[Just a note::: THIS IS NOT AN APRIL FOOL'S JOKE. THIS IS MY REAL LEGITIMATE THINKING]
I was just thinking this morning, and I read a little bit from my own book and it reminded me of something::::
In The Book of Finch, Mitchell Liability is "concerned" that I would be befriending his daughter in a religious context of Mormonism, even though we were both Mormons, apparently the religion was such a concern to him that he took away our freedoms of association and religion.
I try to have church disciplinary action taken against him. Basically, there was just so much that I thought was wrong with that situation that I figured he probably shouldn't be a member of the church anymore.
Here's the thing::: The church ruled in Mitchell Liability's favour, deciding that he is allowed to be concerned about my belief in the religion and that our freedom to associate being taken away was lawful in the church, among other things which to the church decided not to discipline.
Anyway, fast forward a decade or so, when the church feels religious freedom is under fire, as can be exampled with the Parti Quebecois in Quebec trying to make public religious symbols illegal----
here's the thing, in my personal life, way before religion was publicly under fire ---- The church did DICK ALL (that's canadian for absolutely nothing) to defend my religious freedom, did dick all to defend my religious and associative freedom to find a wife, did dick all to defend my religious belief in working miracles.
I mean, why is it OK for the church to completely NEGLECT defending my freedom a decade ago when NOW it's suddenly a big deal that religious freedom has to be protected?
I just feel like saying **** to the LDS church right now, but I don't type out the whole words because of how rude it would be on blogger.
I mean, it's just hypocrisy, they can't defend my freedoms of association, religion or belief, but 10 years later it suddenly becomes important to them. Wow. ****?
Anyway, I am now understanding why Mitchell Liability would be concerned over the religion I believed in. There are big reasons to be concerned - I just didn't realize it at the time, and he didn't bother to explain it to me himself.
So yeah --- over 10 years ago, when my religious freedom and other freedoms were important to me, the LDS Mormon church did NOTHING TO DEFEND MY RIGHTS.
Then a decade later when religious freedom is under attack in the public square, the church suddenly starts activating their units of defence.
I will just remind everyone that the bishop's decision when dealing with the Liability's is that they were to be forgiven, that I should forgive them --- but then he decided that I shouldn't talk to them anymore.
I just want to note, that according to LDS Prophet Spencer W Kimball in his book "The Miracle of Forgiveness", that the Bishop's decision was UNLAWFUL.
The Bishop's judgment not only wasn't sound in terms of Bible, and D&C doctrine, but also in terms of how he wanted the forgiveness to be carried out:: by not talking to them anymore.
If the Bishop actually wanted me to forgive them, then I would have been allowed to talk to them and converse with them over and over again.
Spencer W Kimball makes it clear that if you forgive someone, but then never talk to them anymore, then you have not truly forgiven them and you are under serious condemnation.
The Bishop's judgment to forgive them but then to restrict communications was UNLAWFUL.