My Letter of Resignation

Jeffrey Ryan Day
Birthdate: May 24, 1981
473 NE Winchester St.
Roseburg, OR 97470

Bishop Denton W. Herlan
{address removed}
Roseburg, OR  97470

This letter is my formal resignation from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and it is effective immediately. I hereby withdraw my consent to being treated as a member and I withdraw my consent to being subject to LDS Church rules, policies, beliefs and 'discipline.' As I am no longer a member, you are hereby directed to immediately, permanently and completely remove my name from all records of the church.

I have given this matter considerable thought. I understand what you consider to be the 'seriousness' and the 'consequences' of my actions. I am aware that the Church Handbook of Instructions says that my resignation "cancels the effects of baptism and confirmation, withdraws the priesthood held by a male members and revokes temple blessings." I also understand that I will be "readmitted to the church by baptism only after a thorough interview."

I am not going to be dissuaded and I am not going to change my mind.  You will therefore waive the standard 30-day 'waiting period' in acting upon this direction.  I expect this matter to be handled promptly, with respect and with full confidentiality.  After today, the LDS Church or its representatives are not to contact me other than providing a single letter of confirmation to let me know that I am no longer listed as a member of the LDS Church. I am not interested in meeting with a representative of the LDS Church nor in receiving any counsel at all in regards to this matter, and I will not respond to any invitations for such.

It has come to my attention that a 'disciplinary council' has been scheduled for December 4, 2008 at 8:30 P.M., at which time the Stake Presidency plans to consider disciplinary action in regards to me. Immediately upon receiving this letter, I have withdrawn all consent, express or implied, to being treated as a member of the LDS Church, which includes disciplinary councils. I am aware of the case law pertaining to such attempts, and if any action is taken after the receipt of this letter to bring disciplinary action against me, I may be required to seek legal action and immediately contact the news media to publicize such action, regardless of any other directions which are found in the General Handbook of Instructions.

The reasons for my resignation are diverse and complex.  Almost all of them involve gradual changes which have crept into the Church.  I do not blame these changes on any one leader or person.  Some of them are a result of the LDS Church bending to the opinions popularized by conservative Christian denominations in order to gain acceptability and greater reception, some of them are the result of myriads of converts holding onto beliefs from their former faith without being given proper instruction, and some of them are more nefarious in their origin. My reasons can be divided into four major categories: 1) Systematic failure of the LDS Church to keep (or promote the keeping of) basic commandments; 2) Failure of the LDS Church to pass down all of the keys of the Temple Endowment; 3) Engagement in inappropriate political activity and unwise use of funds; and 4) Major idealogical changes.  I have included a more specific list of some of my concerns on the reverse side of this letter.  It was not any one of these things alone, but all of them together that led to my determination that the LDS Church is currently in a state of apostasy.  I could at least tolerate membership in a Church that is ashamed of its own God or its own History, but when coupled with a failure to "love thy neighbor," I see no positive benefit from my continued involvement in such a group, and this conclusion accounts for my recent actions intended to preserve the fulness of the Priesthood, unsullied, for future generations.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Day

cc. President Jon Hopkins, {address removed}, Roseburg, Oregon 97470.

====

I will make a follow up post with a transcription of the reverse side of the letter.

Pending Disciplinary Council

Today, this envelope was handed to me.


Here's what was inside:

My wife Susie received an identical envelope and letter addressed to her.
I will post follow up as events unfold.

David O McKay

"Ours is the responsibility ... to proclaim the truth that each individual is ... entitled to freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly; that he has the right to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience. ... organizations or churches which deprive the individual of these inherent rights are not in harmony with God's will nor with his revealed word."
--David O. McKay

Under President McKay, the Church approximately tripled the number of members and stakes (1.1 million to 2.8 million members, and 184 to 500 stakes)

President McKay spoke against communism due to its atheist underpinnings and the denial of freedom of choice inherent in such a system.

Here are a couple more important quotes from David O. McKay:

"If you will give your class a thought, even one new thought during your recitation period you will find that they will go away satisfied. But it is your obligation to be prepared to give that new thought" (1953)

And...

"True education seeks ... to make men and women not only good mathematicians, proficient linguists, profound scientists, or brilliant literary lights, but also honest men, combined with virtue, temperance, and brotherly love ... men and women who prize truth, justice, wisdom, benevolence, and self-control as the choicest acquisitions of a successful life" (1953)

President McKay was also instrumental in making the Temple rituals available to people in foreign languages, and in expanding and clarifying some portions of the Temple endowment.

According to Daniel W. Bachman, "David O. McKay, we learn, first explained the symbolism associated with the temple clothing by faithful Latter-day Saints."

Being a Freemason myself, I am familiar with several explanations of this symbolism, and for the benefit of those reading, I'd like to share the typical Masonic wording similar to what President McKay adopted, this being available openly on many Masonic websites (i.e. not considered part of the secret work):

The Square reminds us symbolically to square our actions, and the Compasses teach us to circumscribe our desires and keep our passions within due bounds toward all mankind.

