Bishop's Resignation Letter

[_Madison54]

I found this forum searching for more information on Steve Bloor's blog. I have enjoyed reading through this thread.

I was wondering how many of you read Bloor's prior post: "Compassion For Those Who Leave" (which has also now been removed) that was a copy of the talk he gave in Sacrament Meeting just a few days before he wrote his letter of resignation? He gave this talk on January 9th (2 days before he wrote his letter of resignation).

Here is a link for it:
http://stevebloor.wordpress.com/2011/04 ... who-leave/

Several statements in this talk are excellent and it's definitely worth reading. But, this statement caught my interest and I'd like to know what others think about it. I do not doubt the honesty of this man and I do believe this information was given to him by his Stake President, but I wonder if this is being done across the church (ie. did it come from higher up)?

Here's the statement:

The General Authorities have warned the Bishops, through the Stake Presidents, to “Prepare for a mass exodus from the church, even from the leadership.”

[Guest]

Welcome to the board, blooruk. I was sorry to hear that your friend/brother was having a difficult time, and that his heartfelt post was made an object of sport for certain apologists. He is going through a difficult transition and has the best wishes of many of us here, no matter where his journey may lead him.

[_Themis]

There is the argument regarding whether to teach all of the controversy regarding church history.
One only needs to look at children being raised in radical Islamic groups to realise that this would only strengthen their faith. Perhaps the church ought to do the same to prevent further loss - and breed a generation of fully informed Mormon fundamentalists.

I agree with your post except for the last paragraph. I am not aware that teaching a more complete picture of history whether LDS or Islamic will produce fundamentalism. Perhaps you could elaborate.

[_blooruk]

There is the argument regarding whether to teach all of the controversy regarding church history.
One only needs to look at children being raised in radical Islamic groups to realise that this would only strengthen their faith. Perhaps the church ought to do the same to prevent further loss - and breed a generation of fully informed Mormon fundamentalists.

I agree with your post except for the last paragraph. I am not aware that teaching a more complete picture of history whether LDS or Islamic will produce fundamentalism. Perhaps you could elaborate.

Wiki definition should suffice. Im not implying extremism!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism

[_Joseph]

No kidding. So the church mentions that Joseph Smith taught polygamy. Who didn't know that?
***************************

I seem to remember Joseph Smith stating he did not practice or believe in plural marriage - and did it in a public place. So much so it was included in the Doctrine and Covenants for quite some time.

Hearing of polygamy and knowing the reality, the numbers and the underbelly of filth and degredation involved in stealing the wives of other men and children that would today put you in prison for child molestation - are two very different things.

[_sock puppet]

by the way: how did they figure it was revealed "as early as 1831?" Did one church historian find Joseph Smith's first documented sexual indiscretion, turn do the other and then say, "Look brother, it turns out God had given the law of polygamy earlier than we expected!"

In 1831, when Joseph Smith sent missionaries to Missouri to teach the Indians, he said, "Verily I say unto you that the wisdom of man in his fallen state, knoweth not the purposes and the privileges of my holy priesthood. but ye shall know when ye receive a fulness by reason of the anointing: For it is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome and Just, for even now their females are more virtuous than the gentiles."

The speculation is that, because some of the missionaries were already married, this is a commandment to take plural wives.

The full text of the revelation is here.

Speculation, indeed. I'd probably call that stretching something out of shape to make it fit a preconceived notion.

[_sock puppet]

His doctrinal reasons for leaving seem to be somewhat shallow and weak. It's amazing how quickly some people decide to jump ship. You have to wonder whether there may, at least with some individuals, be some other factors involved in their decision to abort.

Regards,
MG

Come again. The Mormon Church teaches that part and parcel to what it terms "the Great Apostasy" the authority of god on earth to perform saving ordinances was lost. The teaching goes on that it was restored to earth, initially to JSJr and then passed down through his successors until today it resides with the current FP/12. The problem Mormons have is that this chain of authority is no stronger than its weakest links. JSJr and BY were perhaps its two weakest links, so the Mormon Church white washes them, particularly JSJr, to try to make that link stronger.

