Stake Pres coming to visit

[_why me]

It's really hard for me to dismantle the authority I feel these men have over me. I have a lifetime of teachings and feelings in me that prevents me from looking at them as regular people. In other words, I can't just flip a switch that turns it all off. Maybe if I imagine them naked? Or maybe with nothing but Gs on?

And this is the problem. Most Mormons look upon these men as just people. For afterall, they receive the calling and then they are released. To see them as anything else but men is looking for trouble. Human beings are human beings. No one is perfect. So, by believing what you did was just setting yourself up for disappointment.

[Guest]

Zee,

When I received my summons to the Bishop's office to discuss my absence from Church I took the few days of notice I had to prepare. (I had been traveling a lot and think that probably helped delay the day of reckoning). I thought about all of the untruths and useless, mindless crap that the Church had taught me from primary to seminary to institute and worked up a bit or righteous rage.

When I finally got to the Bishop's office, I had a few questions for him. I also had the answers, just in case he did not, which turned out to be the case.

Our Bishop at the time was a very good man and had been a friend for a few years. When we were done, he understood that the best thing for him to do was to keep the faithful away from me, at least in terms of discussions about Mormonism. So there were no follow up visits or pleas to come back. One no holds barred meeting was all it took.

There was no negative effect on my wife or children as far as I know. My children, now grown, are still TBM or NOM. My wife is NOM and moving toward No M.

Life has been a whole lot better since the Bishop and I had our little talk.

by the way, at the time this happened the Stake President and I worked together. If the Bishop told the Stake President about our conversation (which I am confident he did) the Stake President never said a word to me about it. I have to say that the local leadership handled the situation very well.

Just saying that you do have alternatives. And depending on how much you dislike the current situation, they could make things a lot better for you and your family.

[_why me]

Zee,

When I received my summons to the Bishop's office to discuss my absence from Church (I had been out of town for a few weeks), I took the few days of notice I had to prepare. I thought about all of the untruths and useless, mindless myth that the Church had taught me from primary to seminary to institute and worked up a bit or righteous rage.

And of course, the mindless myths and untruths have yet to be proven. I think that you entered into the meeting with war on the mind and like a good general you prepared for battle. And yet, no battle need to have occurred. I also don't think that it was a summons. Most likely, what occured as it does quite often, was that you were asked to have a chat with the bishop. But you make it all sound as if it was all formal and obtrusive.

[_stemelbow]

DCP,

In the thread titled, "What's wrong with this timeline", I pasted a link to a church sponsored site. On that site, it clearly states that the Mel Priesthood came in late May or early June 1829.

This event was first recorded retroactively in 1835.

There is no record of this event prior to that time.

And? I have yet to see the lie.

[_Scottie]

Zeez,

I have found that most of these well intentioned members have NO IDEA the issues we discuss here on a daily basis.

You will spend most of your time even getting the SP to believe that any of these problems are even real and not just anti-Mormon lies.

I have found that it's useful to be polite and ask if they have read Rough Stone Rolling or No Man Knows My History so they have a common foundation that you can use to discuss issues.

Simply ask if they have read either of these books, which they can purchase at Deseret Book. If not, kindly tell them that you would love to discuss the information in these books once they have read them.

Of course, I guarantee you that the SP will bear his testimony and tell you that none of that matters. You just need to pray to get your testimony back.

[_zeezrom]

And? I have yet to see the lie.

Nobody knows if this event really took place. Nobody knows when it took place. Oliver Cowdery, who happens to be one of two witnesses made conflicting statements about the event.

Oliver:

"I was present with Joseph when an holy angel from God came down from heaven and conferred on us, or restored, the lesser or Aaronic Priesthood, and said to us, at the same time, that it should remain upon the earth while the earth stands. I was also present with Joseph when the higher or Melchizedek Priesthood was conferred by the holy angel from on high. This Priesthood, we then conferred on each other by the will and commandment of God."

Maybe he had forgotten the details? It had been 18 years since the event when he made this statement. We can't expect too much.

From Quinn's Origins of Power, we see:

"Cowdery's 1834 history puzzles modern Mormons for two reasons. First, he says John the Baptist restored 'the Holy Priesthood,' when modern Mormons have been taught that he conferred the Aaronic priesthood not the 'Holy Priesthood' of Melchizedek. Second, Cowdery in 1834 does not refer to restoration of a second priesthood."

Then you go here http://josephsmith.net/josephsmith/v/in ... 5e340aRCRD and see the church paint a very different picture. They state it as fact that the event happened at a specific point in time.

This is just like Lady Gaga. She created her own history out of thin air. She did it in order to validate her current philosophical positions. The church did/does the same thing. Is it a lie? Sure it is. But with Lady Gaga, it is all in fun. You don't have to take her seriously. You don't have to pay her 10% of your income. It doesn't have to become personal.

[_zeezrom]

Simply ask if they have read either of these books, which they can purchase at Deseret Book. If not, kindly tell them that you would love to discuss the information in these books once they have read them.

SP has read these.

[_Buffalo]

I'm still WTFing over the "bride" thing.

It's Mormon colloquial English;I hear it all the time. It implies that one's wife is youthful and full of beauty.

H.

Maybe Zeez is married to Uma Thurman

[_Buffalo]

There is no lie about the restoration of the Melchizedek priesthood. Not from the Church, anyway.

By the way, I forgot to mention, I was president of the USA about 6 years ago. There aren't any records of it, and I've never mentioned it before now. But it's no lie!

[_Buffalo]

It's really hard for me to dismantle the authority I feel these men have over me. I have a lifetime of teachings and feelings in me that prevents me from looking at them as regular people. In other words, I can't just flip a switch that turns it all off. Maybe if I imagine them naked? Or maybe with nothing but Gs on?

And this is the problem. Most Mormons look upon these men as just people. For afterall, they receive the calling and then they are released. To see them as anything else but men is looking for trouble. Human beings are human beings. No one is perfect. So, by believing what you did was just setting yourself up for disappointment.

How on earth would you know what most Mormons think? You've never been a Mormon.