Bishop's Resignation Letter

[_Kishkumen]

I have to admit that it makes me a little sick to my stomach when I hear people say that God is separating the wheat from the tares by seeing who will accept that He commanded Joseph Smith to sleep with girls and married women and keep that fact hidden from Joseph's wife. Really?

I am simply unable to reconcile these things with my sense of what is good and right. Even if I am sent to the Telestial kingdom for it, I will not assent to the idea that God requires people to engage in plural marriage, especially a plural marriage that was as objectionable as Joseph Smith's own practice of it. I find the whole thing repugnant.

[_Runtu]

I am simply unable to reconcile these things with my sense of what is good and right. Even if I am sent to the Telestial kingdom for it, I will not assent to the idea that God requires people to engage in plural marriage, especially a plural marriage that was as objectionable as Joseph Smith's own practice of it. I find the whole thing repugnant.

If at the judgment God condemns me for not believing that He commanded these things, I will simply say, "I thought you were better than I am. You gave me a conscience to teach me right from wrong. I followed my conscience, and I am willing to live with the consequences."

[_Buffalo]

If at the judgment God condemns me for not believing that He commanded these things, I will simply say, "I thought you were better than I am. You gave me a conscience to teach me right from wrong. I followed my conscience, and I am willing to live with the consequences."

It's pretty sad when god is more morally bankrupt than his believers.

[_Kishkumen]

If at the judgment God condemns me for not believing that He commanded these things, I will simply say, "I thought you were better than I am. You gave me a conscience to teach me right from wrong. I followed my conscience, and I am willing to live with the consequences."

Sounds about right to me!

[_mentalgymnast]

By the way, just for fun, I reworked my post about church history on my blog as part of my ongoing two-faced campaign to destroy testimonies:

Does the LDS Church Hide Its History?

Hey Runtu,

Did you officially leave the church? Did your wife join you, if you have left?

I was over looking at your blog and some of the quotes. This segment of a quote from Elder Packer caught my attention:

In the Church we are not neutral. We are one-sided. There is a war going on and we are engaged in it. It is the war between good and evil, and we are belligerents defending the good. We are therefore obliged to give preference to and protect all that is represented in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and we have made covenants to do it.

You know, if there is a "war" going on between good and evil that's ongoing and is all encompassing and eternal in nature, it makes sense that he would say this. OTOH, if there isn't any kind of a "war" going on between good and evil in the cosmic sense, then this is a bunch of baloney. I sense that you subscribe to the second proposition?

Regards,
MG

[_Doctor Scratch]

I advise you to search through Infymus' posts, look at his hate-site "Mormon Curtain" and realize that if MDB has a one true bigot, Infymus is it. He is also proud of his bigotry. He is also fat.

Look who's talking, edited by harmony.

[_Runtu]

Hey Runtu,

Did you officially leave the church?

Nope.

Did your wife join you, if you have left?

Nope.

I was over looking at your blog and some of the quotes. This segment of a quote from Elder Packer caught my attention:

<snip>

You know, if there is a "war" going on between good and evil that's ongoing and is all encompassing and eternal in nature, it makes sense that he would say this. OTOH, if there isn't any kind of a "war" going on between good and evil in the cosmic sense, then this is a bunch of baloney. I sense that you subscribe to the second proposition?

Regards,
MG

I don't believe the church engaged in a war, cosmically speaking, no, but even if it were, there is a difference between "giving preference to" and "protecting" the church and omitting truth because it might make you look bad.

[_mentalgymnast]

I don't believe the church engaged in a war, cosmically speaking, no...

Doesn't this make a difference in how you respond to what Elder Packer said?

...but even if it were, there is a difference between "giving preference to" and "protecting" the church and omitting truth because it might make you look bad.

That, I don't follow. It seems as though if we are in some kind of eternal struggle between the forces of good and evil, then the church would be more likely to whitewash/hide the imperfectness of its foundational leaders so as to provide a healthy substrate for new members and even BIC members to build their testimonies on.

When additional light and knowledge comes in to play, members have hopefully developed a foundational spiritual/intellectual testimony which acts as an anchor in regards to basic and eternal gospel principles. OTOH, if this foundation has not been laid, it is obviously more likely that there are going to be those that crash and burn...

Regards,
MG

[_wenglund]

I have said it before, and I say it again: those who have lost faith in the restored gospel over certain mattes of Church history (some of which is ancient), don't correctly understand the restored gospel.

Let me add: those who think their puny human brains are sufficient to rightly judge the morality of God, have even less of a clue about the restored gospel.

But, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

Doesn't this make a difference in how you respond to what Elder Packer said?

I'm not sure I would have agreed with his statement even when I was a believer, so no, I don't think so. Of course, I'm kind of an outlier in that my father taught us that even prophets are human and make mistakes. He taught us to suspicious of the ostentatiously righteous and those who would whitewash history of any kind.

That, I don't follow. It seems as though if we are in some kind of eternal struggle between the forces of good and evil, then the church would be more likely to whitewash/hide the imperfectness of its foundational leaders so as to provide a healthy substrate for new members and even BIC members to build their testimonies on.

Healthy "substrate"? :)

I can't imagine a world where whitewashing and hiding truth provides a healthy substrate for anyone to build their testimonies on. This is the kind of approach Paul Dunn took, and I think it's not only wrong but counterproductive. When people find that the foundations of their faith rest on whitewashed and hidden information, they are more likely to react badly when they find out the truth.

When additional light and knowledge comes in to play, members have hopefully developed a foundational spiritual/intellectual testimony which acts as an anchor in regards to basic and eternal gospel principles. OTOH, if this foundation has not been laid, it is obviously more likely that there are going to be those that crash and burn...

Regards,
MG

How can one develop a spiritual/intellectual testimony without pertinent information? It seems to me that if someone is presented the truth, then any testimony they gain is far less likely to be shaken than those who have been kept in the dark.