A "quickie"

The following is my response to a comment posted in response to "Mormon Sex" by "Anonymous". (Always anonymous!) I thought it deserved treatment here.

***

I confess to being ignorant and misinformed, as you inferred. I was not there and did, in fact, misunderstand what my wife told me after the fact. Only after I posted the above did I find out from her that the bishop's comments were made in private, to parents only. I was concerned about being mistake­­n, but relieved nonetheless to know that I was in error.

That being said, my wife went away from that meeting feeling "obligated" to talk to our children about the topic at hand, at the bishop's urging, so the effect was the same. (If I have still misunderstood the circumstances, I apologize.) The point is that this issue is, apparently, an issue in the ward and with LDS youth in general and that is very unfortunate and distressing indeed.

As for the questions the bishop feels obliged to ask...I am torn (as I said). I did not accuse him of wrong-doing. I have to say, I see great wisdom in the words of sfort below. However, at the same time, any loving father (or minister) would feel inclined to "interject" himself in social matters as serious and "contagious" as sexual immorality. Our scriptures practically demand his involvement. I'm gratified to see that parents were included, even recruited, to be at the "front lines" of this "fight".

I have no doubt my former bishop serves prayerfully, with good will, sincerity, selfless devotion and with the best interests of those in his flock at heart. I have no doubt that he wishes that everyone -- especially every youth in his charge -- should live pure and virtuous lives. I am confident that he sets a sterling example of all the LDS Church expects of its membership and leadership.

Jeffrey R. Holland's talk, as you pointed out, was, indeed, a "high water mark", one that greatly inspired me. His remarks are one of the many reasons I have for believing that he is a true servant of God. And I love him dearly.

While you may find my "treatment" of the subject "casual, careless, and sensational", I assure you, my intentions were anything but. I was sickened and saddened that the subject ever came up. But inasmuch as it was foisted upon my family, despite our best efforts to avoid it, I wasn't going to mince words -- just as the bishop didn't (apparently) in closed session with parents. Only the title of my post was "sensational" -- but certainly not misleading. You somehow found fault with what I wrote anyway. 

As for driving traffic to my blog, anyone searching for "Mormon Sex" is the least likely candidate to be interested in or benefit from anything I have to say. (The negative comments and personal attacks condemning me in this post confirm that.) I have no interest in self-promotion. This blog only serves as "bread crumbs" for my children and interested others, to mark the way, that they may know what their father (and friend) thought, said and did. It is my personal, public testimony to the world. Take it or leave it. (I have a friend who says "Unless God commands you to write it, keep it to yourself." But I think God already has commanded us to warn our neighbors, once we have been warned. This is my warning.)

I believe the LDS Church is (still) the best organization this telestial world has to offer. It is not without its virtues...or its vices. I still bring investigators to Church and actively encourage them to join (if they so choose). One of my neighbors (who I introduced to the faith) is currently meeting with the missionaries (whom we gladly feed in our home) and is scheduled to be baptized on the 8th of next month. (We'll see.)

That being said, I do not foresee a day when I would ever be invited or allowed to participate in Mormon ceremonies again -- nor would I want to, under the present circumstances. The Mormon Church is rapidly drifting toward a "Zoramite" position, supplanting Christ with the prophet (whomever happens to fill that position, regardless), dispensing with the need -- the absolute requirement -- of coming unto Christ personally. Indeed, every single man involved in my excommunication, including your beloved bishop and stake president, consented to the statement voiced by one of them at my excommunication that "Christ does not save us personally."

I believe them. Everyone one of them. By their own mouths they have spoken it and by the raising of the right hand they consented to it. It pains me to know that, despite my best efforts, this is the case. I sorrow for their wives and children.

And for my own. (For I do not yet view myself as one having been "received" of the Lord...but I'm working on it!)

Even so, my family and I have greatly benefited by our association with the LDS Church. I encourage my children to remain active in the Church. I hope my sons will serve missions. (I know for a fact that one of my sons was sent from heaven to do so.) Until I was kicked out, I considered myself among the Church's most faithful adherents and ardent defenders (despite my many failings, sins and weaknesses). I hope you never experience the betrayal and confusion I felt when the people I trusted to point to Christ demanded that I either pledge allegiance and unquestioning fealty to a man or get out. Because I retained the right to speak with God for myself and get answers from Him outside of some alleged "chain of authority" they claimed to control exclusively, with the power to dictate my behavior, even beliefs, on every issue -- they felt threatened...and kicked me out -- for the good of the saints.

So be it.

The irony of it all is: I never disagreed with anything that man ever taught! Nor did I fail to abide his counsel. The mere fact that I said he could be wrong, that he might make mistakes, that he doesn't always speak on the Lord's behalf, that he may not possess the "fulness of the priesthood" lost or taken away from the Church as of January 19, 1841 (see D&C 124:28)...all that got me kicked out. And, yet, is anyone willing to stand up and tell the truth: that leaders of the LDS Church have made mistakes, taught false doctrine, led the Church astray, etc.?

Dieter F. Uchtdorf did. In General Conference! Using some of the very words I used! (See "Come, Join With Us". Search keyword "mistakes".)

But because I said those things (and I'm a "nobody", even a "bad guy" in the Church), I'm an "apostate". Oh, I guess I should add, I said it publicly on my blog...and in church. (But he said it in General Conference!) Yes, but I said it with more "meat". (He just said "There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.")

Talk about understatement.

I believe the men who excommunicated me are, first and foremost, loyal to an organization rather than to the truth. (As far as I know, I only spoke the truth. They would quash the truth if it served the organization. I've seen them do it, again and again.) They follow a man. I have been privileged to know for myself, personally, that Being we call Jesus Christ. Fortunately, I have heard His own voice for myself. (It is beautiful!) I am not enthralled with any man. (And the more I know of these men, the less I am enthralled.)

Don't tell me I need to "follow the prophet". If the Holy Ghost bears witness to me of the truthfulness of another man's (or woman's) words, I will gladly follow those words. Heck, I would gladly follow any leader of the LDS Church (and I did!) unless the Holy Ghost commanded otherwise. (And when has that ever happened?) If I had known then what I know now -- that it is, perhaps, more important to be submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, etc., rather than right -- I probably would have taken down my blog and still be in the Church today.

But, for whatever reason, I didn't do that. And I got to see another side of the Church that made their decision to excommunicate me seem all that more "palatable", appropriate and "necessary" to me. I probably should thank them.

"But what if your Holy Ghost is different from my Holy Ghost?" one of the Mormon high priests who excommunicated me asked me, when I told him we ought to follow the Holy Ghost rather than a man.

"We don't really even need the Holy Ghost", he said, "because we have a living prophet."

That man's words left me speechless. What could I say to that? Such gross ignorance, such falsehood, spoken by one who presumes to lead the Church and even excommunicate those who will not follow him, demonstrates apostasy on a scale my online musings could never approach.

Thank you for your appropriate criticism. I welcome your insights, corrections and commentary here. I hope you'll return and contribute more to this dialogue.