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.

Being non-LDS is different than one who was a member of the Church, then left it. I would double check this out. I’m almost certain I read about this somewhere, but this was a topic I wasn’t looking for in the first place. But, then again, if you don’t care, then that’s the way it is.

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?

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.

I don’t know if my questions are ‘threadjacking’ but the topic of this post has raised some interesting side issues during the last 156 entries. For example: If one leaves the LDS Church voluntarily or by excommunication, is that person described in D&C 43:18 “….Ye saints arise and live; ye sinners stay and sleep until I shall call again.”

If one voluntarily leaves the LDS Church, do they miss out on the Millenium, as that scripture suggests? And is this and other scriptures brought to their attention before they leave the Church? This is not a “brainwashing” technique as suggested by Todd in #103. It’s just a question as to whether former members of the LDS Church will participate in the Millenium or not.

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.

Why not in sacrament meeting? In my ward sacrament meeting was a place where people were allowed to voice opinions that were overtly political, prejudiced and basically offensive, as long as those opinions were pro prop. 8. Even some of my pro prop. 8 friends felt that the use of church meetings for prop. 8 activities went way over the line, and was obviously political in nature. Granted I don’t think the statement in the video was very well done, it was more political and economic in nature than it was spiritual, but that is not a major criticism in an environment in which one particular political view was repeatedly pronounced from the pulpit.

Two thoughts, first, its not necessarily a bad thing for us to hear something challenging and uncomfortable from the pulpit, being a Christian does seem to require some challenges and being made uncomfortable. Heck, at least it wasn’t yet another cookie cutter “I know this Church is true . . .” sort of thing. Second, if the chapel is sacred space then everyone needs to treat it as such, the exclusion of politics needs to be universal rather than selective.

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.

Where did that edit button go?!?

“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.

“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.”

I’m not the only one telling you Nick. I notice others, like Ray did recently, saying something to you as well.

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.

How could you make this mistake about Jesus in the Temple [#141] by asserting that He was assaulting worshipers, when the scriptures clearly state that He was assaulting the moneychangers?

All Jen was pointing out, was that it was so obvious that Todd was violating a sacred testimony meeting. Jesus was doing nothing of the kind, not even close.

I believe your right about one thing: “offensive and rude” does appear to be in the eye of the beholder. If one supports Elder Hafen, they are labeled as “offensive and rude” and sometimes a “toll”. And vice-versa.

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.

The viciousness you have seen is a drop in the bucket compared to what I’ve received from supposedly “good Mormons”

Your Mental opinion of me is very interesting at best, Thank You for your Prayers But please save them for your church’s wrong doings…

In the end We will all know the truth of all things and I Will Forgive those that have trespassed against me as I Love my brothers and sisters even though Their capacity towards me seems to be something called “Tolerance” at Best’

God Bless You

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.

Wherever people come down on Prop 8 and the church’s activities to fuel it, it will not go away. Todd’s testimony is far from the only fallout that it’s occasioned. Many people who are well armed with the church’s arguments and their own testimony are, nonetheless, not able to let it go. I think that’s because there is truth in it. And consequence in it. And heartbreak and loss in it. For those on both sides of the issue.

Like it or not, this is not resolved with catchphrases and turning off mikes. So we might as well prepare ourselves to listen to one another and to be able to open our hearts for the time when the church sees the damage it is doing to itself.

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.

“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?

My apologies. I was actually thinking of Nick when I was writing that last paragraph and I am not sure how I missed that. There is a lot going on here, so I apologize. I do feel like you are civil in our conversations and that you try to see other’s viewpoints and I appreciate your willingness to do so.

In relation that that last paragraph, I have felt in the times that Nick has responded to me he is not very willing to have a civil conversation, or even attempt to forge some type of understanding. The feelings I wrote there were directed to him about that. Again, sorry for the mistake.

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.