‘I really think it would be best if you ended your remarks at this point?’

Oh man, what a nasty situation! On some level, I have sympathy for the Bishop. What did we expect him to do? In his mind he is probably torn and I’m sure there were plenty in the audience who would have been screaming mad had he NOT done something! On the other hand, I would say the wards I’ve been in have pretty low tolerance for anything outside the box. I’ve heard it’s different in other places, so I can’t condemn the church as having some policy of intolerance. So much of this type of thing is cultural.

As for what I would do, yes, if someone was swearing I would probably stop it. Otherwise, I’m in your boat, I would get up and express my opinion afterward, or even thank the individual for speaking what was important to them. It might be uncomfortable for some but I’m not sure we should be in the business of making life comfortable for everyone.

Only saw it happen one time. Bishop’s son was giving his mission homecoming talk and was the only speaker (remember thos days?) At the 1 hour 40 minutes mark (i.e., 30 minutes over quitting time), the Bishop stood up, put his arm around his son and told him to wrap it up. Not controversial, but very much appreciated.

I was at church one time when a couple teenagers from a local evangelical church came in during fast and testimony meeting and went up to the stand. Apparently they started talking anti-Mormon stuff (I was like 8, so I likely wasn’t really paying attention to what they were saying; in any event, I don’t remember exactly what it was). The bishop got up, put his arm around the kid, and kindly led him away. (Again, I don’t remember if it was in the middle of the kid’s remarks or at the end.)

Of course, it turns out they were put up to it by their pastor. It further turns out their church met in a city-owned building. And it turned out the mayor was in our ward (maybe that’s common in the Mormon corridor, but it’s relatively uncommon in California). It didn’t happen again.

Who brings a video camera to church? Was it a cell phone camera? Seems unlikely…

Many years ago, a man I worked for who had a great heart, but extreme political beliefs got in a political fight in HPG, and was asked shortly after that to speak in Sacrament Meeting on the Constitution. So, he went to the closest LDS Bookstore and bought a bunch of books from ETB (who was the prophet at the time) with every anti-communist statement he could find.

And then he went on, and on, putting his hand over the “Please close” light and running way over time, leaving the son of a SP Counselor about five minutes to summarize his mission experience. He would have been horribly upset if the bishop at the time had stood up and put his arm around him and told him he needed to wrap it up, but it would have been a good thing IMO.

False doctrine? About all I hear of false doctrine is people casting scorn on the doctrine that we’re saved by Grace. I’m thinking Levi Peterson had some good points in response to that idea. Other than that, what are we going to hear that’s false and important? The Nicene Creed? That God doesn’t have a body after all? How about that Home Teaching is optional?

I thought false doctrine was saved for HPG and BYU Religion classes.

I definitely feel for that bishop. Seeing that video made me angry. I sympathize with the speaker’s feelings regarding prop 8, but having it taped made me feel like someone was trying to set the bishop up.

A speaker like that in testimony meeting is like a baby-sitter who decides the parents are too uptight and brings a forbidden video for the kids to watch. Even if the baby-sitter is right and contributes to the kids’ education, the behavior is disrespectful and betrayal of trust.

I sure hope Remy (or whoever taped it) had more honorable intentions than what I’ve surmized.

The whole point of having a presiding authority is for the authority to take responsibility for the content of the meeting. I thought the bishop did well.

I’ve frequently seen speakers during testimony meeting be asked to sit down as they started speaking in tongues or having spiritual “convulsions”. It is usually among our West African converts. I can only assume that that is how they perceive spiritual manifestations, and that it is incredibly uncomfortable to the white male bishopric. Interesting, considering that “we believe in the gift of tongues,” and that early church history has been marked with those sorts of manifestations, particularly in Kirkland.

I’m in the Stake Presidency, and I instruct everyone to disregard any comments wherein someone announces they are in a mere bishopric.

In my youth (in the 70′s) I attended a ward in a downtown area in California. We had a young man in an out patient program get up in fast and testimony meeting and announce that he was the prophet. He kept rambling and was promptly removed by a rather large polynesian brother (the bishop had motioned to him) in the ward.

Sam B.s post reminded me of when I was a Bishop and had an evangelical teen come and “minister” during testimony meeting. Most of what he said was harmless but when he told the congregation that they did not have to be baptized the “natives” were becoming restless. I let him know he needed to close at that point and thankfully he did. If we would have refused I would have had him removed physically or anyone else who decided that they were going to make the ward pulpit theirs for their own position. Sacrament meeting is not an open forum for opinion.

It seems that in some wards, the priority is to protect the status quo of the members in good standing (i.e. those not in need of the Doctor). No one should feel unwelcome in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

On my mission in Japan, I was asked to give a talk once. I got up there and really got into it. I was just launching into an explanation of how Jesus is the root of our faith – complete with a tree diagram I drew – when I feel a tug at my pant leg.

I turn around and the Bishop is leaning over and whispering – “you’re over-time. We have to close the meeting.”

I looked up and realized I was 15 minutes past the hour. Since I was only the second out of four speakers, this meant I’d been going strong for almost 45 minutes. I sheepishly concluded my remarks hurriedly and sat down while several of the members in the audience were obviously barely containing their snickering. My District Leader looked a little annoyed – since I had talked right over his allotted time.

Oh ya, one more thing: Worst part about being in Bishopric– They made me a High Priest. Which means I have to home teach High Priests (dont have to go to their lesson, as I get to go in with the Aaronic Priesthood, which is great) That means when I visit, instead of talking about family, schools, Kids, sports and TV, all of which are interesting and was the topic for Elders quorum families, now we talk about their health problems, taxes and how bad the government is. It is dreadful.

Lets look at this from a faithful Mormon leader’s perspective, after all that’s who make the rules at Church, right?

