to do and say things that the Church would not want him to do.

Well guess what?  As the still bishop at the time he had the authority to control the pulpit. and he did so. 

No, he did not.  There is a concept in the law called "ultra vires."  Latin for "outside/beyond the powers."  More:

Quote

Ultra vires ('beyond the powers') is a Latin phrase used in law to describe an act which requires legal authority but is done without it. Its opposite, an act done under proper authority, is intra vires ('within the powers'). Acts that are intra vires may equivalently be termed "valid", and those that are ultra vires termed "invalid".

Legal issues relating to ultra vires can arise in a variety of contexts:

• Companies and other legal persons sometimes have limited legal capacity to act, and attempts to engage in activities beyond their legal capacities may be ultra vires.^[3] Most countries have restricted the doctrine of ultra vires in relation to companies by statute.
• Similarly, statutory and governmental bodies may have limits upon the acts and activities which they legally engage in.^[4]
• Subordinate legislation which is purported passed without the proper legal authority may be invalid as beyond the powers of the authority which issued it.

"Acts ... that are ultra vires {are} termed 'invalid.'"

A bishop who uses his "control" of "the pulpit" to, say, advocate for a particular political candidate, or to divulge confidential communications shared with him, or to encourage the members of his ward to violate the teachings of the Church or the laws of the land, is acting ultra vires.

So too is a bishop acting ultra vires who uses subterfuge and deceit to misappropriate "the pulpit" as this fellow did.

31 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Good for him! 

Let's say that a neighbor asks you to use your back yard for a birthday party to which the neighborhood is invited, and you agree.  But the "party" turns out to be a pitch meeting for the neighbors to sign up with an MLM (which you dislike), or else an announcement that he is running for political office (on a platform you find objectionable), or some other definitely-not-a-birthday-party kind of event.  

Would you respond with "Good for him!"?

31 minutes ago, Teancum said:

My faith started unraveling while I was a bishop.

I am sorry to hear that.  My faith was certainly tested during my nickel.  But at no point did I betray the trust of the Church and violate my responsibilities as its agent and representative and fiduciary.  This guy in Mississippi, sadly, did do that.

31 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I asked the stake president to release me but he felt that was not the best path and ultimately I agreed.  I am glad I finished out my time as bishop. I was not sure where I was headed and how things would turn out.  I lived serving and enjoyed even the last two years of my time.  But had the decision come been to be released before the normal time span I would have taken some steps to publically clarify WHY I was being released. No way I would have let the narrative run wild. 

And you have every right to do that, but not when acting in an agency capacity on behalf of the Church, or when in the Church's facilities during the Church's sacred convocation.

31 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And this because I am pretty sure where that narrative would have headed.  I would have protected my reputation.

I have no objection to that.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 18, 2024 by smac97

[Teancum]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yep.  That's the natural and foreseeable result when the shared interests/circumstances that gave rise to the friendship are weakened or eliminated.

Sure.  But it also demonstrates that the friendship may have been shallow in the first place.  

 

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

Well, yes.  Offering to a friend uninvited critiques and slanders of his (the friend's) religious beliefs is generally not what civilized and polite people do, let alone something that "friends" do.

Yes.  That is why I don't do such things. On the other hand, my friends that I associate with that are still active LDS seem to have no reluctance to try to persuade me that I am on the wrong path and they "pray for  me" or make sure my they "put my name on the temple prayer role" or "wish they could do something to help me."  One ling time friend that had some influence in my wife's conversion sent an unsolicited email to her admonishing her to remember how she felt when she joined the church and so on.  So while Latter day Saints may expect boundaries like you mention above, often they don't respect them. Works both ways really.

 

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Could you clarify what you mean by "it"?  I assume you are referencing your severing yourself from the community of faith of the Latter-day Saints.  Would that be accurate?

It meaning they did not seem to care I had left the community of saints. That I was now inactive.  Nobody, and I mean nobody, from my ward reached out for quite sometime. One fellow finally did, after maybe a year. He invited me to lunch.  He said he though it awful that my home teacher, or whatever they call it now, did not reach out. That my priesthood leaders did not reach out.  Then maybe six months later, the bishop (who was the third bishop after I was released) who had been my home teacher for a lot of years, asked to stop by and we had a nice chat.  He asked if we were open to contact and I said sure and noted that I had never asked not to be contacted.  It seemed rather strange to me. I was a rather prominent member of the ward and stake and fairly well known.

 

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think a lot of Latter-day Saints are not sure how to interact with those who leave the faith and are angry about it, for a few reasons.

First, the person has left the community.  This often lessens the "shared interests" upon which friendships are typically based.

