'Mormon Group' Plans "Mass Weekend Resignation" From Church

[Libs]

I'm not arguing the rightness or wrongness of it, StormRider....just that, regardless of what you or I may think about it, people have as much right to follow their own conscience, in whatever way they feel is appropriate, as you or I do. You may have an opinion about it, but unless you really know each and every person's story, you really don't know their motivation. Why second guess? Why a need to judge it, at all?

[Deborah]

Well they did it.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54409028-78/church-lds-mormon-resignation.html.csp

As I see it this is evidence of the sifting process going on as spoken of in the last days

Yes, we need to continue to love people as they struggle with their testimonies but I wonder if as some claim we should coddle them as opposed to firmly letting them know to make a choice and take a stand and then live with the consequences of that choice. And without whining about it I might add. God loves all his children but he has always expected them to follow his commandments and be obedient. Some find this very hard and it seems like the choices are going to be harder as we move forward and more and more people would rather have the acceptance of family members or the world than following the admonitions of God's prophets.

[Kenngo1969]

... Worse. I'm taking them off the cookie list.

[Kenngo1969]

From the article Deborah links:

Carrying U.S. flags and signs boasting [among other things] ... "Transcend Mormonism," a crowd hiked Ensign Peak on Saturday and chanted "freedom" to the valley below.

To each, his or her own; as for me, I find much transcendence within Mormonism. How, exactly, does one transcend the transcendent? And where, exactly, does one end up after doing so? Is there some state of ultra-transcendence or hyper-transcendence to which I should aspire?

"Life is so much better. There is peace and so much happiness" after leaving, John Larsen, co-organizer of the mass resignation event, promised the crowd of about 120 before the hike. ... For some like Michelle Hobbs, deciding to resign was not easy. ... Her voice cracking, she described the revelation [that the Church isn't what it claims to be] as "very heartbreaking."

"Peace" and "happiness" are "heartbreaking." OK. Whodathunk? And again, to each, his or her own. I admit, I often don't bear up well under the [perceived?] weight of what God expects of me. Perhaps my life would be easier, more peaceful, and happier if I found a God who didn't expect so much of me. And maybe I simply don't know what I'm talking about because I'm not a parent, but I could never imagine telling my children that anything like "peace" and "happiness" can be found by taking the path of least (or some path of lesser) resistance. To me, God says, "I'll love you no matter what, but it's precisely because I love you that I expect so much of you."

"Why would I want to be part of an organization that suppresses who I truly want to be?" [Alicia] Pierson [who is lesbian] asked after submitting her resignation letter.

Mosiah 3:19 comes to mind. I can't be exactly the same person at church, or at work, or in numerous other places, as I am at home. In a sense, all of the venues I mentioned (save the last one) "suppress who I want to be." It's more of a universal, "social norming" thing. It's not unique to the church. When I was in junior high (middle) school, my stake president was also my principal. He wasn't the same in one office as he was in the other. If I think that such social norming is harmful in any particular case, I can find a new workplace (or other surroundings). Fortunately, I'm not at home, or at work, or at church, 24/7. I don't know anyone ... even the shyest, most reticent, most reserved individual ... who is exactly the same in all circumstances and surroundings, and among all people. In some sense, the audience and the surroundings "suppress who we want to be." Perhaps it would be nice, for some of us, if life were simply one big, giant, unending gay pride parade, but it's not.

52-year-old [Michael Carpenter], who said he had continued to serve the church for years [despite his disaffection], wore a black T-shirt asking, "What would Jesus build?" referring to the LDS Church’s recently opened City Creek Center mall and condos in downtown Salt Lake City.

Ironically, Mr. Carpenter does not live in the city or the state in which the redevelopment of which he is so critical occurred. Attitudes like Mr. Carpenter's prove that the Church is "danged if it does, and danged if it don't." I'm sure those of his ilk would've been happy as clams if the Church had, instead, let the redeveloped area degenerate into a slum. (Oh, wait ... No they wouldn't have ... Sorry ... My bad.) There are plenty of slums in which these folks can live if they choose to move there. If that's their choice, more power to them (but forgive me if I don't hold my breath). It seems rather hypocritical of them to demand that other people live in (or allow the area in which they live to degenerate into) a slum.

