| Subject: | 'OFFICIALLY' cult-free 4 days and counting: I *finally* resigned my membership. |
| Date: | Feb 26 14:46 2004 |
| Author: | Langdon |
| As many of you know, I have been openly post-Mormon
for a long time, but I had never formally resigned my membership in the
Cult of Joseph Smith of Latter Day Saints. For over a decade, I had moved progressively through various stages of increasing 'inactivity', until becoming totally 'inactive' for the most recent 5-6 years. (My wife and children remain active members.) The past 4 bishops have all known that I disbelieved the Mormon religion - I have discussed it openly with each of them in person. The first two bishops nevertheless urged me to accept temple recommends and priesthood callings -- including Elders' Quorum Presidency and Melchizedek Priesthood Instructor -- thinking perhaps that I was merely in a 'down' spot, and that increased involvement would reinvigorate my testimony. I honestly struggled to 're-believe' but it didn't work, and I had to release myself from those callings. Through my 'inactivity' I have remained close friends with many Mormons in that stake. Few have ever asked me directly why I went inactive, and I have never volunteered it. On Sunday, February 22, I met for approx 1 hour with the bishop of my wife's ward -- at the chapel-- to hand-deliver to him my letter of membership resignation. My TBM wife was present in the meeting. RECENT EVENTS LEADING TO THIS DECISION Although I have known this bishop for a long time (and had been casual-friends with him for many years), he was not the bishop of my wife's ward until just a few months ago. Shortly after he became bishop, I noticed an obvious attempt by various ward members to reactivate my teenage son (I'm not stupid; I used to help coordinate 'reactivation projects' myself). My son was maneuvered into a scenario in which he was 'induced' to accept a long-overdue priesthood birthday advancement/ordination that he had originally declined many months ago. Though my son accepted when the new bishop 'urged' him to be ordained now, it was not a choice based on my son's own initiative. It was a teenage boy in a closed-door, face-to-face interview with an 'authority-figure' adult: undue social pressure on a kid who likes to please everyone. I was furious at the blatant manipulation of his 'free' agency, and I let everyone involved know how upset I was. (You may remember my post in early January: "Cypher re-enters the Matrix?") My indignation caused considerable stress in my marriage, and my wife sought comfort in the frequent counsel of this bishop, with whom she has had a long friendship (she 'relates' with him very well). Their conversations / meetings / emails for the past 2 months have left me feeling like I am in a 3-person marriage, and that *I* am the third wheel or odd-man-out. During this recent period, I too have exchanged numerous emails and phone conversations with this new bishop, and let him know my views very clearly, but also courteously: Gentle and Forceful. COMING TO A HEAD - PAST 10 DAYS On Tuesday Feb 17th, this new Bishop called and asked if I'd meet with him at his house that evening. I consented (because I figured he needed to hear some things from me face-to-face). At the meeting, I told him I didn't think it would do any good for us to talk about factual issues pertaining to the church, because he'd ignore / discount any evidence that didn't accord with his belief. Nevertheless, he tried to bring up evidentiary 'prebuttals' (pre-emptive responses) a couple of times, and each time I pointed out to him where he was wrong, and suggested kindly but firmly that he ought to go back and check his facts again (he's not stupid, but I could run circles around him in a factual discussion about Mormonism). After about 3 hours of friendly and courteous - but frank - discussion, I returned home. At home, I reassured my worried wife that I hadn't lambasted her bishop with a deluge of evidence and criticism and moral outrage (she had told the bishop regarding factual issues "You don't want to go there with Langdon!!") I then suggested to my wife that since I wasn't really a Mormon at all, perhaps it was time for me to make it official. I had been wishing to resign my membership formally for quite some time, but out of concern for my wife's feelings, I had waited. She said she thought that would be 'OK' (she knew it was inevitable anyway). THE 'RESIGNATION' MEETING The next Sunday - Feb 22nd - I traveled to the chapel and met with the bishop during their Sunday School. They (bishop and wife) were uneasy, but I was confident. After some discussion of other issues for a few minutes, I handed the bishop my letter, which I knew he was already expecting (because my wife tells him everything I say about the Church or about him). He set the envelope aside, and said he wasn't sure he could