The moral lessons associated with these emblems are deep and important, and what a blessing and demonstration of Divine Providence that the Latter-day Saints after going so many years without the majority of their men knowing the definition finally received a suitable one and removed some of the obscurity of these historic items.

Pete Ashdown for United States Senate

Pete Ashdown for United States Senate

For those who live in Utah... Read what this guy has to say! He has a blog also, just click "Blog" at the top of his site. He is brilliant. If I lived in Utah, I'd give him my vote.

Evangelical Pastor on Politics

Disowning Conservative Politics, Evangelical Pastor Rattles Flock - New York Times

I recently read this article which was heralded by Carla Golden on her blog and I felt impressed to share it with everyone who reads my blog.

How will the future view our time?

I saw this Joseph F. Smith quote posted on Open Sky Visions blog, and had to share it here:

Open Sky Visions: The LDS Church and Constitutional Amendments:

'I say let the national solons amend the Constitution, to punish and insult and degrade this little handful of men who are rapidly passing away, and when they shall see the magnitude of their acts compared with the insignificance of the cause, they and their historians will laugh at their folly, and write them down asses in the broadest sense.' (Joseph F. Smith to Reed Smoot, April 9, 1904.)

The Federal Marriage Amendment, a trojan horse

I just read an article by Deanna Spingola called The Federal Marriage Amendment, a trojan horse and found particularly interesting this quote from Ezra Taft Benson, former President of the LDS Church (1985-1994) and United States Secretary of Agriculture (1953-1961):

"I believe that God has endowed men with certain unalienable rights as set forth in the Declaration of Independence and that no legislature and no majority, however great, may morally limit or destroy these; that the sole function of government is to protect life, liberty, and property and anything more than this is usurpation and oppression."

Will LDS flee GOP if Mitt gets shelled?

Salt Lake Tribune - Will LDS flee GOP if Mitt gets shelled?

Good article by the Salt Lake Tribune.

Good Medicine for Scholars

I just read a post over at Feminist Mormon Housewives. Go and read it:

Forgiving the Church

The type of thought expressed in this post and it comments is good medicine for any scholars, gnostics or mystics struggling to survive within the Church structure, and will help keep them from apostasy or inactivity.

Letter to our Senators

My wife and I just wrote to our state Senators as counselled by our Stake President last Sunday. Here is what we had to say:

We know you have received many statements from Latter-day Saints and others concerned about the upcoming amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman. We realize that it may not be primarily a religious question in the eyes of others, but for the Latter-day Saints it is and so we will speak in context of religious belief here.

Our family hopes that many members of our faith were able to look beyond the seemingly innocent intention of this amendment and instead towards our history and the basic principles that the Mormon church grew strong by adhering to. Any LDS person should be able to tell you the following: "Free Agency" as it is called, is one of God's greatest gifts to man, and gives us our divine potential. It literally allows us to become like God and inherit all he has to give us. It was Satan's design to eliminate Agency, and instead to force all to follow his will so that all might be saved. Jesus Christ instead opted to follow the Father's plan, allowing men to freely choose Good and Evil, knowing that some would be lost along the way, and to give all glory to the Father. It is admitted that Free Agency does not give one the right to do anything, for there are consequences, often grave, be they legal or otherwise, to every action we take.

The idea that the existence of "Gay Marriage" would be a threat to our own morals, or that eliminating it would somehow rescue the people who would have partaken in it from a sin is preposterous. To be frank, a homosexual is going to be homosexual whether they are allowed to marry or not. Our family believes that a Church has responsibility to instruct and place restrictions to define the morality of its own members, and that it can preach its message to other human beings in love and hope to convert them, but we see the marriage amendment as serving no ecclesiastical purpose to the ends of moral righteousness. Further, it will put a greater rift between the few homosexuals who are Latter-day Saints or would be interested in our religion and possibly in reforming their life and habits, so it is actually damaging to the Church, not to the Public Opinion of the Church, but to the souls of individuals, to be caught up in this.

Turning to the past it is apparent that the definition of Marriage in the Latter-day Saint tradition includes Polygamous relationships: Not actively, today, but historically (and in the future), including such figures as Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Jesus Christ and Adam, and God the Father. Our history contains bold statements to this effect, and an amendment which would define marriage to be between a man and a woman would further strengthen the intolerence of polygamous families as well, which is also a concern for Muslim families which may move into the U.S. These are only the offenses clearly seen from our perspective.

