NOM

Misbehaved Woman wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2017 3:40 pm I mostly stayed quiet throughout the meeting. But when asked to give a yes or no to sustaining the brotheren, I responded similar to Kori stating that I can sustain them as prophets, seers, revelators. But I disagree with policy's being made. I explained I feel they have gotten things wrong in the past too and that I can no longer see their decisions as synonymous with God but that they are men making mistakes and it's possible for them to misinterpret revelations and or make wrong decisions. The sp agreed they aren't perfect and that if I disagree w things I should pray about it. Kori and I both argued what happens when we pray and still disagree?? It came to a stalemate on that topic. But then it came back to me needing to give a yes or no. I couldn't say yes to the 2nd part of the question.

"as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?"

I was vague in stating I'm not sure I can say yes to that part. He went off and explained they are not the only ones w the priesthood, just the only ones authorized to exercise all. I thought um that's not quite what I mean by not agreeing with it but didn't bother going into detail. Instead I explained as kori did that I don't agree w my TR being taken away for voting opposed however I candidly said I don't think I can say yes to other questions in the TR interview. He obviously wanting a yes sincerely wanting to give me the benefit of the doubt said maybe we should have another meeting to go over that and as kori said the SP told me not to use my TR. I argued that point but as Kori said the SP is protecting me by asking me to not go. He said you should never go into the temple questioning these things. This idea make absolutely no sense to me. But not much does anymore. I am seriously considering going to the temple. Not out of defiance but I think the end of my TR is near so I think it may be worth a try to sincerely take my questions to the temple and see if I feel anything? If I did this would you give the sp notice or ask for forgiveness after?

Misbehaved Woman wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2017 3:40 pm I am seriously considering going to the temple. Not out of defiance but I think the end of my TR is near so I think it may be worth a try to sincerely take my questions to the temple and see if I feel anything? If I did this would you give the sp notice or ask for forgiveness after?

redjay wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2017 4:46 am Korihor/Miss

Perhaps I missed it, but...

Was there any point at which the SP said he would feed your concerns back up the church hierarchy?

If not, it makes a bit of the sham - it would seem the voting system is merely a process of weeding out the non-conformists.

Yes, he did say we could write a letter and he he would send it up the chain. He reassured us it would get to the first presidency and they would read and respond. We know better then to believe that though.

Misbehaved Woman wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2017 9:16 am

redjay wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2017 4:46 am Korihor/Miss

Perhaps I missed it, but...

Was there any point at which the SP said he would feed your concerns back up the church hierarchy?

If not, it makes a bit of the sham - it would seem the voting system is merely a process of weeding out the non-conformists.

Yes, he did say we could write a letter and he he would send it up the chain. He reassured us it would get to the first presidency and they would read and respond. We know better then to believe that though.

I had a bishop send a letter up the chain of command and there was no response. My issue was that my father was exed for sexually abusing me as a child, and the church promised that my and my mother's feelings would be respected when it came time to rebaptise him and that absolutly we had to give permission. Well, our feelings were trampled under male enthusiasm to redunk the "repentant sinner" and in spite of both of us saying that we did not feel there had been real repentance, he was rebaptised. I told the bishop how that made me feel like God doesn't give a s*** about women and only loves his sons. I also told him how my father's confidentiality was respected, but mine was not. One bishop told the next bishop, who told the next bishop, and it was not done so they could help me, but because they saw me as damaged goods and thought me unworthy of a calling. I went into a bit of the other stories about how the whole thing was handled, which all amounted to the church does not understand, nor care to understand about abuse and the real life consequences. The bishop was himself upset and horrified about how things had been handled and decided on his own to run things up the chain of command. There were things in the official way things are handled that need to be changed to respect the innocent victims of sin. But neither I nor the bishop ever heard squat back.

So, the first presidency's response is to let their secretary read it for inspirational tidbits they can use in a conference talk and if there isn't that, it goes unread by first presidency into the circular file.



PS, why is it putting extra quotes around things?

alas wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2017 10:37 am I had a bishop send a letter up the chain of command and there was no response. My issue was that my father was exed for sexually abusing me as a child, and the church promised that my and my mother's feelings would be respected when it came time to rebaptise him and that absolutly we had to give permission. Well, our feelings were trampled under male enthusiasm to redunk the "repentant sinner" and in spite of both of us saying that we did not feel there had been real repentance, he was rebaptised. I told the bishop how that made me feel like God doesn't give a s*** about women and only loves his sons. I also told him how my father's confidentiality was respected, but mine was not. One bishop told the next bishop, who told the next bishop, and it was not done so they could help me, but because they saw me as damaged goods and thought me unworthy of a calling. I went into a bit of the other stories about how the whole thing was handled, which all amounted to the church does not understand, nor care to understand about abuse and the real life consequences. The bishop was himself upset and horrified about how things had been handled and decided on his own to run things up the chain of command. There were things in the official way things are handled that need to be changed to respect the innocent victims of sin. But neither I nor the bishop ever heard squat back.

nibbler wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2017 10:35 am

Korihor wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2017 9:20 am The SP said no because she shouldn't go and make covenants that she's not sure about. He tried to play it as if he's protecting her.

Presumably your wife has been to the temple before. What covenants would she be making during return visits to the temple? Those covenants are for the deceased... or do we view vicarious work in the temple as a way for the living to renew their covenants as well?

LostMormon wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2017 4:07 pm

Korihor wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2017 9:20 am

I told Mrs Misbehaved that I'm thinking if they take my TR, I will return it to them with my resignation letter. If I can't be a member in good standing with my views, I don't see why I should be a member at all.

I have to admit, I have not keep up with this board as much as I have in the past, but from some of your earlier threads I have read, I was under the impression that you were pretty much done with the church, at least mentally, and now that your wife is on board with you, what's keeping you in the church? Why do you care if the SP takes your TR, and why do you care if you're a member in good standing?