Scripturaly, dissention is of the Devil, and the Saints are commanded to be “as one”. Why would it make any sense for a faithful leader to set up an official place for dissention? That would be counter to the purpose of gathering as Saints n(gather strength from one another). Doctrinally the course of action is prescribed if you are doubting, or suffering from a crisis of faith — one is to read the Scriptures and Pray. No where, doctrinally, does it say to get together and chat about your doubts or problems. My GUESS is that the Lord meant for us to struggle through personal trials such as you mention privately.

Since in this day and age open-ness is the norm, I get where this may not seem fair from the secular perspective, but the Church is not secular.

By plenty of other forums I meant, talking to friends, talking privately to Church Leaders, the bloggosphere.

oh, I forgot. I’ve also seen “faith promoting stories” from the internet stopped. and it was debunked immediately afterward by the bishopric member. Good times.

Sacrament meeting is a worship service, and I have read dozens (at least) of comments here in this forum by people who complain that our sacrament meetings need to be more spiritual – and that our meetings need to be less political. Criticism of this Bishop for doing what almost every critic of the Church says should be done in other threads (protect and encourage greater spirituality in our meetings) . . . Nope; I can’t do it.

I think this Bishop handled this situation correctly – and that it was despicable to have a friend taping it. It’s a worship service, so I think the better question would be about those who would disregard and mock someone else’s worship in such a way. (Seriously, the person speaking knew it was being recorded, so he was doing it intentionally in a worship service to create a controversy. That really is despicable – something I wouldn’t dream of doing in someone else’s worship service.)

I can’t judge the man and his cohort, but I certainly can condemn the action.

OK, i’ve read about Porter Rockwell and this douchebag that sounds like he’s about 19 years old that uses that moniker, I’ve got to say if the LDS church puts you in charge of anything they’re obviously starved for talent… I’ve got more in common with Porter Rockwell than you do.

Nah #40 I was annoyed by the stiff using the name Porter Rockwell post #17 was written by some pencil necked geek using the name Porter Rockwell, Rockwell drank like a fish and hit like a Ram had more braun than brains solved problems with guns fists and knives had long hair, swore etc etc in other words the douchebag using the name Porter Rockwell has about zero in common with him.

ok the guy in #24 and #25… #17 didn’t really make any sense to me anyways…

I was in a sacrament meeting once where the bishop simply turned the mic off while a man was going on about his personal problems with church history. The man realized that the mic was shut off and he said, “I guess someone doesn’t want you to hear what I have to say” and he left the building shortly thereafter.

In this case, I thought the bishop did an absolutely commendable job of speaking with the man in a civil way, allowing him to finish, but without the mic. Clearly, the mic was turned off. And regarding the gentleman who shared his views, while I think what he did was inappropriate to some extent, I don’t really blame him much. It seems to me that his ward was a meaningful community to him and he felt the need to share his deepest feelings on this issue. He said “I have never felt the spirit so strong” about this topic. He obviously had strong feelings about sharing it and I can’t blame him for wanting to share his feelings even if I disagree with the manner in which he shared them. These days, it would not be that difficult for him to put together a mass email or mailer to members of his ward. He did not have to do it in sacrament meeting. And I don’t agree that videotaping it makes it such an awful thing. Maybe this guy has a huge fear of public speaking. Maybe he felt so strongly about it and felt that he was doing the right thing that he wanted it recorded. I don’t think it’s fair to assume that the recording means his intentions were to brag about what he did or to trap the bishop in some way. That’s possible, but many here act like that is definitely the case. His tone of voice and his manner of speaking with the bishop seem to imply civility on his part, with a strong desire to state his feelings, with or without a microphone. And just to reiterate about the bishop, I don’t think it could have been handled better in any way.

#48:

I’ll show some deference – maybe. Until they cross the line that I have set up for my self, based on my frame of reference of reality – which may be in error from time to time.

Actually, Porter did not say he was a Bishop. But I think I get your point. Most Bishops I’ve met have said they weren’t qualified for the job and their relatives and friends – who grew up with that new Bishop – would just hold their breath and hang on for the ride. And they watched their friend and relative grow into the position he was destined to fill. Such is the way of the LDS Church. And it happens all over the world – despite the critical analysis of non-members, who may one day be members and Bishops themselves.

MoHo:

I think your right. But it does seem unavoidable at times. I remember when the ERA ammendment was the big deal. Bishops had to walk a fine line to keep the Ward on focus and not be distracted so much – despite the ‘official’ position of the LDS Church of being against that ammendment.

Main Street Plaza did an interview with the guy about this video.

http://latterdaymainstreet.com/?p=833

OOPS! Goofed up real good. – My apologies to John Remy. Forget #54.

I will read the preamble 2 or 3 times before commenting. I will read the preamble 2 or 3 times before commenting. I will read the preamble 2 or 3 times bfore commenting. I will read the preamble 2 or ………………………….

I certainly did not mean to give the impression that I was criticizing the Bishop. I was only trying to imagine what I would have done. I agree that bringing the video into the meeting was a little disrespectful.

#6 – Alice I really enjoyed your comment. I think it your right that it does show perhaps a lack of spiritual maturity if we do allow these types of issues to bother us.

I wonder if there is a cultural difference here. N. that you have seen it so manys times and I have never ever seen it happen, (maybe a note to an over-time speaker – but even then they went on). Maybe I should have divided the poll up by region. I wonder n places were the Church has been established for longer – stronger sense orthodoxy and organisational norms – may lead to this happening more.

I continue to be amazed by people who think that gay Saints have had their lives subjected to judgment, condemnation and now an outright attack on their civil rights as Americans and should not be expected to push back. For me the amazing thing is that only a few do. …as opposed to the legions who live in despair, silently slip away or commit suicide. Is that all preferable to some among us?

