« Spiritual Crocodiles 2.0 | Main | The Mormon Way »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I don't think this particular episode will have any effect on opinions. That said, I doubt that blogging as a whole would be seen as a positive by local or general leaders in any case. Even pro-LDS blogs tend to exhibit the sort of questioning and criticism that wouldn't likely be received well by most leaders. Not that anyone's going to freak out, but I'd say that your average leader would prefer that a member not blog (if he were to have any preferences at all).

He violated the #1 church rule: Thou Shalt Not Commit Publicity.

There are church members who violate the Word of Wisdom, Law of Chastity, and break every one of the commandments. But they do it all in the tall grass out of sight, pay their tithing and appear to be perfect paragons of virtue on Sundays. And they never even approach any sort of "justice".

There is no justice in this world, and I'm not so sure about the next world either.

Yes, that looks like apostasy to me.

(What I thought after following the links to the blog)

This guy didnt get ex'd because of blogging. He got ex'd for what he did while blogging. He could have done that on a web page, on an e-mail forum, in a classified newspaper ad or whatever medium he chose. He went public with something he explicitly promised he would not go public with, the technical means of going public are irrelevant.

This is not a guy that needed to be excommunicated. While we don't know everything, because again, we're only seeing one side of the picture, it really seems that the stake president, the bishop, and his wife all gave up on him. Calling someone "vile" for writing comments on a blog and no longer believing in prophets is not what a stake president should be doing!

Thanks for the comments. I'm not taking a position whether the fellow "deserved" to be exed or not. I'm just saying that from reading what he posted at his website and from the details he posted about his interactions with his local leaders -- including being unwilling to appear at either of the church courts held to discuss his situation -- it is understandable how it ended up.

In my earlier post on excommunication, I quoted the Church Handbook of Instructions as defining "apostasy" as "repeatedly act[ing] in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders." So there really does appear to be a necessary public component to the definition of "apostasy" that local leaders are working with.

Someone who is merely dealing with doubts or has even embraced them fully, but does so quietly and continues to be an active member of the Church, does not fall under this definition of "apostasy." Nor does ceasing to attend LDS meetings or even attending another church regularly bring a person within the definition.

"Someone who is merely dealing with doubts or has even embraced them fully, but does so quietly and continues to be an active member of the Church"

Why is silence required? Members of the Church should embrace those who doubt and show them that they are loved and accepted as part of the community.

That said, it doesn't appear that this person was interested in being a part of the community. But I still think punishing those who _respectfully_ speak publicly about their doubts is counterproductive.

Um, isnt it kind of obvious that he got ex'd because he flouted the prohibition for revealing his new name? The namesake of his blog is his Temple name.

Dave & All,
I appreciate the comments.

Trust me, I fully understand why I got ex'd. The question isn't really why I technically got ex'd but whether those guidelines are really adhered to all of the time and whether they are even fair in the first place.

I commented on another board that it's ironic that just 150 years ago Adultery was unpardonable to an extent and even linked at times with blood atonement but now Married, Temple Going Members can get away with it with as little as being disfellowshipped. I've seen two separate individuals (Temple Mormons) in the last 5 years have extra marital affairs and get off without being ex'd. One of them being a close family member. He did not come back to church. He did not really repent in any quantitative way. He just gave a pat "I'm Sorry." and that was the end of it.

I also wanted to state that a blog captures a moment in time. It captures the feelings, attitude and thoughts of the writer at that very moment. I decided when I first started to blog that I would be honest with myself and what I wrote. If I thought it or felt it I would put it down. It's a way to exorcise demons. While I stick to much of what I have written, most of the vilest and nastiest stuff written was done so in my darkest hour.

Many exmo or damu bloggers will candy coat their writings to lure unsuspecting TBM's in. I know this because of conversations with other Damu Bloggers that felt my blog would not be effective in changing a TBM's perspective since it is so raw. That's exactly why I keep it the way it is. My goal was never to lead people away. It was to vent and relate to other DAMU's that wanted to vent.

To be honest, part of me was holding out for a miracle up until my excommunication. I thought that somehow there might be a chance at all of my questions and concerns being resolved. I really don't think that is going to happen now.

part of me was holding out for a miracle up until my excommunication. I thought that somehow there might be a chance at all of my questions and concerns being resolved

What sort of miracle? Someone resolving all your doctrinal and historical doubts by explaining things in a way that makes sense to you? Or are you looking for a lightening strike or angelic confrontation? From reading your blog posts, it seems like your views are pretty firmly cemented. What sort of miracle would have suspended/resolved/changed things for you?

