It started with the bishop when the blogger asked about doing the baby blessing at home with his wife holding the baby on Skype so grandparents could witness. The bishop initially didn’t have a problem with it but wanted to ask the stake president. It went downhill from there. Unfortunately, sometime late last night or today, the blogger removed the posts that have all the details.
We really have no way of knowing, one way or the other, what is going on.
Honestly Mormons have an entirely lay leadership. They have no real seminaries just classes for high-schoolers called seminaries.
Understandable when your fellow church members facebook friend you and then show your private facebook page to the bishop and stake president.
I had to giggle at this. I’ve had a lot of bishops in 6 different areas in 2 different states. Here’s as far back as I can remember:
MMM…
My understanding of NOM’s is that they know the LDS church is fradulent etc etc…
That’s a fair characterization of one end of the NOM spectrum. There are others that fall somewhere in between “The Church is absolutely true, Thomas S. Monson is a literal prophet of God who actually sees and hears him, the Book of Mormon is 100% historically accurate” and “Joseph Smith was a fraud”. In any case, NOMs are obviously heterodox with respect to the latitude in belief that the LDS Church allows for. If this gentleman is a NOM and doesn’t believe certain central tenets of Mormonism as his Stake President sees necessary, and he has made such beliefs publicly known, then I’m not really surprised that his Temple Recommend was taken away. It’s analogous to a Catholic claiming that Jesus didn’t really rise from the dead, or that the Eucharist is only symbolic and then being refused communion.
He is not a new order Mormon, you can read his posts over on the Mormon Dialogue and Discussion board. Whether he’s a new order Mormon or not doesn’t take away from the cruel (and against the handbook) way he was treated in regards to his recommend. His bishop and stake president didn’t have the guts to tell him to his face, or at the very least over the phone. It is also still not clear why his wife’s recommend was blocked. Very shabby behavior for a religious leader.
As I recall, the main reason he cited that his temple recommend was revoked was because he believed Joseph Smith saw Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ with his spiritual eyes as opposed to his physical eyes. The stake president told him that unless he believed JS saw them with his physical eyes, the man would not get his temple recommend back. Is this distinction enough to revoke a temple recommend? Honestly, I don’t see how it could because he still believes in the first vision.
I don’t know anything about the way in which the recommend was revoked (I went to read his posts but he has since deleted them, and I assumed this thread was about his losing the recommend, not how the revocation was handled). I’ve caught up a bit with this thread and I’m inferring that his Bishop (or possibly Stake President) revoked his temple recommend without first telling him, thus leaving him in the embarrassing situation of finding out while he was in the Temple lobby trying to go inside? If so, that’s quite shameful.
I believe it is. It is “dogma” of the LDS Church that Joseph Smith actually saw Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. A Mormon who says he believes Joseph Smith saw God with his “spiritual eyes” is keeping a very tenuous view of the “First Vision”. It would be like a Catholic who says the Apostles only beheld the risen Christ “with their spiritual eyes”. They could tap dance around the issue all they like claiming that its a legitimate reinterpretation of the Resurrection, but I highly doubt the Catholic Church would stand for it (nor should She).
I really wish his original post was up as I never had a chance to read it, so I’m a little lost in this discussion. Assuming what you’re saying is true (about his wife having a recommend taken away without the Bishop or SP even talking with her), that’s just plain cowardice.
Absolutely agree.
That’s what my OP was about, though looking at it I think I worded it poorly. Like I said the LDS church is perfectly within it’s rights to control access to the temple. It’s the manner in which it was done, without informing them and letting them find out on their temple trip, that was so egregious. Not to mention suspending his wife’s since she had said nothing to the bishop through the whole thing.
Thanks for pointing it out, but Mormon Discussions isn’t really my thing. I just don’t have the cognitive dissonance it takes to be a NOM. I know the LDS Church isn’t true and that Joseph Smith wasn’t a prophet. There really isn’t much left for me to read about it.
Like I said you can read his side of the story his entire blog post (the one that he removed from my original link) by clicking hereThanks for pointing it out, but Mormon Discussions isn’t really my thing. I just don’t have the cognitive dissonance it takes to be a NOM. I know the LDS Church isn’t true and that Joseph Smith wasn’t a prophet. There really isn’t much left for me to read about it.
I’m a little shocked about the alleged reasoning for having his recommend taken away. LDS priesthood holders are perfectly within their rights to give their children blessings at home (or in the car, at school, in nature, wherever!). There sounds like there’s a little more to this story.
Well, that is the Mormon mindset. This is a sign of apostasy: an apostate will never be at peace. The Mormon church apparently does everything it can to make sure that happens. Once the apostate gets it together, they’ll know peace.
