Mississippi Bishop Resigns from the Pulpit

[Diamondhands69]

8 minutes ago, gopher said:

Lighten up, Francis.  You must have missed the recent posts on this website from a now banned poster.

If you can't spot the problems with your post, I won't be able to help much.

You need to edit or takedown your other post. There is no indication in it the nekkidness is attributed to anyone but me. I know what you are talking about. Someone reading these forums may not know and get the false impression it is me.
 

Edit or take it down. 

[Diamondhands69]

16 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I understand your position. You think the church is one big fat lie.

in my time, the narrative being sold by the missionaries was not completely true. Sad thing is the church knew it. It is only in recent times since 2014 the church has even made an attempt to clear things up. The problem is how do they do that without admitting they knew the truth while selling a different narrative?

tell you what. Next time they stop at my house I’m gonna ask them a whole laundry list of church history, 1st vision, dc 132, church policy on not all truths being useful and I’ll post their responses here. I’m betting their answers will be much different than what the truth is. Mostly because they don’t even know. 

They are only sharing what they know and they don’t know much. 

16 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

 

So obviously, to you the missionaries are out deceiving people with lies (even if they believe the lies). Therefore, it is a heinous activity to go door to door peddling those lies.

I addressed this above

Edited January 19, 2024 by Diamondhands69

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Joshua said:

Quote

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

According to my understanding, you believe that people ought to respect the sacred convocation of sacrament meeting,

Yes.  People ought not dishonestly misappropriate the facilities and sacred convocations of a religious group.

4 hours ago, Joshua said:

but at the same time, you are okay with the fact that thousands of Mormon missionaries will knock on the door of thousands of sacred homes today

Yes, I am okay with this.  Knocking on a door is not "dishonest," nor does it "misappropriate" anything.  Instead, missionaries ask for permission to speak in their home, and do so without deceit or subterfuge.  If the homeowner declines, the missionaries say "thanks" and walk away.

That's quite a contrast from the fellow in Mississippi, who did use deceit and subterfuge, and did misappropriate the Church's facilities and sacred convocation.  And he did not obtain permission from the Church to do what he did.  And he breached the trust the Church reposed in him.

4 hours ago, Joshua said:

in an attempt to convince the people who live inside the sacred homes that their religious beliefs are not true,

No, that is not what missionaries do.  

There may be very rare exceptions to the rule here and there, but overwhelmingly our missionaries share our beliefs and issue invitations to join us based on those beliefs.  Tearing down prospective members' existing system of belief just isn't what we do.  As Pres. Hinckley so eloquently put it: "Let me say that we appreciate the truth in all churches and the good which they do. We say to the people, in effect, you bring with you all the good that you have, and then let us see if we can add to it. That is the spirit of this work. That is the essence of our missionary service."  

Surely "all the good" that people outside the Church have includes portions of "truth."  I think this sentiment comports with and reiterates Joseph Smith's statement: "One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from where it may."

4 hours ago, Joshua said:

but that the religious beliefs of the missionaries are true, and that the family that lives inside the sacred home ought to accept the beliefs of the missionaries if the family wants to live together in heaven? You don't find that to be hypocritical? 

No.  Nothing that the missionaries do is dishonest, or done under false pretenses, or is a violation of trust, or a misappropriation of another's property rights, or a disruption of a sacred meeting.

4 hours ago, Joshua said:

Within the context of the church, numerous lessons have been taught that the home is a hallowed place for the family that is located within it. One can visit the website of the church and read dozens of articles that discuss the sanctity that can be discovered inside the confines of a home.

Yes.  And yet missionaries don't use deceit and subterfuge to gain entry to homes, nor are they deceitful about their message.  Instead, they seek permission to enter the home and share a message about Jesus Christ, and then proceed to do just that.

Sadly, the fellow in Mississippi did use deceit and subterfuge, he did not seek or obtain permission from the Church, to do what he did.

4 hours ago, Joshua said:

Why would the Mormon church send missionaries to disrupt the sacredness that can be found in family homes all across the world if this is what the faith teaches?  

Why do you continue to torture puppies for fun and profit?

I'll answer your loaded question after you answer mine.  

4 hours ago, Joshua said:

According to my point of view, the home of the family is more sacred than any church building, regardless of the faith. Do you agree with this point of view? 

Yes.

According to my point of view, missionaries ask for permission to enter "the home of the family," and do so without trickery or deceit.  Do you agree with this point of view? 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 19, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Only Mormon homes dedicated by a melchezedic priesthood holder are “hallowed.” Everyone else is just playing church so the notion their peace should be respected is not valid. They are not and can never truly be happy or have any joy unless they are Mormon with a huge punch list of works they have to do. 

So no - non Mormon homes do not deserve any respect or consideration.

At least that would be the Sunday school class answer. 

What a patently unfair, uncharitable, mean-spirited and false thing to say.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Only Mormon homes dedicated by a melchezedic priesthood holder are “hallowed.” Everyone else is just playing church so the notion their peace should be respected is not valid. They are not and can never truly be happy or have any joy unless they are Mormon with a huge punch list of works they have to do. 
 

So no - non Mormon homes do not deserve any respect or consideration.
 

At least that would be the Sunday school class answer. 

No, it’s not. If you’re going to be angry and say negative things about the church, at least they honest things.

[gopher]

36 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

You need to edit or takedown your other post. There is no indication in it the nekkidness is attributed to anyone but me. I know what you are talking about. Someone reading these forums may not know and get the false impression it is me.
 

Edit or take it down. 

No chance, Internet tough guy.  I was very clear I wasn't referring to you.

I enjoy your posts.  They are a nice break from the serious and often thoughtful posts from the other critics of the church here.

Edited January 19, 2024 by gopher

[Peacefully]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

That's apparently too much work for some people. The same people who refused to look at the snake on Moses's staff in order to be healed.

 

That is quite harsh. My husband and I both told the missionaries to go away the first time they appeared on our respective doorsteps and we both had our reasons. 

Edited January 19, 2024 by Peacefully

[Snodgrassian]

Most members of the church quit quietly, unlike this bishop, but also left in a very public position. It is hard to go through the process of leaving the church, with many emotions experienced. We don’t know what people have said to him (if anything), but he appears to be angry, frustrated, and free to speak his mind. It is not my style but he is entitled to it. I have had people say things to me about my journey, “out of love,” that are/were extremely offensive, in line with the brainwashing comments. It hurts and there are many times I have wanted to respond with sharp language, but luckily I got through the anger phase in my personal space.

A Bishop performing his duties was the first crack in my faith, and I love and respect this man. I don’t think he would have done what he did if it was not for the role of Bishop. Bishops ask inappropriate questions if they follow their instructions. Someone I love confessed a sexual sin to the bishop, a council was called and she was asked extremely inappropriate questions from the bishopric. I was in shock when she told me the questions she was asked. I cannot imagine being a young woman in that situation, late in the evening in a room with 4 men (window salesman, recycling manager, software engineer, program manager), giving minute details about my sexual activities. 

I could never be a bishop if that is part of the job, and from this experience plus some follow one with other bishops, it seems to be the process. She had to repeat her confession to two other bishops in the following years even though she had been forgiven. Same types of questions asked. 

I view ward friendships similarly to friends you met growing up at school. They are mostly due to proximity, not necessarily due to interest or compatibility. I love my friends I grew up with and had amazing times with them, we grew up together. But things changed immensely after graduation and many of went off to college or started working. We were exposed to an entire new world and slowly found new groups of friends that were something more personal, deeper. 

i still keep in touch with most of my closest school friends, though I now live far away from all of them, and I love catching up and spending time with them when I return to the area. But the key component to most of those friendships was proximity (school). I put ward friendships in the same bucket. There have been couples my wife and I thought were our really close friends, always did things together, our kids enjoy hanging out, but once we are no longer in the same ward, it is basically over. The other couples are so focused on integrating into the new ward they let friendships die. Even if it is just a boundary change. This had happens time and time again. 

Since we have stopped centering our lives around the ward and focused more on the rest of the community around us we now have fantastic friends that we stay in contact with even if they move out of the country. 
 

 

[Diamondhands69]

39 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

That is quite harsh. My husband and I both told the missionaries to go away the first time they appeared on our respective doorsteps and we both had our reasons. 

Agreed. Instead of a snake on Moses’ staff we send two pimply faced adolescents and are supposed to be taken with the same seriousness. 

[Diamondhands69]

53 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No, it’s not. If you’re going to be angry and say negative things about the church, at least they honest things.

Cfr each lie

[mfbukowski]

22 minutes ago, Snodgrassian said:

I could never be a bishop if that is part of the job, and from this experience plus some follow one with other bishops, it seems to be the process. She had to repeat her confession to two other bishops in the following years even though she had been forgiven. Same types of questions asked. 