The lack of consistency in general in Church discipline is not an excuse. If someone gets off with a wrist slap and someone gets hammered, it doesnt change the fact that in an eternal context the Lord will do all things fairly and justly. Just because an adulterer gets off with disfellowshipping (unfairly or not) doesnt mean everyone else should get the same or less. A bad call is a bad call, it doesnt invalidate all calls.

Once again, as an evangelical, perhaps I am stepping on to turf where I am not welcome. But I must blurt out--any local assembly has the right to practice discipline on a member that simply rebels against the fundamental belief system of the group.

The New Testament is a superb manual on the topic of church discipline. Unfortunately, male leadership (thinking of evangelicals) often do a messy job in performing discipline. This is often quickly pointed out. Likewise in parenting, the teenager will often reveal the sinful beam in the parent's eye.

At the heart of church discipline for evangelicals, there should be loving reconciliation, a moving closer to God by all parties involved.

If one is disciplined out of a local Christian church, it means the refusal to accept him or her as a Christian, but that does not stop the loving, passionate desire to win such an individual back to Christ.

In my limited experiences, some ex-mormons become bitter agnostics or atheists, will this be the case for Simeon?

Dave, thanks for letting me pop in.

Are you suggesting he was "respectfully" speaking publicly about his doubts? I agree with your statement but we should both be able to agree that there is absolutely no respect anywhere to be found on his site. Especially the point that Kurt made (temple name).

I sincerely hope you find the happiness you're looking for and I hope you can work things out with your wife. I appreciate you coming over here (crossing that DAMU/Bloggernacle line) to explain yourself in a respectful manner (which is perhaps the line that divides the two).

While you might get some sympathy here for the unfairness of church discipline, the truth is that you knew the rules and knew what the consequences would be if you broke them. Just because your particular leaders followed the correct procedure for enforcing those rules and others don't, doesn't mean you should be able to avoid the consequences of your own actions. Should thiefs get away with their crimes because there are murderers out there that got away with their crimes?

#11: What makes you automatically associate atheism with bitterness?

Regardless of what any of you might imagine (re: #9), my goal in writing my blog -- and interacting with faithful LDS blogs such as this one -- is not to lure people in and lead them astray.

My motivation is exactly as I have stated many times: to try to persuade Mormons and post-Mormons to try to understand each other and get along as much as possible for the sake of their families and communities.

I have many faithful LDS family members and I love them very much. If you are confident in your beliefs, you have no reason to fear sincere attempts to get along and to find common ground.

Todd (#11), thanks for your Evangelical perspective on the matter. You're always welcome to comment -- consider yourself an honorary member of the Bloggernacle.

Simeon, nice of you to offer a few thoughts. Whatever the merits of your or any other case, exiting the Church ranks right up there with a lawsuit or a divorce as a major stress-inducing event. I hope life settles down for you. And for what it's worth (and reading between the lines), I think your wife deserves a gold star.

CL, promoting discussion across the spectrum is a fine goal. Tricky to pull off in practice though.

Re: Luring / CL Hanson
I wanted to just clarify that CL Hanson is not one of the DAMU blogs I am referring to when I was talking about luring people in. I think she is great and is very straight forward. I may have overstepped by bounds and did not mean to give the impression that this is what all OuterBlogness bloggers do.

Either Lightening or an Angel would have been nice. You act as if exmo's like me are beyond holding out for hope or that an Angel appearing and setting me straight is outside of the realm of mormon thought and possibility. Ever heard of Alma the Younger? I would have settled for one of the 3 Nephites or John as well. As a member, you should understand me being able to suspend my current belief or concern to suit my desires.

It should also be noted that much of what fuels my blog is the sadness mixed with anger that comes from not being able to deal with my new reality. Not being able to get answers to legitimate gospel questions, doctrinal changes and historical issues was more than frustrating. It was unthinkable. Reality was much different than I ever imagined.

Re: Church Disciplinary Action
Why is it acceptable to believe that the Lord who is the same yesterday, today and forever would change his mind about Adultery? Brigham Young calls for the spilling of Blood no more than 150 years ago and now it's ok. Just 20 years ago Temple Mormons were Ex'd no questions asked. Now, they aren't. I could have been cheating on my wife for the last year with a variety of different women and not been slammed as much as I was for being angry.

