My Wife's Encounter with some Lovely Ex-Mormons

[LDSMusic483]

Given the post they seem rather obvious. Perhaps it was the charge that no one wanted to be in the ward that made me wonder how they could possibly judge so many people that way?

I suppose the amount of time one is a member hear automatically imbues someone with wisdom that someone who isn't a member here has? Or do you perhaps take into account I might have been reading this website for some time before I joined? But I do appreciate the irony of your judgement regarding mine.

And yet I have gotten emails stating I was correct in the assumption. So one is forced to ask, what is your point? I am well enough acquainted with church history that it would be easy for me to toss the same "shocking" revelations to class of people. But I don't like the the "sage on the stage". Sunday school isn't showtime. There are people, many people that need to understand concepts, not simply be shocked about "something new".

I am sure one can shock a primary class and tell them all about polygamy and dannites. But is it appropriate, unless of course you really want to make yourself somehow "noteworthy".

Actually I look for the best motives, but do not ignore it when the best motives are eliminated. I also look to past experience. While I appreciate your attempted turn at "pathos", I find that usually I hit the mark on a number of issues and quite clearly too. And yes from the experience Cons shared, with the proviso he stated that the she believes the church is true, tied to what seems to be the catalyst of being with non members (apparently significant or he wouldn't add it) it appears as if he is toying. Playing the emotional card if you will. In simpler terms that you might relate to its "I am really really smart, my wife hates going to the church she believes in because it is.... boring? What other word would you place? Tedious perhaps? Of course then judging the entire ward in the light that "no one wants to be there".

One wonders, what would it sound like if we replaced temple with ward?

Then you have my pity. Not because the ward is "bad", but because you are unable to see the good in it. What you illustrate is the difficulty you have, not the wards. I would suggest in the future you be of service in anyway possible, then you find the good.

OK, he is an "exceptional" cheerleader. Even a cheer captain, a true leader in a cheerocracy even. Is that better. Tell me, what insight did mudcat give in his post to me when he cheered along? Is that not a cheerleade? If a pole were taken from this site, it would be wrong, after all Poles have the right to post, being partially of Polish ancestry that would bother me. Polls on the other hand are reflections of feelings and not necessarily reflections of truth. When we raise our hand to support the brethern are we being polled or simply acknowledging the truth - that might make a good post, feel free to use it.

I do not think my statements are far off, nor apparently does Consiglieri. Who am I to deny him his own insight into the questions. Who are you to deny him the same? Perhaps you are simply being foolish?

If I might reference mudcat. But you do care, otherwise why post?

But I shall return the favor. You are invited to recuse yourself until you do care, or until medication kicks in, whichever you feel most appropriate.

I had taken the time to prepare a nice long response to every point you made in your post Jeff, and then my computer succumbed to an issue it has been having recently of randomly shutting itself off (while plugged in and with 100% battery). I'm not going to take the time to do the same now. Quite frankly, you claim to have an understanding of individuals personalities, and you normally are wrong. On this thread alone you have belittled Consiglieri, his wife, Tarski, Emeliza, John W, Mudcat, and LDSMusic483 (myself). Myself, Alf O'Mega, and Somebodyz have all felt the need to ask you to remove yourself from this thread, and now an individual who is personally acquainted with Consiglieri and his family said that he was "surprised at the generalizations" and that they are also "pointed, unfair, and caustic."

You assume to yourself a role of superiority when it comes to judging individuals words and intents, yet your arrogance belies your assumed higher understanding and wisdom. Understand this, you have mischaracterized Consiglieri's words, his wifes words, my words and claimed that all who have disagreed with you are wrong while you alone are right. You do not have the right attitude to address those who are exposing some of their trials on this thread, unlike many others who have done so admirably. I will echo the request again. Please leave this thread.

[beastie]

I think that you know perfectly well what I am talking about. The lds church requires all members to do their part. True, there are church bums like me but when one is active, one is active by doing the work involved to keep the ward or branch afloat. A ward of back benchers would mean the ward faltering and falling apart.

