Cruel treatment of faithful LDS member

  • Thread starter Thread starter zaffiroborant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

zaffiroborant

Guest
Sad story from a devoted LDS member, I really can’t imagine treating someone so poorly. Poor guy and his wife go to the temple only to find out there among people who don’t know him that they have suspended it temple recommend. Apparently just when the man needed the peace he finds there.
You can read his blog here
 
Wow. Just. Wow. And they revoked his wife’s recommend because of her husband. Talk about guilt by association. They should try an Adoration Chapel. It’s much cheaper and no one checking id at the door.
 
It’s just so sad here they are in need of quiet contemplation, to heal them and they find out at the door that they can not enter. You’d think that those charged with the spiritual care of others would have the decency to at least inform them of the state of their recommends. The way LDS “leadership” went about this was cowardly and cruel. Even more sadly my guess is that he will have to take down his blog posts and remove facebook postings if he ever wants to see his temple recommend again, coercion seems to be the MO of LDS leadership.

From another point of view my kids would probably never take it to heart if I told them these kind of stories about the LDS but they were quite indignant over this poor couples treatment when they read the gentleman’s blog. Gazelam has had some posts here that have had a similar effect, though nothing tops the NOM poster who said women are raped because they need to learn a lesson. They were outraged by that and thought it quite sick. So thanks to all the LDS posters who through their own words have done a more thorough job convincing my children that the missionaries have absolutely nothing to offer than I ever could.👍
 
Wow a 2 hour meeting and the end result, this:
After a two-hour cordially, but frustrating meeting with the stake president, the SP told me he had to think more about reactivating our recommends. In order to be worthy of a temple recommend, he believes that I need to affirm that Joseph Smith physically saw the embodied God the Father and Jesus Christ with his biological eyes, that I need to affirm that everything spoken by “The Brethren” are revelations from God, and need to agree to obey all advice and counsel given to me by my leaders, including him and the bishop.
Click to expand...
So everything said by an “apostle” is a revelation from God, I suppose that would include Mr. Monson’s “1,2,3, let’s go shopping!”. You know if they don’t want people to call them a cult they should quit acting like one.
 
zaffiroborant said:
So everything said by an “apostle” is a revelation from God, I suppose that would include Mr. Monson’s “1,2,3, let’s go shopping!”. You know if they don’t want people to call them a cult they should quit acting like one.
Click to expand...
He could really have a field day with this. The Journal of Discourses is full of interesting revelations from “The Brethren” such as Adam-God, blood atonement, blacks and the priesthood, the requirement of polygamy in order to be exalted, Quakers living on the moon, people living on the sun, Heavenly Father having intercourse with Mary. Heck, he doesn’t even have to go as far back in time as the Journal of Discourses for some of these “revelations”. I was taught some of these things in high school seminary and religion classes at BYU in the 90’s. Paul H. Dunn had some really great revelations of faith promoting stories that never happened!
 
Well, to be fair, just as our bishops hold authority over how things are to be done in our (arch)diocese, so a stake president holds the authority of how thing are done in an LDS stake.

A priest or bishop can have communion denied to someone they determine is not in communion with the Church, so a stake president can revoke a TR for someone they feel is not in communion with LDS teachings/practices…

Both the Catholic and Mormon faiths have a hierarchy of authority.

And yes, obedience to that authority is expected.
 
"After a two-hour cordially, but frustrating meeting with the stake president, the SP told me he had to think more about reactivating our recommends. In order to be worthy of a temple recommend, he believes that I need to affirm that Joseph Smith physically saw the embodied God the Father and Jesus Christ with his biological eyes, that I need to affirm that everything spoken by “The Brethren” are revelations from God, and need to agree to obey all advice and counsel given to me by my leaders, including him and the bishop. "

Part of the TR interview is to basically do the above, yes. Although the word “everything” is a not what is expected.

If this man cannot affirm this, then he isnt in full communion with the LDS church…

But yes, you have to affirm that JS was a prophet (hence the first vision is true,) and that the GA’s are “prophets seers and revelators”

This is standard TR interview…This man should know this…
 
Marie5890 said:
Both the Catholic and Mormon faiths have a hierarchy of authority.

And yes, obedience to that authority is expected.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that Marie. My initial thoughts, as I read through this person’s blog pages, was that he was headed towards a different system of religious observance, but it sure wasn’t going to be Catholicism. He seems to have some pretty hefty problems with the concept of authority.

I’m guessing he’ll be happier at one of the more easygoing nondenominational churches, or maybe he’ll find a bible study group held in someone’s living room or something like that, and figure that’s all anyone needs.

Many of the things he says his leaders told him, are things I disagree with. If he’s reporting their words correctly, instead of putting his own interpretive spin on some of them to help justify himself, then his leaders need some refresher courses on some basic concepts of agency and stewardship and obedience.

I wish him well.
 
Marie5890 said:
Well, to be fair, just as our bishops hold authority over how things are to be done in our (arch)diocese, so a stake president holds the authority of how thing are done in an LDS stake.

A priest or bishop can have communion denied to someone they determine is not in communion with the Church, so a stake president can revoke a TR for someone they feel is not in communion with LDS teachings/practices…

Both the Catholic and Mormon faiths have a hierarchy of authority.

And yes, obedience to that authority is expected.
Click to expand...
Well of course the LDS church has a right to control the temple recommend, but they should at least have the decency to let them know they wouldn’t be able to attend the temple. Letting them find out from strangers on the spot was truly uncalled for and utterly lacking in charity.
 