You either don't understand what being "the same yesterday, today and forever" means or you're being disingenuous. The Church neither believes (or practices) in the exact same way as we believe the Church did 2,000 years ago (or 100 years ago for that matter), yet we still believe God is the same yesterday, today and forever. But that doesn't even matter anyway, your excuse ("someone else didn't get as much punishment as me") still doesn't hold water. You knew the rules, you broke them, you didn't change (and openly mocked them for trying to enforce them), so they inforced them. How does this have anything to do with other people? Is this how we should make all of our ethical and moral decisions, base them (and how we react to them) on what others do?

Simeon, it seems quite natural there are changes over time in how the Church as an institution deals with various transgressions. If they are now less inclined to terminate membership automatically in cases of adultery than they were thirty years ago, that seems like a step forward. In other areas (say child abuse) they are more inclined to take harsh action immdediately. That too seems like progress.

The whole "apostasy" category is hard to define and local leaders therefore have more discretion in individual cases. But the fact that Palmer could write and publish Insider's View of Mormon Origins and not get exed shows how much latitude local leaders (or the COB, depending on who you think was pulling the strings) are willing to give. Palmer, of course, was fairly contrite. That makes a difference.

Thanks Simeon -- I try to be clear and up-front about my position, so I'm glad to see I was mistaken in thinking I'd been misunderstood. :D

I was under the impression that excommunication isn't supposed to be about punishment. Unfortunately, many people (especially when immersed in the LDS culture) take it as comparable to a death sentence.

Simeon - I am sorry that your questions weren't able to be answered. I do hope you don't feel alone or ostracized. There are some who are LDS who don't think ex-com is a mark of evil. :)


I should probably let Simeon speak for himself, but I don't think he's saying that he's left the church just because adulterers don't get the boot and apostates do. That certainly seems to be fueling his anger about the circumstance surrounding his excommunication, but his issues go deeper than that--at least they seem to as I read his blog.

The LDS Church tolerates no dissent from within. That's the bottom line, and that's what Simeon's case illustrates, at least for me. That leaves people with three basic options: keep quiet, leave, or be shown the door.

Your last paragraph is enormously oversimplified, to the point that it's not true.

How long has the little blurb under the title of your blog been up there? Because, if that's the tenor of what you've been saying, how in the world can you complain? Or maybe you're blog was milder before. I dunno, man. But an LDS reader of your blog isn't going to have much sympathy with you when they read that.

Rusty -

Chris Williams' last paragraph sums up the meaning behind my comment #7. Even respectful dissent is unwelcome in most Church circles. Therefore, doubters feel alienated from the community instead of loved and accepted. This alienation, I think, leads to anger and bitterness.

The Church members themselves are responsible for their reactions to even the most obnoxious doubters expressing their opinions. Isn't that what Elder Bednar's talk was all about during last GC? Don't be offended?

Tom --

I'm not intentionally oversimplifying. Do you care to elaborate?

I never suggested that, Chris. My comment isn't about "why" he left (which is painfully obvious), it's about his complaints for how he was kicked out (or that he was even kicked out in the first place).

And who do you mean when you say that the "LDS Church tolerates no dissent from within?" President Hinckley? Every single stake president? The Handbook? Every single bishop? To say that any one of those groups/entities tolerates "no" dissent is pure spin.

Some internal dissent is tolerated. Grant Palmer was not exed. To my knowledge the guy who taught at BYU who published an op-ed in the SL Trib calling the Church's position on gay marriage immoral has not faced any ecclesiastical discipline. There is a line beyond which dissent is not tolerated. Reasonable people can disagree about whether that line is drawn at the right place, but to say that the Church dismisses anyone who dissents in any way is not true.

Sorry if misunderstood you, Rusty.

As for my other comment, I'm sorry you think it's pure spin. There is no mechanism in the Chruch, formal or informal, for voicing dissent. And when I speak of the Church, I speak of the institution and the culture collectively.


Grant Palmer was not tolerated. He was disfellowshipped. Jeff Nielson (the SL Trib op-ed writer) was not tolerated. He lost his job at BYU.

I'm willing to revise my statement as follows though: dissent is not tolerated, leaving four choices: silence, marginalization, leaving, or being shown the door.

And, hey, that's fine. The CoJCoLDS is not a democracy. No one has a "right" to dissent in Mormondom. All I'm saying is that it leaves doubters in a difficult place personally, culturally and institutionally.