As an ordained bishop now in another calling after doing my 5 years, let me tell you this is NOT "part of the job" unless the details make a difference, and it takes imagination to even come up how details COULD make a difference, unless the sin caused some horrendous results not yet revealed, someone dying as a result of the sin, for example.  "I did X and a person died" is a lot different than just "I did X"

There is no reason for subsequent bishops to bring it up again, unless perhaps there was reason to believe that the previous bishop did something wrong.

Once the decision is made, it is made.

 

[mfbukowski]

37 minutes ago, Snodgrassian said:

Bishops ask inappropriate questions if they follow their instructions.

Show me in black and white! 

IF the questions are "INAPPROPRIATE", they are inappropriate.

Where does it say a bishop is supposed to ask "inappropriate questions "?

Edited January 19, 2024 by mfbukowski

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

As an ordained bishop now in another calling after doing my 5 years, let me tell you this is NOT "part of the job" unless the details make a difference, and it takes imagination to even come up how details COULD make a difference, unless the sin caused some horrendous results not yet revealed, someone dying as a result of the sin, for example.  "I did X and a person died" is a lot different than just "I did X"

There is no reason for subsequent bishops to bring it up again, unless perhaps there was reason to believe that the previous bishop did something wrong.

Once the decision is made, it is made.

 

I have friends who were told by their bishops that they had been forgiven and there was no need to ever bring them up again to any other bishops in the future.

[bluebell]

55 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Cfr each lie

CFR for each statement you made.

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Peacefully said:

That is quite harsh. My husband and I both told the missionaries to go away the first time they appeared on our respective doorsteps and we both had our reasons. 

Yes, you're probably right. What I wrote was written in the heat of the moment after addressing Diamondback's spirited repartee. 

It took me a year to join the church (even though I was attending virtually every Sunday), so maybe I couldn't see the snake either. I'm still not sure if it was because my father wouldn't give permission (I was 14) or my natural procrastinatory nature. 

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Point out any untruth in my post

Okay, this is probably going to veer into snarky territory, but you asked for it so here we go:

 

Quote

Only Mormon homes dedicated by a melchezedic priesthood holder are “hallowed.”

This is false. A Melchizedek Priesthood holder is only necessary if you wish to have someone perform a dedication as a priesthood ordinance. But, as the church explains in its (correlated) instructions to members, "If there is not a Melchizedek Priesthood holder in the home, a family might invite a close relative, a ministering brother, or another Melchizedek Priesthood holder to dedicate the home. Or a family might gather and offer a prayer that includes the elements mentioned in the preceding paragraph and other words as the Spirit directs." [emphasis added]

Or perhaps you are taking a page from our anti-Mormon friends here and trying to use the word "hallowed" to mean some hyper-specific thing, rather than how the word is used normally.

 

Quote

Everyone else is just playing church so the notion their peace should be respected is not valid.

Also false. Freedom of choice is paramount in the gospel. As we sing in the hymn,

        Know this, that ev’ry soul is free
        To choose his life and what he’ll be;
        For this eternal truth is giv’n:
        That God will force no man to heav’n.

If people don't want to listen to the missionaries, that's their choice.

And I don't think presenting people with an opportunity to hear the gospel message can, in any sensible way, be characterized as dis-respecting anybody's peace. If you think otherwise then I suppose congratulations are in order for taking snowflakery to a whole new level of fragility.

 

Quote

They are not and can never truly be happy or have any joy unless they are Mormon with a huge punch list of works they have to do.

People outside of the church are incapable of "any joy." Srsly?

So, despite what we believe the scriptures say about the matter, I guess there was no joy in heaven when our Father announced the plan of salvation. And no joy accompanied the world at its creation. Nor when the Savior was born.

No, if you are to believed, joy didn't come into the world until April 6, 1830 when the church was established and people could finally be Mormon.

Riiiiiiiight.

 

Quote

So no - non Mormon homes do not deserve any respect or consideration.

Wrong. They deserve the same respect and consideration as anyone else on Earth.

I think your problem is that you've got sort of a Rodney Dangerfield view of the term respect.

 

Quote

At least that would be the Sunday school class answer. 

Also wrong. Sunday school answers are generally more along the lines of, "Jesus, reading the scriptures, praying daily, serving ... family and others, and attending the temple and ... Sunday meetings."

The only place I have ever heard someone say that "non Mormon homes do not deserve any respect or consideration" is in the post I quoted from you (above). And I could be wrong about this, but I'm starting to get the feeling that you're not an especially devout Mormon.

 

Edited January 19, 2024 by Amulek

[mfbukowski]

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I have friends who were told by their bishops that they had been forgiven and there was no need to ever bring them up again to any other bishops in the future.