Joseph Baxter, a 24-year-old who also traveled from Idaho, said he wants people to know that ex-Mormons don’t leave so they can drink alcohol or smoke — two activities barred by the church. "It’s not that we’re wicked. We just see the church as a dysfunctional, manipulative organization. We don’t want to be a part of it anymore."

If that's how I saw the Church, I wouldn't want to be a part of it either. Are there dysfunctional (and even manipulative) people in the Church? Sure; the Church is a hospital for the spiritually sick, it's not a resort for the spiritually well. But personally, I'd be wary of tarring an entire group of 14 million people with those broad brushes. And you might want to consider the possibility (however remote) that you're projecting your own neuroses onto the Church.

[Libs]

I would guess that, for those whose families are entrenched in the church (in particular), leaving is hardly the "path of least resistance" or the easy way out.

[Deborah]

I would guess that, for those whose families are entrenched in the church (in particular), leaving is hardly the "path of least resistance" or the easy way out.

That may be so but you have to ask if leaving is so hard why don't they just stay and try to work out their issues. In any case once they make that decision, they shouldn't keep coming back complaining about what the church did to them, etc.

[Libs]

In any case once they make that decision, they shouldn't keep coming back complaining about what the church did to them, etc.

Why not? Why do any of us talk about any of the things we do? Likely, because we are interested and want to share our experiences (for better or worse). It can be cathartic, even helpful in sorting things out, at times.

Not trying to be argumentative, really, but leaving is difficult and there is a process, for most, which involves a need to talk about it (for a time, anyway).. If you felt someone or some institution did you wrong, would you just be quiet about it and never talk about it?

[thesometimesaint]

Libs:

Personally, I don't spend much time on things I don't believe.

[Libs]

Neither do I.

I don't think that's really the point in all of this. Probably, the 150 or so people who made their resignation a public statement, feel they have been harmed by the church, in some way. That's much more than simply "not believing" in something.

[jwhitlock]

With a good friend, I might have a back and forth conversation about it (although, I might think this is actually none of my business), but these people who are resigning are not "good friends" of anyone here, that I know of, and no one really knows what their reasoning is, for doing what they're doing. As far as I can tell, they are just all being lumped into the same basket and judged for doing something that they obviously feel is just as important as others may feel about their church attendance. I just think people sometimes read in motives that are not really there.

Perhaps, those people, doing the resigning, are also concerned about people "going in the wrong direction"...and that is why they are making a statement in this way.

Yep, you can really feel the love with what they're doing and how they're doing it. Not.

The rationalizations you've been trying to give for "supporting" them in what they're doing fall flat. These people are attacking my faith. It's not a difference of opinion, and it's not the same thing as support for Prop 8. They're characterizing the Church in a way that I know to be false, because I'm a member of that Church and I'm active in that Church and I have studied the history and the doctrine of that Church and I know the people in that Church.

And they're wrong.

What do you call a person who intentionally misrepresents what you believe in? It might be most charitable to characterize it as simple ignorance on the part of some, but with the way some of these people are talking, there is evident hatred and an agenda to tear down the Church involved. I don't call that "conscience".

I certainly don't feel any obligation to see what they're doing as something benign, which it isn't. If they want to show up publicly and denigrate my belief, then I have every right to publicly state my opinion about what is wrong about what they're doing. I find any claim that we, as members of the Church, should not say anything negative about this whole charade to be ridiculous.

[bluebell]

I think it's funny how the news is reporting the leaving of 150 people as a 'mass exodus'.

[The Nehor]

One can only hope this will spread. I could use a shorter home teaching list.

[Libs]

And they're wrong.

In your opinion, of course.

[thesometimesaint]

Libs:

No one alive today was harmed by LDS polygamy. No one was harmed by Prop 8.

Really. Where is any harm coming from when we obey our Church rules?

