• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Mormon/Ex-Mormon Thread of 3 hour blocks and salvation flowcharts

ronito

Member
I could see how that might apply to Mormon Stories, but I just don't get it with Ordain Women. I don't see anything that they've done that has gone against church teachings.

Interestingly, this quote by Joseph Smith has been floating around:



By the way:

OGLt5cS.jpg

LOL, they probably thought he'd just take it lying down instead of going to the media. Which means they didn't really think it through at all. Anyone that's paid attention to what Dehlin has done would've known he'd go straight to the media.

Also this is making the rounds:
http://www.*****************/news/a...ply-confused-shocked-sons-deadly-rampage.html

Seems like the Oregon shooter was a mormon bent on "punishing sinners" that smoked and took the lords name in vain. Sad.
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
I could see how that might apply to Mormon Stories, but I just don't get it with Ordain Women. I don't see anything that they've done that has gone against church teachings.
What you think doesn't matter. Church leadership has the final word and has since the 19th Century, unless you want to go RLDS or FLDS or whatever.
 

Yoritomo

Member
I'm out, wife is out. Not removing names yet but daughter isn't being baptized, parents/grandparents have been told, etc, etc...

And sorry about shitting on you with my holier than though bullshit a couple of years ago Hitokage.
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
I'm out, wife is out. Not removing names yet but daughter isn't being baptized, parents/grandparents have been told, etc, etc...

And sorry about shitting on you with my holier than though bullshit a couple of years ago Hitokage.
Haha, no worries. You had no standing to do so in the first place!
 

ronito

Member
New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/19/u...hurch-status-at-risk-mormons-say.html?hp&_r=2
Rock Waterman, a retired innkeeper in California, writes a blog called Pure Mormonism, which attracts Mormons so orthodox that they believe their church is not sufficiently adhering to its own doctrines.

Last month, Mr. Waterman posted a combative challenge addressed to one of the Mormon Church’s top leaders: “Stop making up your own rules and try preaching the Gospel of Christ for a change.”

Two days later, he said, he was summoned to a meeting with his bishop and told to either stop blogging or resign his church membership. If he did not resign he would face excommunication, he said the bishop told him, on orders from another official higher up — one of the church’s leaders known as an Area Seventy.

From California to Virginia and states in between, more than a dozen Mormons interviewed in the past week said they had recently been informed by their bishops that they faced excommunication or risked losing permission to enter a temple because of comments they had made online about their faith, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

These members said their bishops had questioned them about specific posts they had made on their blogs, Twitter and Facebook, in the comment streams of websites or in conversations in chat rooms.

The kinds of comments that have attracted the scrutiny of bishops and stake presidents, who are regional supervisors, include support for the ordination of women; advocacy for same-sex marriage; serious doubts about church history or theology; and, as in Mr. Waterman’s case, protests that the church demands more in tithes than its doctrine requires.

Michael Otterson, managing director of the church’s public affairs office, said: “There is no coordinated effort to tell local leaders to keep their members from blogging or discussing their questions online. On the contrary, church leaders have encouraged civil online dialogue and recognize that today it’s just part of how the world works.”

However, he said, church leaders do grow concerned when discussion is used to recruit others for campaigns to change church doctrine or structure.

“When it goes so far as creating organized groups, staging public events to further a cause and creating literature for members to share in their local congregations,” Mr. Otterson said, “the church has to protect the integrity of its doctrine as well as other members from being misled.”

The crackdown is much broader than the action taken last week against two prominent Mormons, who were threatened with excommunication: Kate Kelly, the founder of the Ordain Women movement, and John P. Dehlin, creator of the Mormon Stories podcast and an advocate for gay Mormons.

It has affected Mormons perceived as dissidents from across the ideological spectrum: liberals such as Ms. Kelly, Mr. Dehlin and others who support same-sex marriage, and conservatives who devoutly believe Mormon teaching and Scripture but criticize the church as straying from it, such as Mr. Waterman and Denver Snuffer, a lawyer in Utah who blogs and writes books about Mormonism. Mr. Snuffer said on his blog that he was excommunicated for apostasy last fall.

“This is clearly boundary maintenance,” said Jan Shipps, a professor emerita of history and religious studies at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, who has written extensively about the Mormon Church. “They had essentially created a porous boundary, but once you have a porous boundary, sooner or later you’re going to have to maintain a boundary that says, ‘This is as far as you can go.’ ”

Mormons are such active bloggers and voluble writers that they have created a whole universe of sites, which they call the Bloggernacle, where they go to discuss their faith. The church cannot police them all or shut them down, but it can demonstrate to members where it draws the boundaries of acceptability by scaring those who stray.

