Former Oklahoma City Temple President Apostatized

[_why me]

This bit strikes me:

Jerrell was called to be the president of the Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Temple and his wife as the matron. ...he wrote the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve for help. It was his hope that the fifteen men whom he believed were entitled to revelation and the only fifteen men upon the earth capable of direct heavenly inspiration for the world would help him rescue his testimony. These men never responded ...

This is an important man, a temple president, a bishop, a long-term devoted servant of the church. He has problems with doctrine, and he writes to the leaders of his church for help.

These men never responded ... later they got someone to phone him, who basically told him to forget it.

Why didn't those men respond? Wasn't it worth their time? That hardly seems believable.

So why did they ignore this man?

During the early days important men left the church all the time. It is nothing unusual. However, these days most important men and women stay in the church. Why? So, one or two leaves the fold. We all have a reason for our actions. It is a part of life. But I would still like to hear his story and what he now thinks of the Book of Mormon as to who he thinks wrote it.

[_Chap]

But here we have a problem. It is a second hand account and not a first hand account. How can I comment on a second hand account? Most of antimormon literature comes from second hand accounts of what someone was heard saying. No very reliable. Lets have the man himself say a few words so people can respond to the problem . I certainly would not want a friend to do my dirty business.

Actually, until this man comes onto this board himself and says that he has left the church, "we" can't even proceed on that assumption, can we?

With respect, I think you do have a problem all of your very own, though in my view it is not the one you have referred to above. You have however found a marvellous way to deal with your problem, and I hope it makes you feel all warm and comfortable.

So now the rest of us will get on with the discussion without you, I assume.

[_antishock8]

What I find interesting is all those years of faithful service are immediately invalidated and he is branded a sinner by The Nehor (who is representative of many a Mormon in this regard).

What a waste. All that effort, and now he's a dirty apostate to people like The Nehor.

After ten years of faithful service in His Majesty's Army and suddenly he defects. Should this invalidate his years of faithful service? Should he be branded a traitor?

I laughed long and hard about me representing the typical Mormon.

... The Nehor (who is representative of many a Mormon in this regard).

You're definitely not the typical Mormon, my friend. Most Mormons aren't closeted homosexuals who are "virgins" and have claimed to speak directly to deity. This isn't meant as a slam, by the way. I'm agreeing with you.

[_The Nehor]

Isn't it a little silly to use sin as the reason people leave the church?

Nope.

As I understand it from your posts, you are (were) a self confessed masturbation/porn addict and yet you choose to remain in the church.

I jokingly confessed this after being accused (a guess on their part) by some of my more perverted detractors. I am not a self-confessed addict of anything that I'm aware of.

Would it be fair to say that you stay in the church because of sin?

Yep, once I stop sinning I won't need it anymore.

What sin did Nehor commit which caused him to stay in the church?

Lack of charity, lack of humility, and weakness in spirit.

Be careful Nehor. If you stop sinning, you might lose your testimony.

No, if I stop sinning I'll be translated. In a sense I'll lose my testimony because my faith will become dormant and replaced with something far greater.

I think it is fair to say that people sin and leave the church and people sin and stay in the church.

We at least agree on that.

[_The Nehor]

... The Nehor (who is representative of many a Mormon in this regard).

You're definitely not the typical Mormon, my friend. Most Mormons aren't closeted homosexuals who are "virgins" and have claimed to speak directly to deity. This isn't meant as a slam, by the way. I'm agreeing with you.

I'd prefer to be thought of as atypical for things I actually do and am, not every perverted fantasy you have about me.

[_harmony]

But here we have a problem. It is a second hand account and not a first hand account. How can I comment on a second hand account? Most of antimormon literature comes from second hand accounts of what someone was heard saying. Not very reliable. Lets have the man himself say a few words so people can respond to the problem . I certainly would not want a friend to do my dirty business.

Every testimony is a second hand account, a response to hearing about something that took place a hundred, two hundred, two thousand years ago, which no one on earth has witnessed first hand. Do not disparage second hand accounts; they have their own value.

As for this story as it is presented, using only the facts in evidence:

1. the first thing that struck me was that he and his wife were converts. I'm sure they have children, although none are mentioned, but at least they didn't have 6 generations of Mormons alive and dead hanging on their necks like albatrosses, influencing their decision.

2. the way the Brethren treated them is disgraceful. There is no excuse for that kind of discourtesy. This man is their peer, and they threw him and his wife under a bus.

3. they retained a testimony of Jesus Christ, and didn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. They didn't allow the church to take away that which they had when they joined decades ago.

4. leaving or staying has no bearing on a member's personal integrity. To imply that those who have the same knowledge yet find a way to stay are lacking in integrity is not only without foundation, but counterproductive.

[_harmony]

I certainly would not want a friend to do my dirty business.

What is "dirty business" about this?

[_Chap]

What I find interesting is all those years of faithful service are immediately invalidated and he is branded a sinner by The Nehor (who is representative of many a Mormon in this regard).

What a waste. All that effort, and now he's a dirty apostate to people like The Nehor.

After ten years of faithful service in His Majesty's Army and suddenly he defects. Should this invalidate his years of faithful service? Should he be branded a traitor?

That comparison with military service seems to me either foolish or disingenuous.

If Mr Chesney had signed a contract to work as rest-room cleaner for the Salt Lake City temple for a fixed term, and then broke his contract, any penalty clauses not blocked by state or federal law would then properly operate. Such a contract could not be voided merely by a change in Chesney's religious opinions.

But by its very nature, membership of a church can and indeed should cease when one ceases to believe that what that church teaches is true. Or do you disagree?

[_The Nehor]

But here we have a problem. It is a second hand account and not a first hand account. How can I comment on a second hand account? Most of antimormon literature comes from second hand accounts of what someone was heard saying. Not very reliable. Lets have the man himself say a few words so people can respond to the problem . I certainly would not want a friend to do my dirty business.

Every testimony is a second hand account, a response to hearing about something that took place a hundred, two hundred, two thousand years ago, which no one on earth has witnessed first hand. Do not disparage second hand accounts; they have their own value.

As for this story as it is presented, using only the facts in evidence:

1. the first thing that struck me was that he and his wife were converts. I'm sure they have children, although none are mentioned, but at least they didn't have 6 generations of Mormons alive and dead hanging on their necks like albatrosses, influencing their decision.

2. the way the Brethren treated them is disgraceful. There is no excuse for that kind of discourtesy. This man is their peer, and they threw him and his wife under a bus.

3. they retained a testimony of Jesus Christ, and didn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. They didn't allow the church to take away that which they had when they joined decades ago.

4. leaving or staying has no bearing on a member's personal integrity. To imply that those who have the same knowledge yet find a way to stay are lacking in integrity is not only without foundation, but counterproductive.

1. Lucky them....I guess.

2. Harmony mocking the Brethren....well I NEVER.....

3. Harmony, they're just like you.....except when they stopped believing they left. Go and do thou likewise.

4. Counterproductive to what exactly?

[_The Nehor]

But by its very nature, membership of a church can and indeed should cease when one ceases to believe that what that church teaches is true. Or do you disagree?

I agree, in fact in my last post I said someone should follow through on their disbelief. I just don't see anything particularly meritorious about leaving. The fawning praise and the endless ascribing of virtue to everyone who leaves the Church is for lack of a better word, odd. It seems like the ability to point to others leaving somehow validates everyone who left. It's almost as if their testimony of leaving is strengthened.