[Libs]

Decided to come back and give this a little more than a hit and run.

Yep, you can really feel the love with what they're doing and how they're doing it. Not.

I don't think this is about the members. It's not personal. It's about the church, the leadership and mostly it is about doctrine.

The rationalizations you've been trying to give for "supporting" them in what they're doing fall flat. These people are attacking my faith. It's not a difference of opinion, and it's not the same thing as support for Prop 8. They're characterizing the Church in a way that I know to be false, because I'm a member of that Church and I'm active in that Church and I have studied the history and the doctrine of that Church and I know the people in that Church.

I'm not really trying to support their reasons for leaving (although, I probably do support "some" of them)...only their right to try and make a statement, if they choose. No one has to agree with that. It is exactly, in principle, the same as making a stand "for or against" anything else. I used Prop 8 as an example, because that was a recent issue over which many LDS took a public stand (holding signs and yelling at people, sometimes...it got pretty rowdy on both sides, here in CA). They (the ex-LDS dissenters) do have a right to do this, as no one was arrested, that I heard about?

What do you call a person who intentionally misrepresents what you believe in? It might be most charitable to characterize it as simple ignorance on the part of some, but with the way some of these people are talking, there is evident hatred and an agenda to tear down the Church involved. I don't call that "conscience".

I don't know that anyone was misrepresenting anything. There are a lot of "opinions" out there, about almost every aspect of Mormonism. And, frankly, I see plenty of hate on both sides of these issues.

I certainly don't feel any obligation to see what they're doing as something benign, which it isn't. If they want to show up publicly and denigrate my belief, then I have every right to publicly state my opinion about what is wrong about what they're doing. I find any claim that we, as members of the Church, should not say anything negative about this whole charade to be ridiculous.

Do you feel obligated to love those, whom you consider your enemy...even if their behavior is not loving? Do you feel at all obligated to try and understand their complaints? You were saying that you don't like your religion being misrepresented, do you feel any obligation to not misrepresent those who do find fault with the church, by trying your best to completely understand where they are coming from?

[Libs]

Libs:

No one alive today was harmed by LDS polygamy. No one was harmed by Prop 8.

Really. Where is any harm coming from when we obey our Church rules?

SS, I'm not going to go into detail, but you have to know that both of those statements in your first sentence are very highly debatable. I will say, about polygamy, that the harm that comes is in not knowing the details and finding out by accident (which is what happened to me...and many others, I know). It breaks a very basic trust and causes all kinds of doubts and wonderings about what else has not been revealed. (That's the short reply).

And prop 8, not hurting anyone? Wow. (Very short reply )

[jwhitlock]

Decided to come back and give this a little more than a hit and run.

I don't think this is about the members. It's not personal. It's about the church, the leadership and mostly it is about doctrine.

I'm not really trying to support their reasons for leaving (although, I probably do support "some" of them)...only their right to try and make a statement, if they choose. No one has to agree with that. It is exactly, in principle, the same as making a stand "for or against" anything else. I used Prop 8 as an example, because that was a recent issue over which many LDS took a public stand (holding signs and yelling at people, sometimes...it got pretty rowdy on both sides, here in CA). They do have a right to do this, as no one was arrested, that I heard about?

I don't know that anyone was misrepresenting anything. There are a lot of "opinions" out there, about almost every aspect of Mormonism. And, frankly, I see plenty of hate on both sides of these issues.

Do you feel obligated to love those, whom you consider your enemy...even if their behavior is not loving? Do you feel at all obligated to try and understand their complaints? You were saying that you don't like your religion being misrepresented, do you feel any obligation to not misrepresent those who do find fault with the church, by trying your best to completely understand where they are coming from?

Has anyone here claimed that they don't have any right to gather publicly? They haven't, and so that's not the issue at hand. However, you seem to have made that assumption the foundation for telling us that we shouldn't call them wrong - this telling us we don't really have the right to publicly speak out on it ourselves.