As a family, we think any definition of marriage (which holds such a sacred and important place deep in many peoples hearts) is bound to step on some toes. The ideal, in our opinion, is that the Government would have no say in the personal act of "Marriage", which would be between two (or more) individuals, and their God, Gods, Godess, or Godesses (whatever their belief), but that Government would instead provide a fair set of benefits for those who cohabit together in any committed arrangement, whether it be husband and wife, two sisters, a mother and son, a polygamous Muslim family, a heterosexual couple unmarried, or a homosexual couple. Marriage itself should play no role in the issue, and it should instead be considered as two questions, one of the heart, and one of the law, with clear distinctions between them. Surely no Latter-day Saint, nor anyone else, aught to be opposed to providing equal rights to a poor old widow and her daughter trying to make ends meet, just so long as the word "marriage" is left out of it, and it should be the same for every such arrangement. Obviously, this ideal is only an ideal, as religious and civil Marriage have historically been tied together in our society.

We see any definition of marriage as the beginning of a slippery slope where groups with specific beliefs will try to gain more and more ground against minorities, even when the issue is one that does not actually impact the majority or prevent them from living as they see fit. If the concern is one of taxpayers feeling like they should not be supporting same sex unions, then they need to reevaluate government entirely. Government supports many people who others would not generally approve of, adulterers, liars, thieves, people who swear, smoke, gamble, drink alcohol, etc. It is impossible to be a taxpayer and not lend support to some with whom you do not agree, but on the other hand, those very people are tax payers themselves, and help to support the majority whether they want to or not. It is a give and take system.

Our family has strong feelings on this amendment, and we urge you to vote against it. Further, we urge you to help support any causes that further the separation of the religious and personal interests of marriage from those of the government's necessity to define partnerships. This will allow greater religious freedom, and help to strengthen the true traditional family by paving the way for the arrangement of the ancient patriarchs, that is to say: polygamy, to be permitted again in the U.S. some time in the future. If we want to work against a perceived "problem" of homosexuality, all with such a desire should strive to do so in non-violent ways: Teaching and exhorting people to choose good of their own will, and providing loving assistance and counseling for people wanting to recover or repent from homosexuality or same sex attraction.

Thank you for your time and consideration as you try to weigh out this important issue and choose the correct answer, not necessarily the popular one.

Truth and Liberty, Liberty and Truth

George A. Smith, July 24, 1852 (JD 1:45):

Young men, braves and warriors, who sit before you this day, let me admonish you, never to let the hand of tyranny or oppression rise in these mountains, but stand unflinchingly true by the constitution of the United States, which our fathers sealed with their blood; never suffer its provisions to be infringed upon; and if any man, or set of men form themselves into a mob in these mountains, to violate that sacred document, by taking away the civil or religious rights of any man, if he should be one of the most inferior beings that exist upon the face of the earth, be sure you crush it, or spend the last drop of blood in your veins with the words of--Truth and Liberty, Liberty and Truth, for ever!

First Presidency Letter on Defining Marriage

The First Presidency just issued a letter to leaders indicating support for a constitutional amendment to define marriage, and asking members to express themselves on the issue. I am expressing myself:

I believe that we should work on this problem from the other end. If we have a problem with the lifestyle that gay people are living, lets confront them about the problem directly, instead of playing games of legislation with others at their expense. We should be able to win these people over as converts to the Gospel, and allow them to choose Good over Evil. In order to leave possibilities for us to do this, we need to stop trying to force their hand because that offends them.

So why don't we support an amendment to remove Federal power to define marriage, or something similar to this. The problem is actually a problem of wording, I think, and the Church has gotten itself tied up with accepting something worldly as something Holy just because the World has been using a name for it that confused them: Marriage. The Latter-day Saints, of all people, should recognize that there is a higher law, the sealing power exercised in the Temple, that constititutes a different type of union than the civil authority of Marriage.

If the idea is that the Church is claiming the term "Marriage" as its own, we could try to legislate that the word Marriage be used only for traditional marriages, (or for no civil marriages at all!) and set aside another term for any other type of union recognized by law, but afford the other type of union the same legal status as Marriage has. It would be much easier for the Church to adopt exclusively the term Sealing and let the world have whatever word it wants. I thought this was why we had the word sealing to begin with?

The thing that has become blurred is that the Chuch accepts civil marriage as binding currently. This is a mixed message. People who are married by outside authority and yet are members of the Church (either through converting, or otherwise) should be seen as needing to be re-sealed under priesthood authority, as a requirement (even if it is only for Time due to other issues). We expect this of them concerning Baptism, and ordination to Priesthood. Why not expect this concerning Marriage, the holiest of all?

Because the World's Marriage in the 1800s seemed "good enough", I suppose? I don't see us accepting a Catholic priest who has been baptized (christened) into our doors and accepting his Priesthood and his Baptism as "good enough" to allow him to exercise them within the arena of Mormonism. No, we would require baptism by immersion, and a new ordination of him.

If we are going to tie ourselves to the state, wilfully, we need to be willing to go wherever the state takes us. Otherwise, we should dissolve the unholy union between Church and State so that we can remain unspotted from the world.