Stake President Wants to Talk with Me

Discussions toward a better understanding of LDS doctrine, history, and culture. Discussion of Christianity, religion, and faith in general is welcome.
consiglieri
Posts: 328
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 12:02 pm

Stake President Wants to Talk with Me

Post by consiglieri » Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:25 am

I got an email from a friend who happens to have been made second counselor in the newly organized stake presidency.

My friend said the stake president wants to meet with me tomorrow night at 7:30.

Here is what the email said:
Consiglieri,

Sorry for my long delayed response! I apologize for not having reached out at all last couple months. Hope things are going well for you. I’ve caught a couple of your Radio Free Mormon podcasts! I have to say I had the same reaction you did to Pres. Nelson’s story in April 2017 conference re: the Laurel who didn’t participate in a HS state competition so she could attend/participate in a stake RS meeting.

We have a new stake president, who’s a great guy. He’d like a chance to meet you and asked me to reach out to see if you have availability either this Thursday (9/14) at 7:30 pm or this Sunday (9/17) at 3:00 pm. He and I have spoken about some happenings in the stake, and he’s hoping to expand his understanding about a variety of things.

Let me know if one of those times works and I’ll confirm with him.

Thanks,

Thoughts?

User avatar
FiveFingerMnemonic
Posts: 1484
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Stake President Wants to Talk with Me

Post by FiveFingerMnemonic » Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:32 am

Really easy to read into things too much. The email does seem odd to me though. Like extending a folksy olive branch while also seeming to hint at some sort of potential investigative interview in the works. I will be interested in what occurs here.

Anon70
Posts: 606
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 11:56 pm

Re: Stake President Wants to Talk with Me

Post by Anon70 » Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:55 am

Lately, I view everything as a setup. Come in so I can pick your brain and get perspective. Get there. So, how long have you been an apostate?

User avatar
Red Ryder
Posts: 4144
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 5:14 pm

Re: Stake President Wants to Talk with Me

Post by Red Ryder » Wed Sep 13, 2017 12:05 pm

Here's the email you didn't see.

Dear President,

As you know, Disciplinary actions are 100% a local matter. We look forward to your visit with consiglieri wink wink. Please return and report.

Your brother in the gospel,

Elder Oaks
“It always devolves to Pantaloons. Always.” ~ Fluffy

“I switched baristas” ~ Lady Gaga

“Those who do not move do not notice their chains.” ~Rosa Luxemburg

User avatar
Hagoth
Posts: 7076
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:13 pm

Re: Stake President Wants to Talk with Me

Post by Hagoth » Wed Sep 13, 2017 1:29 pm

Maybe you're in for a spanking, or maybe he's a RFM fan and he just wants your autograph.

Please return and report.
“The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also.” -Mark Twain

Jesus: "The Kingdom of God is within you." The Buddha: "Be your own light."

User avatar
moksha
Posts: 5050
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 4:22 am

Re: Stake President Wants to Talk with Me

Post by moksha » Wed Sep 13, 2017 2:55 pm

It wouldn't hurt to have a backup story, such as an angel with a drawn sword tieing you up and making podcasts that only sounded like you. Of course, that is predicated upon the Stake President believing an angel with a drawn sword story.

Consiglieri, hope everything turns out okay.
Good faith does not require evidence, but it also does not turn a blind eye to that evidence. Otherwise, it becomes misplaced faith.
-- Moksha

consiglieri
Posts: 328
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 12:02 pm

Re: Stake President Wants to Talk with Me

Post by consiglieri » Wed Sep 13, 2017 3:00 pm

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote:
Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:32 am
Really easy to read into things too much. The email does seem odd to me though. Like extending a folksy olive branch while also seeming to hint at some sort of potential investigative interview in the works. I will be interested in what occurs here.
You are right. It is a very interestingly worded email. I guess I will find out what is really going on in about 28 1/2 hours' time.

consiglieri
Posts: 328
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 12:02 pm

Re: Stake President Wants to Talk with Me

Post by consiglieri » Wed Sep 13, 2017 3:04 pm

Red Ryder wrote:
Wed Sep 13, 2017 12:05 pm
Here's the email you didn't see.

Dear President,

As you know, Disciplinary actions are 100% a local matter. We look forward to your visit with consiglieri wink wink. Please return and report.

Your brother in the gospel,

Elder Oaks
LOL!

But I think Elder Oaks would never have his fingerprints on this.