As for the rest of it, I understand very well where they're really coming from. This isn't the first time that I've seen this, and I've done enough digging into this to know that these people, far from being any kind of "free" thinkers, are following a well laid out path and methodology that has been structured by enemies of the Church. Whether some of them seem to think that they've been "harmed" is irrelevant; as I noted above, there are too many of us involved with the Church who know from our own experience that their characterizations are simply, flat-out wrong.

To claim that we're misrepresenting them is, again, just ridiculous. We know too much. While their story may play well with people who are ignorant of Mormonism, the "judgement" you see here is from people who are intimately involved with the Church and who know what is really going on.

You claim to see hate from both sides. Let me clarify that a bit for you. What you really see from members of the Church is frustration with people lying about us and our faith. I wish we all as members of the Church could express that frustration better, but it is still frustration and it is in response to being attacked. However, what you see from people attacking the Church is indeed real hate. And it's hate not only for the Church, but for members who stay faithful in the Church. Those of us who have experience with this can see the difference rather clearly, and don't buy into attempts to create some kind of moral equivalence with it.

Interesting that you should try to compare this with Prop 8. I know that from the LDS side, there were also many significant acts of love and reaching out. However, i could not find much of that at all from the other side. Church members responded far better in general than those who opposed us, so the comparison with that is invalid.

One of the first things some (not all) people try to develop when leaving the Church is some kind of Victim status, which is precisely what some of these people are doing. Claiming Victim status requires that they demonize that which they are leaving. While that process may be "acceptable" for someone who wants to say both sides are morally equivalent, we as members of the Church know better. It's not just our opinion. It's what we know, since we are very much involved with the Church. Trying to dismiss are viewpoint and what we know about the Church certainly does not lead to any real "understanding" of what's going on.

[Buzzard]

I guess they are showing respect for the church by leaving it.

Thanks and best of luck. It's better for them and for us.

Well, I would humbly disagree with the bolded part of your statement. They made the covenant of baptism, and now have no claim on it's blessings. I realize most of these people have not been actively living their covenants for some period of time now (Eight years and change for the promoters of this event), but if you are inactive, getting back is as simple as well, coming back to church, maybe having a chat with the bishop about what to do next, etc... But once you have been a member and resigned, the road back is similar to that of an excommunicated member. So, i don't think it's better for them. But I do wish them well on the rest of their life journey. I suspect many will find that leaving the church did not solve all the problems they thought it would solve.

[Deborah]

Do you feel obligated to love those, whom you consider your enemy...even if their behavior is not loving? Do you feel at all obligated to try and understand their complaints?

Loving someone means not reinforcing wrong behavior. It also doesn't mean we have to accept their accusations as true. We can listen to them, privately, but when they make a display like this their behavior is inappropriate and offensive and just trying to justify their own actions.

[CQUIRK]

SS, I'm not going to go into detail, but you have to know that both of those statements in your first sentence are very highly debatable. I will say, about polygamy, that the harm that comes is in not knowing the details and finding out by accident (which is what happened to me...and many others, I know). It breaks a very basic trust and causes all kinds of doubts and wonderings about what else has not been revealed. (That's the short reply).

OH PLEASE! Do you expect the LDS Church to have a spotless,100% perfect history? Every church and religious faiths on the planet have at times, not so fine moments- look at the SBC and their support of slavery and segregation, or the Catholic church and the inquistion and their history of anti-Semetism, etc. The only harm that comes from naively not doing your research and study into your own faith is the harm you bring to your family and others in the church when you decide to make mountains out of molehills and cause strife in your own ward and among others all because you can't take the fact that you didn't know about something that the majority of church members already know about that isn't talked about often, and because your own faith and testimoney, that in reality, has been on shaky ground the whole time, and because you kept your head in the sand the whole time while living your own interpretation of a TBM, instead of doing the heavy, deep research like I did before I converted to the LDS faith, and from both the anti and apologist perspectives as well.