let me resign because he thought there were some issues in my past that might require a church court and possibly excommunication. He was referring to a mistake I had made about 10 years ago (the result of an unfortunate miscommunication between my wife and myself), but which I had completely rectified many many years ago - and which even way back then, wouldn't have gotten me ex'd after they would've heard my explanation. In other words, it was a totally bogus pretext. I was absolutely indignant at his petty power-trip, but somehow managed to maintain a calm composure. I corrected him and informed him that no, he could not do that (church court), and that he should contact David Wood at the Church Office Building -- whose phone number I had provided him in the resignation letter -- and that Brother Wood would set him straight. In hindsight, maybe I should have let them convene a court to excommunicate me, because my wife knows that would be an unjustifiable, unfounded [mis-]judgment of my character, and I think she would have then become upset at the church, and possibly she'd see them for the petty, power-trip control-freaks that they are. A few weeks ago she even defended my character to the bishop, told him with a bit of sharpness that he had mischaracterized me. "I know my husband!" she reprimanded him for something he had said about me. BTW, the day before meeting with the bishop, I had already mailed copies of my letter to the Stake President and David Wood at SLC Membership Records. On the advice of Kathy Worthington (thanks Kathy!), the next day I faxed the following note to SLC: Dear Mr. Wood, Yesterday I hand-delivered my letter of LDS membership resignation to the bishop of the ward containing my records. (I had also mailed you a copy of the full letter Saturday February 21st, you should receive it in the next few days.) The relevant resignation portion of my 6-page letter is attached to this fax for your reference. The Bishop said he was not sure if he could accept it / process it as a membership resignation, since he thought there were "issues" in my past that might have merited church court. I told him that was now moot since I am no longer a member, and told him to contact you, so that you could set him straight vis-à-vis his legal obligations. It would be unfortunate for such an otherwise well-intentioned man to place his church in a position of potential legal liability and unfavorable media attention. Here is the contact information you may need to reach that bishop & his stake president: [names & phone numbers] Thank you for your attention to this matter. As of today (Feb 26th) I have not yet heard any response from anyone (bishop, stake prez, SLC Membership Records). Although to be honest, now I am a bit ambivalent, half-hoping that the bishop is foolish enough to handle this improperly (i.e., attempt to excommunicate me) because that would be a battle that I would relish - and one they would pay dearly for. As my wife has warned others, I am intelligent, I am intense, I am a fighter, and I am NOT a person to mess with or take lightly. So we'll see whether my network of media contacts will need to hear from me on this (I am a longtime social activist and lobbyist, with plenty of experience in generating publicity). Anyway, here are some significant snippets from the hour-long exchange with the bishop: BISHOP: You've made covenants with your wife and with God in the temple, and you've chosen to abandon your promises you made. ME: No that is not correct. I keep promises that are REAL, and those 'covenants' were based on misrepresentations, information that I had believed, but later learned was false. I am still every bit as committed to God and to my wife as I was then. Actually, my commitments to God and to my wife are stronger now than they ever were when I was a Mormon. So you are wrong: I still take my promises to God VERY seriously! BISHOP [to wife]: You have a new marriage now, and everything has changed; now you are married to a non-member, and…… ME: No, I have to object to your characterization, that is not accurate: my situation with the church has not 'suddenly changed'. I have not believed in 'the Church' for about 10 years already, and my wife and I have been dealing with that for many years, and our marriage is stronger now than it ever was before. Your description is not accurate. [he backed off and conceded he had misstated things.] BISHOP: As things stand now, by having your saving ordinances voided, in the next life your wife and kids and relatives and friends will be in the Celesial Kingdom, and you won't be able to be with them…. ME [smiling slyly, chuckling]: Don't you be too sure…. I'll sneak in! (Incidentally, I'm very glad he said this; for me, this 'exclusivity' doctrine is the most abominable teaching in all the church's mythology. For years I have tried to point