Second, observant Latter-day Saints value, even cherish, their religious convictions, and so may be less inclined to associate with someone who holds those convictions in contempt, or speaks against them, or is angered by them.  I have a friend who left the Church some years ago.  He was previously very devoted to it, but thereafter had become very angry about it (he said some pretty terrible things on social media).  I called him and took him to lunch and, after a while, the topic of the Church came up.  After I signaled that I would like to listen to what he had to say, he unloaded in a big way.  Lots of venting, condemnation, even hatred.  He concluded with declaring that anyone who stays in the Church must be either profoundly ignorant (of its doctrines, history, etc.) or profoundly dishonest.  I had, of course, invited him to share his thoughts, and he did.  But it's had an impact still.  Kind of hard to avoid that.  I greatly value the things that define me as a Latter-day Saint, and he hates many of those things.

Third, I think Latter-day Saints sometimes (often?) feel like we are in a damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don't scenario in interacting with those who have left our community of faith (on bad terms, with hard feelings, etc.).  If we reach out to a neighbor, he may feel like a "ward project."  If we avoid him out of deference to his feelings (or out of concern of causing offense), he may feel "ignored" or "shunned."  And if we do nothing ('cuz we're all pretty busy these days), he may feel "ignored" or "shunned" that way, too (even though I, as a Latter-day Saint, don't have much time to hang out with my own family, let alone ward members, or former ward members).

Fourth, there can be judgmentalism, informal "shunning" (by individuals, not the ward or the Church), and other improper reactions to and treatment of those who leave our faith.  This is wrong.  We need to work to avoid these things.

Thanks,

-Smac

I understand all the things you outline above and understand them as valid.  I was wondering if I would be treated as a project and in the early days of inactivity really was happy with little to no contact. But as time went on it did make me sad some.  Course I could have reached out as well.  But in spite of what you outline above, it all seems to fly in the face of what the gospel teaches about the lost sheep does it not?

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

While that is not my style-I left quietly and really am still pretty quiet about it, it is really not your place or mine to tell someone how they should handle their departure. 

When the "departure" involves him deceitfully misappropriating the Church's property and sacred convocation, I think it is okay to disagree with that.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Your opinion is fine, but no there is no should or should not here.

I think there is.  

Let's say that a neighbor asks you to use your back yard for a birthday party to which the neighborhood is invited, and you agree.  But the "party" turns out to be a pitch meeting for the neighbors to sign up with an MLM (which you dislike), or else an announcement that he is running for political office (on a platform you find objectionable), or some other definitely-not-a-birthday-party kind of event.  

If your wife were to object to the neighbor's behavior, would you respond with "Hey, your opinion is fine, but there is no 'should or should not' about him using our property under false pretenses"?

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

That decision is up to the individual.  Not you.  Not me.

Not when "that decision" involves the deceitful misappropriation of the Church's property and sacred convocation.  The decision wS the Church's.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

He may or may not have regrets about how he left.  But you really are simply projecting.

Your use of pop psychology terminology isn't working well here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 19, 2024 by smac97

[Teancum]

On 1/16/2024 at 5:40 PM, smac97 said:

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

Ok now he is stepping over the edge. And from the bathtub?  What the heck? 

[smac97]

44 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I understand all the things you outline above and understand them as valid.  I was wondering if I would be treated as a project and in the early days of inactivity really was happy with little to no contact. But as time went on it did make me sad some.  Course I could have reached out as well.  But in spite of what you outline above, it all seems to fly in the face of what the gospel teaches about the lost sheep does it not?

There are plenty of narratives published where a former Latter-day Saint complains about members of his (former) faith community doing things that, by most reasonable standards, should be construed as attempts - whether adroit or clumsy - to reach out to "the lost sheep."

Do you see yourself as a "lost sheep?"  It seems like plenty of former Latter-day Saints do not see themselves in this way, and so end up resenting efforts by Latter-day Saints to "reach out" to them in that sense.

As I noted previously: I am currently attempting to re-build communications and friendships with the former spouses of two of my relatives.  These exes are, in some substantial ways, no longer "family," they having chosen to divorce my relatives.  But they were, and they have children who still are, so I feel it is worth "the effort to keep" some semblance of a relationship with them.  It will not be as it was before, but it can be something.

Perhaps both sides of the "Mo" and "ExMo" environment, having lost the central "shared interest" that created the friendship/association in the first place, can look for some alternative basis (though the ExMo being obviously/awkwardly approached a "lost sheep" can create difficulties).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 18, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

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

Ok now he is stepping over the edge. And from the bathtub?  What the heck? 

High emotion and "edibles" can combine to make people say and do stupid (or, to use a more diplomatic turn of phrase, "unwise") things.

However, he not thought these things, he recorded himself verbalizing them, and then he posted the video online for the entire world, and he is presently keeping it up, not taking it down nor retracting anything he said in it.  Consequently, it's kind of hard to disregard it as a "I didn't mean it, I was drunk/stoned" kind of thing.  Unless he's been hopped up on "edibles" nonstop since he posted this vid, it seems that he does mean what he is saying in it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 18, 2024 by smac97

[Teancum]

On 1/16/2024 at 6:17 PM, smac97 said:

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

Thanks,

-Smac

Depends how the parents approach it.  I for one was happy that my kids were all out of the home except the last one when I went through my faith transition. My youngest was late teens to early adulthood.  We talked through a lot of this at the time.  Also another reason I went slow, and even for my adult kids I did so. And did not go out public and make loud noise about it.