The church, in a statement this week, said that disciplinary actions were handled by local leaders and were not coordinated or directed by church headquarters. But some of the Mormons facing disciplinary actions said they had been told by their bishops that the instruction to investigate Internet activity came relatively recently from more senior leaders.

“It feels scary to have all the words I say on Facebook and Twitter monitored,” said Kevin Kloosterman, a mental health therapist in Sycamore, Ill.

Mr. Kloosterman, who was a bishop from 2007 to 2012, attracted headlines and scrutiny for an emotional talk he gave at a conference in Salt Lake City in 2011 apologizing to gays rejected by their Mormon families. He also lobbied for same-sex marriage in his state. But there were no consequences until March of this year, when, at a meeting, his bishop cited a Twitter post by Mr. Kloosterman congratulating the first gay couple to be married in Utah.

“Jesus would never do that,” the bishop said, according to Mr. Kloosterman. He said his bishop informed him that an Area Seventy church leader had weighed in on his case (Mr. Kloosterman declined to name him), and that leaders had been monitoring his Internet activity and knew he supported groups that disagree with church teaching.

The bishop revoked Mr. Kloosterman’s “temple recommend,” denying him entrance to the temple, where important rituals like baptisms and marriages are held and where he and his wife used to go regularly for spiritual uplift.

“It’s been devastating,” he said. “I’m in shock still.”

Some supporters of the Ordain Women movement who have posted profiles and pictures of themselves on the movement’s website have also recently had their temple recommends withdrawn or been removed from church volunteer positions, according to Ms. Kelly and Ordain Women leaders.

Ms. Kelly’s parents, who live in Provo, Utah, were among those who lost temple privileges, as was a higher-profile leader, Hannah Wheelwright, who just graduated from the church’s Brigham Young University and founded a group called Young Mormon Feminists.

But there are also those who never sought the spotlight, like Dana, a member in the church’s Buena Vista stake in Virginia, who did not want her last name used because she has family in the church. She was very active in the church but supports the ordination of women and same-sex marriage, which church doctrine prohibits.

She said that soon after she posted comments anonymously in an online chat room, her bishop sent her emails quoting what she had written and questioning her about her beliefs. On June 1, she said, her bishop phoned and told her to stop posting or face a church disciplinary hearing. Instead, four days later, she and her family resigned their church membership.

“It was just bizarre,” she said. “I was trying to quietly leave the church because of doctrinal reasons, and I hastily left the church because of my bishop.”

As for Mr. Waterman, the blogger in California, he has refused to resign and is willing to face discipline. “I’m not trying to get the church to change,” he said. “I’m trying to get the church to abide by its doctrine.”
Man this almost deserves its own thread. It's like the Mormon inquisition (which no one expected). I don't know how they really expect people to believe that it's not coordinated. It's almost insulting to the intelligence. I also don't understand how they can reconcile all this with Utchdorf's recent talks about embracing doubters and all that. It's all just lip service now. If I had given and meant those talks and then saw the church go on this purge I'd be livid.

lol I just realized that in one of my internet arguments over the church I was arguing with Waterman. I never knew.
 

ronito

Member
I'm out, wife is out. Not removing names yet but daughter isn't being baptized, parents/grandparents have been told, etc, etc...

And sorry about shitting on you with my holier than though bullshit a couple of years ago Hitokage.

So, if you don't mind asking. What was it that finally pushed you over?
 

Yoritomo

Member
So, if you don't mind asking. What was it that finally pushed you over?

Kate Kelly and John Dehlin. Church drew a line in the sand and I was on the other side of it. If I can't voice my opinion or hope for any change before my daughters enter young women's I'm out.

Also while talking to the bishop to see if I would be able to baptize my daughter (there was already momentum and we didn't want to pull the rug out from under her), he asked me about masturbation...

I was being honest with him about my lack of faith and my concerns with the church, but asking me about masturbation is a huge red flag and I had always wondered why the young men in our ward always seemed so morose. Wife and I talked about it and spoke to family, cancelled the baptism, after speaking to my daughter and letting her know that we love and have friends in the church but it hurts people, and we want her to learn more before she gets baptized. She told us she didn't want to get baptized.

