The Philosophy Of Leaving The Church Over Historical Issues-Like What Is It?

[mfbukowski]

"Damning intelligent quotes" and "Parvo in the leaves is caught by animals"?

Darn Google translate!

Dude, you're supposed to pretend you knew what it meant without looking it up!

Whas' a mattah you, eh?

Edited January 23, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Here is the bottom line:

The church gives meaning to my life, that it never had before. It presents a unified world view for me combining all I have learned in my life.

Arguing with its history is like saying that we should not believe the earth goes around the sun because Copernicus had personal problems.

With any luck whatsoever, that comment will get me a whole thread in the trailer park

[Jeff K.]

Toronto

Here is why I love what you said, Jeff - I love it because you now have an opportunity to learn from an Apostle. Here's what Elder Jeffrey R. Holland said:

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, Quorum of the Twelve said:

I think you'd be as aware as I am that that we have many people who are members of the church who do not have some burning conviction as to its origins, who have some other feeling about it that is not as committed to foundational statements and the premises of Mormonism. But we're not going to invite somebody out of the church over that any more than we would anything else about degrees of belief or steps of hope or steps of conviction. ... We would say: "This is the way I see it, and this is the faith I have; this is the foundation on which I'm going forward. If I can help you work toward that I'd be glad to, but I don't love you less; I don't distance you more; I don't say you're unacceptable to me as a person or even as a Latter-day Saint if you can't make that step or move to the beat of that drum." ... We really don't want to sound smug. We don't want to seem uncompromising and insensitive.

No lets explore that. No one has said to invite anyone "out of church". You apparently have issues with that since you have invited yourself out and then turn around and negatively attack the church. We understand you here. We don't agree with you, but we understand those on the periphery who are angry that everyone else doesn't feel their disdain. We know you feel joy when someone does, its a part of who you are Toronto. But like so many statements you make, you base them on a false premise and then build your own little universe around them.

Now, have I invited anyone not to come?

No

What I said was....

Now if you are saying, why can't the church have a bureaucracy that simply lets me come in, sit down, get up and leave and doesn't care a wit for my participation. If that is your cup of tea, don't bother us, in fact don't bother the Catholics either, they have enough people like that, they don't need anymore.

We are not a church of empty seats merely waiting for people to fill them. We have callings, we have work to do, it is the Lords work. You asked us, or in the very least queried, why we couldn't be some type of lounge chair church, an hour in and an hour out, with some authority telling "your fine, your ok".

I can see how your retort is quick, you were angry after misconstruing the view of the Catholic church. Presuming theirs is also a "lounge chair" church (it isn't though some members make it out to be).

So unlike you, I have indeed learned from apostles like elder Holland, unlike you, I take to heart what they say. To you elder Holland is merely a tool for another attack. To me what he says is important and bears weight. It is why I understand what he said with greater depth than you do. It isn't about the level of commitment, it is about work. There are tons of people who aren't sure of things. And yet they go out and work, in a sense I see them as valiant because they know what they are doing is good, but aren't sure why, so they keep at it.

What they aren't is the people you want them to be.

There is one point that I think I glossed over, and perhaps you don't understand. Let me be clear...

You stated:

Could a Mormon openly question and openly believe that Joseph was not a prophet, that the Book of Mormon may be scripture but it certainly didn't come from God the way the LDS Church said it does, and that openly disagree with the current prophet? Could a Mormon claim that the Word of Wisdom is not inspired and have a drink now and then, make a modest donation instead of pay 10% tithing, and still decide to attend the temple?

No. President Holland whom you gleefully tossed out as a report would tell you "No". I tell you no, the bishop will tell you no, and the prophet will tell you no.

You do not understand President Holland's talk

Now how do you reconcile Elder Hollands talk with the fact that everyone here knows the answer to your query is a resounding "No". They cannot enter the temple.

[LDSToronto]

Toronto

Now, have I invited anyone not to come?

