Thinking it's time to resign

Post by **_charity** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:43 pm

If you have children, they should come first in any decision you make. Except for cases of abuse, children are never better off when their parents split up.

Post by **_Runtu** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:45 pm

charity wrote:If you have children, they should come first in any decision you make. Except for cases of abuse, children are never better off when their parents split up.

I'm not planning on divorce, charity. I sure don't want to leave my wife, whom I love deeply.

I was just in one of those moods yesterday. It passed.

_Yoda · Post by **_Yoda** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:48 pm

truth dancer wrote:
If the Bishop asks you about a calling, you don't have to go into any more detail than you're comfortable with. Just tell him that with work and health issues, it's not something you can handle right now. Period.

I do not quite understand...

Why would a Bishop call someone who doesn't believe to a calling?

And, why would a non-believer feel a need to meet with a bishop to get a calling?

And, why is there any need whatsoever to offer an excuse to turn down a calling? How about, "no thanks".

Maybe I'm missing something? :-)

~dancer~

Although Runtu does not believe in the Church anymore, he is still listed on the records of the Church as a member, and as a Priesthood holder. If he is attending Church on a part-time basis, and there is a calling need, it would not be out of the ordinary for a bishop or one of his counselors to consider him for a calling that he might be qualified for.

You're right. He shouldn't have to offer up an excuse. He should simply be able to say "no thank you"...but let's be realistic here. We all know how the LDS church operates. A bishop is not likely to simply take "no thank you" for an answer. He is going to ask why.

I was just offering up some excuses that normally satisfy bishop probing without going into too much detail.

As far as why Runtu might agree to a bishop's interview...again, it might be to keep family relationships intact.

Post by **_Maxrep** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:53 pm

liz3564 wrote:Strike the kind of balance that is acceptable for you. If attending Sacrament Meeting with your family is something you're comfortable with, then do it.

This has worked for my spouse and myself. I'll attend about 50% of the time, just for Sacrament and to say a few hellos in the foyer. After that I'm removing my tie as I'm exiting the building! :) Church is so much more tolerable with just one meeting!

As a few years have passed, my wife has really come around! The passage of time can allow both involved to make substantial concessions.

I hope you find a balance that works for the both of you. Maybe the two of you can exit together down the road?

Post by **_truth dancer** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:54 pm

Thanks Liz...

I didn't realize Runtu was still in the closet!

For some reason, I was under the impression the word was out! Yea, this circumstance is not so easy!

;-)

~dancer~

Post by **_Runtu** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 4:00 pm

truth dancer wrote:Thanks Liz...

I didn't realize Runtu was still in the closet!

For some reason, I was under the impression the word was out! Yea, this circumstance is not so easy!

;-)

~dancer~

Oh, no, I'm not in the closet. It's pretty well known where I stand.

Post by **_Inconceivable** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 4:06 pm

Well, what is worse? A formal resignation or the possibility of excommunication. To be ex'd is to leave on their terms with the attending hurtful gossip, family embarrassment and all. To me, that is unthinkable since the church lacks integrity. For my wife and kids both are nearly as disruptive.

But it is all just a matter of time. I'm embarrassed to affiliate myself with or appear to be a Mormon when at work. Many long term clients know that I am "LDS", but I am generally willing to give my thoughts to them now.

I have attended sacrament meeting about 5 times this year because of family/friends homecomings/farewells (including my son's).

Our challenge seems to run parallel, Runtu.

Post by **_Maxrep** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 4:18 pm

Inconceivable wrote:Well, what is worse? A formal resignation or the possibility of excommunication. .

While I agree that the label of excommunication is in poor taste, I am curious if this is something that the church actually pursues in the case of "Loss of testimony" these days?

Post by **_Maxrep** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 4:21 pm

Runtu,

if you care to share, how long has your wife known of your new view on church/doctrine?

_Yoda · Post by **_Yoda** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 4:24 pm

Maxrep wrote:
Inconceivable wrote:Well, what is worse? A formal resignation or the possibility of excommunication. .

While I agree that the label of excommunication is in poor taste, I am curious if this is something that the church actually pursues in the case of "Loss of testimony" these days?

Loss of testimony is not sufficient grounds to excommunicate a member. If a member outwardly publishes anti-Mormon material...then, yes, it is grounds for excommunication.