I clarified to the bishop that I have had to de-escalate individuals I care about from doing great harm to themselves because of the way that masturbation is sometimes either addressed or associated with the law of chastity in the church. He interpreted this as me having a strong testimony about the law of chastity and how much damage breaking it could do... So cognitive bias had allowed him to completely and fundamentally misunderstand me. We didn't have much time so I didn't belabor the point right there even though I should have. But it was the combination of things that meant we just had to take a stand.

I may take it to the stake, because this really does concern me, and the young men and young women of the ward are our babysitters and I can't help but hurt for them if they're getting shame bombed about masturbation.
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
Oh man, I fell hard into that cycle of shame. It's funny how little it's on your mind when you don't have to worry about avoiding it constantly.
 
I kind of want to get excommunicated, it would save me the hassle of getting my records removed. (which my wife wants to do with me now). I should start attending again and make a few blogs about the church.


Oh man, I fell hard into that cycle of shame. It's funny how little it's on your mind when you don't have to worry about avoiding it constantly.

I can't imagine how bad it might be for some teens in the church. I was fortunate(?) enough that it was never a problem for me, I don't know if I was just naive or abnormal. For me the premarital abstinence was on par with the word of wisdom in terms of ease of adherence.
 

Yoritomo

Member
Just e-mailed the stake president about it. We'll see where this leads.

Edit: Looks like he'll address it. He apologized and will address it with the bishop so that's good.
 

ronito

Member
Way to go Yorimoto!

The masturbation thing is WAY bigger than anyone lets on. The damage that does is immense and sets people on bad paths in a critical part of their life. Even if my kids decided to be mormon I'd be seriously worried when they got to the pre-teen/teen years and would most likely have them not go because the church goes from "some strict rules with some good stuff in there" to downright toxic
 

ronitoswife

Neo Member
So I've been seeing this article all over my Facebook today. Several people have mentioned it's a good read about the purpose of disciplinary councils since so many people are making it seem like they are just being punished these days.

Ummmmmmm...........okay......but they are being punished. You can try and sugar coat this as much as possible but it's not going to change what's actually happening. You may say it's all in an act of love. But it's a love with conditions and not unconditional. That's become very clear.


http://middleagedmormonman.com/home/2014/06/why-love-church-disciplinary-councils.html
 

Thaedolus

Gold Member
It misses the whole point that these people don't need discipline at all. Questioning and doubting and voicing both should not be grounds for forceful removal. These aren't murderers or child molestors (one of whom I'm aware of only getting disfellowshipped), they're just non-chapel members. I've got family who feel like they're on the other side of the line the church has drawn and they're scared right now. That's not a message of love and acceptance. It's a brutal, bullying fear tactic.

That blog is a classic "turn everything into a testimony building experience" byproduct of all the cognitive biases that exist in order to keep someone believing in have 21st century.

Church membership was on fire in th late 90s, the church is true!

Church membership is currently dwindling...well, even the elect will be deceived in the last days! The church is true!

It's stupid. Rational thought literally goes out the window because of the psychological barriers in place.

I remember I read something probably 10 years ago that Hito wrote about the temple ceremony...it sounded awful to me, no way that could be true, no way that's what the temple was like...I said a prayer to forget about the nasty lies he wrote. Then I got my endowments and, well, shit it's just like he said. And the whole thing scared and intimidated me. I didn't feel love, I just clinged to the fact that my whole family was there so it must be ok. And I had heard so many good things about the temple...eventually I was able to convince myself it was awesome!!!!

Looking back, I wish I had just done some more digging and confirmed what Hito said and noped the fuck out before my mission. But those psychological factors are strong. It's depressing to think about all the intelligent people I know stuck because of those factors.
 

ronito

Member
So I've been seeing this article all over my Facebook today. Several people have mentioned it's a good read about the purpose of disciplinary councils since so many people are making it seem like they are just being punished these days.

Ummmmmmm...........okay......but they are being punished. You can try and sugar coat this as much as possible but it's not going to change what's actually happening. You may say it's all in an act of love. But it's a love with conditions and not unconditional. That's become very clear.


http://middleagedmormonman.com/home/2014/06/why-love-church-disciplinary-councils.html
All this sounds like those parents that tell their children, "I beat you because I love you." Sorta highlights how abusive the church can be. Also I love that "the door is always open" line. Yeah, it's open, to kick your ass out. Honestly I know people that have abused and sexually abused their kids that didn't face this kind of scrutiny. I've known criminals that weren't excommunicated. But hey, saying "the church's history is problematic." Welp that's an excommunication. It's all seems very scientology-esque.