out to my wife that no loving Father would reject and disown his children for eternity because their deeds were Jesus-like but their ordinances were done by the wrong people. And she actually agrees with me; she doesn't think that God will actually do that. She believes that all good people of any church will get to return to him and be with their families. When I tell her that's not what her church teaches (think of the entire reasoning behind the First Vision myth), she does not believe it is not official doctrine. I've banged my head against the wall trying to show her that, yes, your church does teach that as official doctrine, but she won’t accept that. And now, ironically, the bishop just helped me out - and he didn't even realize that is a teaching that my wife strongly disbelieves!!) A couple of other notes…. At our Tuesday meeting, he erroneously claimed a particular [non-existent] evidence regarding the stylometric ['wordprint'] anaylses of the Book of Mormon authorship. Because I know the stylometric issues (and the studies that have been performed) exquisitely well, I had called him on his false claim, and invited him to produce the article he claimed to have in his files somewhere. Well guess what - on Sunday he had to admit that he "must have remembered wrong" because he couldn't locate the stylometric article that had been published in the scientific journal he claimed it was in. I smiled and said, I know you couldn't, because I am a member of that association and I review articles for that journal. He also asked why I was resigning now, after all this time. I looked him square in the eye, and told him slowly and firmly "My Integrity Demands It." "Your integrity demands it?" "Yes - My Integrity Demands It." He was momentarily speechless. He had no response to that, and went on to a different line of discussion. After I left his office, and was walking toward the door, I shivered a bit and mentioned to some members in the hallway that they don't heat their chapel enough in the winter. "I guess I should've worn a coat… Man, it just feels so cold in here to me." But I don't know if they noticed that I pronounced it "it feels so cult in here!" ;--) I may post my Resignation Letter too, when I get some time. It's a long one.... APPENDED: Oh yeah, I forgot. Bishop said "of all the resignation letters I've received, that was the first one that was hand-delivered." I told him that as a matter of principle, it was important to me to give it to him face to face. It was rewarding to look him in the eye and let him see how utterly certain I am in my decision. I used to be a boxer, and you can't overestimate the importance of the stare-down during the pre-bout introductions. I know I'm right, and I want them to see the confidence in my eyes. |
| Subject: | Re: 'OFFICIALLY' cult-free 4 days and counting: I *finally* resigned my membership. |
| Date: | Feb 26 15:20 |
| Author: | GoingGoingNotGoneYet |
| > "Your integrity demands it?" Nicely done. You have more strength than I do. This integrity thing really bothers me. I am a chickens**t and have yet to do any of the backing off from TSCC [this so called church] that I wanted to do before the end of 2003. I did manage to get released from my calling as Finance Clerk, but only after they called me as second counselor in the High Priests Quorum. I had to push hard to make sure that I didn't get two calling at once. I've been trying to be be a slacker but so far I had to teach a lesson and to do HT supervision, fiddle with the computer, and soon have to help with a move. I'm a spineless fool, and I know it. Every night I walk the dog for an hour trying to find a way out. If nothing else, the church is a carefully constructed puzzle with no escape. Like Langdon I find puzzles intriguing, and I simply cannot solve this one. I don't want to hurt my family, now or ever. Meanwhile, my oldest son is now 18.5 and looking ahead to his mission. Thinking about breaking his heart, letting him go to the f***ing temple, or seeing him tithe his hard-earned money burns me up. |
| Subject: | Re: 'OFFICIALLY' cult-free 4 days and counting: I *finally* resigned my membership. |
| Date: | Feb 26 15:48 |
| Author: | exmo mo |
| GoingGoingNotGoneYet wrote: > I am a chickens**t and have yet to do any of the backing off from TSCC that I wanted to do before the end of 2003. > I'm a spineless fool, and I know it. Easy does it. Slamming yourself is a morg favorite. It's the shame that keeps you planted firmly inside that fence barely and able to look over your shoulder to freedom. May I suggest a tactic? Insanity is very freeing. If you are crazy then you are free to do whatever crazy thing you want. You don't have to tell anyone else you are crazy, just give yourself permission to be crazy. Crazy people never have to slam their selves. Crazy has helped me. mo |