I think, in general, a higher percentage of LDS are extremely busy with church work than other faiths. However, in every congregation I've known, there were always a few stalwarts who did a tremendous amount of work to keep their congregation going, not to mention sects like JWs which are probably even more demanding than LDS. Or do LDS now have a five hour tracting requirement, too?

So I guess you're still not active.

[LDSMusic483]

Just because the jobs they do at their church have different names doesn't mean that they aren't demanding and occupying. Of course, I'm referring to the most active of the congregations. There are many members who don't do anything other than attend on sunday - but there are LDS who are the same way. Of course the most demanding job - the equivalent of a bishop - is a paid, full-time position in many faiths (not all - and I say it ought to be, rather than create stress for the family by having the father work full time AND have a second full time job at church), but most of the rest of the work is done by unpaid, volunteer believers.

I find it remarkable you feel as if you're enough of an authority on the religious demands of other faiths that you feel able to make such categorical statements. IIRC, Jehovah Witnesses are supposed to tract 5 hours a week for the rest of their lives. Do most LDS do that?

And many LDS dedicate two straight years of their lives tracting (away from their families). From here they have monthly opportunities to home teach, to be home taught, to teach or lead in some aspect on sundays, go to the temple, along with many other activities that arise. If you want to look at the shining examples from all organizations in service, then I do not believe you will find them comparable at all. That does not diminish anything that others from other religions do (they do much good in the way they believe is correct). But we have gotten off track from the point of this thread.

[Honorentheos]

Perhaps their blind spot is caused by a mote in the eye.

It might be.

...

It would have to be a pretty big mote to have so many "bad" members in it.

[LDSMusic483]

Funny as you find the comment, no one ever said that there were "bad" members.

[Honorentheos]

Funny as you find the comment, no one ever said that there were "bad" members.

OK. ???

The comment by Jeff is hilarious because of what he missed in sleeper cells post that played so perfectly into the point being made.

No one should have to spell this out. Just fill in the missing part of the scripture that SC quoted and..presto! Instant funny!

[LDSMusic483]

OK. ???

The comment by Jeff is hilarious because of what he missed in sleeper cells post that played so perfectly into the point being made.

No one should have to spell this out. Just fill in the missing part of the scripture that SC quoted and..presto! Instant funny!

Ah...I misunderstood your intent, my apologies.

[Honorentheos]

No problem.

Seriously, though, to have used the phrase, "a pretty big mote" and completely miss the point? I don't know. I have a quirky sense of humor I guess.

[Jeff K.]

I don't think either of you two get it. Consigileri's wife says that no one wants to go to church, so they in effect judged all these members as bad, meaning they don't want to go to church and they certainly aren't entertaining enough to go.... Very bad members indeed!

I missed nothing, but wanted to make sleeper cell aware of the the route he was taking and wondering if he judged accordingly and consistently.

It appears the humor is on the more shallow level of understanding in regard to what is being discussed.

QUOTE(Honorentheos @ Apr 4 2009, 01:45 PM)

Funny as you find the comment, no one ever said that there were "bad" members

.

Remember, only good cheerleaders allowed.

[Honorentheos]

Jeff,

For one who is so well versed in the art of all things LDS, perhaps you could just humor me enough to show that you know where the quote from sleeper cell came from, what the full context of it is, and what it is really about?

And then get over yourself enough to realize SC was applying the mote to your observations of Mrs. Consig, leaving some fool to come along and claim the beam.

So, Congratulations!

[Lise]

And if I haven't made it clear enough yet, although my wife doesn't really like a lot of people (even me most of the time),

Is she an introvert? Introverts feel drained after interaction with people, especially large groups (where extroverts feel charged).

The world at large, and the average LDS ward in particular, favors the extrovert.

