"This is NOT the place to ask questions"!

[_dblagent007]

Sethbag, I find your experience completely plausible and even a likely outcome for such a situation. The OP, however, went far beyond what you described. He made this claim:

Then the Bishop finally stood up and said 'anyone who shops at his business is guilty of giving aid and comfort to the enemy and would not have a Temple Recommend issued or renewed. The High council representative stood up and seconded that and said 'This is NOT the place to ask questions! Come, listen, be taught and believe. Anything else will have you on the road to apostacy as this brother is. Follow the Bishops advice and don't do business with Apostates or you endanger your own salvation".

The Bishop will not issue a temple recommend to a member who shops at an apostate's business?!?!?!? Then the high councilor backs him up?!??!?!?! That is so freakin insane and in violation of any and all applicable Church policies that it is just beyond rational belief. Back in the 1800s sure it was plausible, but today? No way.

I thought the OP was plausible until I hit this part. All of my BS sensors were screeching. It is such an extraordinary claim that it is unbelievable until and unless he provides additional evidence.

Sethbag, if your Bishop had threatened the other members in a similar manner then maybe your story would add some credibility to the OP, but he didn't and it doesn't.

[_neworder]

The problem is that in the past the OP has posted some questionable stuff such as the post that Nevo already mentioned about Leadership condones actively lying and saying "a lesson touching on John Taylor if I remember correctly with accompanying article from The Friend(or Childrens Friend) magazine. The article had a family lying to the sheriff and laughing about it".

This is something that he could easily given a source for without letting everybody know what ward he lives in. It seemed that many people posted in that thread (on both sides) that they don't believe him.

When somebody can't come up with the facts on something that should be easy to verify, it becomes much harder to believe them on something that can not be verified. Just like Joseph Smith and the Book of Abraham.

Sure his story could be true, but it sounds really far fetch. I can be persuaded to change my mind if more information and proof come forth and the OP can be found as reliable.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

I find the level of some people's skepticism regarding this "outlandish" story amusing.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_TAK]

Hello,

I find the level of some people's skepticism regarding this "outlandish" story amusing.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

I equally find it amusing that these TBMs can believe there could not possibly be any leader that would encourage a boycott. I am equally curious if those same TBMs, setting the boycott comments aside - could an exchange about Joseph Smith and his wives etc that was noted in the opening post have happened? Does anyone want to say that is not possible too?

[_Some Schmo]

by the way, you might want to get off the mushrooms.

But I like mushrooms on my pizza.

Do you eat a lot of pizza?

I suddenly have some insight into why you think you have regular conversations with god. You're addicted to hallucinogens on your pizza. It all makes sense now.

I wonder how common drug addiction is in the church. Course, I'd probably be a junkie too if I had to attend.

[_Some Schmo]

If you have an opinion about the plausibility of the actions of a Bishop and a high councilor in a Sunday School class, it would help if you could show that you had actually been to a Sunday School class and/or interacted with a few Bishops and high councilors in a church capacity.

I doubt you're really a Mormon. If you are skeptical of the plausibility of the OP, then it's hard to believe you've ever actually interacted with any Bishops and high councilors in a church capacity. If you want your opinion to have any weight, it would help if you could show that you had actually been to a Sunday School class and/or interacted with a few Bishops and high councilors in a church capacity.

I think you're just blowing wind.

[_Yoda]

The Bishop will not issue a temple recommend to a member who shops at an apostate's business?!?!?!? Then the high councilor backs him up?!??!?!?! That is so freakin insane and in violation of any and all applicable Church policies that it is just beyond rational belief. Back in the 1800s sure it was plausible, but today? No way.

Zxzzy didn't describe the incident as a normal, every Sunday event. As Sethbag rightly pointed out, this was something that was on the extreme side of the spectrum. Obviously, if he had just experienced a normal Sunday meeting, there would be nothing to discuss here.

None of us really have an ironclad way of knowing whether or not this happened, because zxzzy is posting anonymously, and none of us were at the meeting he described.

My point in all of this is that if, indeed, this incident occurred, folks who post here who haven't attended an LDS Church should be aware that this is not a "normal" occurance. And, if this type of thing happened, it certainly should NOT be happening, and those of us who ARE members should be able to identify a process that would ensure that this doesn't happen again.

Having lived in Utah for eight years myself, I wouldn't simply dismiss this as a falsehood. Unfortunately, I experienced some fairly heart-wrenching things at Church while living there. It took me a long time, and a move to a different State to actually begin to trust Church members again.

[_Yoda]

If you have an opinion about the plausibility of the actions of a Bishop and a high councilor in a Sunday School class, it would help if you could show that you had actually been to a Sunday School class and/or interacted with a few Bishops and high councilors in a church capacity.

What makes you think she hasn't?

Simply because Jersey Girl is a non-member doesn't mean that she has never attended a Sunday School class.

Jersey Girl has been around these boards for a long time. I don't think I am amiss in repeating the story she has told publicly on more than one occasion.

Jersey Girl's initial interest in Mormonism occurred because of her in real life friendship with a Mormon neighbor. Although Jersey Girl is an active member of her own Church, she has attended meetings in our church as well, and has interacted with the LDS community both in real life and online for many years. She is certainly not someone who sets out to attack the Mormon Church, by any means. I enjoy her perspective, because it is fresh. She is able to observe things without being so close to it. Jersey Girl has not grown up in the LDS culture, but to claim that she is not familiar with it is an insult.

[_dblagent007]

The Bishop will not issue a temple recommend to a member who shops at an apostate's business?!?!?!? Then the high councilor backs him up?!??!?!?! That is so freakin insane and in violation of any and all applicable Church policies that it is just beyond rational belief. Back in the 1800s sure it was plausible, but today? No way.

Zxzzy didn't describe the incident as a normal, every Sunday event. As Sethbag rightly pointed out, this was something that was on the extreme side of the spectrum. Obviously, if he had just experienced a normal Sunday meeting, there would be nothing to discuss here.

I never said that zxyzyxyzyxy claimed it was a normal meeting.

Having lived in Utah for eight years myself, I wouldn't simply dismiss this as a falsehood. Unfortunately, I experienced some fairly heart-wrenching things at Church while living there. It took me a long time, and a move to a different State to actually begin to trust Church members again.

What experiences did you have in Utah that make you believe that it is even plausible that a Bishop would announce a boycott of an apostate in a Church meeting and threaten to enforce it by withholding temple recommends, and a high councilor backs him up? I have lived in Utah almost all of my life and I have never witnessed or even heard of anything that would make this plausible.

Just to be clear, here is my plausibility scale.

Likely: many members boycott an apostate's business unconsciously or without thinking too much about it.
Plausible: Bishop may tell a few members to boycott an apostate's business, maybe even in a Church meeting (this is stretching the plausibility)
Implausible: The Bishop tells regular members in a church meeting to boycott the apostate's business and if they refuse they won't get a temple recommend. High councilor then gets up and seconds the Bishop's comments.

[_dblagent007]

If you have an opinion about the plausibility of the actions of a Bishop and a high councilor in a Sunday School class, it would help if you could show that you had actually been to a Sunday School class and/or interacted with a few Bishops and high councilors in a church capacity.

What makes you think she hasn't?

That she thinks it is plausible that a Bishop would announce a boycott of an apostate's business in a church meeting and threaten to enforce it by withholding temple recommends and a high councilor backs him up.