I'm glad the LDS Church didn't do this to me

[BartBurk]

They simply let me resign. The people in Mesa, Arizona were a lot more Gestapo-like:

eastvalleytribune.com/story/98035

Apparently, the local Mesa Mormons decided to drag Mr. Lamborn’s name through the mud and now he is fighting back. He initially wanted to simply resign quietly.

 

[Lehl]

They simply let me resign. The people in Mesa, Arizona were a lot more Gestapo-like:

eastvalleytribune.com/story/98035

Apparently, the local Mesa Mormons decided to drag Mr. Lamborn’s name through the mud and now he is fighting back. He initially wanted to simply resign quietly.

Good for him.

Hopefully it’ll get more of those rank-and-file Mesa Mormons thinking.

 

[manualman]

I don’t get it. He has come to believe that the LDS church is made-up bunk, tells others freely of his new onvictions, yet he still wants to attend for comraderie and family values?

I can’t relate to that! Can you imagine NOT believing in Jesus, disbelieving in the sacraments and still wanting to come to mass? Weird!

 

[Lehl]

I don’t get it. He has come to believe that the LDS church is made-up bunk, tells others freely of his new onvictions, yet he still wants to attend for comraderie and family values?

I can’t relate to that! Can you imagine NOT believing in Jesus, disbelieving in the sacraments and still wanting to come to mass? Weird!

Actually, if you are familiar with Mormonism, this is a completely normal occurance for an unbelieving spouse married to a still-believing spouse wanting to keep their marriage together.

As Catholics, this is completely foreign.

Mormonism is a cult (again, this cult definition is about behavior NOT doctrine. See this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=186106 ) If anything, the threats and behavior of this stake president only further prove how they fit this description!

I imagine Mr. Lamborn is simply trying to keep his marriage together. Many ex-Mormons that discover the untruth about the LDS church make such concessions for not only their marriages, but also to maintain relationships with their immediate and extended families, to keep their livelihoods, etc.

Mr. Lamborn has a LOT to lose by being “ousted as an apostate”.

I seriously don’t see his fascade lasting very long after his own media stunt. He will be even further shunned and ostraciszed by the Mormon community because he commited one of Mormonism’s mortal sins, “Thou shalt not commit publicity”.

 

[BartBurk]

I don’t get it. He has come to believe that the LDS church is made-up bunk, tells others freely of his new onvictions, yet he still wants to attend for comraderie and family values?

I can’t relate to that! Can you imagine NOT believing in Jesus, disbelieving in the sacraments and still wanting to come to mass? Weird!

Even having resigned I still attend the Mormon sacrament meeting with my family. It’s not much different than all of those couples at mass where only one goes up for the Eucharist. There are many non-Catholics who attend mass with their spouse and children.

 

[Lehl]

Even having resigned I still attend the Mormon sacrament meeting with my family. It’s not much different than all of those couples at mass where only one goes up for the Eucharist. There are many non-Catholics who attend mass with their spouse and children.

This true in a sense. My ex-Mormon husband attended Mass nominally (Easter & Christmas) with the kids and I for 10 years before he actually converted about 3 years ago. Now he’s the UBER-Catholic and teaches RCIA and is a 4th degree Knight.

His dad was a Mormon bishop when he converted. His family’s reaction was NOT good. FIL claims to have recieved revelation that I would convert to Mormonism even from the beginning of our marriage. That had to have been embarrassing when his own son became a Catholic. God apparently didn’t reveal that to him.

 

[why_me]

This is being discussed on the mormon apologetic site. The reason that his excommunication was made public is because the person was leading people astray with his ‘teachings’. The stake president thought it wise to warn the members about it.

I don’t think that this is unreasonable. If a person attempts to lead people away from the church, it is not unreasonable to announce the person’s excommunication so members can be aware of the person’s status within the church. Did not the catholic church make public the excommunication of the bishop who allowed married men to hold the priesthood. I think they did.

 

[why_me]

This true in a sense. My ex-Mormon husband attended Mass nominally (Easter & Christmas) with the kids and I for 10 years before he actually converted about 3 years ago. Now he’s the UBER-Catholic and teaches RCIA and is a 4th degree Knight.

His dad was a Mormon bishop when he converted. His family’s reaction was NOT good. FIL claims to have recieved revelation that I would convert to Mormonism even from the beginning of our marriage. That had to have been embarrassing when his own son became a Catholic. God apparently didn’t reveal that to him.

You mean a member of the lds cult was actually allowed to attend Mass while still being in the cult! How did he manage to escape the cult’s radar. My gosh he was lucky.

 

[why_me]

Actually, if you are familiar with Mormonism, this is a completely normal occurance for an unbelieving spouse married to a still-believing spouse wanting to keep their marriage together.

As Catholics, this is completely foreign.

Mormonism is a cult (again, this cult definition is about behavior NOT doctrine. See this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=186106 ) If anything, the threats and behavior of this stake president only further prove how they fit this description!

Yes, it is. However, I do know of public excommunication of how profile catholics such as the bishop that I mentioned. Any comments? I do believe that his excommunication was publically announced as to show catholics just where he stands with the catholic church. A black pot should not paint the kettle black.

 

[BartBurk]

This is being discussed on the mormon apologetic site. The reason that his excommunication was made public is because the person was leading people astray with his ‘teachings’. The stake president thought it wise to warn the members about it.

I don’t think that this is unreasonable. If a person attempts to lead people away from the church, it is not unreasonable to announce the person’s excommunication so members can be aware of the person’s status within the church. Did not the catholic church make public the excommunication of the bishop who allowed married men to hold the priesthood. I think they did.

He was talking to his brothers about it. There isn’t any evidence he was going beyond his family with his information. I think it interesting that his brothers and a couple of his kids seemed to have seen the information and believed it. He said he would have resigned quietly if they would have let him. They would have been way ahead from a PR standpoint if they had let him do this. Generally, the LDS Church does not discuss these types of things publicly and this stake president seems to have crossed the line. It was not a smart move.

If the Catholic Church excommunicated a Bishop for a public act it would not be surprising. A Bishop in the Catholic Church has a whole lot more ability to injure the church than does a member in the pews. If a Catholic Church member in the pews would have been sharing this type of information with his family nothing would have happened. The Mormon Stake President seems to have embarked on a power trip.

 

[why_me]

He was talking to his brothers about it. There isn’t any evidence he was going beyond his family with his information. I think it interesting that his brothers and a couple of his kids seemed to have seen the information and believed it. He said he would have resigned quietly if they would have let him. They would have been way ahead from a PR standpoint if they had let him do this. Generally, the LDS Church does not discuss these types of things publicly and this stake president seems to have crossed the line. It was not a smart move.

It was with other members of the lds church. His brothers were doing their own research.

“I was planning to leave the church quietly, but was denied that opportunity, presumably because I was speaking openly to other members about my findings and (was) writing things down,” Lamborn said.

This was why it was publically announced. So members would know that he was excommunicated and not speaking as a member in good standing.

 

[why_me]

If the person who was excommunicated would have done some reading from lds sources about polygamy he would have read this:

ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=145

What is unfortunate is that many mormons claim ignorance and blame the lds church. However, here we see polygamy stated in quite an open way from a church source. I can have no sympathy for the man who was excommunicated. He should have read more from church sources.

 

[RebeccaJ]

He was talking to his brothers about it. There isn’t any evidence he was going beyond his family with his information. I think it interesting that his brothers and a couple of his kids seemed to have seen the information and believed it. He said he would have resigned quietly if they would have let him. They would have been way ahead from a PR standpoint if they had let him do this. Generally, the LDS Church does not discuss these types of things publicly and this stake president seems to have crossed the line. It was not a smart move.

If the Catholic Church excommunicated a Bishop for a public act it would not be surprising. A Bishop in the Catholic Church has a whole lot more ability to injure the church than does a member in the pews. If a Catholic Church member in the pews would have been sharing this type of information with his family nothing would have happened. The Mormon Stake President seems to have embarked on a power trip.

Not to mention that mormon apologists claim regularly that mormon disciplinary courts, including the resulting actions from these courts, are confidential. Apparently not.

