It's OK to resign.

[BigFatMeanie]

Dude, I just said



I see Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith, The Book of Mormon, and the Church as a divinely organized and authorized structure as black and white. Again, other areas are more gray -- but they are all secondary. You are ignoring my main point by responding only to the Noah comment.

My testimony does not hinge on whether some of the stories in the Bible are literal or figurative. Some are possibly figurative, and it wouldn't bother me if they are, but I personally believe that many / most are literal.

What do you think of The Book of Mormon? Ancient record or modern creation?

I'll answer even though you didn't ask me specifically: It's most likely a modern creation. My testimony does not hinge on whether the origins of the Book of Mormon are literal or figurative.

[Northwestcoug]

Guys, go easy on Crockett. He is likely a product of seminary and/or institute. The relevant chapters (even updated in 2014!) leave no doubt that the flood was a literal and world-wide event.

[Crockett]

I'll answer even though you didn't ask me specifically: It's most likely a modern creation. My testimony does not hinge on whether the origins of the Book of Mormon are literal or figurative.

Clever. But what do you have a testimony of then?

If I really thought it was a man-made sham I'd be gone. (SU, that's not an invitation.)

[Crockett]

Guys, go easy on Crockett. He is likely a product of seminary and/or institute. The relevant chapters (even updated in 2014!) leave no doubt that the flood was a literal and world-wide event.

Buncha tares up in here. Any wheat around this board?

[Northwestcoug]

Buncha tares up in here. Any wheat around this board?

Not sure. Which ones don't get burned in the end again?

[cougjunkie]

It's ok not to resign.

Its ok to re-sign! I did for time and all eternity.

[falafel]

Buncha tares up in here. Any wheat around this board?

Technically, I'm one of the 144,000.

[Walter Sobchak]

In conclusion:
1) There should be no difficultly in resigning unless local leaders are obstructionist.
2) The notion that an attorney is necessary is ludicrous.
3) The notion that a person needs to fight to resign is probably based on rumor, prior history, or extreme cases.

Bro, this is great info but audience here is small. Have you considered posting this on twitter?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Buncha tares up in here. Any wheat around this board?

So it sounds like a "wheat" member is one that is fully prepared to abandon ship once any crack in the foundation is discovered.

Good luck with that.

[Commando]

So it sounds like a "wheat" member is one that is fully prepared to abandon ship once any crack in the foundation is discovered.

Good luck with that.

Roger that! I'd abandon ship if a crack in the Holy Ghost was discovered!

[cowboy]

I believe it is the thresher, not the wheat, that determines what is wheat and what is tare. Regardless, it is an exercise in futility to disagree with someone whose mind is made up. On most of these subjects, pretty much everyone left here has their mind made up. There was once a time here when people were in and transitioned out of the church, but even then, trying to stop that process would have been like trying to stop the Provo river by standing in it. Once the tipping point was reached, there was nothing to be done. Most of the regulars here just agree to disagree on a lot of stuff. Crockett, my advice is to pick your battles, and don't make this one of them.

[Sullyute]

I have no idea why people insist on these black and white narratives.

i am crying on the inside

[clackamascoug]

I believe it is the thresher, not the wheat, that determines what is wheat and what is tare. Regardless, it is an exercise in futility to disagree with someone whose mind is made up. On most of these subjects, pretty much everyone left here has their mind made up. There was once a time here when people were in and transitioned out of the church, but even then, trying to stop that process would have been like trying to stop the Provo river by standing in it. Once the tipping point was reached, there was nothing to be done. Most of the regulars here just agree to disagree on a lot of stuff. Crockett, my advice is to pick your battles, and don't make this one of them.

On the other hand... this is the most exciting thing on here today. Unless you decide tell your most recent "...meanwhile back at the ranch" stories.

[Crockett]

So it sounds like a "wheat" member is one that is fully prepared to abandon ship once any crack in the foundation is discovered.

Good luck with that.

The core items I mentioned before are black and white. Even SU gets it. They are like pregnancy -- you either are or you aren't. It's my main point and you keep side-stepping it.

Let's focus on The Book of Mormon. It's either from an ancient record or a modern creation. If your point is that a lack of DNA evidence or animals / objects mentioned in the BoM are not part of the historical record or whatever criticism are "cracks", then here is how I deal with that. I've not abandoned ship to your cracks (using your mixed metaphor). I'm convinced it's an ancient record based on both spiritual and intellectual experiences / knowledge, although my spiritual experiences alone are sufficient to convince me. I believe there is a valid explanation for the criticisms that may or may not be known yet. The evidence to support it may exist but it hasn't been found yet or maybe Joseph Smith used English words in a generic way to describe BoM things or whatever. If it's an ancient record, it's an ancient record and a proper explanation exists.

What I don't get is how you can think there is some gray area with The BoM (or the other core items). How can you think it's a modern creation (meaning Joseph Smith was a con man) and be satisfied and motivated as a member of the Church?

[Solon]

The core items I mentioned before are black and white. Even SU gets it. They are like pregnancy -- you either are or you aren't. It's my main point and you keep side-stepping it.

Let's focus on The Book of Mormon. It's either from an ancient record or a modern creation. If your point is that a lack of DNA evidence or animals / objects mentioned in the BoM are not part of the historical record or whatever criticism are "cracks", then here is how I deal with that. I've not abandoned ship to your cracks (using your mixed metaphor). I'm convinced it's an ancient record based on both spiritual and intellectual experiences / knowledge, although my spiritual experiences alone are sufficient to convince me. I believe there is a valid explanation for the criticisms that may or may not be known yet. The evidence to support it may exist but it hasn't been found yet or maybe Joseph Smith used English words in a generic way to describe BoM things or whatever. If it's an ancient record, it's an ancient record and a proper explanation exists.

What I don't get is how you can think there is some gray area with The BoM (or the other core items). How can you think it's a modern creation (meaning Joseph Smith was a con man) and be satisfied and motivated as a member of the Church?

I think you're just trolling.
Obviously there are more options for the Book of Mormon than either ancient/modern; authentic/forgery.
Any believing LDS has already faced this false dichotomy in dealing with the Book of Abraham. Only the truly zealous think it is a translation of something that came out of Middle Kingdom Egypt.

I don't blame Crockett, though. The LDS Pearl of Great Price manual still has Adam & Eve at 4000 BC.

https://www.lds.org/manual/the-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual/the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng