DiscussMormonism.com

According to BC in my thread here, viewtopic.php?f=1&t=25441&start=42

there are stake and regional meetings being held concerning NOMs and how they can no longer "hide without consequence".

I was wondering if BC, or any others who may have attended and/or participated in such a meeting could please expand on this, and go into further explanation of what is exactly being talked about here.

liz3564 wrote:According to BC in my thread here, http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... 1&start=42

there are stake and regional meetings being held concerning NOMs and how they can no longer "hide without consequence".

I was wondering if BC, or any others who may have attended and/or participated in such a meeting could please expand on this, and go into further explanation of what is exactly being talked about here.

BCSpace is a liar. No stake president in his right mind would want to force members out of the church. "Hide without consequence"... good god, what kind of nonsense is that?

H.

Yes BC. Please expand. What consequences exactly are NOMs hiding from? How do you determine who is a NOM? What litmus test qualifies a NOM? I'd love to see how well this goes over.

Racer wrote:What litmus test qualifies a NOM?

Are you a democrat? Oh wait, that's not being NOM, that's just not being a good Mormon.

Racer wrote:Yes BC. Please expand. What consequences exactly are NOMs hiding from? How do you determine who is a NOM? What litmus test qualifies a NOM? I'd love to see how well this goes over.

The Hambone's 4 Questions?

Racer wrote:Yes BC. Please expand. What consequences exactly are NOMs hiding from? How do you determine who is a NOM? What litmus test qualifies a NOM? I'd love to see how well this goes over.

Exactly! NOM means different things to different people. My idea of a NOM may be very different from someone else, and that is OK!

My wife has worked long and hard to rid herself of belief in the lies of Joseph Smith. She feels comfortable as a Mormon who no longer has to make excuses (to herself or others) for Joseph Smith or for LDS racism, or sexism, or homophobia, or crazy right-wing politics, or Mitt Romney.

If steps were taken to attach consequences to non-belief in these things, her next step would be out of the Church - in a heartbeat.

liz3564 wrote:According to BC in my thread here, viewtopic.php?f=1&t=25441&start=42

there are stake and regional meetings being held concerning NOMs and how they can no longer "hide without consequence".

I was wondering if BC, or any others who may have attended and/or participated in such a meeting could please expand on this, and go into further explanation of what is exactly being talked about here.

Not in my stake. But we have had meetings about the high inactivity rate and the "rescue." I am sure BCs stake is helping to increase the inactivity rate by such actions.

Jason Bourne wrote:

liz3564 wrote:According to BC in my thread here, http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... 1&start=42

there are stake and regional meetings being held concerning NOMs and how they can no longer "hide without consequence".

I was wondering if BC, or any others who may have attended and/or participated in such a meeting could please expand on this, and go into further explanation of what is exactly being talked about here.

Not in my stake. But we have had meetings about the high inactivity rate and the "rescue." I am sure BCs stake is helping to increase the inactivity rate by such actions.

Never once in bishopric, high council, stake presidency, or any of the training meetings I attended over 20 years of activity did I hear about exposing members who don't conform, and I certainly heard nothing of forcing consequences. If anything, these types were always the focus of strengthening activities (though I have a specific set of problems with this type of interference, too).

H.

DrW wrote:My wife has worked long and hard to rid herself of belief in the lies of Joseph Smith. She feels comfortable as a Mormon who no longer has to make excuses (to herself or others) for Joseph Smith or for LDS racism, or sexism, or homophobia, or crazy right-wing politics, or Mitt Romney.

If steps were taken to attach consequences to non-belief in these things, her next step would be out of the Church - in a heartbeat.

So she is a Mormon in name only?