I think this is yet another disaster for the church. I've known at least 5 people that were within the ranks of active mormons that are now like "I think I need to just get out now." I'm no fan of Joanna Brooks but she did make a semi-coherent post on this

https://askmormongirl.wordpress.com/2014/06/20/the-real-mormon-moment-is-now/

She's right though, it is the next mormon moment and they're failing terribly at it.
 

Furyous

Member
7. Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

I wouldn't qualify for a temple recommend anyway, my sister-in-law and her husband are gonna have a rough time with this. She's a pretty staunch OW supporter, but completely faithful in every other way.

Does this mean we're being monitored? I knew something was up when a bishop and a couple of stake officials added me on Facebook. I can easily see how some of my posts that are less in line with 100 percent church doctrine/culture could rub people the wrong way.

I remember posting sadness this week that a popular radio host in NYC was retiring from radio. 24 hours later a bishop calls me in and expresses sadness that he feels I am falling away. Is this a coincidence?
 

Yoritomo

Member
That was one of the most brutal realizations for me. Yes there are so many good things about the church. Wonderful beautiful things.

In the same way people fall in love with a spouse who is wonderful in all other ways but happens to be abusive. Should the spouse just stay for the good parts and hope to change them to cease the abuse?

I still think there are wonderful beautiful parts to the church, and prior to the Kate Kelly/Dehlin stuff I really thought that change could happen that has hurt and continues to hurt people that I love. Even if the church is true, it still causes harm through the thoughtless actions of leaders.
 

ronito

Member
Does this mean we're being monitored? I knew something was up when a bishop and a couple of stake officials added me on Facebook. I can easily see how some of my posts that are less in line with 100 percent church doctrine/culture could rub people the wrong way.

I remember posting sadness this week that a popular radio host in NYC was retiring from radio. 24 hours later a bishop calls me in and expresses sadness that he feels I am falling away. Is this a coincidence?

There's definitely something going on. In the NYT a former bishop as talking about how he was essentially disciplined over a twitter post. That Joanna Brooks post that I posted talks about how some people have been disciplined over stuff said in anonymous chat rooms.

We already know about the strengthening the members committee:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNHM7I1WJIk

(starts around 4 minutes)

There's been all kinds of rumblings about it and tons of really creepy stuff.
Seems that the rumors might be true.
 

Fathead

Member
Lol


If someone wants to call me in for a disciplinary hearing over this post, bring it.


Of course I dont like the implications here. I already have the nsa spying i dont need the church doing it too. I still think they are technically telling the truth but im also certain that distinction means absolutely nothing.

In any case i was going to miss this week due to work but im sure it will be an interesting sunday anyway.
 

ronito

Member
You know, the wife and I have always said that we'd never get our names removed because the church was such an integral part of our upbringing and family history that it would be like me saying "I'm not latino anymore."

But the recent events make me wonder if perhaps it might be time. The main thing is that I don't want to be called into the ultimatum that so many have gotten lately of "Leave or face a disciplinary council" thing. I certainly will not waste time with a disciplinary council but if I left because of that I'd feel it was the church kicking me out more than my own decision and honestly after having had the church exert power over my decisions for more than 30 years I don't want it making another. Meh, we'll wait and see.
 

Fathead

Member
Once again, not surprised. Without speaking to the merits of the actual issue she raises, you can't continue to proselytize for a change in doctrine like that and not expect to get booted.


I may think the church's stance on gay marriage is wrong but I'm not staging protests at temple square either.
 

ronito

Member
Not surprising in the slightest.
But I will say the John Dehlin bit however, that could either way.
I'm just waiting for Joanna Brooks to get her call.

She's in essence advocated all the positions that Dehlin has. And it would seem that if you're going to go after the position the church has that this is all because of people's positions on issues, she'd have to be not too far behind.
 

Fathead

Member
Asking people to show up at conference and try to gate crash a meeting after being asked not to do so while being filmed by news crews is not "just asking questions".


She made this bed. Shes gotta sleep in it now.


Once again, Im not saying i support the church on this. This whole thing reeks of stupidity. But i dont and wont feel sorry for her when she knew that she was putting her hand in the fire.
 
The church wants her to just keep her questions to herself. But how in the world does one ever enact any changes in the world when they just keep it quietly it to themselves?