Dexter, besides the simple answer of if you read my post, you would see how these assumptions add up. Testimony talks do not come from notes. Sorry if you can’t understand that. I can’t tell you why he didn’t youtube it. Maybe the people don’t know how to use youtube. And you’re right they are assumptions, however, the assumptions add up a lot more than someone using a fully printed out sheet of paper that he’s clearly reading word for word from and would have to have been preprinted with as many words as he delivered for it to be handwritten on the spot.

and as I mentioned, testimony meetings are impromptu. I’ve attended my fair shares and never have I seen anyone use notes to share their testimonies, with the exception of referring to letters from family and friends of the ward who are away, usually missions.

They were clearly not notes he was just referring to.

In my ward I’ve seen the bishop get up twice to stop someone giving their testimony.

The first one was a guy that was dating a single mother in the ward, he wasn’t a member of the ward though, I don’t remember exactly what he was rambling on about but when he starting talking about accusations of sexual abuse the Bishop jumped up, put his arm around him and whispered something in his ear, the bishop sat back down, the guy finished up with a quick but simple testimony, then left the meeting.

The other time was a guy who was a recent convert and single, and trying very hard to get married. Apparently he had been trying to date a single lady in the ward but it went badly for him, so he started calling the whole ward to repentance, he also referred to lady he tried to date in a not so kind way but gratefully didn’t mention her by name. Eventually the bishop got up, put his arm around him, quietly talked to him for a minute, then he continued with a normal testimony then sat down.

At either my misison farewell or homecoming, I can’t remember which, my brother spoke and rambled on and on, eventually someone had to tapped him on the back of the leg to give him a hint that it’s time to sit down.

#52:
This video, is nothing but a choreographed assault to make [LDS?] church practices look bad.

Even if that is true, the LDS church could only look “good” or “bad” based on the bishop’s reaction (and/or those in the congregation).

If there is any truly “choreographed assault to make LDS church practices look bad,” it would be Mr. Monson’s singlehanded reversal of nearly all the public relations advances which took place under the Hinckley administration. To make it even better, Monson and his minions now proclaim that they’re being hailed as heroes by the masses, in order to make his “prophetic” mis-step look good.

Nick re #67:

You write in reference to President Monson: “….in order to make his ‘prophetic’ mis-step look good.” Could you explain what ‘prophetic mis-step’ President Monson made?

#69:
Could you explain what ‘prophetic mis-step’ President Monson made?

Mr. Monson invoked the name of deity in order to pressure thousands of his followers to cash in their childrens’ college funds, give up their savings to buy a home, etc., in a politically-violent attack against the legal rights of individuals who don’t happen to share LDS views of moral behavior. Mr. Monson did this, evidently expecting that it would support his ongoing campaign (“ongoing” since his ascendancy to the first presidency under Hinckley, at which time he spearheaded unprecedented ecumenical actions for the LDS church) for acceptance of the LDS church as “christian” among so-called “mainstream” churches. Mr. Monson’s alleged spiritual connection failed, however, to reveal to him that millions of dollars and thousands of volunteer hours would ultimately fail to convince mainstream “christians” that all LDS are going straight to their imaginary fiery “Hell.”

Mr. Monson also notably failed to donate any of his own money to the political cause he represented as a duty from diety, as witnessed by California donation records, which (thankfully) remain public record under that state’s constitution. In other words, Mr. Monson acted in a way which demonstrated that he felt no personal need to follow the direction he claimed to have received from deity–a rather remarkable position for a professed “prophet” to take.

The result of Mr. Monson’s efforts has been open public contempt toward the LDS church. Where Gordon B. Hinckley’s many years of effort led to greater public acceptance of the LDS church, Mr. Monson’s political activism has painted the members of his faith (despite notable exceptions) as closed-minded bigots who wish to legislatively impose their religious views on those outside of their faith. The damage to the LDS church has been incalculable, and will likely take many, many years to heal.

Unsupported allegations? Really, sxark? You seriously question that Mr. Monson invoked the name of deity in directing LDS members to “do all they could” with their money and time, toward passing California’s Proposition 8? Have you been under a rock for the past year and a half?

You seriously doubt that Mr. Monson failed to make a donation of his own money toward passing Proposition 8, after telling LDS members that their deity wanted them to do so? The public donation records are all searchable on the Internet, so check it out for yourself!

You seriously doubt that LDS members were cashing in their kids’ college savings, and savings they’d set aside to eventually purchase a home, in order to be obedient to Mr. Monson’s claimed divine direction? A little skilfull Google searching will help you find the first-hand accounts of both, not to mention how “blessed” the people who gave up their future homebuying savings were sure they would be.

You seriously doubt that the evangelical and so-called “mainstream christian” groups happily took LDS money and labor, but continued to consider LDS members hell-bound cult members? Again, do just a little bit of searching!

You seriously doubt that Mr. Monson’s political activism has caused Americans to view LDS church members as closed-minded bigots? Once again, even the most rudimentary Internet searching will demonstrate that this is true.

Of course, you suggest that any sources for any of the above “themselves would be challenged,” meaning that if they demonstrate the above “allegations” to be true, they must be devilish liars, right?

Nick re #73:

If you do not have a testimony as to the truthfullness of the foundation and present day activities of the LDS Church, then your ‘tirade’ is understandable no matter which way you want to slant it. Your not the first to do so, nor will you be the last.

However, if you are a member of the LDS CHurch, I would advise you to consider changing your entire outlook concerning the General Authorities of the Church. For you may be in grave error with your analysis.

As the LDS Church shoots foward in the 21st century, critics like yourself are simply left in the dust – unless they change and wish to join a most profound movement based on the absolute Truth provided by Jesus Christ and His Father in Heaven and by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Ponder, study, and read the LDS standard works before laughing, scoffing, and ridiculing. – For only one’s soul is at stake in such a matter.

I must’ve been under a rock for the past year and a half. I wasn’t aware that President Monson or anyone else had asked me to do anything with regard to Proposition 8. The topic never came up in church. No letter from the First Presidency. I don’t think there were any instructions about it in the Ensign. What did I miss?

Nick Literski
You once mention that your Stake President thanked you for not breaking your covenants. If one exits the Church and enters the gay lifestyle, are they breaking their covenants?

#76:
…calling him a hypocrite for what you KNOW he can’t do…

Ray, why couldn’t Mr. Monson donate personally to a political cause, after telling millions of followers that deity wanted them to do “all that they could” to contribute their time and means? Surely you don’t suggest that Mr. Monson’s stipend is so meager that he couldn’t afford to do so? It would be equally bizarre to suggest that he couldn’t donate because a man of his standing mustn’t be seen “on record” regarding the issue. After all, he was certainly “on record” in a very public way, once he issued his letter. If there’s some other reason he “couldn’t” follow his own counsel, I’m missing it.

#79:
If one exits the Church and enters the gay lifestyle, are they breaking their covenants?

Not according to the official position of the first presidency of the LDS church, Jon. The General Handbook of Instructions, not to mention the letters sent to those who direct their names be removed from LDS records, make it clear that the LDS church considers the prior ordinances and covenants “null and void” (their words). In their eyes, it’s as if I was never baptized, never endowed, etc.

#80: Yes, that was kind of my point.

And as far as I can tell, the letter that was read in California did not “invoke the name of deity,” or claim that “their deity wanted them” to take any action, or claim a “duty from deity,” or make any claim to receive “direction” from deity on the matter.

Mytha, it may be that Mormons will understand the letter that way, but the assertion made here was that President Monson made active and explicit claims of divine direction. Note the active verbs used: “invoke” “claim” “telling” “represented.” To assert that Thomas S. Monson invoked, claimed, told, or represented something is a claim that President Monson made active and explicit declarations, not a claim of how the letter will be understood.

Then the correct way to express that, brjones, is to explain it just as you did. But you don’t get to claim that Thomas S. Monson said something that he did not say.

LaJauna’s piece was removed?

Unreal. I shouldn’t have said how much I liked it. That couldn’t have helped.

Perhaps MM should view pieces before posting them, that would make it look less foolish and more open minded than publishing a piece and then removing it.

everyone, LaJuana’s post was not censored in any way. “Mormon Matters” didn’t do anything to it.

I do think the assumptions expressed illustrate the difficulty of determining what happens and why and how biases and assumptions color perceptions of reality – which, ironically, does apply to both discussion threads of this post.

To Ray and All the others that question Why this was video taped…First and foremost I want to Apologise to anyone That I have Offended By taping this testimony. As a Member of the Church for 40 years, I Respect the Fast and testimony meetings and would Never Tape a “Sacred” ceremony or anyone else’s Testimony and Publically Publish it, Or in any way slander the church. Our Father who has been so proud of his children had after several months of discussing the issue, gave me his blessing to give my testimony. he just turned 80 years old and lives 300 miles away. I made him a promise that He would be able to see his son give his Final Testimony to his home ward in Palm Springs California.
After the Mic was cut I Personally decided to Air it on Youtube as I want others to see how the church treats one of their own on issues like these.I hope this answers your questions as to why, as far as it becomming popular everywhere else? I had Nothing to do with that…Again Im sorry if I have offended any of you good people. Todd Whitaker

Todd, I hope you are able to find a place where you are valued and loved for who you are as a person, not by your potential to change yourself into what someone else thinks you should be. You deserve better.

Todd, I have been shouting to the deaf this entire time that just because it was recorded didn’t mean your intentions were bad. I have been proven correct, as usual. May you find happiness and success in your endeavors.

Oh and By the way, whenever Anyone tells you that Your soul or your salvation is at stake, Dont BUY IT, Its a Brainwashing technique widely used by Many Cults across the globe’ Even Jim Jones told his followers the same thing and if they Did’nt drink the Poison Punch they would Loose their soul and eternal salvation. Folks there IS NO PLACE for Dissent in the mormon church Unlike many other respectable religions that will Allow you to speak freely, The example you see in this video speaks for itself…The Mormon Church is Loosing thousands of members each year because of their intolerance to 21 century Lifestyles, it was only since 1978 that black people were allowed in the building without being asked to leave…something to think about’ I doubt Christ would have ever turned Anyone away especially because of the color of his skin..I could only hope I have given other Gays in the Mormon church the Courage to leave It and Find Eternal Life Elsewhere, I sure wouldnt want to be around a bunch of Sober Bigoted Racist Homophobes for all of eternity..Thanks for reading

Todd:

Very well: It appears that you still believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, which is well with you.

Somehow, this brings to mind a question we would ask, as youths: Can God do anything? – We would answer, Yes!
Can God make a square circle? And then we would go around and around about this, because the answer would be – No!
Then the person would say: “See – God can’t do everything!”

Fast foward, as one is on their way to the final judgement, and a small Angel approaches and asks: “Hey – you wanna see how God can make a square circle?” – before you can answer, he shows you how it is done. You stand there for a long two seconds, close your eyes briefly and give yourself a slight tap upside the head with your hand and exclaim: “Well, if your going to look at it THAT WAY!………and your mind wanders off, wondering as to how it was – that you didn’t think of things THAT WAY.

So, at least, keep your options open.

#100:
But if you have a personal testimony as to the truthfullness of the Joseph Smith experience and that he was assisted by Heaven to bring forth this Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, – then why leave this inspired Church?

There are many who believe Joseph Smith’s prophetic claims, yet do not believe that the LDS church is currently led by divine inspiration. Your question is really a complete non sequitor.

Should be: “could see THEM bearing it, not you bearing it”

“It seems that the posts of #102 and #103 add to the bizarreness of the whole episode.”

Why? Do you really think it’s better to discuss the appearance of what happened and the conjecture and speculation it’s generated without hearing from the principal? Honestly?

#110 – What does this mean?

brjones-

That’s funny that you are saying to me to “just admit it” because I was thinking the same thing about Todd. Why doesn’t he just admit what he was doing instead of trying to say he was bearing his testimony for his dad or that he didn’t decide to post it on YouTube until after the way he was “treated badly.”