Marie5890 said:
"After a two-hour cordially, but frustrating meeting with the stake president, the SP told me he had to think more about reactivating our recommends. In order to be worthy of a temple recommend, he believes that I need to affirm that Joseph Smith physically saw the embodied God the Father and Jesus Christ with his biological eyes, that I need to affirm that everything spoken by “The Brethren” are revelations from God, and need to agree to obey all advice and counsel given to me by my leaders, including him and the bishop. "

Part of the TR interview is to basically do the above, yes. Although the word “everything” is a not what is expected.

If this man cannot affirm this, then he isnt in full communion with the LDS church…

But yes, you have to affirm that JS was a prophet (hence the first vision is true,) and that the GA’s are “prophets seers and revelators”

This is standard TR interview…This man should know this…
Click to expand...
Indeed. What I’m curious with is why his wife also apparently had her temple recommend inactivated?
 
zaffiroborant said:
Well of course the LDS church has a right to control the temple recommend, but they should at least have the decency to let them know they wouldn’t be able to attend the temple. Letting them find out from strangers on the spot was truly uncalled for and utterly lacking in charity.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what the policy, if any exists, when it comes to how people are notified that their TR’s are revoked.
 
Marie5890 said:
I have no idea what the policy, if any exists, when it comes to how people are notified that their TR’s are revoked.
Click to expand...
OMG. I just checked this guy’s blog again and the two posts from yesterday have been removed. He has probably been strong-armed. I wanted to check my memory of what he had written and poof! it’s gone. I had remembered that he stated that he believed Joseph Smith saw Heavenly Father and Jesus with his “spiritual” eyes as opposed to his physical eyes. Honestly, I don’t know how this isn’t good enough for the temple recommend, but I could be wrong.

I feel so bad for this man and his wife. They are being bullied and intimidated into silence regarding the abuses of his local Mormon leaders. I agree with previous posters that if he doesn’t believe in the basics of Mormonism, he shouldn’t have a temple recommend. However, since the Mormons claim to be Christian, they should at least treat this man and his wife with some basic Christian charity. As far as I know there is no policy when it comes to revoking a temple recommend. From what I have heard from my dad who is a former bishop and others who have dealt with this situation, the bishop meets with the person in advance, talks about it and the person physically gives the recommend to the bishop. Now that there are bar codes on each recommend, the bishop doesn’t have to be polite about it. He can just go into the computer. Where I am from, we call this behavior trashy.

I have heard anecdotal evidence of Mormon leaders bullying their members into silence if someone does not tow the line, even on issues that may be fringe but still not against doctrine. What happened to Hans Mattson and the Swedes is very public evidence of this happening. We were bullied a bit by our stake president but we sent in a resignation email immediately after he left our home to finish the whole thing.

I felt his dispair in his latest blog post. I feel bad for him. He has been part of the Mormon tribe and does find spiritual fulfillment there. I know that he is being deceived but I hate to see people treated this way just because his beliefs are a bit different from other Mormons. Again, I don’t see how his stated beliefs are against basic Mormon doctrines in the temple recommend interview. I could be wrong about the interpretation of the spiritual eyes/physical eyes issue though.

He still wants to be part of Mormonism and he and his wife are essentially being forced out and marginalized. They live in the Salt Lake area so this will affect them socially and possibly professionally. I sincerely hope that his job and career are not negatively impacted by this. I wish them the best and hope they come to the realization they have been deceived and walk away, giving themselves a 10% raise.
 
My guess is that his wife’s recommend was revoked for participating in the “illegal” baby blessing.

The way he was treated was deplorable, but I don’t understand the big to-do about the baby blessing. What is the function other than publicly giving the baby a name? He could have kept the public blessing short and then give his baby a long, more involved “father’s blessing” with the family/wife holding the baby.

Unfortunately, I think this is the perfect example of how the LDS people lack faith in their local leaders, and the way the SP and Bishop treated this man is a perfect example of why the lack of faith is there.
 
iepuras said:
From what I have heard from my dad who is a former bishop and others who have dealt with this situation, the bishop meets with the person in advance, talks about it and the person physically gives the recommend to the bishop. Now that there are bar codes on each recommend, the bishop doesn’t have to be polite about it. He can just go into the computer. Where I am from, we call this behavior trashy.

.
Click to expand...
Trashy and cowardly and totally devoid of pastoral guidance.
 
Marie5890 said:
I have no idea what the policy, if any exists, when it comes to how people are notified that their TR’s are revoked.
Click to expand...
According to the bishops handbook if the bishop determines a recommend holder is unworthy he is to ask for the members recommend immediately.
If the bishop determines that a member who has a current recommend is unworthy, he immediately requests the recommend from the member. If the member refuses to return it, the bishop notifies the stake president at once. The stake president cancels the recommend according to the guidelines in 3.3.6 [ed. note: this section deals with the SP using “record-keeping software” to cancel a lost or stolen TR].
Handbook 1, Section 3.3.7 (emphasis added).
Click to expand...
To me this implies it is do be done in person at the interview where the worthiness was determined. The bishop took the cowardly route.
 
zaffiroborant said:
According to the bishops handbook if the bishop determines a recommend holder is unworthy he is to ask for the members recommend immediately.

To me this implies it is do be done in person at the interview where the worthiness was determined. The bishop took the cowardly route.
Click to expand...
I havent read his entire blog.

Did this start at the bishop’s level or at the stake level coming out of the gate?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top