My husband and I are both introverts. He handles church by taking frequent breaks to "check on the kids" or whatever. I handle it either by sitting alone in a back corner, or by sitting next to one person I know well.

I used to dread church, but something changed recently. I'm not sure why. I began to realize the difference in the rest of my week the Sundays I failed to attend compared to the weeks I did attend.

I usually can find a thought or two in one of the talks, or hymns, or lessons that I can ponder and enjoy as I mentally slip off into my own little world.

[Jeff K.]

I had taken the time to prepare a nice long response to every point you made in your post Jeff, and then my computer succumbed to an issue it has been having recently of randomly shutting itself off (while plugged in and with 100% battery). I'm not going to take the time to do the same now. Quite frankly, you claim to have an understanding of individuals personalities, and you normally are wrong. On this thread alone you have belittled Consiglieri, his wife, Tarski, Emeliza, John W, Mudcat, and LDSMusic483 (myself). Myself, Alf O'Mega, and Somebodyz have all felt the need to ask you to remove yourself from this thread, and now an individual who is personally acquainted with Consiglieri and his family said that he was "surprised at the generalizations" and that they are also "pointed, unfair, and caustic."You assume to yourself a role of superiority when it comes to judging individuals words and intents, yet your arrogance belies your assumed higher understanding and wisdom. Understand this, you have mischaracterized Consiglieri's words, his wifes words, my words and claimed that all who have disagreed with you are wrong while you alone are right. You do not have the right attitude to address those who are exposing some of their trials on this thread, unlike many others who have done so admirably. I will echo the request again. Please leave this thread.

I make no assumptions, nor do I "claim" understanding. I am presenting what I observe and it isn't necessarily posiibe. The rest of your post is more or less a somewhat emotional diatribe without any real depth. I don't see my observations as unfair. I do just see a popularity contest and I accidently stepped on the football players foot in the cafeteria. A magnificent faux pas on par with high school politics.I suppose I could say "grow up" but really, am I not wasting internet space doing so? Whoops too late. :)Now if you and the squad have finished the cheer routine, do you have something to offer in the idea game? In other words, what alternative do you consider if it isn't a need for entertainment in regard to her feelings.

Jeff,For one who is so well versed in the art of all things LDS, perhaps you could just humor me enough to show that you know where the quote from sleeper cell came from, what the full context of it is, and what it is really about?And then get over yourself enough to realize SC was applying the mote to your observations of Mrs. Consig, leaving some fool to come along and claim the beam.So, Congratulations!

CHuckle, you got me by the leotards there young man.

My apologies.

[LDSMusic483]

I don't think either of you two get it. Consigileri's wife says that no one wants to go to church, so they in effect judged all these members as bad, meaning they don't want to go to church and they certainly aren't entertaining enough to go.... Very bad members indeed!

I missed nothing, but wanted to make sleeper cell aware of the the route he was taking and wondering if he judged accordingly and consistently.

It appears the humor is on the more shallow level of understanding in regard to what is being discussed.

.

Remember, only good cheerleaders allowed.

Consiglieri's wife never said no one wants to go to church. CFR or recant. She said no one seemed happy. You are putting your own discription on intents and purposes of someone else. You are the one who even introduced the idea that she wasn't entertained. You said if she felt this way she needed to serve more and whatnot, you completely ignored Consigs description of his wife which any logical individual would realize is a description that in no way can describe a selfish individual who expects others to entertain her. Your premise is ridiculous.

Remember, good cheerleaders are allowed on the field while bad players are cut before the season starts.

[Jeff K.]

Consiglieri's wife never said no one wants to go to church. CFR or recant. She said no one seemed happy. You are putting your own discription on intents and purposes of someone else. You are the one who even introduced the idea that she wasn't entertained. You said if she felt this way she needed to serve more and whatnot, you completely ignored Consigs description of his wife which any logical individual would realize is a description that in no way can describe a selfish individual who expects others to entertain her. Your premise is ridiculous.