[Stargazer]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

I just had a taste of wine a month ago as we were cooking with it and it tastes way too much like vinegar to be enjoyable tastewise

Ah, you must not have been using the good stuff. Also, wine made specifically for cooking is definitely not drinking quality. 

When I was a kid, before I joined the church I became somewhat familiar with alcoholic drinks because with my parents being social drinkers we had beer, wine, and various spirits available pretty much at all times. With this stuff being available, I tried it all privately. Generally, American beer is crap and it stinks. And the breath of people who have drunken it stinks even worse -- and then they start acting like idiots. That's the only kind of beer we had in the house. I understand that Guinness isn't so bad. The hard stuff (vodka, whiskey, etc) is variable. Vodka has a kind of clean taste -- somewhat like weakened Everclear, but it doesn't leave your mouth feeling like the Sahara desert (oh, yes, I tried Everclear once, ouch!). Jim Beam is definitely an acquired taste that I didn't want to acquire. A liqueur like Cointreau is very nice. But I liked Burgundy wine best. It didn't taste at all like vinegar. My mom taught me once how to make a drink she called "salty dog," which was grapefruit juice with vodka and some salt. She taught me this so I could make it for her if she needed a "pickup" and was too tired to do it for herself. This didn't happen all that often. I tried it once, and rather liked it, since I like grapefruit or lemon juice with salt in it. The vodka added a touch of interest.

I know it sounds like I was on the path to be a true lush, but I raided the liquor cabinet only for tastes, out of curiosity. I was a very well-behaved boy, generally. There was an occasion when my dad gave me a champagne glass with pink champagne in it because he had just gotten a big promotion at work. Not bad! 

[Stargazer]

16 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

The effect of NyQuil is quite different than just a beer, a shot or glass of wine. Its effects last longer and has more alcohol than your standard beer. It is about 10% alcohol which is on par with a weak glass of wine or maybe a shot of hard liquor. 

Many years ago I caught a REALLY bad cold, and my wife gave me full-octane Nyquil. Man, it fixed me right up, but the side effect was that I slept so soundly that she couldn't wake me for hours. It was like, I can vaguely tell someone is talking to me and shaking me, but I was out for the count.

[Stargazer]

16 hours ago, Rain said:

So are members leaving because they can't handle beer being present or are they leaving because the behavior of their neighbors have changed? I suspect that there will definitely be some of the first, but probably a lot more of the second than those drinking assume.

The change in behavior is what does it for me. I spent 8 years in the Army, most of it as a sergeant. The battalion sergeant-major one time dictated that we all had to show up at the NCO club to "socialize." Yeah, right. It might have started out socializing, but it quickly became a mob of idiots acting like, well, idiots. I stayed long enough for the sergeant-major to notice that I was there, and then I booked out of there. In short order the place started stinking to high heaven with that glorious odor of beer, and beer-drinker's breath. And let's not forget the smoking. 

One of my sons spent several years being an alcoholic. Watching it destroy his life was very painful. Fortunately, he found AA and managed to drag himself out of it.

[Stargazer]

16 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

A few mentioned that once people started drinking they were out. 

I would have been one of those who left after about a half-hour of beer swilling.

I don't quite get why you think this is such a remarkable thing. I grew up with alcohol and tobacco all around me, and family gatherings were always accompanied by beer drinking and smoking this or that (not weed tho). I had uncles letting me get sips from their beers, although never their hard stuff. I was always surrounded by cigarette, cigar, and pipe smoking. Nobody got stinking drunk, as far as I remember -- except my dad got actually drunk once. He was a happy drunk, but it was like he was suddenly seven years old. Really bizarre.

I was accustomed to it, but I never liked it. I didn't like the transformative power of the stuff, and the atmosphere it seemed to engender. When I joined the church at 14 (the only one in my family, until about 5 years later when my little brother joined), I just avoided the adults when they were "partying" -- it was uncomfortable and why should I discomfort myself in that manner? My family did me the favor of respecting my boundaries. After I returned from my mission, for one of my older brother's birthdays I showed up at the party at his house with my girlfriend to wish him well for the event -- which he was pleased about, though he didn't expect me to stay, and I didn't. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

From my experience, he will lose friends unless he makes the effort to keep them.  And does not bring things up that may challenge their beliefs.  As a former bishop who left very quietly I was surprised how few seemed to really care about it. I still have LDS friends but they are those I was either extremely close to and shared some of my faith journey with along the way, or ones I have made an effort to stay in touch with.  And the latter, I initiate any contact.  They don't.  

I think in some areas the every couple of years of changing of ward boundaries discourages many from looking for lasting friendships outside of nearby members, which few numbers lowers the likelihood of finding close friendships in one’s ward.