The church oligarchy absolutely refuses to acknowledge the questions people have, much less actually sit down and discuss them. (Instead leaving that to local leaders that don't have the ability to resolve questions that should be answered by church leaders.)

Respectfully arriving at Temple Square and asking to be let in as a way to try and get the church leaders to acknowledge the questions certainly doesn't sound like a "gate crash" to me.

The church doesn't allow any other proper pathway for these kinds of things to be addressed, and those that try to honestly make a difference get fucked over.
 

Fathead

Member
Im pretty sure she knew that she wouldnt be let into that meeting. Trying to enter a gathering you havent been invited to is pretty much the definition of gate crashing. Announcing your intentions so the press shows up to film you trying to gate crash isnt quiet.


The church, like a large number of private organizations, does not have to provide any avenue for change from the member level. Thats not how it is built, structurally or doctrinally. Your choices when in a private organization and when faced with an issue like this are:

1. Shut up and deal with it.
2. Leave.
3. Make your opinion known and be prepared to get kicked out.




Right or wrong, that is how it is. Last I checked, Kate Kelly is a grown up, and grown ups know that there are consequences to actions. Everyone who does things like this ends up the same way. In fact, id put money on her expecting this and going for the martyr factor, which the church has played right into.


Once again, without commenting on the issue, if she really is after change she will step up the pressure now that the only recourse the church has against her is thorugh legal action.
 

Yoritomo

Member
I think reality is always a little different.

I'm spiritually disaffected from church even though I would still attend periodically. For all of my blasphemy, dissent, and heresy I didn't expect the church to still be able to elicit from me an emotional reaction to something that it does. Kate may have started out walking onto that limb and expecting it to snap immediately, but it didn't, she then saw the effect it was having on others as they also grew in their confidence to voice their desire for change in the current structure of the church. They grew in confidence and belief as they ventured farther onto that limb, then someone cut their tree down.

Until the John Dehlin and Kate Kelly disciplinary courts I would have said that I was a disbeliever but that I was still a part of the "tribe". Now it is clear that my tribe doesn't want me and it stings. Maybe I was a shitty mormon, but I was still mormon, hell even if I had resigned I probably would have felt mormon, now I'm literally feeling the stages of grief and it sucks. Kate Kelly really did believe, maybe she could have done things differently, but you'd be fooling yourself if you think she was ex'd because of how she said things instead of the resonance of her message and it's implications within the church. Tone might matter, but she's not being excommunicated for tone. She's being excommunicated because people were listening to her and her grievances are real.

Her hope of not being excommunicated says more about her trust in the organization of the church. She is right about one thing though, punishing someone and calling it love are the words of an abuser. If there is a God, and he had anything to do with the church, then I hope Kate can stand as a witness of its corruption and unrighteous dominion.
 

Yoritomo

Member
Punishing someone most certainly can be love. I don't that its the case here, but a blanket statement like that is wrong.

I messed up her quote anyway.

"That's classic language of an abusive relationship, where a person abusing and hurting you says that they're doing it out of love."
 

Fathead

Member
That is true.

And for the record I'm not saying I agree with the church's decision. Just that they have the right and this is entirely consistent with these kinds of situations in the past.

It would have been smarter to have someone meet with her privately and address the issue. Then if she keeps going they look much better. Bad PR move here. And right now they could use some good PR.
 

ronito

Member
Any UK people in here? I heard there was a documentary that aired over there recently, any opinions on it?

are you talking about the BBC one they made when Romney was running?

Also the PR disaster continues.

NPR did a story on the excommunications coming around and MSNBC did this:

http://www.msnbc.com/the-cycle/watch/abby--open-dialogue-needed-in-mormon-church-290985539952

And she is absolutely right. The church is being left behind. It used to be that the church was just behind the times and now many would say that it's on a march towards irrelevancy. The DNA mormons will always be there, but with less organic growth that will not last.
 

ronito

Member
Any UK people in here? I heard there was a documentary that aired over there recently, any opinions on it?

Hey is this it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jORAciyGk4

I love when they get to chastity the guy saying "I went and saw a movie with a girl and that was just a fun as any mormon sexual relationship could be." Dude, you have no idea.

Also, that missionary stuff is heartbreaking. Poor kid.

edit: having finished it, I really don't know why the church keeps agreeing to do this. I don't think they appreciate how creepy and weird stuff like a mission is to people that aren't mormon. Don't really know what they expected.
 

