MrShorty

Hi.
I had removed my Name in April 2017 from the Church Records and now want to come back to fellowship.
I will have an appointment with my Bihsop but was curious what the necessary steps are, because the search on the Forum delivers mostly outdated posts, and as I know since my resitgning the Handbook was made available Public and some designations and terms like "excommunication" and "limited-used temple recommends" has retired.
I had an little chat with my Bishop at an Ward Chistmas Party last week and he told that it isnt necessary to retake the Missionary Lessons.
So what would be the procedures for reasmission thorugh baptism after an Name Removal? 
I want to prepare myself for the Interview with the Bishop
 
Thanks a lot

I recently read “Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes”.  The authors suggest that a) Bathsheba’s being seen in flagrante delicto by David was probably no accident on her part; b) David’s affair with Bathsheba couldn’t help but have been known by the various palace servants and courtiers (he had openly asked his servants about her name and background); c) Uriah must have heard about what his wife and the king had done; d) David knew that Uriah knew; e) David asking Uriah to . . . err . . . go to his wife was a tacit way of asking Uriah to publicly forgive (or at least ignore) David’s offense, and f) Uriah’s response indicated that he was not. having. it.

I don't know if the third hour community will consider this appropriate. If you were unaware, in the time since you resigned, the church made all of its handbooks publicly available (churchofjesuschrist.org or in the LDS gospel library app). The section specifically addressing readmission after resigning is section 32.16.2. There are not a lot of specifics given, but the process clearly goes through your bishop (or stake president). If it will help you feel more confident going into your meeting with the bishop, you can review that section of the CHI and see what kinds of things your bishop or stake president is advised to go over with you during the process of readmission.

Hmm.
This is interesting to think about and I'm not sure what to make of my thoughts. On the one hand, I understand what @mikbone is saying. On the other, I've known a few effeminate guys who, indeed, made me uncomfortable, but my sense of their effeminate nature that it was just that...just their nature. It wasn't a put on. It wasn't because they were "gay". Both men I'm thinking of were (and are, as far as I know) in really good relationships, married to women, with children, good fathers, active in the church with testimonies, etc.... Of course maybe they'll end up leaving all that for their "authentic" selves in the future...but that's not my sense. I don't believe either of them were effeminate because of their "sexuality". They just communicated in animated tones that come across as effeminate, and make similar hand gestures and movements. I honestly don't think that everyone who is like that harbors some underlying sexual issues. But maybe I'm wrong. I don't know. It does naturally make me uncomfortable too. But I put that aside in those cases.
Alternatively, I've known several men/boys who are perfectly masculine in their behavior, and then they "come out" and their behavior changes. Suddenly they start talking with a lisp and making limp-wristed gestures and the like. Their "authentic" selves my hat! It's so clearly a put on in the same way some previously normal kid shows up to school one day wearing some extreme costume. I'm sorry Steve...but no...dressing up like someone from the Matrix is not your authentic self. I know...that dates me a bit. I just distinctly recall that happening quite a bit when that movie was popular. These people would show up to school (I was in college at the time) wearing long black leather trench coats and dark eyeliner. Of course I recall the same sort of thing in my high-school days (in the 80s) where some kid would show up to school one day wearing a "cowboy" outfit, or had gone "preppy" or the like (dating myself even further here.) Some people, obviously, wear effeminate as a costume.

In my next life, I'm going to be a lawyer so I can learn to think clearly and express myself precisely and concisely.

This elicits a couple of offhand thoughts from me:
1)  Human sexuality seems chaotically complex, and I wouldn't presume to have a perfect knowledge of what causes it to present the way that it does in any particular person.  I will note, though, that being some form of LGBTQ often has other--for lack of a better word, comorbidities.  I don't deny that some people just find members of their own sex more attractive and may be genetically hard-wired to do that; but it also seems like in a huge number of cases life experience/trauma, social pressure, desire to be noticed, predilection for drama, contrarianism, etc. also seem to be present.  So frankly--and responding to some later points in this discussion--I don't really know what it means to be authentic in one's sexuality.  Does authentic mean, what my preference would be if my twin brother had a different sexual preference?  If I hadn't had that best friend in elementary school who treated me the way he did?  If my first hand-hold/kiss/sexual encounter had gone differently, or how it interacted with my religious upbringing and the faith crisis that I happened to be going through at the same time?  If I didn't fall in with that peer group that approached sexuality in a particular way?  If my relationship with my parents had been different? 
Or is "authentic" just newspeak for "whatever I want right now, I should get right now; and if what I want changes in the future I should automatically get that, too"?  
2)  A social worker colleague of mine (got his BS in the last 5 years, and he is very progressive) claims that "effeminate" behavior in a gay male is basically, at a subconscious level, a way of trying to identify other males whose sexual predilections match his own--in other words, he's (perhaps inadvertently) hitting on you; and this is supposedly the case for gay males from a very young age.  Now, I don't have the educational chops to know whether this is accurate or not.  But assuming, for a moment, that it is; and assuming that heterosexual males also pick up (perhaps subconsciously) on this sort of prepositioning: I think it's human nature to be repulsed by unwelcome sexual advances; and the less one is attracted to the initiator of the advance, the greater the feeling of revulsion will be.*  I'm not particularly bothered by "butch" women (and I apologize if that's now become a slur); other than being tempted to consider them mildly freakish and thus a little dopey (a temptation I struggle with for people with all manner of deviations from what I consider to be "normal").  But I know my wife is really creeped out by "butch" women.  
3)  I think that for LDS dads--especially of a more traditional bent--we want to know that our daughters are marrying provider-defender type guys who, if nothing else, are not going to be a burden to our loved ones or ourselves.  That doesn't necessarily mean these guys have to be alpha-males or whatever.  But a lot of the stereotypical characteristics of effeminate men tend to undermine their emotional stability, material self-sufficiency, and/or long-term relational success; and (speaking very generally here) I think it's right to see effeminacy as a bit of a relational red flag.
My answers to your first two questions are probably "yes", and then "no"; though I'd like to push back a bit and have you clarify what you mean by "accepting of LGBT lifestyles".  
My answer to your third question is:  I think we may be moving into a social milieu where it's less helpful to talk in general terms about "masculine" and "feminine", and more helpful to have detailed conversations about specific attributes that we think are desirable for friends generally and (where romantic relations are concerned) that tend to complement/mitigate the strengths and weaknesses of the other partner.  (Yeah, those virtues would still probably tend to fall under the umbrella of "traditionally masculine" or "traditionally feminine"--but there's been a lot of linguistic well-poisoning over the past few decades; and of course, not all "traditionally masculine" or "traditionally feminine" traits are necessary or even desirable in a friend/spouse anyways.)  We should absolutely  teach our children to be stringently, ridiculously, even unfairly discriminating when selecting a mate; and (to a lesser extent) when selecting our close friends as well.  
 
 
 
*Edited to add:  I should probably say the “it-goes-without-saying” part explicitly:  This does *not* mean that we are justified in treating effeminate men or “butch” women in a cruel or unChristlike way.  I’m just saying that the presence of these feelings, in and of themselves, doesn’t make one uniquely bad; it just means that we just have to work extra hard to channel/ control/ “repress” those feelings and make sure that our behavior reflects patience and charity and respect.

I know several couples that are... Backwards. One is the artsy guy who ran the piano store. Knew him for two decades. He was rather... Non-masculine. His wife was a mechanic. 
Another is a school friend, who is also a mechanic. All through school, she wore boy clothes. Boy haircut. Joined the military after graduation.
Married some guy, has kids, is super-mom, baby addict. Still wears men's clothing.
I have little concern myself with gender roles. I see what OP is getting at, but I rarely worry about a career choice.

I’m with @Godless. Can a guy be into the arts or is that not “masculine”?