As far as who decides what a testimony is, the church has given guidelines as to what members should focus on when they testify in fast and testimony meetings, so I am not the one who is deciding, the church has given specific direction on this matter.

As far as people not turning off their phones in Sacrament, just because they aren’t doing it, doesn’t mean it is ok. It is disrepsectful to have a phone start ringing in the middle of a meeting, just as it is to have people checking e-mail, texting, etc. C’mon brjones, that is just common sense and you know it.

Jen, I don’t totally disagree with you about the venue for protesting. There’s no question that it was disrespectful, to some degree, to the others in that meeting. At the same time, I think you have to balance the minor disturbance that was caused in that particular meeting against what Todd and others in his situation perceive has been perpetrated against them. Obviously many, if not most people in the church would disagree with his interpretation of the church’s actions, but by any measure I think what was at stake with respect to his comments FAR outweighs the minor fuss that was caused by his using an inappropriate venue to air his feelings. Additionally, as has been pointed out several times in this thread, it’s easy to say he should have used a different forum, but the church doesn’t provide an alternate forum for such complaints. If his goal was to make his statment to other members generally, or the members of his ward specifically, exactly how else what he supposed to do it? I realize that people might not want to hear what he had to say, but I think it’s not really accurate to say he could have done this someplace else.

With respect to #15 – my point wasn’t to say that no one thinks other cell phone activity is disrespectful, but merely to point out that it’s not considered that big a deal. Undoubtedly any LDS member who was asked would agree that texting, etc. are disrespectful activities, but I don’t see anyone getting hot under the collar about it the way they are with this incident. And I don’t think it’s just the use of a camera in Sac. Mtg that raised the level of people’s outrage. Again I would contend that if someone recorded a member’s testimony, the content of which was standard, orthodox mormon fare, I can’t believe anyone would be all that upset about it. I think the content is what really differentiates this situation for most members who are upset about it. I’m not saying anyone would be wrong to feel that way, just that there’s too much focus placed on his physical actions. Change the message and I just don’t think anyone would care.

Brjones, I agree the church doesn’t provide an alternate forum for complaints, but my struggle is to understand why he felt the need to complain to a bunch of people who can’t do anything about it anyway? Even if the majority of the members of the church decided to leave the church over Prop 8, do you really believe that the church would change its views? I don’t, because they do things according to the timetable of the Lord (as they feel led and guided by Him) when it comes to doctrine, so disrupting a meeting really does no good except to help him feel noticed for a moment. If he wanted an alternate way to express himself to ward members or friends he could write an e-mail, invite them to his home to talk to them, write a typed letter and mail it, etc. I think there are a lot of members who feel this subject is a really difficult one and they are doing the best they can to deal with it. In other words, it is not easy for most people in the first place, so trying to make them feel uncomfortable in church may cause them to feel more negatively than postive and help sway their views against him, not for him.

FWIW, it would bother me if someone was recording ANY testimony. Of course, I think it is ridiculous that people feel they can’t turn off their phone for 70 minutes in church. We have been attending church meetings for years without cell phones and we all made it through without having to call someone or text them. So, even if you changed the message, know that I would care if someone was recording it.

WOW, All I Have to say is that You are all entitled to your opinions as Am I, But One thing I feel I must Address is the Black Issue…I Personally Witnessed at the age of 10 years old the Bishop asking My Friend Jerome To Please LEAVE a sacrament meeting we were attending together as he was beiing watched by my family for that weekend while his Mom & Dad went away. I will Never forget that moment or the way he was treated…My father explained that we should have never brought Jerome to the meeting…So as a personal Expierience I can Tell you I Have seen First Hand How Blacks were treated prior to 1978, in a strange way this church has manisfested its hate in other venues towards different minority groups..Yes this Video Was a TRUE testimony and I was a Tithe Payer of the church for 40 years, As a FINAL Testimony I dont think Bearing it in my father’s home would have the same effect, He was in tears of Joy when he saw what his son said that day as it was Honest..So go do your research and see the truth, You may be ignoring it as the truth usually come with some pain, but this church that I Once believed in Doesnt believe in Myself or others like me and prior to 1978, Black people WERE asked to Leave the building, at least they were in my ward..So Please Do some research before making an ignorant statement like that, and as far as comming back? Why Come back to the hand that “BEATS YOU”? Totally rediculious im my opinion when there are so many other churches on earth that preach the gospel of jesus christ and Christian Brotherly Love for your fellow man..Thanks for reading

Nick, Im sorry you feel that way, but Delivering a “CALL TO ARMS” letter IN sacrament for the Mormon church members to take away MY right to marry Is Also VEry Disrespectful and Inapropriate in my opinion, I Belonged to that ward, I Paid tithes and fast offerings, I Grew up in that ward,The Leadership of the church should NEVER have used the pulpit to further their Political agenda to take away rights that Myself and so many other californian’s have fought so hard to get…I feel It was Very Respectful and needed to be said’ That Being said, Remember truth comes at the Price of Uneasyness and discomfort, but truth cannot be denied Not here Or anywhere else….This time They chose to Extinguish My rights as an American, Not a Mormon and that crosses a Line with Me…No Disrespect Intended..Todd W

btw Nick, I have a question for you. Weren’t the records of those who donated to Prop 8 limited to donations of $1000 or more? If you wanted to make a donation without being identified, wasn’t it possible to limit your donation to $999?

#123:
Todd, please go back and re-read what I posted in #122. You missed the point, my friend. As an openly gay man, I personally applaud your testimony.

#125:
Weren’t the records of those who donated to Prop 8 limited to donations of $1000 or more? If you wanted to make a donation without being identified, wasn’t it possible to limit your donation to $999?

Actually, the public disclosure trigger is $100 or more. While it’s true that Mr. Monson could have donated $99.99, one would naturally ask why he would feel any need to avoid public disclosure in that way, since he had already been quite public in rallying the anti-gay troops.

