The unbelieving Fifth Column

[_harmony]

And furthermore what does your bishop think of your participation on a board that allows exmos on it without a muzzle?

Muzzling exmos has never come up in any conversation with my bishop.

[_moksha]

Beastie, I am sure that there are people who attend Church, pretend they are still believers, for family reasons.

But I don't know how a person who says they can't stand the "fact" that there are lies, etc. in the Church can live a lie themselves.

Do you deny that some of those who express their hatred of the Church on this board who are still attending aren't trying to sink the Church surreptitiously?

If you're referring to PP(Boaz), Merc, and Infymus, none of them attend Church on a regular basis. PP doesn't attend at all. I believe that Merc and Infymus occasionally attend Church for extended family functions.

Rollo Tomasi comes to mind. He has said he is an active member. But he is as dangerous as they come with some of the things he has said he has done, and the attitudes he has.

Harmony has expressed such disdain for the prophets and leaders, doctrines and practices of the Church, that the only way she can be getting a temple recommend, which she says she has, is be blinking, swallowing hard and keeping her fingers crossed during the temple recommend interview.

These are exactly those that Will described in the quoted paragraph.

Charity, what if Will had just acknowledged that there are people who attend church for a variety of reasons and with a variety of interpretations and that those reasons and interpretations, other than those he viewed as officially sanctioned, are just a bunch of poopy pants? He would have discharged his sense of righteousness and those with whom he disagreed would not have to be so defensive.

by the way, I disagree with Beastie that the LDS Church is incapable of having a big tent. Will's opinion with not affect the membership or welcome for anyone.

[_ludwigm]

...
Don't lie to the bishop to get a temple recommend.
Don't hold any callings where youth or children are in the stewardship or where teaching if part of the duties.
Don't take the sacrament, even if everone looks at you.
Don't speak out against any doctrine or teaching which is a part of Church doctrine or teachings inside any Church building.
...

I was an investigator for six years. (Do You know somebody who did the same amount?) In that span, I have attended more times than any active member of that ward (I have accompanied my wife). Always in the front row.
I had a temple recommend - directly printed from the Internet - and many times have escorted my wife up to the gate of the (guesswhich) temple.
I had no calling, but I was a teacher - as in 40+ years of my civil life. The members knew me as scripturist.
I didn't ever take the sacrament. (I know that there are more sacraments and the Lords Supper is only one of them and - among other things - Joseph Smith didn't know this.)
I have never speak against doctrines or teachings. I have tried to explain them, with more or less success. (You know, explaining something can be very dangerous ... )

Does it sound uncommon? Anyway, it is true.

[_beastie]

Most closet nonbelievers don't lie about their nonbelief, if asked. They simply avoid talking about their lack of belief, to avoid problems.

I know of only one closet nonbeliever who pretends to actually believe, and he only does so because of his wife. Not only did she declare he MUST remain active in church to stay married to her, but he must BELIEVE as well and be worthy of a temple recommend. So, to save his marriage, he pretends.

I do know of fringie believers who don't believe in the "right" way, like Harmony, and I imagine that is the group Will and Charity are talking about. That's why I said what this really demonstrates is that it's a lie that Mormonism is some big tent with very few demands in terms of "what you must believe", that accepts a variety of interpretations. That's a lie certain internet apologists like to repeat, but every now and then the truth comes out. Thanks, Will and Charity, for speaking the TRUTH to the LIE.

[_Runtu]

ilk (I love that word)

And the definition is far more innocuous than most perceive.

Precisely. It's the connotation (what most perceive) that is the reason for its use. Don't argue with an English major.

[_Runtu]

Rollo Tomasi comes to mind. He has said he is an active member. But he is as dangerous as they come with some of the things he has said he has done, and the attitudes he has.

The funny thing is that Rollo is a believer. When I was trying to decide what to about church, he encouraged me to stay and make it work. Believe it or not, Rollo is not some rabid undercover atheist. Why would an unbeliever tell me to stay in the church, find the good in it, and use the church as a means to bless lives?