It's easy to speak of the "institution and the culture collectively" because it's always a moving target. One gets to pick and choose which part to yell at and which part to ignore. It's a fun game we all play from time to time.

Of course we're responsible for how we react to obnoxious doubters. That has nothing to do with the fact that apostasy exists, that there is a line drawn somewhere and when someone crosses that line certain steps are necessary. Are you against any disciplinary action at all? Or is it where the line is that you object to?

Rusty, it's pretty easy to apologize for it too.

No, I don't understand the need to excommunicate apostates. I do understand the need to clarify Church doctrine, however, and I support the Church's efforts to correct inaccuracies published from inside and the outside sources.

But Chris, you are misstating the facts. Nielson was not subject to church discipline -- after publishing an article, in the SL Trib no less, openly disagreeing in rather strong terms with the LDS position on gay marriage. If anything, that suggests dissent is tolerated. The employment action is a different issue. Employer-employee obligations and infractions are a different ballgame than church discipline.

And Palmer wasn't exed! He was quite happy, under the circumstances, to only be disfellowshipped. And while he had retired before publishing his book (not before writing most of it, it seems), his prior association with CES (alluded to in the "insider" reference in the title to his book) was a factor. Note that Thomas Murphy up in Washington was neither exed nor disfellowshipped.

No Mormon leader likes dissent. Few leaders in any heirarchical organization like dissent. But to say it is not tolerated in the LDS Church is simply incorrect.

Of course it's easy to apologize for it because I'll apologize for those who have done no wrong while you'll still be upset by those who have failed. EASY!

Btw, Chris, when do you want to do lunch again? :)


Actually, I think I stated the facts the same way you did. Your analysis of the consequences differs from mine. Fair enough.


Who am I still upset with? (Ach, I really don't want to fight with you, so maybe we should both just drop it.)

I think I'll just repeat what I wrote above, which is really the point I'm trying to (apprently ineffectively) make: The LDS Church's approach to dissent leaves doubters in a difficult place personally, culturally and institutionally.

Being the same yesterday, today and forever in the context that either Sexual Sin is second to Murder or it isn't. Aparantly speaking negatively of the church is second to murder and Sexual Sin & Adultery come somewhere down the line. How would you like it if I were to name call and call you an Obnoxious Believer? Pretty stupid, huh.

Yes it is a step forward. I would be inclined to think the same thing if this were the Catholic Church we were talking about. This is supposed to be the Kingdom of God on Earth. Is God progressing? I never had that liberal of a view of God to think that he has moved forward and gained more knowledge now so it is now ok not to ex people for Adultery.

I've had a variety of different things listed under the title of my blog. Like I said earlier, my goal was never to get TBM's to see things my way. It was also never my point to try to garner the support of members.

My issues all stem back to whether or not the church is lead by a prophet or not. Not getting answers to questions convinced me that we aren't. The patterns established in the Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, D&C and in Joseph Smiths life show an interactive God. One that answers questions. One that clarifies and reveals. One that sets the record straight. One that will not allow prophets / leaders to teach false doctrine or cover up parts of history that aren't faith promoting.

My personal view is that Joseph was brilliant. He followed the pattern of the previous Prophets. He got or made up (depending on your view) answers to everything under the moon by direct revelation. If you read the D&C it's almost comical sometimes with him going directly to the Lord for small things. 50% of what's in there would never be canonized now.He also showed that even he wasn't above God reproach. He bugs the Lord incesantly about the 116 pages and then got what was coming. If the Lord got that pissed about some missing pages, How does he not get upset with Brigham for teaching that he was really Adam or, Hinckley for all but denying we are Gods in Embryo?

Fair enough.

I was quickly writing down the first antonym of "apologize" that came to my mind and "get upset with" was the first thing that came. I have no intention of fighting with you, I was trying to end the issue by saying that we'll both see things in the way that we want to see them (largely because it is a moving target).

I was responding to what ECS said, quoting the "obnoxious doubter" thing that she said. I was speaking collectively, not about you specifically (I probably should have put quotes around it). I'm sorry that I gave the impression otherwise.

You still seem hung up about how a couple bishops dealt with a situation in their own congregations (as if those bishops represent the church as a whole). They likely made a poor decision but that doesn't represent a shift in God's emphasis on the fact that apostasy will get you exed. It just seems you're so focussed on others that you're not even looking at your own case.