He would have an ineffectual middle management suck-up handle it for him.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=mi ... ORM=VRDGAR

consiglieri
Posts: 328
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 12:02 pm

Re: Stake President Wants to Talk with Me

Post by consiglieri » Wed Sep 13, 2017 3:09 pm

Hagoth wrote:
Wed Sep 13, 2017 1:29 pm
Maybe you're in for a spanking, or maybe he's a RFM fan and he just wants your autograph.

Please return and report.
That much I did learn from the temple.

consiglieri
Posts: 328
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 12:02 pm

Re: Stake President Wants to Talk with Me

Post by consiglieri » Wed Sep 13, 2017 3:11 pm

moksha wrote:
Wed Sep 13, 2017 2:55 pm
It wouldn't hurt to have a backup story, such as an angel with a drawn sword tieing you up and making podcasts that only sounded like you. Of course, that is predicated upon the Stake President believing an angel with a drawn sword story.

Consiglieri, hope everything turns out okay.
Thanks, Moksha.

I like your idea.

What if I told the stake president that an angel with a drawn sword commanded me to make the podcast or he would kill me?

How do you respond to that kind of crazy-ass story if you are a stake president?

I like it!

consiglieri
Posts: 328
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 12:02 pm

Re: Stake President Wants to Talk with Me

Post by consiglieri » Wed Sep 13, 2017 3:40 pm

This just in from another of my sources who actually knows President Flake:
Just returning your call. David Flake is a CES director. Related to the Flake line of Morridor. All his kids go to BYU Idaho, i.e., BYU Riyadh.

User avatar
Sheamus Moore
Posts: 90
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2017 1:16 pm

Re: Stake President Wants to Talk with Me

Post by Sheamus Moore » Wed Sep 13, 2017 4:19 pm

Perhaps benign... perhaps not. Looking forward to the rest of the story.
gettingtoknowyou.jpg
gettingtoknowyou.jpg (52.24 KiB) Viewed 12733 times

User avatar
2bizE
Posts: 2405
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 9:33 pm

Re: Stake President Wants to Talk with Me

Post by 2bizE » Wed Sep 13, 2017 4:49 pm

Consiglieri,
You are a needed commodity. The SP feels out of touch with the various levels of testimony and knowledge of historical facts of the members. He wants your consulting services to align him with the mindsets of those who are not so enthusiastically minded in attending church regularly, developing an unwavering testimony in the divinity of the Q15, and participating in church toilet cleaning on Saturday mornings. He needs your knowledge and expertise in figuring out why tithing payments are down. Why people hate church. And why you seem to know a lot more then the average member. Keep in mind he may fire you after using your services. You may consider providing the SP a pricing schedule of your consulting services up front...just to be safe.
~2bizE

User avatar
Palerider
Posts: 2237
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 8:44 am

Re: Stake President Wants to Talk with Me

Post by Palerider » Wed Sep 13, 2017 9:22 pm

Couple of quotes sprang to mind...

"Luke! Luke don't - it's a trap! It's a trap!!!"

"I'm altering the deal...pray I don't alter it further..."

Seriously, it would be great if this could go well but the eternal pessimist in me can't visualize it.
As others have said, I'm extremely interested in seeing where this goes. Please don't leave us hanging. Good luck.
"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily."

"Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light."

George Washington

User avatar
mooseman
Posts: 153
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 2:30 pm

Re: Stake President Wants to Talk with Me

Post by mooseman » Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:45 pm

From what i gathered here and at Mormon discussions...
Your sp is new and works for ces
He knows of your podcast and writing
Hes talked with your soon to be exs bishop
Hes never met you, never talked with you, and has been going though an intermediary to set this up

As much as i love your podcast and post....
Your in trouble. This guys background screams hardline tbm, and not by the way you defined it on rfm.
Im assuming here of course, but im guessing your "apostasy" has played a role in the coming divorce, or at the very least has come up in your exs discussions with the bishop (what else would get leaked up thr line about you?) Your "apostasy" would again cause him concern as a "wolf in sheeps clothing" regardless of if he was alerted by it from his superiors or a member of the stake, so it doesnt matter if hes following orders or trying to make a name for himself--unless he decides your repentant this is the being of the end of your membership sadly.

I refer you to Bill's recent leaked timeline post--this is the hey are you for real meeting? Which will be followed with a call to repent in a few months, then a suggestion to resign in about six months, and a court of live about this time next year. Hopefully its not to painful for you.
It's frustrating to see the last resort in a discussion of facts be: I disregard those facts because of my faith. Why even talk about facts if the last resort is to put faith above all facts that are contrary to your faith?