#126:
Jen, now that you’ve quickly leapt to full-blown “religious indignation” mode, perhaps you can address the valid point which I made. You suggested that it is inappropriate to protest in a place of worship and/or disturb worshippers. I pointed out that your claimed exemplar, did precisely that. I would invite you, therefore, to explain the fact that Jesus of Nazareth quite famously violated your rule of conduct, without facing your condemnation. It would be even more helpful if you can explain the difference without simply resorting to “Well, he’s Jesus, so he can do anything he wants to.”

Nick-

I love the way that you’ve judge me as being full of religious indignation. You’ve given several people here a good laugh…thanks!

Is it your belief that Jesus was a perfect man or not? I am not going to start trying to compare Todd to Jesus. Jesus didn’t violate my code of conduct, the temple was His Father’s house…HIS house and He had every right to drive them out of His house for wicked behavior. As a perfect man, the Son of God, His words and actions were perfect. Wow, that’s pretty simple. If you don’t believe that, so be it. Sorry if you can’t see the difference between Jesus and Todd.

You have an interesting approach to people. More than not, I see you making rude or sarcastic remarks to others, rather than trying to understand their view while trying to express yours in a decent manner. You intentionally look for an argument and I have no interest in playing your games. I’m curious, if I am in religious indignation mode, what does that make you?

#128 – Thanks for the clarification, Jeff. I can’t fault anyone for being bothered by the allegations about blacks in the church. If Todd really did have that experience then that is extremely unfortunate, but undoubtedly an anomaly.

Todd re #121:

“Why come back to the hand that ‘BEATS YOU’?” – Because it’s the only Church that can assist you in straightening out your missperceptions and will provide a path for you to live with our Heavenly Father. You and your female spouse will also be given the opportunity to start your own universe. All that is required on your part is faith and genuine repentance.

The road is strewn with those who had their feelings hurt and left the Church. You want to throw this opportunity away? Go Ahead.

#133 – Seriously sxark, that was uncalled for.

#36. Your highly intellectual and mature response has clearly bested me in that debate. I bow to your superiority.

Anyhoo…back to the topic of bishops asking some to sit down.

One thing I haven’t heard mentioned is the issue of authority and presiding in the meeting.

It is not a democracy, it is not an open forum for anyone to say anything they want. It is an organization to try to uplift people and bring the spirit to touch our lives and help us improve.

Whether I agree with the presiding officer using the time to talk about Prop 8 or not, it is not my place to correct him openly and publically. I don’t have to agree with him, but I can handle dissenting opinions in other ways.

If the bishop feels someone needs to stop speaking, it is their right as presiding officer to make that call, and we should respect that, regardless if we agree with it or not.

All things must be done in order. There is a time and place most appropriate for things. It is not an easy thing to decide that, which is why I sustain leaders and often feel for them.

The social issues are deeply emotional and difficult to understand. But we can try to make a place for them orderly.

#132-

brjones-

“But in terms of how we should act, it seems problematic to say to someone who is tryingn to emulate Jesus, “it was ok for Jesus, based on nothing other than we know he was perfect, but it’s wrong for you.” ”

If you want to support Todd’s behavior, I have no problem with that. Honestly, I see it as a stretch trying to compare Jesus cleansing the temple to Todd filming his Prop 8 speech and putting it on YouTube, but to each their own. I don’t think it is wrong for Todd to express his views, just not in Sacrament meeting where others are expecting to worship and be edified. He obviously had motives that were beyond doing that. I can understand that when a person leaves the church it can be a painful process and some people want to make a loud, attention getting exit. After they leave too, sometimes they can’t seem to stop talking about the church and they keep living their life as if they can’t let it go. I try to understand those people, but sometimes I don’t think they are looking for understanding, I think they are looking for a fight. It is too bad.

“If you can’t find reasonable or doctrinal supports for the things jesus did then there is something amiss, and glossing it over by invoking his putative perfection doesn’t help anyone who is trying to use his life as a guide.”

I don’t feel like I am glossing anything over brjones. I have a continual relationship with the Lord and I learn more and more as I continue to pray and get closer to Him. This is something that doesn’t fit under reasonable to you or Nick, but to many people they feel they can learn about Him, why He did what He did, and How He thinks through prayer and recieving answers. Many things aren’t written in the scriptures and if that is all you base your learning of the Savior and the Father on, then I can see why you would have a problem. We just have different belief systems.

The reality is there are no satisfactory answers when you don’t believe in God. I don’t feel that I need to try and give you or any other non-believer answers because you have already reached your own conclusions. I think at times, you try to set people up because you are convinced that they have no answer that will satisfy you, therefore you feel a small victory. I don’t look at this as a game though, I am seeking to understand others with different perspectives and it makes it a lot more difficult to do so when the others aren’t interested in doing the same.

#139:
Honestly, I see it as a stretch trying to compare Jesus cleansing the temple to Todd filming his Prop 8 speech and putting it on YouTube, but to each their own.

The comparison isn’t “Todd vs. Jesus,” Jen. I simply used Jesus’ temple incident to point out that it’s not always “inappropriate,” (as you put it) for a person to protest in the midst of a worship setting. The fact is, Jesus’ protest was far more dramatic than Todd’s, even to the point of physical assault on worshippers. In addition, seeing that the event made it into writings which would be deemed sacred was about as close to “putting it on YouTube” as anyone in the first century A.D. could get, don’t you think?

I don’t think it is wrong for Todd to express his views, just not in Sacrament meeting where others are expecting to worship and be edified.

What if Todd’s words were edifying to some of those in the congregation, Jen? Suppose just one parent in that congregation was considering kicking their teenage son out of the family home for being gay–something that happens far more often than you might imagine among religious families, including LDS. What if Todd’s words were just what that parent needed to hear, in order to wake them up and prevent them from making a tragic mistake? What if that parent was moved upon to exercise greater love toward their gay son, just when that son was considering suicide as his only way out of condemnation from his family and his church?