No

What I said was....

We are not a church of empty seats merely waiting for people to fill them. We have callings, we have work to do, it is the Lords work. You asked us, or in the very least queried, why we couldn't be some type of lounge chair church, an hour in and an hour out, with some authority telling "your fine, your ok".

I love you, Jeff, but this isn't the sentiment Elder Holland is expressing. He said everyone is welcome. Period. No matter what. You can take it up with him. I bet he wouldn't be too happy with you.

H.

[Jeff K.]

I love you, Jeff, but this isn't the sentiment Elder Holland is expressing. He said everyone is welcome. Period. No matter what. You can take it up with him. I bet he wouldn't be too happy with you.

H.

Are you trying to tell me that you did not say this.....

Could a Mormon openly question and openly believe that Joseph was not a prophet, that the Book of Mormon may be scripture but it certainly didn't come from God the way the LDS Church said it does, and that openly disagree with the current prophet? Could a Mormon claim that the Word of Wisdom is not inspired and have a drink now and then, make a modest donation instead of pay 10% tithing, and still decide to attend the temple?

Now in the context of your original question, do you really believe President Holland will welcome the people you framed in your question, into the temple? It is more than a little disengenuous to try to shift gears. Those are your words, not mine.

And again, read his statement more carefully. Especially given the original question,

[You say] there are stark choices in beliefs about the origins of the book. Explain why there's no middle way.

http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html

My answer was contextually correct and reflected Elder Hollands reply. You tried to shift its meaning. Its a typical anti Mormon maneuver.

[LDSToronto]

Not to put too fine a point on it, Jeff, but here's where you said:

...don't bother us, in fact don't bother the Catholics either, they have enough people like that, they don't need anymore.

I'm not sure, was this an invitation to not be a part of the church however I, or anyone else, wants to? Because Elder Holland said:

...we're not going to invite somebody out of the church over that any more than we would anything else about degrees of belief or steps of hope or steps of conviction...We really don't want to sound smug. We don't want to seem uncompromising and insensitive.

H.

[LDSToronto]

Now in the context of your original question, do you really believe President Holland will welcome the people you framed in your question, into the temple? It is more than a little disengenuous to try to shift gears. Those are your words, not mine.

Jeff, that was just a small part of the original question. The context was 'freedom to worship in the LDS church as one sees fit'. Of course I'm not so stupid as to think Elder Holland would give a TR to someone who fails the TR questions.

Come on, man, I have seen you write some brilliant stuff - this is really not up to your usual level of prose.

H.

[LDSToronto]

And Jeff, there may not be a middle way, but Elder Holland doesn't seem to exclude any one following a middle way.

H.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff, that was just a small part of the original question. The context was 'freedom to worship in the LDS church as one sees fit'. Of course I'm not so stupid as to think Elder Holland would give a TR to someone who fails the TR questions.

Come on, man, I have seen you write some brilliant stuff - this is really not up to your usual level of prose.

H.

Ah but you are since it was in your original question. Or rather you may not realize you are since it was in your original question

[Jeff K.]

You anti Mormons always pull the same rabbits out of your hat, you would think it would grow old. Changing context, using only part of a quote. When will it end?

[LDSToronto]

You anti Mormons always pull the same rabbits out of your hat, you would think it would grow old. Changing context, using only part of a quote. When will it end?

The mists of irony are thick in here.

H.

[Jeff K.]

Toronto when a dog barks and wags it tail and licks itself, I won't believe it when it tells me its a cat.

[LDSToronto]

Toronto when a dog barks and wags it tail and licks itself, I won't believe it when it tells me its a cat.

Unless it's a barking cat.

H.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 22 January 2012 - 06:17 PM, said:

Now in the context of your original question, do you really believe President Holland will welcome the people you framed in your question, into the temple? It is more than a little disengenuous to try to shift gears. Those are your words, not mine.