User avatar
Brent
Posts: 461
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 9:39 am

Re: Stake President Wants to Talk with Me

Post by Brent » Thu Sep 14, 2017 3:51 pm

Could be opposition research, be careful if he wants to know if there are others with your concerns...

User avatar
LostMormon
Posts: 123
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:38 am

Re: Stake President Wants to Talk with Me

Post by LostMormon » Thu Sep 14, 2017 5:58 pm

Sounds like trouble, good luck.

User avatar
Emower
Posts: 1061
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:35 pm
Location: Carson City

Re: Stake President Wants to Talk with Me

Post by Emower » Thu Sep 14, 2017 8:18 pm

consiglieri wrote:
Wed Sep 13, 2017 3:11 pm

What if I told the stake president that an angel with a drawn sword commanded me to make the podcast or he would kill me?

How do you respond to that kind of crazy-ass story if you are a stake president?

I like it!
With raised eyebrows and the strongest disapproving look in your arsenal.

Hey, your recent podcast got me wondering about you and your brother. What was it about you two that made you both convert to a high demand religion? It is interesting that you went Mormon and he went JW?

User avatar
deacon blues
Posts: 1934
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 7:37 am

Re: Stake President Wants to Talk with Me

Post by deacon blues » Fri Sep 15, 2017 8:42 am

Emower wrote:
Thu Sep 14, 2017 8:18 pm
consiglieri wrote:
Wed Sep 13, 2017 3:11 pm

What if I told the stake president that an angel with a drawn sword commanded me to make the podcast or he would kill me?

How do you respond to that kind of crazy-ass story if you are a stake president?

I like it!
With raised eyebrows and the strongest disapproving look in your arsenal.

Hey, your recent podcast got me wondering about you and your brother. What was it about you two that made you both convert to a high demand religion? It is interesting that you went Mormon and he went JW?
Yeah, that was a fascinating story. I also get the idea that JW's like confrontation, while LDS are more passive-agressive.
God is Love. God is Truth. The greatest problem with organized religion is that the organization becomes god, rather than a means of serving God.

consiglieri
Posts: 328
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 12:02 pm

Re: Stake President Wants to Talk with Me

Post by consiglieri » Fri Sep 15, 2017 8:57 am

Just spent a couple of hours detailing the meeting.

I want to tell all of you how much I appreciate your support in this. When I was walking over to the stake center last night, I felt like all of you were with me in spirit and it really helped.

Okay, here goes.

__________________________________________


Last night (9-14-17) I had a meeting with the stake president. The invitation to meet with him had been extended by an old friend of mine who had subsequently been called to be the second councilor in the stake presidency.

I walked over to the stake center arriving at about 7:35 p.m. (The appointment was for 7:30 p.m.)

I wore slacks and a button-down shirt open at the collar. I chose a white shirt with light stripes so the stake president could see I was wearing my garments. I knew I would be sending messages even before I opened my mouth and my goal was to successfully navigate the meeting with a positive attitude; letting him know my position on things without appearing antagonist; and avoiding any further meetings or questions of discipline.

I walked into the building and nobody was present in the hallway chairs outside the stake offices, so I walked down the hallway and back, looking at the church art on the walls and postings on the bulletin boards. Still nobody came out to get me, so I walked all the way to the other end of the hallway where I heard voices coming out from an open door.
I recognized the voice of my friend talking and went to the open door and knocked and asked if they were waiting for me, and the ushered me in. My friend was present at my request.

The meeting went from 7:40 p.m. or so up until 9:00 p.m. I have to say that it went very well; the stake president was not antagonistic but was very youthful and exuberant and interested and polite. I had been planning what to say if he asked me to give an opening prayer, but it never came up. He asked me to sit down, which I did next to my friend, and the stake president took his seat behind his desk. Instead of asking for a prayer, he just said that he had heard a lot about me and wanted to get to know me better.

I said I had heard a lot about him, too; that I had been doing some background research; and that everybody I had talked to said he was a very nice man; even the people who didn’t like him. There was much laughter throughout the meeting, and I will just note laughter in parentheses where it occurred. (Laughter.)

He asked who my sources were, and I said I had to keep them confidential. All was given in good humor and taken in the same way. I said I understood he was a CES Director, and he said that he was.