| Subject: | I want to be you when I grow up... |
| Date: | Feb 26 17:09 |
| Author: | Quevedo |
| but my family will take some more work. A true model exit. |
| Subject: | Congratulations, Langdon..... |
| Date: | Feb 26 15:36 |
| Author: | Randy J. |
| ...on finally taking the plunge. My wife and I
resigned together, so I can only imagine how harrowing it is for you to
deal with your TBM wife's wishes. I chuckled at this part of your post: >After some discussion of other issues for a few minutes, I handed the bishop my letter, which I knew he was already expecting (because my wife tells him everything I say about the Church or about him). He set the envelope aside, and said he wasn't sure he could let me resign because he thought there were some issues in my past that might require a church court and possibly excommunication. He was referring to a mistake I had made about 10 years ago that was the result of an unfortunate miscommunication between my wife and I, but which I had completely rectified. In other words, it was a totally bogus pretext. Indeed. You supposedly committed some dreadful sin 10 years ago, but amazingly, the bishop felt no need to seek to punish you for it until you submitted your resignation from the church. Your bishop's action was obviously an attempt to smear your character solely because you submitted your resignation---not because you needed "discipline." My stake president tried to do the same thing to me. My wife and I had been telling some other ward member friends what we'd learned about early church history, the contradictions, etc. We hadn't even spoken to the bishop or SP for many months before we submitted our resignation letter. But two months after we sent our letter, while we were expecting them to forward it to SLC for name removal, the SP sent me a letter requesting me to attend a "high council disciplinary council to investigate charges of conduct unbecoming a member of the church." Before I got that notice, I had called SLC to ask if our resignation request had been received. The guy I spoke to said no, and he promised to contact the SP and instruct him to send in the paperwork immediately. So it was obvious that the SP had no reason to hold a "court" on me when we sent in our resignation; he only trumped up the "court" business after he had gotten chewed out by the guy in SLC, as an attempt to cover his butt for not sending in our resignation request two months earlier, when we had sent it to him. But like your bishop, my SP didn't realize that as soon as he receives a resignation letter, the sender is no longer a member from that moment. So neither my SP or your bishop have any authority to set aside a resignation letter and threaten church discipline. >BISHOP: As things stand now, by having your saving ordinances voided, in the next life your wife and kids and relatives and friends will be in the Celesial Kingdom, and you won't be able to be with them…. I just shake my head in astonishment at statements like that. If you believed that Mormonism was true, and that a "Celestial Kingdom" existed, then you obviously wouldn't be resigning. If you had been quick on your feet, a nice retort would have been "Well, since Joseph Smith stole the whole concept of the 'celestial kingdom' from Emmanuel Swedenborg, that means that Joseph Smith was a plagiarist and a fraud, so I'm not worried about qualifying to live in a mythical afterlife that doesn't exist anyway. Got any other empty threats you want to try on me?" :-) |
| Subject: | Way to go, Langdon! You and I.... |
| Date: | Feb 26 16:31 |
| Author: | NEPA |
| have shared eerily similar experiences over the last
ten years and even parallel experiences this week! It must have been in
the stars... It sure must be a great feeling to do what you did. As you know I haven’t formerly resigned and won’t unless push comes to shove. My wife and I would rather they try to ex us so that we can use that to show my wife’s family that were are being wrongfully prosecuted (persecuted). I don’t know if it will matter to them in the end, but you can understand our point. But the letters are prepared and that alone gives us a good feeling. It sounds like you have a wonderful wife. My only wish for you is that she will someday come to her senses and follow your path. NEPA out and impressed! PS I'd love to see you resignation letter. Our's were written in haste and only number one page. |
| Subject: | You have a lot of guts . . . . |
| Date: | Feb 26 16:48 |
| Author: | imaworkinonit |
| to confront the bishop like that. I'm impressed. I hope your wife noticed what the bishop said about the eternities. I hope you discussed it afterwards. Sometimes people (TBMs in particular) have a way of not hearing stuff that they don't like. |
| Subject: | OMG Langdon. What a saga~ |
| Date: | Feb 26 16:58 |
| Author: | Cheryl |
| First, I'm glad to hear about your son and wife.