This is core doctrine. These issues that show JSJr to be an adulterer (your euphemism is 'multiple wives), a liar (concealing his sexual escapades from his legally wed wife Emma, to whom he'd vowed to have no others, and from the public, even through the publication in the 1835 Book of Commandments sec 101, the Article on Marriage, and allowing it to continue in the 1844 publication of the Doctrine & Covenants), a fraud regarding his claims of translation (in particular the BoAbr), etc. are key. As If I recall correctly Joseph F. Smith, the genuineness of the Mormon Church depends on the reality or falseness of JSJr's claims of having communed with elohim and jehovah. You'd have very little to pick in the Mormon Cafeteria if you don't pick the claims of JSJr as your entree.

I think Steve Bloor has made a very rational and intelligent decision, and I am offended that TBMs want to dismiss his apostasy as somehow having grown out of his being 'offended' in some way you cannot even identify.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Several statements in this talk are excellent and it's definitely worth reading. But, this statement caught my interest and I'd like to know what others think about it. I do not doubt the honesty of this man and I do believe this information was given to him by his Stake President, but I wonder if this is being done across the church (ie. did it come from higher up)?

Here's the statement:

The General Authorities have warned the Bishops, through the Stake Presidents, to “Prepare for a mass exodus from the church, even from the leadership.”

Wow, that's fascinating, Madison. It casts a lot of the Church's moves during the past decade into a whole new relief. I know that Dr. Robbers has speculated that the Church is approaching a kind of "peak oil" situation w/r/t to converting new members, and I wonder if this apocryphal G.A. statement has something to do with that.

[_Gadianton]

Several statements in this talk are excellent and it's definitely worth reading. But, this statement caught my interest and I'd like to know what others think about it. I do not doubt the honesty of this man and I do believe this information was given to him by his Stake President, but I wonder if this is being done across the church (ie. did it come from higher up)?

Here's the statement:

The General Authorities have warned the Bishops, through the Stake Presidents, to “Prepare for a mass exodus from the church, even from the leadership.”

Wow, that's fascinating, Madison. It casts a lot of the Church's moves during the past decade into a whole new relief. I know that Dr. Robbers has speculated that the Church is approaching a kind of "peak oil" situation w/r/t to converting new members, and I wonder if this apocryphal G.A. statement has something to do with that.[/quote]

Well, I can't say that I predicted this statement, but it does shed light on why the GAs are so desperate to get City Creek off the ground and making a profit. It's one thing to say that the field is way past its harvest date, and another to say that the crops already harvested are due to spoil. This is truly devastating information I will need to account for in my numbers.

I do have a question for you though, Doctor Scratch, if the GAs have gone through the trouble of alerting Bishops and Stake Presidents about this future event, do you think they've also alerted the apologists? Do the apologists know what's coming and therefore, on high alert to "confront" even the slightest dissent with their full might? Are they more angry now as they must prepare for heavy losses?

blooruk,

thanks for dropping by and sharing some of the background information, I found it insightful. Welcome to the forum.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Well, I can't say that I predicted this statement, but it does shed light on why the GAs are so desperate to get City Creek off the ground and making a profit. It's one thing to say that the field is way past its harvest date, and another to say that the crops already harvested are due to spoil. This is truly devastating information I will need to account for in my numbers.

I do have a question for you though, Doctor Scratch, if the GAs have gone through the trouble of alerting Bishops and Stake Presidents about this future event, do you think they've also alerted the apologists? Do the apologists know what's coming and therefore, on high alert to "confront" even the slightest dissent with their full might? Are they more angry now as they must prepare for heavy losses?

Hmmm. Those are powerful and trenchant questions, Dean Robbers. I don't know that I have a good answer. To be frank, I don't think that the apologists care all that much about what the GAs say. But if they were informed of this situation---either directly from the GAs, or via Skinny-L gossip, or whatever else---I think we can safely say that their anger levels would be through the roof.

The more I think about this, though, the more I realize how complex their anger actually is. Obviously, they don't give two hoots about people "leaving the Church"---at least not in any concrete way. If anything, knowing about real people exiting Mormonism simply gives them more reason to attack---i.e., there's just one additional person to smear and tar with insults. In the abstract, however, mass hemorrhaging of members does indeed represent a problem, if only because it means there is even less opportunity for them to spread the Gospel of Mopologetics. So in short: it's less that they care about what these exits are doing to the Church, and more about what these exits represent for Mopologetics.