He said he had done some research on me (!) and that he understood I had joined the church when I was eighteen. I said yes. He later said that I was ordained a high priest in 1997, and I said I didn’t know the year, but I guess it was around then. He asked if that was to be called into a bishopric or into the high council. I was surprised he didn’t know and said so. He said that really pretty much the only research he had done on me was looking at my church membership records.

I then asked if my membership records showed my homosexual tendencies. (Laughter.) He said they didn’t. I said I understood that there is an asterisk or something that gets put on a member’s records in such cases.

He asked me to tell him about how it was I joined the church. I gave him an abbreviated version of my best friend in high school being Mormon and how I went to church dances for years and ultimately ended up joining the church right after I graduated high school in 1978.

I mentioned going on my mission to Japan the following year. He seemed impressed I went on a mission only a year after I was baptized. I told him about going to college at the University of Texas during the 1980’s. He asked about Institute attendance. I told him I went to lots of Institute classes and learned lots of important things; and that I even taught an Institute class in the spring of 1989 during my last semester of law school.

He asked who the Institute Director was at the time and I said “Sill,” but he couldn’t place the name, so I described what a good guy and teacher he was.

I took him up through the present with schooling; career; family, etc.

I then started talking about the current situation with my separation and pending divorce. For some reason, I started talking about our daughter who had just returned from her mission; how her mother had told her some things about me, some true, some not, about how my daughter had cut off communication with me since April because of it.
Here my friend brought up all the lengthy, faith-promoting emails I had been sending to my daughter every week. (I had forwarded them to him on a regular basis. Good move as it turned out.)

I talked about how my daughter showed up at my office the day she got back from her mission and we cried and hugged and chatted for almost an hour; how I told her she really needed to get going because her mother was waiting outside in the car. (I didn’t go into details about our conversation.)

I then started talking about how we stopped going to church about four years ago; that my wife wanted to hide this from our daughter; how my wife simply couldn’t live in the same house with our daughter; and started farming her off to different locations; how after she graduated high school, she shipped her off to New Zealand to be a foreign exchange student for almost half a year, which is when we stopped attending; how after she got back from New Zealand, she shipped her off to Arizona to live with her sister until right before she went on her mission; about how she couldn’t go through the temple with her for her endowment, and how she said the temple was closed in order to cover for it.

I even said that she had tried to “borrow” her daughter-in-law’s temple recommend so she could go to the temple with our daughter. I laughed and said that didn’t go over very well with my wife’s son and daughter-in-law. (Laughter.)
It was interesting that while I was talking about my wife, the dynamic shifted in the room. At the time, I thought it was because we were suddenly three guys talking about a woman; but later (outside in the parking lot after the meeting talking to my friend), I found out that to some degree or other, my wife was behind this. My friend told me that her bishop had been working with her and that some things had been communicated to the stake president that he wanted to talk to me about.

So it turned out I was countering this tactic in the meeting without even knowing I was doing so. Thank God for the Holy Ghost!

The stake president asked me about my testimony of Thomas Monson, Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon and the Restoration. Monson would be tricky; the Restoration a bit big to talk about; so I went right for Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.

I said I believed Joseph Smith was a prophet. I said I believed there were times when he was inspired by God, and there were other times when he made mistakes; some of them big mistakes. The stake president didn’t disagree. He was doing a lot of listening, I could tell, but I think he was focusing more on my using the word “prophet” and “inspired” and didn’t question what I meant by mistakes.

Here, he could interpret that as whatever he wanted, and I think even CES Directors would freely admit Joseph Smith made mistakes, though perhaps not the mistakes I had in my mind when I said it.

I went to the Book of Mormon and told him about my testimony of the Book of Mormon. It was a bit of a story and I asked if he wanted to hear it; he assured me he did. So I told him about how I prayed my way through the Book of Mormon at the age of eighteen and how I received an unmistakable spiritual witness that every word in it is the word of God.

He was loving this part, as I figured he would. Of course, I knew he was going to use that to try to leverage me to return to church. But that’s okay. That’s his job. He asked me about how I feel about the Book of Mormon now; do I still feel the same?

I said that I still believe it is inspired; that I can’t deny the witness I received when I was eighteen; that I have read the Book of Mormon more than twenty times and probably closer to thirty by now; that I have had several papers published in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies and in BYU-Studies; and that I have to recognize that the Book of Mormon is clearly a product of early nineteenth century America. (He didn’t know about the papers I had published. I told him he needed to do better research. (Laughter.)

