165 replies to this topic

[Storm Rider]

Libs, on 30 June 2012 - 11:47 PM, said:

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.

I guess I have a basic issue with drama.  I am not one of those people that feels compelled to march in anyone's parade or for a cause.  The moment that the media is coming in to play I question everyone's agenda and find that none of them are wholly pure.  If you want to go to church, go to church.  If you want to believe in the great spaghetti monster than do so.  If you don't want to believe in anything, then have at it.  Just as I would never conceive of joining a group to protest the construction of a mosque, a cathedral, or a mega-church, I reject all efforts of groups to coerce people of faith to do anything.

I just do not understand the need for attention that so many Americans have today.  There is a certain type of person that is desperate to get that one minute of fame regardless of the reason.  It takes a far more courageous person to choose to act when no one cares, no one is looking, on media attention is given, and no one is announcing to the world their intent to act.  It leaves such a bitter taste in my mouth.  We have so many rebels without a cause; desperate to find an issue, any issue, in an effort to announce to the world they are against something.  If you want to do something then do it; no need to announce that you are going to do it.

[Libs]

I know plenty of LDS who made a very public display of their support of Prop 8, here in CA.  I suppose, according to your reasoning, they should have just stayed at home.  Clearly, from my perspective, they were "rebels without a cause" (or rebels supporting a wrong cause)...but, I certainly support their right to follow their conscience...just as I support these people who want to make a public statement with their resignation from the church.  That has not been my choice, but that is their choice and their decision to do, in whatever way their conscience dictates.

Edited by Libs, 01 July 2012 - 12:59 AM.

[Libs]

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

[Storm Rider]

Libs, on 01 July 2012 - 12:57 AM, said:

I know plenty of LDS who made a very public display of their support of Prop 8, here in CA.  I suppose, according to your reasoning, they should have just stayed at home.  Clearly, from my perspective, they were "rebels without a cause" (or rebels supporting a wrong cause)...but, I certainly support their right to follow their conscience...just as I support these people who want to make a public statement with their resignation from the church.  That has not been my choice, but that is their choice and their decision to do, in whatever way their conscience dictates.

"I" am not one that would do those type of things.

You misunderstand my meaning when I am talking about a rebel without a cause.  I think there are those who seek a cause, any cause, just to be in front of people.  They have no real cause; just anything will do.

There are those with sincere desires to do something; but I am not sure getting a sign, announcing to the world you are going to get a sign, then get a sign, and cause a media sensation is always something that comes from a sincere desire.

Again, I just don't like drama regardless of the issue.  For me, an individual, I don't like it.  I tend to vote with my feet; if I don't like something I leave; I don't announce to the congregation; I don't tell my friends; I don't write letters to the newspaper, I just leave.

[Storm Rider]

Libs, on 01 July 2012 - 01:00 AM, said:

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

No, protests are not an American way.  It has sadly become an thing that segments of our society think is the first course of action.  There is a time and place for all things; it should not be the first course of action.

In this instance, do you really think that people resigning from their membership publically from the Church will achieve anything?  You really think that this will change the minds of the First Presidency?  All they will achieve is harder feelings on both sides.  Or maybe just an increase in apathy, which is far worse.

[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.co...nation.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]

selek1, on 30 June 2012 - 06:30 AM, said:

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

[Kenngo1969]

From the article Deborah links:

Quote

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?

Quote

"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."

Quote

"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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Edited by Kenngo1969, 01 July 2012 - 08:11 AM.

[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]

Libs, on 01 July 2012 - 09:45 AM, said:

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]

Quote

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]

Libs, on 30 June 2012 - 11:47 PM, said:

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]

Quote

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.

jwhitlock, on 01 July 2012 - 01:57 PM, said:

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.

Quote

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?

Quote

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.

Quote

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?

Edited by Libs, 01 July 2012 - 03:24 PM.