Sounds like both of them have made some progress in the right direction.
Glad the bish clarified the point about only "worthy" Mormons
being in the CK. (Hee, hee.) I loved your comment, something like, "It would be unfortunate for such an otherwise well-intentioned man to place his church in the possibility of potential unfavorable legal liability and media attention." (Good job, Langdon!) And great that you have the contacts to follow up if necessary. How interesting that he commented on "all the resignation letters" he's received. I wonder if this is common for bishops these days? Only a destructive and highly controlling cult would put a person through this kind of wringer! And simply because he wanted to take a different direction in their life! Incredible, Langdon!! Thanks for sharing. |
| Subject: | You did it well Langdon |
| Date: | Feb 26 16:58 |
| Author: | mikemgc |
| There's some stuff you wrote in there that I really
resonated with. The "stare-down" the business about how they
try to bully you with fear and eternal damnation and separation from
family. Sometimes I wish I could go back and do my resignation differently. I wanted to make a statement but ended up figuring it was a waste of time...that they would't listen to me anyway. I just put a short thing at the bottom of my letter saying I thought the church was harmful. That doesn't begin to describe all my feelings and maybe I robbed some TBM of the opportunity to hear some good reasons why the church is meaningless and wrong. Nothing like having a confident and reasonable person in front of you to leave a lasting impression. Nicely done. I was at work yesterday talking to a couple of nevermo's in the hall about how screwed up it is here in the land of zion, and I got to proudly tell them I used to be a TBM but quit and I'm glad I'm out. It felt really good... |
| Subject: | Among the many things "wrong with this picture" your wife talking to the bishop |
| Date: | Feb 26 20:34 |
| Author: | SusieQ#1 |
| "about everything" and you feeling like
the 3rd party in the marriage, this is a huge RED FLAG. This needs to
stop, immediately, and if necessary, the SP needs to tell the bishop to
knock it off!! This is so off-base it is outrageous! Good for you for standing up to these bullies, and letting them know you are not going to fall for their ridiculous false accusations and nonsense. Now, get the bishop out of your marriage!! That is bizarre!! |
| Subject: | I agree with SuzieQ... |
| Date: | Feb 26 20:55 |
| Author: | Empowered |
| ...that part hit me like a ton of bricks! Sounds
like more of a "tryst." Your bishop is OUT OF LINE e-mailing
(etc.) your wife...and she should not be reciprocating. She needs to
find a female confidant! Other than that... WOOOOHOOOO Langdon!!! Awesome job! I'll send you a quickie e-mail privately! (Oh...but your wife can read it!)... --Linda |
| Subject: | re: Wife's relationship with the bishop (and other stuff, updates) |
| Date: | Feb 27 12:14 |
| Author: | Langdon |
| So far, things are going OK at home. At various
times during the past few years, my wife and I had discussed my eventual
membership resignation, so this was not unexpected. This is (and always has been) a real tightrope walk for me. I have chosen not to be as forthright or vocal about my opinions as I would like to be, because I know it causes emotional distress to my wife, whom I love. (She knows full well what my views/feelings are, without my having to say it.) We have each decided we will continue our marriage despite the other's delusions. Frustrating, but worth it - I have a wonderful family, and so long as religion is not explicitly discussed, we all enjoy a very happy family life together. As for my wife's frequent discussions with the bishop (which she initiates, not him) that some have thought inappropriate… In fact, I have discussed that with her twice this week. Yes, I agree that it is not ideal, but I am not entirely opposed to it (in small doses). In a sense, she is merely doing the same thing I am doing over here on this board - seeking 'group therapy' through empathy with others who can relate. You guys are my 'support group' for my frustrations that she cannot understand, and the bishop is hers. So, as long as I'm confiding in / commisserating with all you guys, I don't begrudge her the same empathic comfort she gets from the bishop -- who, btw, is really not so bad of a guy, as Mormon bishops go. I think that at some unconscious level, she does sense that something is rotten in Denmark, that certain beliefs & facts & details really don't make sense -- BUT she's in denial because she has low tolerance for change and ambiguity. She's having a hard time keeping her worldview together, the pieces don't fit right and the cognitive dissonance bothers her, so she seeks reassurance that she doesn't have to toss out her entire life's worth of perspective.... and the bishop provides her the comforting message that she wants to hear. And no, there's nothing unseemly going on between her & the bishop, nor is anything likely to develop that way. I may not be Brad Pitt or Antonio Banderas, but honestly, if my wife were to have an affair with someone, I'm quite sure she'd be a lot more selective than that. I mean, hell, if you're going to cheat, why trade down?!?! (And frankly, I wouldn't care if she did have an affair; I'm not really a 'jealous' or possessive type of person that way, for whatever reason.) As for 'de-programming' my wife…. I know my wife very well: now is not time to force the issue with her, try to force her to see what is real and what is a hoax. She is not ready to be objective yet. The crazy thing about a delusion is, as long as you're in it, you aren't aware of what it is doing to you. Ironically, you don't really feel the pain of it until you wake up from it. And in fact, she may never be ready for 100% reality -- but I can live with that. I love her, and she loves me almost desperately. It's a doable compromise. Incidentally, on Sunday evening, wife suggested that I should inform the kids that I resigned my membership, so I did (very briefly and superficially) on monday. Of course, they have both have known since they were very small children that I think Mormonism is just a silly myth, and that I have attended other churches and that I participate regularly in traditional native 'religious' ceremonies. So it wasn't a big deal to them. In fact, they were rather uninterested - they were like: "and this matters.... why?" The kids will be OK too. My son is a "social Mormon" who knows that it is absolute bunk, he doesn't believe it for a minute (his mom and the bishop don't know that). He just "goes along with it" because he is a very social person and likes to fit in / hang out with his Mormon friends (who are great kids, btw). No harm, no foul. Unlike my son, my daughter is a very deep-thinker; unusually mature (emotionally) for her age. She has a strong sense of conscience and is very perceptive about distinguishing the superficially 'moral'. She is very independent and strong-willed and spunky, and I have total confidence that she will make HER OWN decisions. Besides, she practically worships her daddy (to the extent that her mom sometimes gets jealous of how close we are). She too will be fine, without my intervention, and I'm sure that both my kids will either drop out of Mormonism on their own someday, or will at best be "New Order Mormons" a la Sterling McMurrin or Thomas Stuart Fergueson. Thank you all for the love and encouragement you have expressed for me. I am sincerely grateful for your kind words of support. Peace Be The Journey, --LG |
| Subject: | Great job but. . . |
| Date: | Feb 28 15:47 |
| Author: | OU812 |
| Way to had them their hats. I admire you for most of
what you have said and done, but one paragraph needs to be discussed. Langdon wrote: > And no, there's nothing unseemly going on between her & the bishop, nor is anything likely to develop that way. I may not be Brad Pitt or Antonio Banderas, but honestly, if my wife were to have an affair with someone, I'm quite sure she'd be a lot more selective than that. I mean, hell, if you're going to cheat, why trade down?!?! (And frankly, I wouldn't care if she did have an affair; I'm not really a 'jealous' or possessive type of person that way, for whatever reason.) You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the reason TBM wives cheat is physical attraction. Be very very careful here. My personal experience is that it is emotional connections that lead to the physical relationship, and as you have stated, your wife and her bishop have plenty of that. It is the emotional union you should fear. Also for you to say you don't care if she hits the sheets the guy, that seems like total denial. You need a wake up call over that one. WAKE UP!!! |
| Subject: | OU812, I appreciate your concern, but ----- |
| Date: | Mar 01 13:26 |
| Author: | Langdon |