I have a continual relationship with the Lord and I learn more and more as I continue to pray and get closer to Him. This is something that doesn’t fit under reasonable to you or Nick…

Jen, I don’t think you really know what I would or would not find “reasonable.”

I think at times, you try to set people up because you are convinced that they have no answer that will satisfy you, therefore you feel a small victory.

Jen, people like me might just as easily think that you are convinced that nobody who doesn’t share your religious beliefs will ever have an “answer that will satisfy you.” Sometimes it’s just a matter of trying to help someone understand a different point of view, rather than “winning” anything.

I am seeking to understand others with different perspectives and it makes it a lot more difficult to do so when the others aren’t interested in doing the same.

I’m sure you’re well aware, Jen, that agreeing with your views is not necessary to understanding your views. Those who have known me well are aware that there was a time in my life when my comments would have made you sound like a lazy, uncommitted believer. I fully understand what it’s like to feel spiritual certainty.

Nick-

“The fact is, Jesus’ protest was far more dramatic than Todd’s, even to the point of physical assault on worshippers.”

Physical assault? Please give me the scriptural reference on this.

“What if Todd’s words were edifying to some of those in the congregation, Jen?”

And on the flip side Nick, what if his words pushed someone over the edge and they decided to leave the church? That may seem like a good thing to some, but to others it is devastating.

“Jen, I don’t think you really know what I would or would not find “reasonable.” ”

Enlighten me then.

“I fully understand what it’s like to feel spiritual certainty”

Well, you couldn’t have felt that certain if you aren’t so certain anymore right?

My question to you is why do you go after people who express belief in God and the church and when others make comments that are offensive and rude but agree with your agenda, you say nothing at all? Do you agree with Todd’s approach of name-calling? If I did that I would hear it from you, but yet nothing is said to him. How can you scream intolerance with intolerance?

In one of my areas on my mission we had a chapel where the pulpit had a red light on it. The Bishop had a button he could press that would turn the red light on and that was his way of saying “you’re done”. He claimed he only used it twice: once when my companion bore his testimony about how members should do more missionary work, and once when I rambled on for too long. He was like, “Elder Perry, this is very serious: I’ve only used that button twice in my 5 years as Bishop and I had to use it on you because you were just rambling on about nothing. Yeah, me and my 5 minute testimony were really feeling the love (it was 4.5 minutes, my companion timed it).
When I saw the red light go on, my first reaction was to say, “sorry, I have to close in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.”
But instead I said, “the red light just went on, which means the Bishop wants me to stop for some reason.” And then I just sat down.

Wait – did I hear someone say they tried to film their talk in Church? Dude, Mormonism aside, that’s not even allowed in most religions.

Todd, you have serious issues that I hope you can resolve in whatever way is possible. At this point, there is nothing I can say other than I truly hope God holds you and blessed you in the ways that will heal your soul – since #102 and #103 illustrate all kinds of issues that nobody here is qualified to address properly.

My only offer might come across as condescending, but it is not. It is sincere, and it is based on decades of counseling people:

Get help to recognize rationalization and its destructive nature. When blatantly contradictory statements are shared in such close proximity, it always points to problems that have reached clinical seriousness. All other things aside, please seek professional help if you have not done so already. You need desperately to take responsibility and ownership of your life, and if doing something like your actions in this case makes you face that necessity, I pray that God will bless you to have the courage and strength to find peace and happiness in this life.

I have said in many places that I understand why homosexual members leave the Church, and I also have said I can’t condemn them in any way. I don’t have that inclination, authority or right – but I can pray you get the help you need.

I also can pray that the viciousness that I have been reading lately here on MM subsides and it becomes again a place where I want to contribute. Honestly, right now it simply isn’t.

#143:
Physical assault? Please give me the scriptural reference on this.

The New Testament account clearly states that he braided a whip and “drove” men out of the temple with it. “Assault” consists of harmful or offensive contact, from the point of view of the person receiving that contact. To argue that Jesus’ actions did not consist of a physical assault is to “wrest the scriptures,” as they say.

Well, you couldn’t have felt that certain if you aren’t so certain anymore right?

That’s a comforting speculation, Jen, perhaps reassuring yourself that you could never doubt your faith. The reasoning, however, is akin to saying that since insane people deny their insanity, anyone who claims to be sane is actually insane. I can’t begin to count how many times I told myself and others that I could “never deny” the validity of Mormonism, Jen. The simple fact is that we all change in the course of our life experiences, etc., thus our views often turn out not be as immovable as we think they are.

My question to you is why do you go after people who express belief in God and the church and when others make comments that are offensive and rude but agree with your agenda, you say nothing at all?

Perhaps because “offensive and rude” is in the eye of the beholder, Jen. I’ve noticed, for example, that virtually any time I express disagreement with current LDS teachings or practices, you respond by telling me I’m being “offensive” or some similar accusation.

Re #146– What a wise comment.

Okey, I usually don’t take sxark’s side if I can help it, but Jesus assaulted the people in the temple because they turned the temple into a den of thieves (Matthew 21:13, Mark 11:17 and Luke 19:46).

Personally, I think Todd is faced with that age-old dillema: he wants to stand up for what’s right, but at the same time he needs to respect the cultures he disagrees with. There is scarcely a church in the world that would allow you to take the pulpit, preach against their fundamental beliefs, and let you video tape the whole thing.

Legally, the freedom of speech doesn’t apply when you’re on private property, like a church.

So I wouldn’t have personally made the same decision, but I’m also not Todd.

Nick-

“That’s a comforting speculation, Jen, perhaps reassuring yourself that you could never doubt your faith. The reasoning, however, is akin to saying that since insane people deny their insanity, anyone who claims to be sane is actually insane. I can’t begin to count how many times I told myself and others that I could “never deny” the validity of Mormonism, Jen. The simple fact is that we all change in the course of our life experiences, etc., thus our views often turn out not be as immovable as we think they are.”