 

[BartBurk]

It was with other members of the lds church. His brothers were doing their own research.

“I was planning to leave the church quietly, but was denied that opportunity, presumably because I was speaking openly to other members about my findings and (was) writing things down,” Lamborn said.

This was why it was publically announced. So members would know that he was excommunicated and not speaking as a member in good standing.

Bull. They didn’t announce this stuff with the September Six, but hid behind the supposed confidentiality of the Church court. The same was true of Grant Palmer – no announcement of a judgment there either. This Stake President simply went overboard. It’s supposed to be quiet. If they’d let it stay quiet there would have been no newspaper article. And from what I understand the other church members were his own family members.

 

[RebeccaJ]

If the person who was excommunicated would have done some reading from lds sources about polygamy he would have read this:

ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=145

What is unfortunate is that many mormons claim ignorance and blame the lds church. However, here we see polygamy stated in quite an open way from a church source. I can have no sympathy for the man who was excommunicated. He should have read more from church sources.

It is not all about polygamy whyme. I think you know that. You can email him and ask him for his summary of searching.

clamborn58@yahoo.com

Polygamy and Helen Mar Kimball were just the tip of the iceberg.

And that LDS link leaves a lot of pertinent info out. Destruction of a printing press to hide the lies that JS was telling. JS marrying women who were already married (polyandry). Just to name two.

 

[estesbob]

I wish our bishops would do this to pro-abortion Catholic politicians

 

[PaulDupre]

I don’t think that this is unreasonable. If a person attempts to lead people away from the church, it is not unreasonable to announce the person’s excommunication so members can be aware of the person’s status within the church.

I agree with you on this point, but only if there is a substantial possibility that the person in question may actually be perceived to have the authority to act and teach in the name of the church. This guy was not a General Authority and I doubt that any Mormon would mistake him for one. Therefore there was really no reason to announce his excommunication. The LDS would have realized that he was a dissenter and ignored him.

Did not the catholic church make public the excommunication of the bishop who allowed married men to hold the priesthood. I think they did.

Archbishop Milingo was removed from his bishopric and eventually excommunicated because he:

1. Joined the Moonies
2. was married to a woman by Rev Sun Myung Moon in a very public ceremony with the press in attendance, thereby engendering a very public scandel
3. started a personal prelature called “Married Priests Now!” without papal approval
4. Ordained married priests as bishops in very public ceremonies for the benefit of the worldwide press (these men had had their priestly faculties taken away after they got married) . Every Catholic knows that all episcopal ordinations must be approved by the Pope.

All these things Archbishop Milingo pretended to do by his authority as a Catholic bishop, after he had been warned by Rome not to do them. It was necessary in this case to inform Catholics that Milingo was not acting as a bishop.

Lamborn’s case was nothing like that.

Paul

 

[krissy343]

This is a quote from the article:

They say, however, church members must be protected from what discordant ex-followers may say to damage the church.

Why should the church members need to be protected? If they are true believers and the church has the facts to back everything up, why should it be a worry?
This guy discovered the truth on his own, things his church has been hiding from him, and they KNOW they are in big trouble if that truth gets out. How sad

 

[BartBurk]

This is a quote from the article:

Why should the church members need to be protected? If they are true believers and the church has the facts to back everything up, why should it be a worry?
This guy discovered the truth on his own, things his church has been hiding from him, and they KNOW they are in big trouble if that truth gets out. How sad

The stake president should have let it go and let the guy resign. I used the form letter from mormonnomore.com and just got my letter back today, three weeks after sending it. So I’m officially out of the LDS Church. There would have been almost no publicity if the stake president had acted responsibly.

 

[why_me]

This is a quote from the article:

Why should the church members need to be protected? If they are true believers and the church has the facts to back everything up, why should it be a worry?
This guy discovered the truth on his own, things his church has been hiding from him, and they KNOW they are in big trouble if that truth gets out. How sad

For the same reason why catholic parishes throughout the United States had Da Vinci Code seminars. Get the point?

Also, I posted an lds sponsored website that contains polygamy. Our excommunicated friend could have read that site if he had the mind too.

After all he did search the web right?