But that I also see in it parts that have links to the ancient world. So I don’t know what to make of it all; only that I believe Joseph Smith was in some way in touch with the divine; that the Book of Mormon is inspired; but that there is a lot of Joseph Smith in it; that this comes down to the issue of translation; how much is God; how much is Joseph Smith; and how this may reflect a joint venture between the two.

I mentioned my work on numerology in the Book of Mormon and how I felt this was significant and was “the holy grail of Book of Mormon apologetics.” He opened a note book and wrote down where I told him he could find it. I encouraged him to read it and that I would be interested in knowing what he thought of it.

He seemed quite satisfied with this.

I knew I hadn’t addressed Thomas Monson, and hoped not to. I asked if that answered his question. I had been going on for some time now about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, and he either forgot about Monson or declined to pursue it. Either way, we went on to something else.

He said he had read some of my writings (not podcasts) about Mormonism and that he was confused; because some of it seems to be very pro-Mormon and other things seem to be challenging or critical of Mormonism.

I said that it was kind of like in politics where you have Democrats and Republicans (he is already laughing) and how some people are not Democrats and they are not Republicans, but they are Independents; and they say some things that get the Democrats mad; and then they say other things that get the Republicans mad. I see myself like that as a Mormon. Sometimes I say things that get Mormons mad; and other times I say things that get anti-Mormons upset.
But that what I am doing is what I was taught by the LDS Church of following the truth, wherever it leads. He seemed to like that.

He said he had heard from a couple of people that things I had written had upset them or perhaps influenced them to leave the church. I was surprised and asked who. He begged off saying who. I told him that if he gave me his sources on me, I would give him my sources on him. (Laughter.)

I asked if they had mentioned my name specifically. He assured me they had not. (Which all starts to sound kind of strange.)

I mentioned he said he had read some of what I had written. I asked him what he had read. He had real difficulty here remembering anything. It hadn’t been much of anything, really, and all he could come up with something on Adam-God; and some comment he thought I had made on John Dehlin’s website. (I knew about the Adam-God stuff, but I sure couldn’t recall making any comment on John’s website—who knows; maybe I did; but that seems something way off in left field to come up with or stumble upon. I mean, all he has to do is google my name and he will come up with a slew of stuff.)

I then mentioned my lawyer friend who had recently left the church, and did it by bringing up his executive secretary, and mentioning his daughter and her husband (my lawyer friend); and how they had both recently left the church. He was quick to assure me that the executive secretary’s daughter hadn’t left the church; only my friend. I put my hand to my mouth and said, “Oops! Maybe I said too much!” (Laughter.) I think he actually thought he knew more about the situation than I did.

But it was a good thing I brought up my friend, because then the stake president admitted that is who he was talking about—in other words, the “couple of people” who have been “influenced” negatively by what I write ends up being one person who was not influenced by me in the least.

So I told him about how I would talk with my lawyer friend about church related things; how he had his own opinions and how he would often push back against my thoughts with his own and we would have good discussions about things. I told him how a few months ago, my friend had texted me on a Saturday evening that his shelf had just been nuked.

The stake president didn’t understand the reference to a shelf. So I turned to my friend and asked him to explain. My friend explained what a shelf was to the stake president. The stake president asked what had nuked his shelf, and I said it was Robert Ritner on the Book of Abraham.

I asked if the stake president knew who Robert Ritner was, and he didn’t. I explained who he was and some of the writings he has done on the Book of Abraham; that my lawyer friend had gotten hold of some of it and read it and he learned things in it he never heard before; and it nuked his shelf.

Nobody wanted to ask or talk about the problems in the Book of Abraham; so we all acted like it was something we all understood; which I think was probably true for two out of three people in the room.

I said that I have never tried to convince or persuade anybody to leave the church; that is not my job; it is not my role; that is up for the individual to decide; that I was actually sad when I found out my lawyer friend got his shelf nuked.
Then the stake president said he was very glad to hear me say that, because he was concerned that I might be actively seeking to lead people away from the church. This signaled to me that this was the big mine hidden in the harbor that had really been behind the meeting, and that I had successfully navigated around it.

This is running long, so I am going to have to summarize a few points.

He asked me what I thought of the church’s recent efforts to be more transparent with the essays they had published. He then asked if I thought it was voluntary or if it had been forced. (He actually asked me that!) So I said it had been forced, and based on my studies, it seemed clear the church had been dragged kicking and screaming to the transparency table because of the Internet. He asked no follow-up questions.