I think of myself as 100% Male / Masculine and have always been attracted to Female / Feminine women.
I’m not homophobic which is a terrible word because it literally means fear of homosexuality when the agreed upon definition is having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against gay people.
I work with gay people and have no issues interacting with LGBT identifiers as long as they don’t try to make me accept their lifestyle and conform to their ideas.
On the other hand, I am uncomfortable when around men or boys that act as if they are women or girls.  Girl tomboys don’t bother me at all.  But butch women make me uncomfortable as well.  Always have.
When I grew up, there were a few boys that acted feminine and they were ostracized.  I never did anything to make them feel unwanted or accepted.  I was busy during my youth and was just doing my thing.  I’ve always been a bit of an introvert.
Anyways, because I am a busy surgeon I have let my wife plan our children activities.  She loves the arts and has our children enrolled in ballet, musicals, choir etc.  I never go to the practice sessions but I do attend the performances, recitals, etc.
Ballerinas are great.  But I have noticed that there are many boys in ballet that are feminine.  It still makes me uncomfortable, but there no longer seems to be any ostracization.
One of my daughters was dating a boy @ BYU and when we met him I was confused.  His grasp on masculinity was weak.  He was very friendly and I interacted with him cordially for the sake of my daughter and wife, but when they broke up I was greatly relieved.
After the breakup I teased her and questioned her acceptance of his request for a date.  She then related that there are many boys @ BYU whose manhood is questionable.  A few of whom were accepted in her circle of friends.  BTW - she is now married to a young man that I am proud to call my son-in-law.
Years ago my wife and children supported a local LDS boy who had a love of theatre and produced local plays that were well received.  When I met him I was uncomfortable.  He is @ BYU and will be going to Nicaragua on his mission.  I am weary of his future.
When I hear stories of LDS boys that always knew they were gay but went on a mission and were sealed in the temple with their best friend and then had 2-3 children before they finally stopped lying to themselves got a divorce and then publicly declared their separation from the church and embracement of gay lifestyle, I get irritated and terribly saddened for the wife and children of that union.  Despite all the heroic commentaries and love emojis found on social media supporting his ‘brave’ decision.
There have been fathers in my local wards that make me uncomfortable.
When the recent BYU valedictorian decided to profess his gay lifestyle during his graduation speech, it irritated me greatly.
My question is this.  Are the younger / upcoming generations more accepting of LGBT lifestyles and is this good?  Should we teach our children to be more discriminating?

Whatever “the mark” is, it's a troubling issue for many people. Both members and non members. 

Yes, IIRC LDS apologists have typically been careful to distinguish “the curse” (spiritual) from “the sign of the curse” (physical).  I’m inclined to think that the visible differences probably arose over generations as a result of the Lamanites being less devoted to Mosaic law and therefore more willing to intermarry with other indigenous peoples.
I’m frankly not sure what to make of Cain at this point.  I believe that a number of Biblical scholars/commentators are now interpreting Cain’s mark as an act of divine mercy.  I rather suspect that that particular story is the result of a few kernels of known history and an awful lot of now-forgotten/unknown history, mixed with at least some allegory; and I’m not entirely sure where I’m comfortable drawing the line. 

Yes. In fact, I would argue that any interpretation that ties skin color to these curses is just plain wrong. 
The curse, as I understand it, is a spiritual isolation from God. Perhaps most importantly, a lack of access to the priesthood authority that would permit one to make covenants. 
Personally, there are certain things in the scriptures I take with a grain of salt. Despite being scripture, they were still written by men and even those who wrote the Book of Mormon acknowledge it has flaws. For that matter, Joseph Smith says of the Book of Mormon that it is "the most correct of any book on earth." Not that it is perfect. I'll refer you to an earlier post of mine where I make an argument that racism was a thing among the Book of Mormon peoples and even the authors. Skin color being a willful and acute act of God is one of those things I am deeply skeptical of. I suspect such statements are retrofitted to explain skin color more than anything else.
 

FIFY.  

I am posting this for someone that I have association with on another forum.  I am requesting prayers for them.  His story is below:
 
November 30th 2022:  Today, Paul Lipford, Emmaleigh Massey, and Mckenna Massey were in a serious car accident. Emmaleigh has a broken back, broken pelvis, broken leg, and a few internal organ injuries. McKenna has a broken pelvis, and we are still waiting for the remainder of her results. Emmaleigh was transported to Charlotte earlier today, and we are waiting on transport for McKenna now. Paul is shaken up and hurting pretty bad but ok. Please keeps us all in your thoughts as we navigate these next several weeks and make sure that they get the best care possible. They have both been transported to Charlotte for higher care and possible surgeries today."   December 2nd 2022: "Mckenna Massey was released tonight. Her pelvis is broken in 5 places, and she has some broken toes and a very bad swollen/bruised/sprained ankle. She is 100% reliant on someone else to help her do all tasks such as bathing, moving locations, showers et cetera. she will be in a wheelchair for a while, other than for small moves such as transfer to bed/chair/et cetera. She is still in a lot of pain but is trying her hardest to stay mobile as much as possible to try to avoid a being wheelchair bound long term. Emmaleigh Massey is still in the hospital but has finally gotten a room on the children’s trauma floor. This is amazing because the adult trauma intensive care unit was very difficult for her. Her back is broken in 2 places, her pelvis is broken in 1 place, and her leg is broken on the left side. She does still have some internal bleeding from the lacerations on her spleen, kidney, and liver, which may require some intervention and/or blood transfusion. That is being watched closely, and hopefully we will know what they have decided to do to fix the bleeding tomorrow. Today they also found that she had a few blood clots in her right arm, so even though she has some internal bleeding, she had to be put on blood thinners to prevent issues with the clots. PT was able to get her up onto her feet today for the first time, but she was only able to stay up a short time and taking steps was very hard without someone to assist with pushing her feet forward to make each step. But being up with a broken back, pelvis, and leg is taking huge steps forward in her recovery. There is no real talk yet about when she may come home, but when she does she will be reliant on a wheelchair for several months probably. PT will help her through this and will work with her daily on getting back to walking as soon as she is able. She is scared and having a lot of fear about what has happened and what will happen in the future as well. Girls picture is below:  
 

I tend to view things in a fairly black and white manner. I also tend to be less understanding of all the "psychology" behind new things or ideas.  After all, I'm a red neck country boy truck driver from Texas, and didn't join the church until I was in my 40s (perhaps that tells you a little bit about me). So, I look at things from a more "tangible" perspective.  I don't spend much time on this site, as it seems to be mostly theoretical or theological and sometimes even opinion based discussions about topics, that for the most part, are either way above my pay grade, are I just find kind of pointless.  I really wish there were more discussions about preparedness (meaning temporal preparedness).  It's just my opinion, but I think that stuff is gonna play a big role and be pretty dang important, in the not too distant future (meaning, in our life times).
But... the whole reason I posted on this thread was to say thank you, to everyone who had anything to say.  This is perhaps the most interesting and enlightening thread I've read on this site.  And despite the fact that much of it was over my head, I enjoyed reading it, and more importantly, I think I have a mildly better understanding of what the church's direction is in regards to this... "phenomenon".  I admit I really don't understand what is happening, but I've been aware for a while now, that "something" is happening, and it's effects upon our youth today is profound.  For my part, and looking back on what anyone here would describe as me having a pretty narrow minded view of things, I need to be more open minded and accepting of other people's feelings... and in the end, I need to do better in remembering that we're all children of God, and just trying to get by, the best we can.
 

There are a few things I'd say to this, and I don't think any one of them stand alone, so bear with me.
First, virology is not sociology, and we treating virological threats and sociological threats identically seems silly. That isn't to say that our response to the recent virological threat didn't create sociological problems: it most certainly did. But I would think we could learn from those sociological problems that the sociological solution we needed was to come back together. (Where that balance between managing virological and sociological threats sits is, in my view, an insanely difficult question, but not very relevant to the current topic). Similarly in the matter of LGBTQ identities, this is a sociological phenomenon. Running away from it, or isolating ourselves from it, may very well do more damage the good in the long run.
Consider also that fleeing to a more like-minded ward/stake comes with the potential for disappointment. So you go find a ward that happens to have no LGBT youth, and a bishop who has a similar mindset at you on these issues.  And then 10 months later the bishop is released, six months later, one of the youth comes out with their social transition, and the new bishop makes every effort to welcome, accept, and include that youth as much as church policy permits.  What do you do now?  Do you pull up stakes and flee again?  As the current policies and teachings around LGBT membership filter into the leadership, I would guess it will become increasingly difficult to find a ward that is free of these influences.
Lastly, as I said earlier, fleeing a ward over disagreements weakens the body of Christ. Yes, we have conflict over this issue. In some/many cases, that is bordering on contention (with a lot of guilty parties from every angle). But conflict and contention are not the same thing. Unresolved conflict breeds contention, but well managed and deliberate conflict has enormous potential to build unity and intimacy (spiritually and emotionally). 
So, please, don't flee. 
 
Now, for my part, I'm going to have to disengage a lot for this topic here. If you want to learn more about my perspective and viewpoint, message me privately. But this is an issue that has deep feels for me, and, quite frankly, there are too many people here that I don't trust with me deepest emotions to air things out in a public forum.

The main point of the analogy, at least in my perception, is the final relationship between iron and wood, "One will become damaged, while the other will become dull."  In contrast if both are iron it depends on how the iron is used. The final relationship between iron and iron can also be, "One will become damaged, while the other will become dull." However, if iron and iron are used properly (not against each other), then one can easily sharpen their tool.
The danger of any analogy or metaphor is to get caught up in the multiple nuances of potential meaning rather than simply paying attention to the intention of the analogy. For example, I have seen individuals get caught up with the widow's mite. Some have said, "Well, it was only two mites! It's easy to give 100% when you have very little." Although true, this subsequently disregards what the Lord was teaching, because the widow could have easily said also, "I don't have anything to give, what I have I need for one last meal and then die." BUT she didn't, she gave what she had knowing she would probably die anyway without money to buy food.
This minister could actually believe exactly what you are saying with regards to marriage and divorce; although, his analogy does have weight in such a circumstance. I have a family member, and I also know of others, who have left the Church. My family member, should have remained strong rather than weak minded. If a spouse is threatening divorce, or becomes a source of "damage" that would ultimately "dull" your love for the Lord, in that case, take matters to the Lord and remember the first and great commandment is to "love" God first. How a person chooses to do that, is between them and the Lord, and we also know from scripture that "love" can hide a multitude of sins. In some cases, it is the love of the spouse (faithful spouse) that returns lost ones back to the gospel.
I watched a young lady of five kids cry due to the damage now being caused by her husband who was leaving the Church. She eventually left the Church also and now her kids will grow up without the gospel. In that case, as an outsider, I would have said the better choice would have been to let him leave, and then do her best to raise her posterity in righteousness. We can't force anyone, nor anyone's mind, but we do have control of our own destiny (the choices we make every day) and our testimony.
I'm sorry you find yourself in such a difficult scenario, and with everything else you have shared pertaining to health.
With my family member, we will in this case liken him unto iron. He continually seeks to find fault with the Church. Anything he can wrest, make an offender for a word/phrase, he is doing so. In this case, he is constantly swinging the iron to chop down the trunk (wood) of any other faithful believer. You know the type, they have their own phrase -- mocking words -- toward faithful believing members of the Church. They throw out the word "Mormon" with disrespect to continue to try to prove a point while asking that others love them and show respect. I don't have any problem being around him; however, if he wants to swing the axe constantly rather than be mutually beneficial, then I don't care about being around him. He is simply "dulling" his ability to listen and hear the Holy Ghost. He is "damaging" others so that he may feel more justified in his decisions now. The Lord has also made it clear that if your eye offends you, pluck it out. There is only so much "damage" to accept and receive before you simply say, I'm OK with not being around him. I won't forsake him. If he wants to come around, call, etc... my hand is always outstretched toward friendship and brotherly love, but if he wants to only swing the axe -- I'm OK to not even provide the option until he is willing to do what he demands from others -- be respectful and kind.
 
 

Any thoughts beyond the video? Personally, I find myself a bit turned off by most generic takes on being "equally yoked" because "equally yoked" is usually referring to the "lesser" status of mixed faith marriages. Since my wife and kids have left the church, I can never tell if someone like this would just as soon see me divorce my wife so that I can remarry a faithful marry (in the mixed-faith marriage circles I frequent, it is not uncommon to encounter people who advocate for divorce and remarriage solely because one spouse leaves the church).
Again, I could be missing the point (the video was short and focused only on the axe getting dulled by wood analogy), but it seems to me that my relationships with my family and others who have left the church are still useful in sharpening myself. I'm not sure that an interpretation that a Christian cannot find themself sharpened in their relationships with non-Christians is completely true. I expect that those of use with relationships with non-LDS/non-Christians can point to ways that non-Christians have helped us grow and develop. I'm not sure that all "sharpening" exclusively occurs in LDS-LDS or Christian-Christian relationships.
Those are my reactions. As I note, they mostly start from the idea that being "equally yoked" is something St. Paul said to discourage Christians from marrying outside of the faith. If you want to go a different direction with the metaphor, I'm open to other directions.

There's a difference between someone who from the beginning enters into an unequally yoked relationship and a relationship which eventually becomes unequally yoked over time. I think there are differing degrees of unequalness as well. Another Christian could have many of the same values as we do which is definitely better than someone who becomes very worldly. 
An interesting thought that I haven't considered before is the relationship between being yoked to a spouse (equally or not) and being yoked with Christ, which is always unequal in our favor. The Savior could pull us along kicking and screaming if He wanted to but he doesn't. So it should be with marriage. Marriage vows do not forfeit a person's agency and we must be willing to work with that. 

Any thoughts beyond the video? Personally, I find myself a bit turned off by most generic takes on being "equally yoked" because "equally yoked" is usually referring to the "lesser" status of mixed faith marriages. Since my wife and kids have left the church, I can never tell if someone like this would just as soon see me divorce my wife so that I can remarry a faithful marry (in the mixed-faith marriage circles I frequent, it is not uncommon to encounter people who advocate for divorce and remarriage solely because one spouse leaves the church).
Again, I could be missing the point (the video was short and focused only on the axe getting dulled by wood analogy), but it seems to me that my relationships with my family and others who have left the church are still useful in sharpening myself. I'm not sure that an interpretation that a Christian cannot find themself sharpened in their relationships with non-Christians is completely true. I expect that those of use with relationships with non-LDS/non-Christians can point to ways that non-Christians have helped us grow and develop. I'm not sure that all "sharpening" exclusively occurs in LDS-LDS or Christian-Christian relationships.
Those are my reactions. As I note, they mostly start from the idea that being "equally yoked" is something St. Paul said to discourage Christians from marrying outside of the faith. If you want to go a different direction with the metaphor, I'm open to other directions.

It is my measured opinion that doubt is a natural thing (call it the natural man, but still...natural). Faith is NOT natural. Faith is a choice. Faith is an action. Faith is commitment.
I think a better way to express it would be to say that faith dispels doubt. As we learn in Alma, you exercise faith which causes the seed (the word) you planted to grow. And after it grows, then you no longer doubt. But the seed has to grow first by nourishment and effort. But as Alma says, once it's grown and you taste the fruit of your labors, faith becomes dormant. So you don't need the faith once the doubt it dispelled.
In point of fact, I've sometimes thought that doubt is required for faith. With no doubt there's no need for faith.
But it's really a definitional (semantic) issue. I allow for the reality that we mean different things when we talk about faith.

Bishops are human too. If you tell the guy that you are exhausted (and you have every right to be) I’m confident he’ll understand and back off. 

I was always told that you shouldn't turn down a calling.   But I have twice.  I knew that the circumstances in my life at the time weren't the right time for me to take on more responsibility.  I don't regret my decision.  

Here I sit in the hospital after the ostomy reversal. Assuming I am truly cured of the cancer, this should be my last step in treatment (and maybe my last post to this thread). The surgery went well and, after only a day I'm optimistic (maybe unrealistically so) that I will recover quickly.
It has been a long and difficult year. I still have years of follow up to monitor my body for any recurrence, with no promises. Statistics and other indicators suggest all kinds of reasons for optimism.
Thanks to all for your prayers and just for being a virtual part of my support team.

Here I sit in the hospital after the ostomy reversal. Assuming I am truly cured of the cancer, this should be my last step in treatment (and maybe my last post to this thread). The surgery went well and, after only a day I'm optimistic (maybe unrealistically so) that I will recover quickly.
It has been a long and difficult year. I still have years of follow up to monitor my body for any recurrence, with no promises. Statistics and other indicators suggest all kinds of reasons for optimism.
Thanks to all for your prayers and just for being a virtual part of my support team.