Furyous

Member
are you talking about the BBC one they made when Romney was running?

Also the PR disaster continues.

NPR did a story on the excommunications coming around and MSNBC did this:

http://www.msnbc.com/the-cycle/watch/abby--open-dialogue-needed-in-mormon-church-290985539952

And she is absolutely right. The church is being left behind. It used to be that the church was just behind the times and now many would say that it's on a march towards irrelevancy. The DNA mormons will always be there, but with less organic growth that will not last.

As someone relatively close to the age limit for attending the single wards, I'll chime in. The church will never be irrelevant and always behind the times. The problem it faces is one of empathy. We can all do a better job of showing empathy towards church members who come from different perspectives on issues. That is the long-term issue that we deal with. Another cause of all this negative PR is the adverse effect it has on goodwill moving forward.

I've got a friend that's organizing church members to participate in a parade that supports an unpopular stance the church does not approve of. He wants to discuss this with me in church and I am vehemently against it. I told him we can meet elsewhere but that is not happening in church. There are moments where being a member of the church is especially difficult because some of my fellow members never dealt with these issues in their environments.
 

ronito

Member
As someone relatively close to the age limit for attending the single wards, I'll chime in. The church will never be irrelevant and always behind the times. The problem it faces is one of empathy. We can all do a better job of showing empathy towards church members who come from different perspectives on issues. That is the long-term issue that we deal with. Another cause of all this negative PR is the adverse effect it has on goodwill moving forward.

I've got a friend that's organizing church members to participate in a parade that supports an unpopular stance the church does not approve of. He wants to discuss this with me in church and I am vehemently against it. I told him we can meet elsewhere but that is not happening in church. There are moments where being a member of the church is especially difficult because some of my fellow members never dealt with these issues in their environments.
But that's sorta the point. If the church isn't going to have empathy to listen to those that have issues like Kate Kelly or John Dehlin or the LGBT community it's just going to keep shrinking.

The problem for the church is that largely it can't hide much anymore. Before it was OK to be anti-gay because most gay people were in the closet. But now almost everyone has a gay friend or relative, and a lot of people will think "Hey, uncle Jon is a good moral person, why can't he enjoy love like the rest of us?" Or the same issue with history issues. Before it was difficult to find the issues of history and if you even went looking it would be hard to find something that wasn't "anti-mormon". But now all the evidence is out there and incredibly easy to stumble upon or even research and you can do so from Mormon writings. Before the church marginalized people like this by calling them "bitter" or "offended" but now everyone knows someone that has problems with Joseph Smith's seer stones or polygamy or the book of abraham or race, etc ,etc etc. So long as the church's answer for this is "with us or against us" they're going to have a hard time staying relevant, day might be not too far in the future when Mormons are viewed like the Mennonites.
 

mik

mik is unbeatable
I finally wrote my resignation letter this weekend. It was incredibly cathartic. I expect sending it tomorrow will be even more so.
 

ronito

Member
I finally wrote my resignation letter this weekend. It was incredibly cathartic. I expect sending it tomorrow will be even more so.

I'm not the kind of guy to say "Congrats!" like so many would. I get that it can be a difficult thing. But you took a hard step and you should be proud of that.

Honestly, as I posted earlier I'm seriously considering it. More and more people are being called to disciplinary councils and I really don't want to have to deal with that. Nor do I think that I'm comfortable having my name there. It seems a bit hypocritical on both the non-mormon (dude, why is your name still there? Aren't you pro-gay rights?) and the mormon side (dude, if you don't believe why is your name still there?) But like I said Mormonism had so much to do with how I was brought up and both my wife's and my families. Seems wrong to leave it too. :(
 

CorvoSol

Member
NMuowUD.png


In order of their sinfulness:

1. Denying the Holy Ghost
2. Thinking about touching girls.
3. Using Myspace
4. Being Barefoot
5. Murder.
 

ronitoswife

Neo Member
I understand that wholly. That's exactly why it took me so long.

If I may ask, what was it that helped you to decided to finally leave? Like Ronito has said we're still juggling with the idea. I never really felt the need to make it official because regardless of how I view the church now it will always be a part of who I am. But as of late the idea has been weighing on my mind and I'm not quite sure how I feel about it. I definitely don't feel guilty about my disaffection with the church(despite what my family thinks). But this whole thing does sadden me. It's left me unsure of what to do.
 
Top Bottom