But how can you possibly be surprised (or upset) by the way things went down? You weren't inching away from the church saying, "I'm not sure if this stuff is true." Just the name of your blog makes it plainly obvious that your intent hasn't ever been to "doubt" the church.

Wow, it's hard not to read this and the posts of this man and not feel saddened by the whole thing.

Perhaps to some degree we are looking at this from the wrong perspective. To write so boldly against the church in a blog, is not so different from actively proscelytizing against the church. That act was committed by more than one wayward soul in the Book of Mormon (Alma the Younger, before his transformation, comes to mind). I doubt his name was on the membership list of the church roster while he was actively doing his thing and he most likely didn't care either.

I can tell you, from someone who went through a difficult time, that I went through a disciplinary council. I touch on it in my own blog. For me it was difficult and painful, but in the end became a positive force in my life. It was done in the spirit of love and helped me to come to terms with a number of things. In the end it helped in finally deciding what I truly believed in.

I read a few of your posts, cew-smoke -- good for you to put everything together at some point. I suspect the experience that various people have of their own particular disciplinary council covers the whole spectrum. Nice you had an "I felt the love" experience. It's obvious that some people have a much different experience.

For those who like to assert that the church still has a place for doubters I would like to ask where that place is and if that place is truly meaningful? I have serious doubts myself and I know my thoughts are not welcome at Church-- even though I myself may be. The few times I have mustered the courage to merely express my own doubts regarding some gospel principle I've been (courteously) asked to cease and desist. These instances were honest inquiries as to how others have dealth with various doctrinal issues. I've been told that such questions should only be handled in private and only with church leadership. Consequently, I've become a marginal member of the Church. I still attend regularly but hold no callings. I'm never asked to speak and have even been asked to keep any remarks I might offer during class to myself. My presence is tolerated because the leadership understands that such is the price to get the rest of my family to attend (my wife harbors many of the same doubts I do she has just chosen to never express them). The Church is not interested in people who are merely at the HOPE stage of faith (which is how I would characterize myself).

I think the website is the religious equivalent of a teenager posting on his myspace page, "My parents are idiots! They're wrong about everything, and I hate them!" If the kid was otherwise not creating problems for the family, I think it would be a pretty extreme reaction to kick the kid out of the house and tell him he's not your son anymore, just based on those statements. It would cement his feelings of being unloved and misunderstood.

My understanding of apostasy is that it involves publicly presenting things as church teachings that are not church teachings. Taking away church membership from someone who wilfully misrepresents church teachings helps prevent others from giving credence to it. That much makes sense to me.

But no one would mistake Simeon's blog for a reliable source of church teachings. He is venting his personal feelings, which are ugly, rude, inappropriate, etc., but I don't think there's any risk of confusion. An LDS person can tell at a glance that they landed on an icky blog.

As far as I can tell, this dude's excommunication came about for, amongst other reasons, his public breaking of temple covenants and then his refusal to participate in the hearings. I don't know that the Stake Presidency in this case had much of a case for keeping him in.

On a side note, I actually read enough of his blog to confirm this.

In other words, Chris, I don't believe that this dude was excommunicated for "dissenting". I believe that he was excommunicated for revealing things that he had covenanted not to reveal, which is, as an act, different from merely saying that the brethren are wrong in their stance on abortion (or Adam-God). Unfortunately, we won't ever know the real reason, as he didn't attend the hearings and his stake president is highly unlikely to share with us the details.

I imagine the bloggernacle is as close as you'll currently get, to a "place for doubters" while still participating in a "community of the faithful." And I suppose that's a shame. We do the best we can, but it's not really enough.

Out of curiosity Simeon, if your Stake Presidency had not chosen to force the issue and hold disciplinary hearings, what would you have done?

I guess i am just a ridiculaously obtuse believer, but if you feel that strongly you are not part of the church, why on Earth is it so upsetting that the Church would foramlly consider itself no longer part of you. I understand things can be hard culturally and with marriage and community etc., etc. but so what. Who said life is easy.

People seem to feel that members of the Church should take abuse and ridicule of what they hold sacred and just smile and be Christlike and gently plead and beg forever as people rail on and spit on covenants they have made or they are hypocrites. I am sorry but that is just hypocritical.

Yes, being angry is not fun, excommunication is not fun, but any relationship requires some modicum of respect or it simply degenerates. Quite clearly this brother and Child of God lacks any of that respect for the Church.

