Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Church members who leave the church


Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

It's just surprising to me (and appears like to others here, too). As far as I understand, the LDS has very strict rules surrounding sexuality, and living with a boyfriend or girlfriend is against those rules, so your church leaders are going against their own church rules.

Yes me, my stake president, and my bishop are going against the rules. And now? 

20 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

This phenomena is nothing new in Catholicism, partly because of our size. There are rogue bishops and priests both liberal and conservative, but mainly on the liberal side of things, that go against Catholic teachings and canon law.

They are also against the rules then. Having a gay relationship is actually also against the rules of the catholic church. But they also accept it. Nothing different than the LDS church were those things also happen sometimes as well.

 

20 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm not that invested, lol. Mainly surprised and a little intrigued that you were getting what seemed like a pass from the people on this board. There have been MANY discussions of same-sex issues here.

Oh really. I always miss those. That's to bad. 

20 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I don't worry. And while it's true that I'm not LDS, I have been on this board for something like 12 years, so I know the posters here, I know the general flow of ideas and topics, and I have learned a lot about LDS. And since this is a discussion board, it's perfectly acceptable for me to express my views.

I have been a member of the LDS community for 2 years now i have been on this forum for 2 years now and i have learned a lot about my church as well. And since this is a discussion board you may express your views but there are also rules you are expected to adhere to. I'm sure you would understand. 

Edited by Dario_M
Link to comment
15 hours ago, webbles said:

Can you link your sources?  I'd love to see where it says the church bought the letter since everything I've seen said the church didn't buy it.  I'd also love to see the list of fake documents that the church already had in its possession.

"President Hinckley's decision to purchase the documents allowed them to be examined, and kept them available for further study so that the forgery could be discovered." https://fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Mark_Hofmann

The document was purchased here the link above. However to say it was purchased so that the forgery could be discovered is totally non-sense, first because examination did happen before the purchase as the church relied on experts to determine if it was authentic. Secondly once G. B. Hinckley purchased them he never came to say they were forged and never assumed so, therefore the purpose to buy them in order to reveal it was a fake as the above explanation points out it is a a non sense excuse once again to protect "the prophet".

Now assuming that God intentionally would not want to give vision to the authorities at the time regarding these documents, the question is why. What would be the purpose of it other than spending church funds and carry this charade for years at the church reputation and expense. Was good willing to have a 4 year period of putting His own church reputation an leaders down for some "reason".  I don't think so but again many will say to defend the church position why not :)

Moreover, apart from JS and B Young who really had prophecies and teachings way off the radar, does anyone in modern times (let's say past 50 years at least) have known of any divine guidance, warning or major prophetic intervention from any general authorities that was worth to consider direct divine inspiration that was foreseen before it happens? I know that one should not just follow the signs and faith is important, but would be reasonable if there are this modern pro[het these days and so many crazy events we have in the world for the past 50 years, that some divine inspiration and guidance beforehand would be appropriate rather than just good speeches at general conferences and general guidance. Well I believe so as much as I believe would be of God's interest of doing so likewise he did in the past. Isn't; what the church teaches that we got prophets today to lead us like in the past. However I do not recall such comparison whatsoever while I was in the church and neither have heard once I left.

 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Dario_M said:

Yes me, my stake president, and my bishop are going against the rules. And now? 

I don't know. I would think that you would want to follow the rules of the church that you joined?

 

1 minute ago, Dario_M said:

They are also against the rules then. Having a gay relationship is actually also against the rules of the catholic church. But they also accept it. Nothing different than the LDS church were those things also happen sometimes as well.

The Catholic Church does not accept gay relationships. I'll let a member definitely speak for your church, but I'm 99.99% sure that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn't accept them either, in any form.

In both churches there are leaders who go against the rules, but those leaders are not the church.

Also, it seems to me (and LDS here can correct me) that rogue bishops and stake presidents are not a frequent occurrence in your church. The hierarchy seems much stronger, perhaps?

Hypothetical question for LDS: what do you think the general authorities would do if they found a bishop and stake president giving temple recommends to people cohabitating? Same sex or not?