[_charity]

I was an investigator for six years. (Do You know somebody who did the same amount?)

I know many people who investigated for longer than that. I think probably the most veteran "investigaor" waited for about 15 years of meeting with the missionaries off and on before he joined. Two years later he was a bishop.

In that span, I have attended more times than any active member of that ward (I have accompanied my wife). Always in the front row.

And interesting claim. More than your wife, even? Hmmmm.

I had a temple recommend - directly printed from the Internet - and many times have escorted my wife up to the gate of the (guesswhich) temple.

If you are saying your "temple recommend" was not obtained with an interview with the appropriate priesthood authorities, then no, you did not have a temple recommend. You had a counterfeit. In the US, I don't know how it is in your country, you can go to jail for using counterfeir money. In God's kingdom, using a ocunterfeit is a serious offense, too.

I had no calling, but I was a teacher - as in 40+ years of my civil life. The members knew me as scripturist.

Just as long as you did not represent yourself as teaching LDS doctrine.

I didn't ever take the sacrament. (I know that there are more sacraments and the Lords Supper is only one of them and - among other things - Joseph Smith didn't know this.)

Sorry. You don't know what Joseph Smith knew.

I have never speak against doctrines or teachings. I have tried to explain them, with more or less success. (You know, explaining something can be very dangerous ... )

You mean, you explained LDS doctrines through your own lens and knowledgte of the "truth?"

Does it sound uncommon? Anyway, it is true.

I have no reason to doubt you. I think I see exactlyi what you said. Counterfeit temple recommend. "Explain" LDS doctrine. I think I understand very well.

[_charity]

Most closet nonbelievers don't lie about their nonbelief, if asked. They simply avoid talking about their lack of belief, to avoid problems.

I know of only one closet nonbeliever who pretends to actually believe, and he only does so because of his wife. Not only did she declare he MUST remain active in church to stay married to her, but he must BELIEVE as well and be worthy of a temple recommend. So, to save his marriage, he pretends.

I do know of fringie believers who don't believe in the "right" way, like Harmony, and I imagine that is the group Will and Charity are talking about. That's why I said what this really demonstrates is that it's a lie that Mormonism is some big tent with very few demands in terms of "what you must believe", that accepts a variety of interpretations. That's a lie certain internet apologists like to repeat, but every now and then the truth comes out. Thanks, Will and Charity, for speaking the TRUTH to the LIE.

The following appears in a FAIR wiki article on the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

"If someone comes to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is not historical at all, is there a place for him in the Church? Probably. We cast a very broad net. That person cannot go around teaching his heterodox views on the subject, but if he is willing to keep them to himself, he can be a contributing active member of the Church, simply bracketing the historicity issue."

Did you notice? The "very broad net" means that the person understands that his understanding is NOT Church approved. And he must not teach it.

I don't think Will is talking about issues which the person is keeping to himself. By speaking out, the person places him/herself outside the tent.

[_charity]

Rollo Tomasi comes to mind. He has said he is an active member. But he is as dangerous as they come with some of the things he has said he has done, and the attitudes he has.

The funny thing is that Rollo is a believer. When I was trying to decide what to about church, he encouraged me to stay and make it work. Believe it or not, Rollo is not some rabid undercover atheist. Why would an unbeliever tell me to stay in the church, find the good in it, and use the church as a means to bless lives?

Rollo has stated on another board that he would disobey God on any issue he disagrees with Him about, even if God were standing in front of him. Teaching disobedience to God is a "capital" offense.

[_Runtu]

Rollo has stated on another board that he would disobey God on any issue he disagrees with Him about, even if God were standing in front of him. Teaching disobedience to God is a "capital" offense.

I believe it was you who quoted FAIR about believing what you wish as long as you keep it to yourself. Do you have any evidence that Rollo is teaching these heresies in his ward? Does posting anonymously here constitute "teaching disobedience"?

I tend to think not.