And on the polygamy issue alone- I understand the reasoning behind the way it went down, and was inplemented, and it personally doesn't bug me one bit. What actually does bug me is the ignorant, guilible people of the church whose inflated egos are so massive that once those egos pop, and their view of the church and its history are destoryed all because of one little mild fact that they didn't know about, and suddenly they go to the other extreme, where they try to bash and trash their faith and even their members, whom might be counted among their friends and family, and whom they do what they can to hurt if they don't go along with their consuming petty and spite.

So yes, it does bug people indeed.

And prop 8, not hurting anyone? Wow. (Very short reply )

Yeah, let's also talk about a proposition that would've given even more priviledges then gays and lesbians already enjoy in the state of California and how it got defeated by a democratic vote of the people of California and how the GLT community retaliated by harassing and even threatening LDS Prop 8 supporters involved in the Hollywood community and elsewhere in the field of Arts, even though such people were not even homophobic or intolerant of LGT people- and how such people lost their jobs and careers because of that hate and retaliated leveled at them by the LGT community, and also how my LDS churches were vandalized or burned down and also how the mailrooms of two LDS Temples received letters containing white powder.

Yeah, Prop 8 certainly hurt a lot of people- the ones that get unjustly vilified, that is.

[Calm]

Tells us how you really feel, CQuirk.

[CQUIRK]

I'm not arguing the rightness or wrongness of it, StormRider....just that, regardless of what you or I may think about it, people have as much right to follow their own conscience, in whatever way they feel is appropriate, as you or I do. You may have an opinion about it, but unless you really know each and every person's story, you really don't know their motivation. Why second guess? Why a need to judge it, at all?

When I left the EV faith, did I do a big EV bashing, media-covered protest about it? NO.

In fact, even though I admit I still have some hard feelings and lingering prejudices against the faith & the church I grew up in (Calvary Chapel), I don't dwell on it, and I also don't let such hard feelings consume me, or mold my behavior and friendships that I have with my friends that are evangelical, and/or consider themselves "born-again".

Granted, some of these people that formally were of the LDS faith indeed might have a legit ax to grind against a family member, friend, bishop, or church leader that either made life in the LDS church difficult for them, or ruined their testimoney and personal faith in the LDS church- or both. But that said, this kind of protest is the wrong way to lash out, retaliate, or vent such hurt feelings or personal hatred- this isn't a 'liberating' public event, but rather a vain, petty publicity stunt to spite the LDS church and tarnish its image with the American public, and rather then liberating themselves from the church by doing this, they instead created even more bitter, hard feelings among the faithful Latter Day Saints and especially those that are friends and family to the people that participated in this event with this kind of behavior.

And to think they say that they're afraid of being "ostracised and shunned" by their family and friends in the Church, yet they revel in pulling a publicity stunt like this, especially at a time that the LDS Church is getting a ton of media attention from Mitt Romney's candidacy- this rather smacks of the similar tactics that Ed Decker uses against the LDS Church.

These "protests" would only serve both as a forum for attacking the LDS faith, and as a flashpoint that would only stir up sectarian strife and hostility; it would only add fuel to the fire, not extinguish it.

That's a part of the American way, yes? I think so.

Only since the late 60's, however.

Thanks a lot, baby boomers

[CQUIRK]

Tells us how you really feel, CQuirk.

Yeah, I'm really good at doing that

[bluebell]

Only since the late 60's, however.

Thanks a lot, baby boomers

The historian in me is forcing me to point out that the early 1900s, especially before the start of WWI and after, was very politically active, including protesting.

Just saying....

[Tacenda]

Libs:

No one alive today was harmed by LDS polygamy. No one was harmed by Prop 8.

Really. Where is any harm coming from when we obey our Church rules?

Well down the line polygamy did hurt people. Thousands to be exact who are in the FLDS groups. But you may not worry too much about them since they're not LDS. But there is one who is a member in good standing and that my friend is Elizabeth Smart. That is the fruit of polygamy. It was wrong in the bible and it is wrong in this dispensation. Case closed.

Prop 8, yes it has, the poor people that took their lives because they couldn't imagine living knowing the sin of loving someone of the same sex is so condemned by loved ones and outsiders that they felt a hatred for just being themselves.