Remember, good cheerleaders are allowed on the field while bad players are cut before the season starts.

Already did.

No one is happy in church, what does that mean to you? No one seems happy in the temple?

Do you want to go where you aren't happy? Hmmm, maybe you do. I certainly don't. My premise is pretty good, your view that we should go where we aren't happy, well, thats somewhat strange.

[Tchild2]

I do just see a popularity contest and I accidently stepped on the football players foot in the cafeteria.

Please, Consig isn't that cool. No, it would be more like stepping on the somewhat popular debating, or chess, or band player's foot in the cafeteria.

[Jeff K.]

As captain of the chess team, debate team and basketball team, I resent, resemble and recant my remark.

To the remainder I post freely and honestly, if you don't like it, that is something you will have to get over......

[Jeff K.]

Remember, good cheerleaders are allowed on the field while bad players are cut before the season starts.

Well played.

[Honorentheos]

CHuckle, you got me by the leotards there young man.

My apologies.

Accepted, not without a little surprise to be honest.

...In other words, what alternative do you consider if it isn't a need for entertainment in regard to her feelings.

Honestly, I am sympathetic to her feelings, but in a general way since I do not know her. From Consig's post, she seems like a she is sincere with this issue and not "looking for an excuse" since she has come back to activity in order to help her daughter with something that she (her daughter) was struggling with.

And that is something to think about, regardless of what one may attribute to her motivations or reasons for not enjoying church.

Dr. Steuss had a very good post back a page or two that I think could apply to just about anyone in any social structure. And that does not invalidate it at all, but only makes it more to the point - the social structure has to fill one of our basic needs to be seen as worth while by the individual. Think Maslow here. Maslow's Hierarchy of needs

Obviously the role of "church" (as in "church - the vehicle to come unto Christ" and "church - the body of saints that includes her ward") is creating a conflict. How or why is really not within the purview of an internet board to figure out.

I could project myself onto it and say, "The church isn't true" and offer suggestions based on this. Just like others here are projecting themselves and their need to go with "The church IS true" and offer suggestions based on this, some of which are less than helpful.

From the outside looking in, all I can suggest is that this quote from Shakespeare has been useful, if not easy to truly actualize, in situations between need conflicts and am in a situation where I need to sort the vague feelings about things out into real, honest statements on which I can choose to act:

"This above all - To thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man."

[LDSMusic483]

Already did.

No one is happy in church, what does that mean to you? No one seems happy in the temple?

Do you want to go where you aren't happy? Hmmm, maybe you do. I certainly don't. My premise is pretty good, your view that we should go where we aren't happy, well, thats somewhat strange.

First of all, she mentioned it as her perception, not necessarily a reality. And no, I consider attendance in the ward as a different dynamic than that of the temple. And no, I do not want to necessarily go where I may not always be thrilled to be. But regardless of that, I want to go because it is necessary to do so.

You think Consigs wife wants entertainment? The big "wow" factor happening all the time? I highly doubt that. I don't know her, so I am not in a position to say what it IS she is looking for. I much find the same issues in my classes after sacrament meeting. This past Sunday in sunday school, we had our lesson on the gathering of the saints, etc. As I studied the lesson topics, I was greatly impressed upon by the foreshadowing of temple aspects, and the purpose of the gathering as it related to the higher ordinances. I was looking forward to our class because I was hoping for great dialogue and understanding. My hopes were increased because the teacher was a former member of the Stake Presidency. Throughout the lesson, the points on the gathering continues, but not to Utah, but rather to every individual Stake was hammered upon while the teacher kept on mentioning how we would get to how it applies to the temple. After the entire lesson of hearing about how the gathering is no longer to a central place, the only attention given to the temple was "and the Lord gathers His people so they can build temples and receive the blessings thereof." I was extremely disappointed because of everything doctrinal from straight out of the scriptures and assigned readings that were not even discussed. I had thought of some things that I would want to share with the class beforehand but wanted to wait for the teacher to broach the topic so I didn't cause his lesson to be moved at a quicker pace than he was expecting. Unfortunately we were left with no time to broach much of the topic at all. Couple this with having to go to Priesthood week after week where about 9 times out of 10, the teacher either has us read directly from the manual or from whatever talk they are assigned by the Quorum Presidency.