Nick, I was actually trying to be funny on this comment. That’s why the smiley face was there. And actually I have been a stage of significant doubt, so no, I am not trying to reassure myself at all….been there done that. I am sure that your stage of doubt was much different than mine because you are an openly gay man, but neverthless we all go through stages of doubt at one time or another.

#153:
Okey, I usually don’t take sxark’s side if I can help it, but Jesus assaulted the people in the temple because they turned the temple into a den of thieves (Matthew 21:13, Mark 11:17 and Luke 19:46).

Yes, Jesus of Nazareth protested the exploitive business of the moneychangers, which took place within the Jerusalem temple courts, saying that their practices made the temple into a “den of thieves” (quoting from the Old Testament, of course). These individuals received common (generally foriegn, i.e. Greek or Roman) coins in exchange for the “temple” coins, which were acceptable for making offerings in the temple, and made a substantial (as I said, “exploitive”) profit by so doing. Others exploited the poor by selling sacrificial animals within the temple courts, again at substantial profits. The temple priests, it is said, made no effort to curb this practice, because they were receiving a percentage of the take.

These moneychangers and merchants weren’t unauthorized “invaders” of the temple courts. Rather, they were authorized and supported by the temple priests as a normal function. Perhaps when they began, they weren’t much different than having a Beehive Clothing outlet adjacent to a modern LDS temple–members of the faith, simply providing a convenient and necessary service. Over time, however, their pursuit of profit resulted in gross mistreatment of the poor. I think we can all agree that their conduct was repulsive, but this doesn’t take away the fact that they were an accepted (by the priests) part of the worship setting at that time—they were among those we would call “worshippers,” even if they were bad worshippers.

Douglas-

We didn’t have any pro Prop 8 opinions being expressed in my ward and I don’t think Sacrament is the place to do that either. Obviously, every bishop is different in what they allow or don’t allow and I am sure some crossed the line on that one.

As far as hearing things over the pulpit that make us feel uncomfortable, I have no problem with feeling discomfort and working through it, but Sacrament meeting also includes infants on up and I don’t feel it is necessary to make children uncomfortable or confused, they have enough to deal with and worry about in their lives. That doesn’t mean that I ignore talking about issues with my children, but there are certain ages where they just don’t need to be concerned or worried about things they are too young to process and understand.

160:
There must be closure on this issue somewhere. Is it now acknowledged by all that the Bishop or his designate, should he be absent, is the only person authorized to “judge” during all Church meetings and therefore has the authority to stop anyone from speaking?

That is not an accurate conclusion, sxark. If the stake president, or one of his counsellors, is present, they preside over the meeting, and the bishop (or one of his counsellors) simply conducts the meeting by permission/custom. The stake presidency member would also have an ecclesiastical right to “judge” and stop a speaker from proceeding.

If one voluntarily leaves the LDS Church, do they miss out on the Millenium, as that scripture suggests?

According to the teachings of the LDS church, sxark, a great many non-LDS will be alive on the earth during what LDS anticipate as “the Millenium.” At the same time, a great many LDS members would not survive to “participate in the Millenium,” since every church has members who represent the proverbial “wolves in sheep’s clothing.”

And is this and other scriptures brought to their attention before they leave the Church?

When I directed the LDS church to remove my name from their records, a few well-meaning friends attempted this sort of “intervention,” telling me that all sorts of terrible fates awaited me in the event that I persisted in my so-called “apostacy.” One even attempted to convince me that if I left the LDS church and lived as an openly gay man, I would surely die from AIDS within two years (already a false prophecy, btw)! While the intentions of these individuals were basically good, they demonstrated a rather remarkable set of assumptions on their part. They assumed that I still “secretly” believed everything the LDS church taught, as if they simply couldn’t wrap their heads around the idea that someone could reach the conclusion that LDS-ism wasn’t all it claimed to be. Since they made this assumption, they also assumed that they could talk me out of leaving the LDS church by telling me all the “blessings” that I would be “giving up” (something that only has meaning for someone who believes in those “blessings” in the first place). Most surprisingly of all, a few of these men seemed absolutely convinced that if they were persistent, they could find the one thing to say, which would miraculously change my mind (not to mention my sexual orientation!).

I’m not sure where these assumptions come from, frankly, but they don’t seem to be all that rare. I see them in practice among certain commenters in the bloggernacle, as well. I think most of the individuals who hold these assumptions are truly perplexed by the thoughts and behavior of “unbelievers,” and they truly desire to do good. A few, sadly, become very frustrated and angry when other commenters don’t see the “obvious truth” of their words. One can only speculate as to the root cause of such anger.

#162:
However, should you find out, that according to LDS theology, that D&C 43:18 also pertains to those who leave the LDS Church and you did not know this at the time you left, – would this information impact on your decision making process?

You just can’t see it, can you sxark? Did you bother at all to read what I posted? You’re making the same assumptions I described above. If I’m a non-believer, how would the intended meaning of any passage in LDS scripture be “information” that would “impact on [my] decision making process?” Why on earth would you think that some particular scripture quotation is going to magically change “re-convert” someone who has made a decision to leave the LDS church–a decision which almost always involves lengthy study and soul-searching?

My last stake president was far more respectful, and infinitely wiser than you are in this regard. I had served two and a half years as his executive secretary, meeting with him on a weekly basis (often more than weekly). When I discussed with him the fact that I was going to have my name removed from the records of the LDS church, he didn’t try to preach to me, or come up with some “magical phrase” to change my mind. He didn’t try to teach me doctrines that I’d taught to others for over twenty years, on some oddball presumption that I just didn’t understand LDS teachings. Instead, he said, “Nick, I know you well enough to know that you would never have made this decision without a great deal of careful thought.” He treated me with dignity as a sincere, thinking human being, and despite the fact that we had come to differ in our views of LDS teachings, he expressed his ongoing love and support.