I talked about my involvement in apologetics in the 1980’s and how I gradually realized that sometimes when I was arguing or discussing a point, my argument was based on the idea that I knew of another piece of information that might undercut my argument, and that I was counting on my “opponent” not knowing that piece of information in order for me to win.

I brought up the example of Daniel Peterson. I asked if he knew who he was. He didn’t! (My friend did.) I explained he was a professor of Islamic Studies at BYU and the top apologist in the church. No time to go into detail now but I basically described the “Alma” argument in the Book of Mormon being an obviously woman’s name; about the land deed discovered by Yigael Yadin in a dig in Israel in 1968 with the name Alma as a man’s ‘name; how that is a huge piece of evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon; but how I then learned that Alma was also a man’s name in the time and area of Joseph Smith; and how that undercuts the argument; how I communicated directly with Daniel Peterson on the issue; how he told me he knew about it, but defended his not mentioning it by saying he wasn’t saying anything that was untrue; and how my estimation of Daniel Peterson kind of cratered after that.

I then brought up the papers I had written for BYU-Studies, and asked if he knew John Welch. He eagerly said he did; that he had “heard the name.” So I went into detail about working closely with John Welch on my papers, what a nice man he is; and how he had worked hard to get my first BYU-Studies paper published even over opposition from other members of the editorial board because of its controversial nature; how in my second paper it hit upon an issue of interest to John Welch and how he contributed a great deal of ideas and his own research to the paper.

I mentioned all the church books I read before my mission (and the spiritual experience I had reading the King Follett Discourse in TPJS the first time) and all the books I read in the 1980’s, and how I found that I was reading the same thing over and over again and was realizing that the accepted teachings in Mormonism are very definite; finite; and restricted; that you can’t go beyond that because “here there be dragons” and you are going to get swallowed up or something if you try.

I said I had an affinity for books by Joseph Fielding McConkie because even though he would say the same things over and over like the other books, it always seemed like he was able to come up with a nugget or two of personal insight that made it worthwhile.

I said that by the end of the 80s, I was reading the Book of Mormon and seeing things in it and making connections that nobody else had made; how I wrote up a brief paper about something and sent it to Joseph Fielding McConkie for him to read; how he had written me back a nice letter on BYU stationary that he had read it, that I think well and write well, and that he encourages me to continue because there is a distinct lack of both in the church at present.

(Okay, I was shamelessly name-dropping all over the place, but I was having a wonderful time doing it.)

I finally turned around and looked at the clock to see it was seven minutes to nine and asked him how much more time we have, because I could go on like this all night. (I was totally driving the bus by this point.)

He said we had only seven more minutes, so I said I would finish by then and thanked him for taking so much time to talk to me and staying so late. I got done with whatever it was I was saying, and then he wanted to say some things. This was really the moment he was waiting for.

He said that he didn’t know if I understood this, but he is my priesthood leader, and bore his testimony about how the priesthood is in the LDS Church and the ordinances are there and it is the only way to salvation. (Here I was biting my tongue waiting to see where this would lead. I also thought that here this guy had listened to me drone on for over an hour and I could at least be polite enough to hear him out.)

He ended not by commanding me or anything, but by extending an invitation to me to come back to church, saying that the church needs people like me in it.

I had already told him previously that I had increasingly felt marginalized in the church and even ostracized, though I said that ostracized was probably too big a word, but there was an element of that in there; that the members were happy to see me in church because it made them feel better about themselves but they weren’t interested in hearing anything I had to say.

So I responded to his invitation by thanking him for it, but by saying that years of experience had taught me that the members of the church didn’t feel the same way he did.

He said he wasn’t sure how this meeting was going to go, but that he was very glad to have met me and that I was a very likeable person. I agreed and told him that I wanted to tell him that his councilor (motioning to my friend) is a man of unquestionable integrity and I my heart loves him.

This induced good feelings all around, as may be imagined.

We ended on a good note, shook hands and I left.

I think it was a very positive and uplifting experience.

I have left out some details but this in substance is it.

Oh yes! There was this funny point early on where I said I didn’t know if I should just tell him how I feel, and he assured me I should. Then he made a joke saying that I was being recorded. I laughed and said, “No, you are the one who is being recorded!” (Laughter.)

Later outside when talking with my friend the councilor, he said he wasn’t sure whether I was serious about that. (I wasn’t.)

Okay, enough for now.

My return and report is completed.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 44 guests