The issue comes down to that so many times (and this is what I have seen and what causes me such frustration with the latter two classes and many of the speakers in Sacrament meeting) those who are in charge of teaching look no further than the facts of the scriptures or history when so much more can be done to show how those events affect and apply to us today. I mentioned to my dad (and he agreed) how disappointed I was with the lesson on Joseph Smiths first vision and getting the plates. If I had wanted to read directly from Joseph Smith History, then I would have. But nothing was touched upon further than that. What of his families insights? The manner of how the scriptures were translated? There was so much more that could have been done with that, but it was left at about the same level of that of primary without any insight.

Do I look for entertainment? No. But I hope for some depth to help increase my testimony. That is the point of Sunday School, and I think so much is left untouched that would greatly benefit the testimonies of members.

[Jeff K.]

[Jeff K.]

Accepted, not without a little surprise to be honest.

Honestly, I am sympathetic to her feelings, but in a general way since I do not know her. From Consig's post, she seems like a she is sincere with this issue and not "looking for an excuse" since she has come back to activity in order to help her daughter with something that she (her daughter) was struggling with.

And that is something to think about, regardless of what one may attribute to her motivations or reasons for not enjoying church.

Dr. Steuss had a very good post back a page or two that I think could apply to just about anyone in any social structure. And that does not invalidate it at all, but only makes it more to the point - the social structure has to fill one of our basic needs to be seen as worth while by the individual. Think Maslow here. Maslow's Hierarchy of needs

Obviously the role of "church" (as in "church - the vehicle to come unto Christ" and "church - the body of saints that includes her ward") is creating a conflict. How or why is really not within the purview of an internet board to figure out.

I could project myself onto it and say, "The church isn't true" and offer suggestions based on this. Just like others here are projecting themselves and their need to go with "The church IS true" and offer suggestions based on this, some of which are less than helpful.

From the outside looking in, all I can suggest is that this quote from Shakespeare has been useful, if not easy to truly actualize, in situations between need conflicts and am in a situation where I need to sort the vague feelings about things out into real, honest statements on which I can choose to act:

"This above all - To thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man."

That may be. I have gone through an inactive period and gotten over it when I slowly realized that I needed to become active and do something that cared for others than focus on my own heirarchy of needs. I found that did more for my testimony than any number of intellectual exercises (which is entertainment), but in the end it was about entertainment and not being focused on what salvation is about, including the church attendance and my help to make that ward a better place.

I don't here any of that in the description.

[Jeff K.]

First of all, she mentioned it as her perception, not necessarily a reality. And no, I consider attendance in the ward as a different dynamic than that of the temple. And no, I do not want to necessarily go where I may not always be thrilled to be. But regardless of that, I want to go because it is necessary to do so.

You think Consigs wife wants entertainment? The big "wow" factor happening all the time? I highly doubt that. I don't know her, so I am not in a position to say what it IS she is looking for. I much find the same issues in my classes after sacrament meeting. This past Sunday in sunday school, we had our lesson on the gathering of the saints, etc. As I studied the lesson topics, I was greatly impressed upon by the foreshadowing of temple aspects, and the purpose of the gathering as it related to the higher ordinances. I was looking forward to our class because I was hoping for great dialogue and understanding. My hopes were increased because the teacher was a former member of the Stake Presidency. Throughout the lesson, the points on the gathering continues, but not to Utah, but rather to every individual Stake was hammered upon while the teacher kept on mentioning how we would get to how it applies to the temple. After the entire lesson of hearing about how the gathering is no longer to a central place, the only attention given to the temple was "and the Lord gathers His people so they can build temples and receive the blessings thereof." I was extremely disappointed because of everything doctrinal from straight out of the scriptures and assigned readings that were not even discussed. I had thought of some things that I would want to share with the class beforehand but wanted to wait for the teacher to broach the topic so I didn't cause his lesson to be moved at a quicker pace than he was expecting. Unfortunately we were left with no time to broach much of the topic at all. Couple this with having to go to Priesthood week after week where about 9 times out of 10, the teacher either has us read directly from the manual or from whatever talk they are assigned by the Quorum Presidency.