If the Church reciprocates and decides to end its relationship with the person I just can't find it shocking. In the end, isn't just one more in a long line of things the person has to rail against.

I think it is just as traumatic for the Church members because they feel as if they have failed this person somehow. Nobody wants that. So in the end no one is happy. At least you have your closure.

The point of excommunication is to allow people to move on. In the end I think that is a good thing.

Simeon's blog is the only so-called "DAMU" blog I've read with any kind of regularity. I can certainly relate to his "lost faith" issues. The personal pain, anger, and loss one feels is usually exacerbated by the less-than-sympathetic reaction one receives from believing family, friends and ward members. It's a one-two punch, and (one of) the knee-jerk (and post-knee-jerk) inclination(s) is to lash out in anger. This is true whether one has been hurt or misunderstood or betrayed by any person or community and regardless of the subject (religious or otherwise).

That Simeon would feel like lashing out with profanity-laced tirades and sarcastic/mocking invectives at or against the LDS people, doctrine, or institution may be understandable; that he chooses to do so, over and over again, is not understandable. It is immature and deeply offensive, and beneath Simeon's abilities as a writer and thinker. When Simeon wants to, he can write a cogent post or comment about his pain/anger/loss issues or about inconsistencies or problems with the LDS people, doctrine, or institution. For his own sanity and peace of mind (to say nothing of his family's), he’d be wiser and happier if he spent his time and energy building bridges and seeking to understand.

Simeon's response to the previous paragraph would probably be: "You're probably right, but this is my blog and this is how I deal with my anger, this is how I blow off steam… I'm not writing to or for the Morg, I'm writing for me… don’t read my blog if you find it offensive." Well, I don't think that gets him off the hook. People hide behind "free speech" as if it were a moral or ethical high ground in and of itself. But saying debasing and offensive things about a people, religion, race, or whatever, is itself a higher moral or ethical wrong that cannot be canceled out by the ethics of "free speech." At least that is how I see it.

Simeon, what say you?

Laugh, I thought I would die!!!

I would have been content to stay a member. Mainly because my wife wanted it that way. There was a brief period where I wanted my name removed from the records, but then I realized that it didn't really matter that much.

I appreciate your comments and respect the way you have dealt with a similar situation.

For whatever reason, my transition from believing to not believing happened pretty quickly and I just couldn't handle it. The anger and dispair I felt just wasn't containable. Part of me wishes I could have still attended church and dealt with my doubt privately over the course of a couple of years and figured out what I wanted to do, but I just couldn't. My head and heart just wouldn't let me. It may have been a less traumatic way to deal things as far as my wife and family are concerned, but I think the end result would have been the same.

You're right that for the most part I would answer your question in that way. I really never thought many people would read it. Keeping it raw and nasty was consistent with how I felt and still feel sometimes.

I agree with you to some extent about being nasty "over and over again". I think that as I continue to blog in the future that things will tone down as far as the profanity and anger but not the sarcasm and mockery. I will continue to mock the doctrine, leadership and institution. I have yet to attack the "LDS People" as alluded to and wouldn't do that. LDS people are great people. Most of my friends are LDS as well as most of my family.

I don't subscribe to any higher moral or ethical law that says it's wrong to mock the religion and institution that I devoted my whole life to. I'm not talking about Jews, Catholics or JW's. I'm mocking, questioning and commenting on who and what I was and I don't feel bad about that.

Simeon, as a Baptist pastor myself, I tell people they can mock the Baptist denominations. Some branches need a little satire to be awakened from spiritual hypocrisy.

But never mock the Lord Jesus Christ. Keep learning of Him. Someday we will all stand before Him.

May He grant you peace in your heart as I pray you would look to Him. Unlike me, he is worthy of all your trust.

It's nice you have offered a few comments, Simeon, but don't feel like you need to respond in a personal vein to every comment. This isn't a "J'accuse" thread aimed your way; it's more about LDS blogging in general (albeit with reference to your posts in particular) than about you personally.

My thanks to all commenters for keeping this a nice, friendly conversation.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Now Reading

General Books 09-12

General Books 06-08

General Books 04-05

About This Site

Mormon Books 2015-16

Mormon Books 2013-14

Science Books

Bible Books

Mormon Books 2012

Mormon Books 2009-11

Mormon Books 2008

Mormon Books 2007

Mormon Books 2006

Mormon Books 2005

Religion Books 09-12

Religion Books 2008

Religion Books 2004-07

DMI on Facebook

Blog powered by Typepad