| Eddie VanHalen said: > You seem to be under the mistaken impresson that the reason TBM wives cheat is physical attraction. Be very very careful here. My personal experience is that it is emotional connections that lead to the physical relationship, and as you have stated, your wife and her bishop have plenty of that. It is the emotional union you should fear. Yes, I am aware of that. But I have known my wife for 20 years, and this guy for about 8 years. I trust my wife 100%, and I think this guy is VERY unlikely to have an affair with anyone -- especially not with a woman whose manic/intense husband could easily beat him to a pulp. Eddie VanHalen said: > Also for you to say you don't care if she hits the sheets the guy, that seems like total denial. You need a wake up call over that one. WAKE UP!!! Well, that might be true for many/most men, but please don't project your/their feelings / values on me. You don't think there are people out there completely happy with 'open marriages'? I really honestly wouldn't care - as long as I am granted reciprocity. And I guarantee the bishop's wife would be thrilled to shwang with the Lang..... ;--) |
| Subject: | Good luck, Langdon. |
| Date: | Mar 01 14:33 |
| Author: | OU812 |
| I was married to my TBM ex for 14 years, knew her
for 16 years, and trusted her 100%. She still started a long term hidden
affair with someone who was being asked to join his ward bishopric. Langdon wrote: > Well, that might be true for many/most men, but please don't project your/their feelings / values on me. You don't think there are people out there completely happy with 'open marriages'? ans.: I don't think there is anyone in the world married to a true blue mormon who has an 'open marriage'. It is impossible by definition. From the way you describe you wife, I doubt she thinks she is in an open marriage whether you think she is TBM or not. BTW and FYI, I had never heard of Eddie VanHalen's OU812 until long after I registered with exmormon.org. Obviously I need to get out more. Peace. |
| Subject: | o-gi-na-li-i: a-li-he-li-s-di de-tse-i |
| Date: | Feb 27 15:27 |
| Author: | tanstaafl |
| Can you tell I'm not doing well with my studies,
hope that's decipherable, che. ;-) Glad to hear you are out and that it went so well and thanks for sharing. Hope things are going ok on the home front. p.s. And sorry that you wasted your salamander vote on my anti-nibley piece, hope that wasn't cause for you not winning one. I must admit I was feeling a little like the anti-sally field yesterday. ;-) Then my basketball team won the championship in the chronologically challenged league last nite (thanks to a DAGGER three by yours truly followed up by some clutch FT's when they were forced to foul in the last minute), so I'm doing better today. As for me and my house, we will serve the basketball jones . . . ;-) |
| Subject: | Osikwo 'gusdi', wado |
| Date: | Feb 27 19:18 |
| Author: | Langdon |
| ['gusdi' is lazy for 'gohusdiyanadadvni'] Good/thankful news indeed. ['kanoheda' might actually be an alternative for 'news' that is a recounting or retelling of a personal story. It's a subtlety of the differences in thought/worldview from English thinking, that I'm not fluent enough to catch.] And no problems with the Salamander vote. Benji's was very good too, totally deserving. I was surprised mine got nominated, I didn't think it belonged in the same class as yours and Benji's, both of which showed much more thought and wit than my shallow piece. |
| Subject: | Re: Interesting statement bishop made |
| Date: | Feb 27 21:18 |
| Author: | síóg |
| Bishop said "of all the resignation letters
I've received, that was the first one that was hand-delivered." You didn't, by chance, ask him how many he had received? |
| Subject: | UPDATE: the bishop called me last night...... |
| Date: | Feb 28 15:17 |
| Author: | Langdon |
| The Bishop called to talk to me; among other things,
he apologized to me for having asserted some factual information that he
later realized was wrong (the stylometrics stuff that I had called him
on). He also told me that he hoped I wasn't upset about his statement he made at the meeting when I resigned: 'we might have to take care of this through a church court', because he wasn't sure how he was supposed to handle it, and now he knows, and he will just process the resignation and there will be no church court. He was very apologetic, humble, and courteous about it, and I was in return. I was impressed that he was man enough to say he was in error and apologize, and I accepted it gracefully. He has been a stand-up guy about the whole thing, and I respect that. Thanks again for the support y'all have given me, this past week, and for the past 15 months that I've been on these boards. |
Recovery from Mormonism - The Mormon Church
www.exmormon.org