The issue comes down to that so many times (and this is what I have seen and what causes me such frustration with the latter two classes and many of the speakers in Sacrament meeting) those who are in charge of teaching look no further than the facts of the scriptures or history when so much more can be done to show how those events affect and apply to us today. I mentioned to my dad (and he agreed) how disappointed I was with the lesson on Joseph Smiths first vision and getting the plates. If I had wanted to read directly from Joseph Smith History, then I would have. But nothing was touched upon further than that. What of his families insights? The manner of how the scriptures were translated? There was so much more that could have been done with that, but it was left at about the same level of that of primary without any insight.

Do I look for entertainment? No. But I hope for some depth to help increase my testimony. That is the point of Sunday School, and I think so much is left untouched that would greatly benefit the testimonies of members.

I am sorry you couldn't see further. Usually in a Sunday School lesson I look for things that apply rather than expect things that apply to be given to me. That is your responsibility. If you take that tact, the very mentioning of a scripture and nothing more can have dramatic implications.

There are people who say the Conference talks are boring. Its because they don't "know" what they are supposed to be doing when they listen to a prophet or disciples or apostles. In the same token, they would probably find Christ boring because he seems to stick to a very narrow criteria.

You make the class better by being a better participant.

[LDSMusic483]

That may be. I have gone through an inactive period and gotten over it when I slowly realized that I needed to become active and do something that cared for others than focus on my own heirarchy of needs. I found that did more for my testimony than any number of intellectual exercises (which is entertainment), but in the end it was about entertainment and not being focused on what salvation is about, including the church attendance and my help to make that ward a better place.

I don't here any of that in the description.

Classes are meant to instruct and cause growth and enlightenment. I am interested in knowing what you consider your Sunday School class if not an intellectual exercise? Action should proceed from the instruction, but it comes after the instruction.

I don't understand why you continually peg Consig's wife as someone who doesn't want to serve, help, or do anything to better the ward, but seeks only for her enjoyment to be raised. This is how Consig described her after one of your statements:

"My wife...is a kind and sensitive soul, generous to a fault, and the kind of person that folks feel lucky to have as a friend."

Do you not see the disconnect between the picture the two of you are painting?

[LDSMusic483]

I am sorry you couldn't see further. Usually in a Sunday School lesson I look for things that apply rather than expect things that apply to be given to me. That is your responsibility. If you take that tact, the very mentioning of a scripture and nothing more can have dramatic implications.

There are people who say the Conference talks are boring. Its because they don't "know" what they are supposed to be doing when they listen to a prophet or disciples or apostles. In the same token, they would probably find Christ boring because he seems to stick to a very narrow criteria.

You make the class better by being a better participant.

And so you think I would be a better participant by raising my hand and saying "I know you said we would get to this, and I also know you are teaching about something else right now, but I'm going to skip ahead anyway and get to a different part of the lesson, ok?"

Sorry, but I do not presume that much of myself to take the lesson from the teachers hands. Participate, of course (and I did participate), but I'm not going to try to change the emphasis for the teacher especially when they have already said once they'll get to it.

[Jeff K.]

I presume nothing. I simply note the responsibilities of those in Sunday School who teach, as well as who participate.

If you don't think such a responsibility exists, please feel free to explain what responsibility a person in Sunday School holds.