 

1 minute ago, Dario_M said:

Oh really. I always miss those. That's to bad. 

Just find the ones that @smac97 and @california boy are heavily involved in 😁

 

1 minute ago, Dario_M said:

I have been a member of the LDS community for 2 years now i have been on this forum for 2 years now and i have learned a lot of my church as well. And since this is a discussion board you may express your views but there are also rules you are expected to adhere to. I'm sure you would understand. 

I'm pretty sure I'm not breaking any rules :) 

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I don't know. I would think that you would want to follow the rules of the church that you joined?

 

I have nobody. No contact with my family anymore. No friends Nothing. I have a hard time taking care of myself as well. On this moment i have only my boyfriend. Nobody else. Offcourse i wanna obey the rules. But some rules don't fit in my life path. And right now it's being a really difficulf path. Besides of that i'm also just plain gay. And that will never change. What am i supposed to do? Being single for the rest of my life? 

25 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

The Catholic Church does not accept gay relationships. I'll let a member definitely speak for your church, but I'm 99.99% sure that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn't accept them either, in any form.

That count for both churces yes.

25 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

In both churches there are leaders who go against the rules, but those leaders are not the church.

That's life.

 

25 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Hypothetical question for LDS: what do you think the general authorities would do if they found a bishop and stake president giving temple recommends to people cohabitating? Same sex or not?

Nothing because nobody cares in the Netherlands and i believe that other wards here are the same in freedom of same sex relationships as my ward is. Nobody will correct each other i do believe. And that suits me just fine. 

25 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

 

Just find the ones that @smac97 and @california boy are heavily involved in 😁

Okay thank you for letting me know.

25 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm pretty sure I'm not breaking any rules :) 

I'm sure you didn't, i just wanted to mention it. 💫

Edited by Dario_M
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Gabriel said:

However to say it was purchased so that the forgery could be discovered is totally non-sense, first because examination did happen before the purchase as the church relied on experts to determine if it was authentic. Secondly once G. B. Hinckley purchased them he never came to say they were forged and never assumed so, therefore the purpose to buy them in order to reveal it was a fake as the above explanation points out it is a a non sense excuse once again to protect "the prophet"

Who is saying it was purchased to expose the forgery?  If you think that was me, you are mistaken.  My guess is you combined two different ideas I presented into one.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Hypothetical question for LDS: what do you think the general authorities would do if they found a bishop and stake president giving temple recommends to people cohabitating? Same sex or not?

Would depend on their reaction to counseling from those authorities.  If they agree to stop doing so and sustained the prophet and apostles in this teaching, my guess is authorities would leave them in place, though perhaps keep an eye on them.

If they refused the above, but were fine otherwise and close to being released, my guess is authorities might wait it out assuming it would be unlikely to arise again in a short time, but keep an eye on things to be sure it didn’t.

If they refused the above and said they would continue to give out temple recommends to those in active same sex sexual relationships and active extramarital opposite sex sexual relationships and promoted them going to the temple, my guess is they would be immediately released.

This is guessing as I have never been involved in any discussions about the behaviours of bishops with any authorities.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Dario_M said:

Oh my. It's getting really late, i'm going to bed. 🌌

Sleep well.  It is easy to lose track of time here…at least for me.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Gabriel said:

"President Hinckley's decision to purchase the documents allowed them to be examined, and kept them available for further study so that the forgery could be discovered." https://fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Mark_Hofmann

The document was purchased here the link above. However to say it was purchased so that the forgery could be discovered is totally non-sense, first because examination did happen before the purchase as the church relied on experts to determine if it was authentic.

First, I agree that idea in the 2013 talk from Elder Christofferson (the quote that you have) doesn't make sense.  Most of the documents were examined before they were purchased.

Second, this link doesn't say that the Salamander letter was purchased by the church.  It doesn't seem you do have any special sources that show the Salamander letter was purchased by the church.  There were other documents purchased, some legitimate and some forgeries.  You seem to be conflating the Salamander letter with other items, such as the 1825 letter from Joseph Smith or the Joseph Smith III blessing.  Both of those were forgeries and both were purchased by the church.

