bcspace wrote: It's not too difficult to identify a NOM family. We've got one right now whose son, to their obvious consternation, has been called on a mission and is going. They want to go through the temple with him, but it's not going to happen. Maybe when he gets back.....
I'm in a similar situation - inactive, no belief, but I have an older son who may serve a mission. If I am denied any privilege that I want (temple attendance, participate in the ordinance, anything), you can rest assured I won't:
1. Pay for a single thing - suits, flights, the $500 a month it costs to serve 2. Sign any document required 3. Keep quiet - I'll go to the local media, I will go to law, I will bear testimony in church about how s****y the church is.
Easy peasy.
H.
Sorry to say it Toronto, but as the kid is at least 19 there are no documents for you to sign........
Pay on the other hand, is an entirely different beast. I wouldn't pay either.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.
Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality. ~Bill Hamblin
bcspace wrote: It's not too difficult to identify a NOM family. We've got one right now whose son, to their obvious consternation, has been called on a mission and is going. They want to go through the temple with him, but it's not going to happen. Maybe when he gets back.....
I'm in a similar situation - inactive, no belief, but I have an older son who may serve a mission. If I am denied any privilege that I want (temple attendance, participate in the ordinance, anything), you can rest assured I won't:
1. Pay for a single thing - suits, flights, the $500 a month it costs to serve 2. Sign any document required 3. Keep quiet - I'll go to the local media, I will go to law, I will bear testimony in church about how s****y the church is.
Easy peasy.
H.
I don't actually *want* to go to the temple again. But I would want the *option* given the amount I'd be expected to pay. It's a matter of principle for me.
H.
"Others cannot endure their own littleness unless they can translate it into meaningfulness on the largest possible level." ~ Ernest Becker "Whether you think of it as heavenly or as earthly, if you love life immortality is no consolation for death." ~ Simone de Beauvoir
SteelHead wrote:Sorry to say it Toronto, but as the kid is at least 19 there are no documents for you to sign........
Pay on the other hand, is an entirely different beast. I wouldn't pay either.
That is right. I won't have to sign anything. But I would still be a pain in the ass.
H.
"Others cannot endure their own littleness unless they can translate it into meaningfulness on the largest possible level." ~ Ernest Becker "Whether you think of it as heavenly or as earthly, if you love life immortality is no consolation for death." ~ Simone de Beauvoir
LDST wrote:I don't actually *want* to go to the temple again. But I would want the *option* given the amount I'd be expected to pay. It's a matter of principle for me.
I don't blame you. Besides, I think it would be important for your son to have his father going through the temple with him for the first time. I would counsel him prior to going on what to expect as well.
LDST, I did not realize that you were inactive. I knew you were non-believing, but I was under the impression that you and your wife were both reguar attenders. Doesn't your wife hold a calling? I thought you did, too.
Maybe I am just coming down from my caffeine rush too quickly, and confusing you with another poster...LOL
liz3564 wrote:LDST, I did not realize that you were inactive. I knew you were non-believing, but I was under the impression that you and your wife were both reguar attenders. Doesn't your wife hold a calling? I thought you did, too.
Maybe I am just coming down from my caffeine rush too quickly, and confusing you with another poster...LOL
I forget where I've mentioned my status (chat, Facebook, MD&D, etc) but, to clear up confusion, I haven't gone to church since November, 2011, and my wife hasn't gone since June, 2011. I will happily answer any questions you may have - my church exit was an experience that is somewhat 'spiritual', if you will.
H.
"Others cannot endure their own littleness unless they can translate it into meaningfulness on the largest possible level." ~ Ernest Becker "Whether you think of it as heavenly or as earthly, if you love life immortality is no consolation for death." ~ Simone de Beauvoir
liz3564 wrote:LDST, I did not realize that you were inactive. I knew you were non-believing, but I was under the impression that you and your wife were both reguar attenders. Doesn't your wife hold a calling? I thought you did, too.
Maybe I am just coming down from my caffeine rush too quickly, and confusing you with another poster...LOL
I forget where I've mentioned my status (chat, Facebook, MD&D, etc) but, to clear up confusion, I haven't gone to church since November, 2011, and my wife hasn't gone since June, 2011. I will happily answer any questions you may have - my church exit was an experience that is somewhat 'spiritual', if you will.
H.
Ah, OK! So you and your wife exited close to the same time. She BEFORE you! Wow! Yes, I would like to hear more about this.
Would you mind posting your exit story in Terrestrial? What motivated your wife to leave and you to follow?
bcspace wrote: Won't work as we notice such things. One of the TR questions is about attending one's meetings. We don't count that as attendance nor would we advance a young man in the priesthood who does that. No peace.
Give me a f*****g break, BC! You and I would not want to tangle if we were in the same stake.
Yea but ask BC if they limit people who sleep during sacrament meeting.
bcspace wrote: It's useless for a NOM to think he or she can hide without consequence. We've actually had Regional and Stake leadership meetings on this issue.
I am a NOM and I am on the stake high council. Maybe your stake. Who knows.
bcspace wrote: It's useless for a NOM to think he or she can hide without consequence. We've actually had Regional and Stake leadership meetings on this issue.
Equality wrote:You make the church appear far more sinister than any critic ever could.
No Doubt. With defenders like BC the church does not beed critics.
You and I would not want to tangle if we were in the same stake. 