Absolutely yes.

THAT is part of being a "judge in Israel "

Can you imagine standing in for God and saying those words?

I have experienced that and it ain't easy.  I still think about those rare occasions.  Lotsa prayer in those, and once I discussed it with the SP, and he suggested a different path, but made it clear it was my ultimate decision.

I went with what the Spirit told me to do, rather than the SP.

I still feel I know I made the choice the Lord wanted, but holy cow, that was a scary one!

It is not an easy job.

 

 

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

You need to edit or takedown your other post. There is no indication in it the nekkidness is attributed to anyone but me. I know what you are talking about. Someone reading these forums may not know and get the false impression it is me.
 

Edit or take it down. 

Maybe you're having a bad day, and that's leading you to take things personally that were not meant to be so, but when I read what he posted I didn't know about the nekkid poster, but still got it that he wasn't accusing you of anything like that. 

That's the danger of forums, anyway. Things I've written here in the past (and it surely will happen again) have been called racist, homophobic, and whatever insult was current at the time, when I am none of those things. My skin is perhaps thicker than yours.

Besides, who here knows who you are, anyway? You're just some anonymous internet personage whose entire raison d'etre seems to be using this forum as a safe place to vent. Not unlike some others, and so you're in good company.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

The only place I have ever heard someone say that "non Mormon homes do not deserve any respect or consideration" is in the post I quoted from you (above). And I could be wrong about this, but I'm starting to get the feeling that you're not an especially devout Mormon.

It feels more to me that he is a straight up "ANTI"

I don't know how he makes this stuff up.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I don't know how he makes this stuff up.

He is just extremely creative, that's all!

[Peacefully]

5 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Agreed. Instead of a snake on Moses’ staff we send two pimply faced adolescents and are supposed to be taken with the same seriousness. 

Just to clarify, my husband and I have the utmost respect for missionaries. Yes they are young, but they are doing their best to do the Lord’s work. We both took the missionary lessons later and joined the church, but that doesn’t mean we were too lazy to “look at the staff” before then, and that is what I found insulting. 

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

He is just extremely creative, that's all!

It’s not that creative as it’s rather formulaic, imo.

[rodheadlee]

5 hours ago, Amulek said:

 And I could be wrong about this, but I'm starting to get the feeling that you're not an especially devout Mormon.

 

You are not wrong. Earlier he was bragging about playing with his telephone during priesthood EQ. 

 

Edited January 19, 2024 by rodheadlee

[Diamondhands69]

6 hours ago, Amulek said:

 

9 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Point out any untruth in my post

Okay, this is probably going to veer into snarky territory, but you asked for it so here we go:

 

Quote

Only Mormon homes dedicated by a melchezedic priesthood holder are “hallowed.”

This is false. A Melchizedek Priesthood holder is only necessary if you wish to have someone perform a dedication as a priesthood ordinance.

 

If it isn’t priesthood ordinance it is not recognized by the church. As such, any blessing not performed by a melc priesthood holder is no more valid than if a catholic priest did it. At least in the eyes of the church .
 

Remember that 11 year old deacon had more power in his pinky than all Catholic clergy combined… 

Edited January 20, 2024 by Diamondhands69

[Amulek]

28 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

If it isn’t priesthood ordinance it is not recognized by the church. As such, any blessing not performed by a melc priesthood holder is no more valid than if a catholic priest did it. At least in the eyes of the church .

Unlike temples, home dedications are neither recorded nor in any other way officially recognized by the church. Seriously, try asking your Ward Clerk for a printout of which homes in the ward have yet to be dedicated and see if you are met with anything other than laughter (or possibly confusion if it's someone old and they think you're being serious).

Which is why, as quoted in the church's own handbook on the subject, the church advises families that even without a Melchizedek Priesthood holder present they can dedicate their homes as "sacred edifices where the Holy Spirit may reside and where family members can worship, find safety from the world, grow spiritually, and prepare for eternal family relationships."

I'm pretty sure that "the eyes of the church" are aware of the instructions listed in their own handbooks, so I'm sorry, but it's still the case you are mistaken about this.

Either that or, as I suspect may be the case, you are just playing word games with the term "hallowed." Perhaps you would care to offer a definition or explain what you believe the word "hallowed" means?

 

Quote

Remember that 11 year old deacon had more power in his pinky than all Catholic clergy combined… 

Wait! What!? Chuck Norris is an 11 year old Deacon!?! When did that happen?

Quick! Call the Cardinal - it's a miracle!