4 hours ago, Gabriel said:

Secondly once G. B. Hinckley purchased them he never came to say they were forged and never assumed so, therefore the purpose to buy them in order to reveal it was a fake as the above explanation points out it is a a non sense excuse once again to protect "the prophet".

I don't understand this.  Once the forgeries were found, President Hinckley definitely said they were forged.  Are you talking about the time before the forgeries were discovered?  If so, President Hinckley didn't consider them authentic either.  In a few addresses that he mentions them, he says that they may or may not be authentic.  He is also usually talking about both the Salamander letter (donated to the church) and the 1825 letter (purchased by President Hinckley).

Here's one that I already quoted (and is even in that link you posted) - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1985/09/keep-the-faith?lang=eng

Quote

I am glad we have them. They are interesting documents of whose authenticity we are not certain and may never be. However, assuming that they are authentic, they are valuable writings of the period out of which they have come. But they have no real relevancy to the question of the authenticity of the Church or of the divine origin of the Book of Mormon.

And in the announcement when the church released the content of the Salamander letter in April 1985, President Hinckley said (I can't find the original announcement but this quotes it - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1987/04/news-of-the-church/document-dealer-confesses?lang=eng )

Quote

No one, of course, can be certain that Martin Harris wrote the document. However, at this point we accept the judgment of the examiner that there is no indication that it is a forgery. This does not preclude the possibility that it may have been forged at a time when the Church had many enemies. It is, however, an interesting document of the times.

Both of those statements are from President Hinckley in the few months that the church owned the Salamander letter and while it was not yet shown to be a forgery.  He is definitely doubting the authenticity.

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, webbles said:

I know of a situation kind of similar to this.  It is second hand information, though.  This occurred at least 40 years ago and was up in Western Canada.  There was a ward that recently had its bishop released and a new bishop was called.  When that happens, the ward members are asked to sustain the new bishop (they do this by raising their right hand).  It is also asked if there is anyone who opposes the new bishop.  In this ward, a large section of the ward opposed.  That is not common.  So, the bishop wasn't set apart because the stake president needed to find out what is wrong.  Turned out, the former bishop was ok with polygamy and was allowing polygamous families to attend the ward and receive temple recommends (I'm not sure how they got the stake president's signature that is required on the recommend).  Over the next few weeks, there were lots and lots of excommunications.

So the ward protested because they wanted to keep the polygamous thing going?  Or because the new bishop was part of it too?

Link to comment
40 minutes ago, Calm said:

So the ward protested because they wanted to keep the polygamous thing going?  Or because the new bishop was part of it too?

The new bishop wasn't part of it and they didn't want the status quo changed.

Link to comment

Btw it's not the Dutch bishop that gave me the temple recommend. That thing was handed over to me in Portugal. And at that time me and my boyfriend weren't together. We had split up. And later on i moved back to the Netherlands and me and my boyfriend came together. So it's not the stake president in this church that gave me the temple recommend. 

Edited by Dario_M
Link to comment
23 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

Btw it's not the Dutch bishop that gave me the temple recommend. That thing was handed over to me in Portugal. And at that time me and my boyfriend weren't together. We had split up. And later on i moved back to the Netherlands and me and my boyfriend came together. So it's not the stake president in this church that gave me the temple recommend. 

That makes more sense. 

Link to comment
On 10/11/2024 at 7:40 AM, The Nehor said:

I am very surprised and I suspect there is something more going on there.

Earlier you said something in the lines of.. that you thought there was more going on at my ward. And that you had your suspicions.

Would you be so kind to explain to me what you meant with that?

Edited by Dario_M
Link to comment
5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I can tell you that it definitely can matter if you live together even if you aren’t having sex.

Of course I know that, it was just an attempt to draw an equally downplaying conclusion from the infamous Bednar quote, which is also intended to play down the "problem".

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Frank11 said:

Of course I know that, it was just an attempt to draw an equally downplaying conclusion from the infamous Bednar quote, which is also intended to play down the "problem".

I wasn’t trying to correct you. Just clarify in case anyone took it at face value.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...