sock puppet wrote:Well, Kish, let's revisit the 2nd Watson Letter for a moment. Apologists re the Book of Mormon geography penned the entry in the EoM (Ed. Ludlow). Verbiage from that entry was lifted, supplied to staffer Carla Ogden, who then copied it and faxed it to Roper at NAMIRS, and Hamblin declared it to be the position of the Church.
Since that occurred in 1993, none of the Brethren have officially mentioned where the Book of Mormon Hill Cumorah is.
So you tell me where LDS doctrine originates these days, particularly on topics that NAMIRS is trying to defend the Church?
I am speaking de iure, not de facto.
Yes, but it is probably no mere coincidence that on a topic that the de jure was quite talkative until 1993, the de jure have been uncharacteristically silent since the de facto coup of 1993.
Shulem wrote:You rude SOB, Simon. What's wrong with blue collar work? Do you have something against people sweeping up after your sorry mess? If every man was white collar our society would come to a halt within days if not hours.
Nothing's wrong with it, Paul, if you can handle it. I admire you guys. You obviously can repair HVAC units like nobody's business, and more power to ya! The Weak-ass Builder obviously cannot handle his chosen blue-collar job.
Nothing's wrong with it, Paul, if you can handle it. I admire you guys. You obviously can repair HVAC units like nobody's business, and more power to ya! The Weak-ass Builder obviously cannot handle his chosen blue-collar job.
OK, Simon, I see the wisdom in this. You get a free pass this time.
After MUCH deliberation and soul searching, I have accepted a call to serve as Bishop. As such, I imagine that my interaction on this board will cease.
As everyone knows, I have serious questions and concerns about many issues regarding the Church, but ultimately I look at this as an opportunity to serve and improve the lives of people in my sphere of influence. I promise all of you that my focus as bishop will be on tolerance, love, acceptance and forgiving others/ourselves. I have learned a great deal from this board and your experiences.
If you have learned a great deal from this board and other's experiences then why would you have to leave it? To me this speaks volumes that there is something wrong with Mormonism when an individual such as yourself feels they have to protect themselves from information which might cause them to critically think about their beliefs.
An intellectually honest individual welcomes challenges and new insights.
I don't know Everybody Wang Chung's issues with the Church, but if you can't tell everyone it's true and take a literalist view of most things, I think it's going to be hard to interface with the membership. Many of the stalwarts in the Ward will be hardlining literalists. I would find myself disagreeing with them constantly (internally), and it would be tempting to say things that raises eyebrows well beyond the level a Bishop should be raising such eyebrows.
Further, the drain on a person's time would be substantial, and hard to sustain without that die hard belief that it's all true.
For me, this call would put me in hyper cog-dis mode, and I would have to deny my life experiences to serve without getting released for some form of "apostasy".
And let's consider the scenario where someone comes to me with exactly the same doubts I have -- what do you say? Do you not tell the truth?
Again, I don't know Everybody Wang Chung's issues, but without that traditional base of firm testimony, I think this is going to be a really hard calling to sustain over the long term.
UnicornMan wrote:I don't know Everybody Wang Chung's issues with the Church, but if you can't tell everyone it's true and take a literalist view of most things, I think it's going to be hard to interface with the membership. Many of the stalwarts in the Ward will be hardlining literalists. I would find myself disagreeing with them constantly (internally), and it would be tempting to say things that raises eyebrows well beyond the level a Bishop should be raising such eyebrows.
Further, the drain on a person's time would be substantial, and hard to sustain without that die hard belief that it's all true.
For me, this call would put me in hyper cog-dis mode, and I would have to deny my life experiences to serve without getting released for some form of "apostasy".
And let's consider the scenario where someone comes to me with exactly the same doubts I have -- what do you say? Do you not tell the truth?
Again, I don't know Everybody Wang Chung's issues, but without that traditional base of firm testimony, I think this is going to be a really hard calling to sustain over the long term.
I like Unicorn Man don't know Everybody Wang Chung's issues and could see this being hard depending on them, but what I really wonder about is his family. I see it being very hard to give up so much time with family while having issues with the beliefs of the church. Bishop seems to me to be a very time consuming "calling" combine that with full time employment 8 hours plus commute time and any work require outside of office hours and you've lost a great deal of time with wife and children. Especially with the kids, when you have a dad with such extensive commitments and children who have equal and bedrock commitments (school, sleep, activities) you have a situation where children can pretty much be fatherless. I don't understand making a commitment to something you don't fully believe in when it will encroach so heavily on your family's time together.
Jason Bourne wrote: Not to muddy up this thread but how many bishops do you interact with. I know many bishops outside the Mormon Corridor. I have lived outside it for over 30 years. I know bishops locally who ask the masturbation question.
More evidence the Why me's comments on what happens in the LDS Church should be ignored.
Since one of my best friends is branch president, I did ask him and he said no way. My own bishop who is a young man, doesn't ask either. So, what can I say? My experience is different than yours.
Maybe your comments should be ignored. Here is the point: it is not a uniform policy.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
Rambo wrote: Um.. I live out of Mormon corridor and every bishop I know asked about masturbation. Wrong again Why Me :)
How many bishops did you ask? Did you do a sweep of the stake?
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
consiglieri wrote: Has it occurred to you God's idea of a good bishop might be different from yours?
I have no doubt he will be an excellent force for good as a bishop and will miss his posts.
We really shook the pillars of heaven, didn't we, Wang?
All the Best!
--Consiglieri
And much will depend on his own spiritual experiences when he is bishop. Also, he already made a great decision by not posting on this board anymore. The critics would have loved him to bring his bishop problems here for counseling and advice.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith