Some of my Concerns with the Church

[Backroads]

Yes.

I am quite sure that most reasoning people would have little difficulty believing a story (told by someone who had never shown himself to be untrustworthy) about an individual in a position of authority modestly abusing his power.

Thank you for the clarification regarding the number of Bishops. I was aware of that and misspoke. I should have said "The Bishop and other senior members."

I do imagine the behavior I described would be rare, but that is hardly a reason to believe it never happened.

For the record, I never disbelieved you on the matter. There are kooks out there who handle things incorrectly.

But it causes me to think of several things:

1. We only have your interpretation of your friend's interpretation of the experience to go on. (And it's our own interpretations at that of what you said on the matter.) So try to understand why people refrain from accepting it as cold hard fact.

2. Your complaint on the matter seems to be not with this one bishop and group of elders who handled things incorrectly, but with the Church attitude on the subject as a whole. To you, the idea a few men acted poorly doesn't matter because this never would have been a problem if our Church didn't have certain beliefs and expectations in the first place. A few guys yelling at your friend is a extraneous detail in your complaints.

3. You continually bring up your friend's honesty and integrity. You do nothing but praise him for admitting to some behaviors when prompted. Yet you seem to have no complaint of his dishonesty in other situations. I can only assume your friend did one of two things: a) He blatantly lied when he took certain covenants about his sexual behavior, giving lip service while fully intending to break these covenants and only admit to doing so when asked. or b) He took certain covenants with every reasonable intention of following through on them, but eventually changed his mind and broke them and only admitted to doing so when asked. Your friend may have been honest in this one event, but he was not honest in another. You can't pick and choose when your friend's honesty and integrity matters and when it doesn't. That defeats the entire concept of integrity.

[Drpepper]

Confused yet? That's because spiritual things can only be spiritually discerned. Intellect alone will not sustain you in a church that does require more of its membership than most mainstream religions.

You mentioned that you stopped meeting with the missionaries because their goal was to just have you baptised. Well maybe the program has changed since I was a missionary but back then we simply invited people to pray and ask God if its true, in faith, believing.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Drpepper

[Anddenex]

Where did I use the word disparaging?

You can guess all you want as to why he is here, but you cannot answer the question for him.

I am always curious as to why someone goes to a website to tell someone their beliefs are "wrong". We have a law of chastity. He feels compelled to tell us we are "wrong" about that. What's the point? He must have some reason for taking time out of his life to go on a website to tell total strangers that their moral beliefs - which don't affect him - are "wrong".

Great question. Where did I say you "used the word" disparaging? I said I haven't found his words disparaging.

I don't believe I was answering the question for him, as such, I was stating my own opinion as to what I have gathered from his posts.

I agree, I am not sure why people do this also. I am not sure if he feels compelled to tell us we are wrong, or if he is a sincere seeker to hasn't been able to overcome his horizontal thinking and learning.

He could be thinking, I want to know, but what I do know and how I learn it appears wrong to me and this is why.

I am sorry my words were not clear. :)

[Klein_Helmer]

You brought in the term "sinful" here. Now, keep in mind: Our church has rules. I'm a firm believer that if you don't like the rules and aren't willing to follow them, go do your own thing because no one is stopping you. But don't try to have it both ways. You don't have to like our rules or the rules of any organization, for that matter, but why demand the rules be changed? You have other options. Your friend was not willing to abide by all church rules. You don't like the fact those rules existed. You are expecting the Church to bend to whims.

I don't think I did. Does the church not consider the previously discussed actions to be sinful? I was merely objecting to that designation.

Not being a member of the Church, my concern was more for members than it was for myself. I don't think the rules not affecting me is a convincing reason for me to not care and walk away. I'll use an extreme example to illustrate my point: What if the Church required members to cut off their dominant hand? I certainly wouldn't sign up for anything like that, but I would feel a deep concern for my friends (and indeed complete strangers) involved in such an organization.

I am not expecting the church to bend to whims. I am not asking for the Church to change with regard to their whimsical (your word, not mine) stances, eg, the position on R rated movies. I am suggesting that deeming as sinful behaviors that are completely natural is highly problematic.

[Leah]

Great question. Where did I say you "used the word" disparaging? I said I haven't found his words disparaging.

I don't believe I was answering the question for him, as such, I was stating my own opinion as to what I have gathered from his posts.

I agree, I am not sure why people do this also. I am not sure if he feels compelled to tell us we are wrong, or if he is a sincere seeker to hasn't been able to overcome his horizontal thinking and learning.

He could be thinking, I want to know, but what I do know and how I learn it appears wrong to me and this is why.

I am sorry my words were not clear. :)

Let's not be disengenous.

Your words were clear. But it wasn't you I was asking the question of. I was asking the question of the person who could actually answer it. I wasn't soliciting opinions about him.

[Anddenex]

I am suggesting that deeming as sinful behaviors that are completely natural is highly problematic.

Unless, the natural behavior is sinful. Deeming uncontrollable behaviors as "sinful" would be problematic.

Deeming natural behaviors which are controllable is only problematic to the individual who is unwilling to control themselves.

It appears, throughout human history, it is very natural for a man to submit a woman either by force, or through domineering power. These are natural tendencies within man; however, I would assume you agree that these behaviors should be controlled and tempered.

The object is to become Godlike. We become Godlike by controlling natural behaviors in accordance with God's laws.

Your statement is only true if the natural behavior is uncontrollable. If controllable, and God knows which behaviors are and are not, then it isn't highly problematic at all. The problem is within the individual choice of a person who is willing to control or unwilling to control natural urges.

[Anddenex]

Let's not be disengenous.

Your words were clear. But it wasn't you I was asking the question of. I was asking the question of the person who could actually answer it. I wasn't soliciting opinions about him.

I really hope you are not referring to my statement as disingenuous. My statement is clear, and my clarification is clear, as is my intent and heart in this matter. I have not been disingenuous to any degree. As I stated, I was sharing my thoughts and opinions, nothing more, nothing less.

I understand it wasn't me you were asking, as this is an open forum, I am able to comment or reply to any question. I was merely providing my thoughts, as you have, to a question presented to the OP. If my words were "clear" you and I wouldn't be having this dialogue.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Anddenex

[Klein_Helmer]

Hi Klein!

Kudos for knowing Mormons. Sometimes we can be hard to know. Sometimes, just the act of knowing us or being friends with us, and you feel pressured to take sides, but you're not sure which side, or even what the fence is supposed to be separating. :)

Cheers!

I have been blessed to have known the people I have within the Church. They have nearly exclusively been friendly, respectful, altogether great people. I always try my best to tell it like it is. If someone is saying derogatory, untrue things about the Church, I am the first to correct them. At the same time, when I encounter teachings or beliefs within the church I find objectionable, I do not hesitate to object.

I'm glad you're having a mostly positive experience with us. I'll take a brief shot at your concerns/observations:

Yeah. We also walk around calling each other "Brother so-and-so" - that raises some eyebrows too. Briefly, the name of our church, the titles priesthood offices, and the ages thereof were all given by revealation. But the rest of it I think could change if we wanted.

It's easier if you think about it like this: When a Catholic feels the call to join the priesthood, they have rites of ordination, vows of celebacy, join holy orders, put on special clothing, get Masters of Theology degrees, and all that. And nobody bats an eye, because they're Catholic priests, right?

With mormons, if you're a male of a certain age, you are in the priesthood. Just about all of us. So since we're part of the priesthood, a lot of the terminology applies to us.

OK.

My only point here was that the terminology struck me as strange, as it does others, and this being the case, may not be the best approach when the Church is already so misunderstood. I remember specifically recoiling from being called “the investigator.” It sounds weird, and is likely a contributing factor to some of the public’s misunderstanding regarding the Church. However, if you believe this terminology to be inescapable revelation, I suppose it will have to remain.

Understandable. But consider the nature of egyptology. It's not like science. It's barely like archaeology. To a certain extent, it's a personality-driven cult of it's own, with battling leaders, each with their own group of fervent disciples who like to duke it out on who is right and who is wrong.

There are many widely accepted facts in such circles. Some of these facts are difficult for mormons to grapple with. None of them prove Joseph a false prophet, or my church as untrue.

Of course in Egyptology, as in any other field of study, there are differences among scholars. So far as I know however, there are no contemporary secular scholars (possibly not even any Mormon scholars) in the field who would make the case that the Book of Abraham is what Joseph Smith claimed it was. This does not necessarily prove Joseph Smith to be a false prophet, nor the Church untrue. However, from my point of view, when I was attending Church and learning about the LDS faith, it was a major road block. As soon as I knew that Joseph Smith had claimed as revelation a series of writings that turned out to be something entirely different, it cast into doubt the rest of his revelatory claims.

Regarding genetic/linguistic evidence, there are several scholarly papers published on the issue, explaining why we would not expect to find any. There's a big difference between "Cherokees don't have Israeli DNA, therefore the Book of Mormon is false", and what DNA science actually looks like. If you have a few hundred hours, go nuts. Start with Butler, Roper, Whiting, and Sorenson.

Regarding archaeological, consider the nature of archaeology. Any honest, self-respecting archaeologist will tell you openly, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Hardly a year goes by, without half a dozen totally unknown city complexes being discovered in central and south america. Jungles aren't known for their preservative qualities.

My problem here is the same as the issue I take with FARMS research. It is coming out of a religious institution with an agenda, they conduct their research knowing what it is they are trying to un/substantiate, and have arrived at their conclusion before the study even begins. If there were to be a legitimate, peer reviewed study, acknowledged by secular scientists, that established a link between the DNA of ancient Israelites and American Indians, it would be impossible to miss, and would already have been posted in this thread. It would have set the fields of Biology, Anthropology, and History on fire. It would be a massive victory for people of the LDS faith, and their seemingly counterintuitive claims about the History of the Americas could no longer be ignored or diminished. As it stands, no such study exists. I am no DNA expert, and as such, my only option apart from an additional lengthy education, is to delegate these issues to the field’s foremost experts, all of whom seem to be in agreement here regarding the lack of DNA evidence supporting any genetic link between ancient Israelites and American Indians.

I did not see anything in your link regarding linguistic evidence, ie, evidence providing a link between ancient Hebraic languages and languages of the American Indians. This is another matter I see as enormously problematic for the Historical claims made by the Church. Would you care to speak on or provide any information regarding this issue?

I agree entirely with your assertion that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. However, I cannot imagine a situation in which I would take as truth a claim for which there was no evidence. The best I could do, regarding a claim for which there was no evidence, would be to concede that it may be possible.

Understandable, but consider a few things. This church was restored in the 1800's. It was the time most all of civilized planet earth was gearing up to fight over the issue of slavery. Our history spans the Civil war - and LDS folks stood with the North. More than one LDS missionary was harassed, run out of town, beaten, for supposedly "inciting our slaves to revolt".

God doesn't radically alter a culture when he organizes His people. One would be equally justified in finding fault with Christianity in general, for it's Old testament practices of blood sacrifice, slavery, brutal deadly justice, and arcane laws regarding marriage and property.

I think you are here selling God short. If such abominations were occurring, such as slavery, blood sacrifice, genocide, or arcane laws regarding marriage or property, why would God not radically alter a culture? This sort of thinking seems to lead to the premise that God’s will, and the revelation/imposition thereof, is dependent on human culture. Are you suggesting that God was only willing to make clear his feelings on allowing black men the priesthood when our understanding of civil rights had reached a point at which we would popularly receive his new revelation?

As a former apostate, who told the mormons in my life I wasn't interested, I can honestly say that I've only had the exact opposite experience. As I openly left the church for 6 years, I was loved, accepted, included, invited, and loved some more by the mormons in my life.

However, I know that my experience is not everyone's. I believe your friend had the experience he describes. I'm sorry. On behalf of my fellow LDS, who are supposed to let the light of Christ shine from them everywhere, I apologize to your friend.

My church is full of sinners. If you think about it, that's sort of the whole point.

I am glad that was your experience.

Learning what is righteous judgement, about things in your stewardship, and what is unrighteous gossipy judgementalism, is a good skill to learn and apply. Lots of mormons need to learn the skill. I daresay your life would be blessed if you'd learn it to a greater extent as well.

Here is a link to a story. It's worth a read.

I appreciate that. Although I believe I sufficiently steered clear of the latter. I never pointed out to any of those people their hypocrisy; I never spread that information around. I was not necessarily judging them, but took their actions to be indicative a larger, systematic problem, which compelled many people to choose between shame/being ostracized, and dishonesty.

Thank you for sharing the story. It was touching.

Well, no. Learning how to admit that you fall short of perfection, need to repent, and how life is a constant striving to be better, is a wonderful thing. Again, the church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum to display saints. I share your frustration that more saints need to realize this.

I agree, I think this needs to be an issue of greater focus within the Church. As it stands, I do not think it is reasonable to expect young people to be so forthcoming about their departures from Church Standards when it comes at the cost of being branded a black sheep. Perhaps if the leaders were more upfront about just how difficult it is to follow the standards, and it was expected that a small minority, not a vast majority, would be eligible for the sacrament, that would create a more realistic environment.

God bless you Helmer. I'm looking forward to your next musical production. (Blatant honesty time: your next video production, not so much. Please forgive me.)

Bless you right back. Of course you are forgiven before asking; I know some of my videos are bad enough to make the Pope weep.

I will say in my defense however, I had to this point been working with extremely limited resources. I now have access to close to industry level equipment with regard to cameras, microphones, lights, and video editing software, and my next project will far surpass all previous endeavors.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Klein_Helmer

[Leah]

I don't think I did. Does the church not consider the previously discussed actions to be sinful? I was merely objecting to that designation.

Not being a member of the Church, my concern was more for members than it was for myself. I don't think the rules not affecting me is a convincing reason for me to not care and walk away. I'll use an extreme example to illustrate my point: What if the Church required members to cut off their dominant hand? I certainly wouldn't sign up for anything like that, but I would feel a deep concern for my friends (and indeed complete strangers) involved in such an organization.

I am not expecting the church to bend to whims. I am not asking for the Church to change with regard to their whimsical (your word, not mine) stances, eg, the position on R rated movies. I am suggesting that deeming as sinful behaviors that are completely natural is highly problematic.

No need to be "concerned" about the members of the church. We're in very good hands.

There are other religions with standards you don't believe in, are you as "concerned" about them? Or is just the LDS church? What about the Westboro Baptist Church?

Your example of being asked to cut off one's hand is extreme and downright silly. If you actually understood the church, you would know that. But I don't think you're interested in understanding, I think your purpose here is to simply tell us that the church is wrong. You can tell us that all you want, but it still won't make it true.

Your focus seems to be on things of a sexual nature. We hold ourselves to a higher moral standard than most of the world today. It seems rather odd that anyone would be alarmed that there are people who don't have sex outside of marriage.

You investigated the church and found you were not willing to live to it's standards. That's okay, you'll get a second chance. :)

[Leah]

I really hope you are not referring to my statement as disingenuous. My statement is clear, and my clarification is clear, as is my intent and heart in this matter. I have not been disingenuous to any degree. As I stated, I was sharing my thoughts and opinions, nothing more, nothing less.

I understand it wasn't me you were asking, as this is an open forum, I am able to comment or reply to any question. I was merely providing my thoughts, as you have, to a question presented to the OP. If my words were "clear" you and I wouldn't be having this dialogue.

Your words were and are very clear. No need to regurgitate them for my benefit, thanks.

[Anddenex]

Your words were and are very clear. No need to regurgitate them for my benefit, thanks.

Apparently not, I am sorry.

[Klein_Helmer]

This will have to be my last post for the day. Thank you again, everyone for your thoughts and time.

Leah, I am going to break my own rule and bump you to the front of the line because you seem to be stuck on the same points, and hopefully my addressing them will save you the time of raising them again.

I am curious.

What do you hope to accomplish in this forum?

The same thing I hope to accomplish in any conversation or any other forum: a lively exchange of ideas.

I am always curious as to why someone goes to a website to tell someone their beliefs are "wrong". We have a law of chastity. He feels compelled to tell us we are "wrong" about that. What's the point? He must have some reason for taking time out of his life to go on a website to tell total strangers that their moral beliefs - which don't affect him - are "wrong".

Again, I was pursuing what I thought might be an interesting conversation, and I have not been disappointed.

If there were a “Klein Helmer Forum,” where every single poster agreed with every single thing I had to say, it would be devastatingly boring and entirely pointless.

Why are you concerned about the church's teachings regarding the Law of Chastity? You are not a member, so they do not pertain to you? Are you unwilling to let others follow their own moral beliefs? This does not affect your life, so why are you so concerned about it?

Do you also post at...say...Orthodox Judaism forums...and tell them of your "objections" to how they live their lives?

That seems like an extremely dangerous way of thinking.

Let’s say the entire world decides to follow your above-mentioned premise, as I understand it, “Do not concern yourself with that which does not affect your life.”

That sounds like a terrible, cruel, amoral, animalistic world in which to live. I am deeply glad that there are individuals, and social and governmental organizations who reject such a cruel premise. If there were not, I cannot imagine the horrors that would go untended. Where would this leave the victims of starvation, genocide, genital mutilation, etc, who have been greatly helped by the kindness of outsiders who took it upon themselves to make such injustices their concern?

I do not post at an Orthodox Jewish forum, but if I had a dozen plus Orthodox Jewish friends, and had attended countless Orthodox Jewish services, I absolutely would.

Most of the people here have made me feel welcome.

I hope I am welcome here so far as you are concerned as well.

No need to be "concerned" about the members of the church. We're in very good hands.

Plenty of people who were not in good hands have said this very same thing with absolute certainty.

There are other religions with standards you don't believe in, are you as "concerned" about them? Or is just the LDS church? What about the Westboro Baptist Church?

My concerns are based on ethical objections coupled with deeply rooted, longstanding connections with both the Church and its members. I do not know anyone in the Westboro Baptist Church. If I did, I would not shy from sharing with them my opinions regarding their chosen religion.

Your example of being asked to cut off one's hand is extreme and downright silly. If you actually understood the church, you would know that. But I don't think you're interested in understanding, I think your purpose here is to simply tell us that the church is wrong. You can tell us that all you want, but it still won't make it true.

No.

It is not.

The point was, if people are being asked to do things to themselves I regard as harmful (whether modest or extreme), I have a right and responsibility to say something about it (even if these harmful events have no effect on me). It seemed that this was not being appreciated, so I used an extreme example to better illustrate the point. My understanding of the Church has precisely no bearing on my ability to understand such a simple concept.

You investigated the church and found you were not willing to live to it's standards. That's okay, you'll get a second chance. :)

Please elaborate.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Klein_Helmer

[Jamie123]

I do not know anyone in the Westboro Baptist Church. If I did, I would not shy from sharing with them my opinions regarding their chosen religion

This is probably how it would turn out:

You've gotta like Thunderf00t :)

[Backroads]

Your example of being asked to cut off one's hand is extreme and downright silly.

Eh, I figure if I can use the extreme of rape, Klein can use the bloody separation of a hand.

[jstnwalt]

Hmmm, this thread seems to have died, but I wanna give it a try anyways...

1. The bizarre/arcane sounding terminology

Well, I suppose it must have sounded pretty cool in the 19th century, and I suppose we could change it. However, I don't really see any point in changing it. Also, I think its pretty awesome to go to elders quorum or to be a high priest. To each his own I suppose, but as far as explaining it to friends and such, I agree that changing up the wording might help a lot

2. The Book of Abraham

Now I know that this might sound like a cop-out, but to really know if this is true you just have to go back to the basics... I struggled with this and a bunch of other anti-mormon sentiment for a little while, but what I did was just re-established what I believe from what I know and have had a witness of. The stuff that I just believe or at the time wanted to believe, but couldn't come to terms with was easily faltered and weighed very heavily on me. However, I knew and know that the Book of Mormon is true, because I have received that witness. Also I now know that Prophet Monson is a true prophet, from a personal witness. So pretty much if I know those two things to be true, I then must know that everything else within it is also true. People will try to explain to death their theories, and their objections. However, who's to say that the Joseph Smith translation was not the original translation then changed and altered over time by the Egyptians... I am not claiming that is what it is, but as previously stated, I know the Book of Mormon is true and Thomas S. Monson is a true prophet of God, and so in all things pertaining to the church are as well true.

3. The absolute lack of any genetic (with regard to the heritage of American Indians), linguistic (with regard to the language of the American Indians), or archaeological (with regard to artifacts/animals that would be expected to exist were the Mormon texts historically accurate) evidence supporting the historical claims made by the Church.

If you trust genetic, linguistic, and archaeological information then you just have to throw out all of the Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, ect...

However to break it down:

Genetic: We are talking over a two thousand year period, and can we truly trust genetic capabilities. Also, and I apologize if I go outside of church doctrine, possibly outside persons traveled to the Americas after or not recorded in the Book of Mormon. Which would put into question any genetic material found. Now again, I am sorry if I have said anything outside the bounds of church teachings or that which could be misunderstood as such. However, we just do not know enough about the early Native American life or honestly about current genetic capabilities we have today to truly be for certain on any current scientific understanding/ knowledge.

Linguistic: God is known for confounding languages... That's all I got.

Archaeological: Well, this is a hard field for Archaeologists. Often we have a full and well documented of something having existed, but there is no archaeological evidence... For example: it is very well known that there were horses in Mongolia dating back many years, but their was no evidence of it until 1990 and even that was found in a tomb. Also there is just very recent evidence of Lions in Israel. It took lots of money and time and resources and after many many years archaeologists just now found evidence of Lions in Israel, which greatly put the Bible to question for some. So, as far as archaeological evidence, personally it's no big deal to me.

That whole Black Thing

Well, it is clear that there were African Americans that received the Preisthood early in the church.Then of course there was that revelation that put a pause on it. So as far as racism, I am not so sure that that is the case. However, I know without a doubt that there were probably quiet a few racist Mormons back in those times.

Now the heart of this question mostly puts to question revelation in and of its self and not racism. So often times and likely even the majority of the time it is the duty of the Prophet or person to inquire of the Lord, which in turn may result in revelation. In the case of blacks and the priesthood, obviously the Prophet after the civil rights movement, inquired of the Lord as I am sure the Prophet may have been under pressure from the outside world. This however, only prompts the Prophets asking of the Lord. It does not bring to question the divinity and truthfulness of the revelation. If you have a question on that then you just have to start from the basics as I explained previously and work your way up to it. I however, wouldn't be so dismayed by the fact that a Prophet asks something of the Lord due to social pressures, because if we have a look into the Bible, then we will find that the Prophet at the time is constantly asking of the Lord because the people keep pushing him and prodding him. So it is certainly not unique to Christianity, Judaism, or even Islamic beliefs.

So overall, don't be overthrown by the potential delay or bring about of revelation returning blacks to the priesthood, but I would be more inclined to know what potentially may have pushed Prophet Young to inquire of the Lord in the first place historically speaking, or maybe he didn't inquire and it was just instructed him. I don't know as far as that, but this is my best shot at such a hard and faith crippling subject.

5. All or Nothing, and the Culture of Shame and Dishonesty

Now this one is kind of tough to explain... I am twenty-two right now, and when I was Seventeen I began having "relations" (sorry, trying to be G-rated) with my girlfriend at the time. Sorry to gross you out, but this went on for about six months before we got caught. I kept taking the sacrament mostly because I didn't want my mom finding out, or anyone noticing that I was potentially involved in having "relations" with my girlfriend that they all knew. So of course, I truly did not want to stop what I was doing, I kept hiding it. Well, eventually we got careless and were found out. My mom dragged my butt to the Bishop and he talked to me and was blunt and told me that I HAD to stop. There was no beating around the bush, and in all honesty if a Bishop was not direct with the members of the church concerning matters of such spiritually damaging activities, the members would not take it serious and would excuse themselves or just not care because they felt that the Bishop wasn't overly concerned. Getting back to the story though, I told him I'd stop, and I was just straight up lying through my teeth. There was no way I was going to stop at that age and time and without the perspective I have now, and obviously I didn't. And before I started with the "relations" I too felt that I was in good standing and I could tell that people thought the same. Well, long story short I ended up moving to Alaska as soon as I turned 18, my girlfriend followed and now I have a beautiful three year old that I love and adore more than any and all things in the entire world. In addition, we divorced when I was 20, I ended up moving to Cali in order to follow my son, and because I had no job or housing had to live in my ex's parents’ home... I was without a doubt depressed... So here is all that perspective I mentioned I had. Trust me, the story gets worse, but I'll leave it at that.

So as far as all the harshness your friend received, it sounds like it was likely with good intentions from someone that actually thought that yelling and screaming would encourage him to change his mind. Unfortunately, some members and even local leaders feel that they can push the envelope and beat the sin out of someone (figuratively speaking)... Which is NOT what the church teaches and is NOT how a Bishop, auxiliary, or any member should act or take upon themselves. Then on top of that, making any one feel unwelcome or not allowing them to come to church is so far beyond the scope of reasoning that the "leader" has no excuse. Even in the case of excommunication the person should still be welcomed and even encouraged to come all the time.

Now this is not to excuse your friend, he was endowed and took upon him sacred covenants that he should and unfortunately didn't regard as sacred and worth keeping. So action such as sacramental probation, priesthood probation, and up to excommunication should have been taken until he became worthy again. On top of this he served a mission and should honestly just know better, but unfortunately just because a person serves a mission or receives a high calling does not mean that they have a testimony and faith to match, it just means that if that the Lord felt that that person could have benefited greatly from that position and if that person wholly magnified that calling that he would benefit and thus be strengthened enough to hopefully manage the temptations that he was going through.

Now as far as the members partaking of the sacrament when they were not worthy. Simply enough, they just shouldn't have partaken. You may very much have been right in noting their lack of worthiness, but then again maybe they repented and you were just unaware. However, from personal experience often times we justify, reason, and over analyze our situation to best suit our wants. This is clearly wrong, and to those that unworthily take the sacrament, don't feel that they will be without justice, because the very bittersweet truth is that no one is free without justice even unto judgment day, when the Lord himself will analyze our faults and unrepentant actions.

So, the take away from all of this is that anyone and everyone I am sure could pick out faults or errors as a life is long, but to truly know as I can tell that you truly would like to know based on the length of your questions and inclinations toward understanding parts of the church if even the more controversial parts you must act on Moroni's promise:

"And when ye shall receive these things (i.e. The Book of Mormon), I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost"

Remember to ask with real intent and faith (if even you just hope to have faith to believe). Then you will receive that same witness that I received and so many before me, and it will be like a feeling that is faint to recognize and will course through your very being. Then you will know.