Jeff, that was just a small part of the original question. The context was 'freedom to worship in the LDS church as one sees fit'. Of course I'm not so stupid as to think Elder Holland would give a TR to someone who fails the TR questions.

Come on, man, I have seen you write some brilliant stuff - this is really not up to your usual level of prose.

No, you haven't written much of note, but you have tried to change context. It goes to your credibility.

Using snippets of quotes and then saying you meant something else is incorrect in attempting to win a point of argument.

Lets look at your argument (you see I use the entire quote to maintain context).

LDSToronto, on 22 January 2012 - 11:54 AM, said:

Jeff, (and anyone else)

Do you believe it is encouraged, or even possible, to have a Catholic-like experience of the LDS Church? Here's what I mean. A Catholic is welcome in the Catholic church regardless of their fidelity. Many Catholics openly disagree with the Pope on a number of teachings. Many Catholics vocally lobby for women priests. Many Catholics denounce the history (in fact, the Catholic church acknowledges it's checkered past). Many Catholics have pre-marital sex, live together before marriage, and some are openly gay and married to their same-sex spouse.

And yet, these very people claim to be Catholic and are openly welcome into their congregations without guile, without judgment, without labeling.

So let me ask if the same is true of a Mormon. Could a Mormon openly question and openly believe that Joseph was not a prophet, that the Book of Mormon may be scripture but it certainly didn't come from God the way the LDS Church said it does, and that openly disagree with the current prophet? Could a Mormon claim that the Word of Wisdom is not inspired and have a drink now and then, make a modest donation instead of pay 10% tithing, and still decide to attend the temple?

Imagine a group of these Mormons - not just one, and not necessarily a majority, but a substantially sized group. Would that group be welcome to worship fully, the same way a Catholic can worship fully in their faith?

I think if we are all honest, we will say "Absolutely not". But I suspect some here will rationalize the a current vision of the LDS church that has open arms and welcomes these types of worshippers.

H.

Now, you call it a small part of the question? I would say it is the root of the question. You prefaced the Catholic position (which was erroneous) and then you said "if you were a "Mormon" and in that you included temple worship. Then you stated with great aplomb "worship fully". One is forced to say that you include Temple Worship.

My response was as follows:

You don't know the Catholic church very well.

To begin with, for members who disagree and turn from the Pope and discount the pope, just as those who go to a sacrament meeting, they are welcome. It is hoped they repent of their situation. So to inactive members who come to Sacrament. The difference is that the Catholic church has in place a bureaucracy that does much of what we do in our church as lay members.

Secondly, if you look to the vast majority of Catholics who are ACTIVE in the affairs of the Catholic church, just as we are active, you would see like the Knights of Columbus, they are very strong members who take a much dimmer view of people who speak out against the Pope and its leadership.

Now if you are saying, why can't the church have a bureaucracy that simply lets me come in, sit down, get up and leave and doesn't care a wit for my participation. If that is your cup of tea, don't bother us, in fact don't bother the Catholics either, they have enough people like that, they don't need anymore.

Once your false premise is removed, your point doesn't stand up very well, does it.

My response was on three levels.....

1-It was to show that you aren't very clear in your understanding of the Catholic Church. Sure they go to mass, but for anyone to "do" anything in the Catholic church requires a certain fidelity to doctrine.

2.- The Catholic church has a bureaucracy that does what we do. And we accept anyone in sacrament just as the Catholic Church does.

3-Those in the Catholic Church doing something are active and stronger in their doctrine.

I concluded that showing up and doing nothing is wrong. Even as you advocated it.

There is nothing in there that says one is invited out of the church because they have different opinions. Indeed most of different opinions on many levels. But they all work. That was my point.

Elder Holland does not suggest you leave if you have different opinion, however if as you have stated gay individuals decide to commit adultry, others have open marriages, they by their own actions invite themselves out. They can come to sacrament of course it is open to the public, but temple worship? I once thought no one would be dumb enough to believe that remained open.

[Jeff K.]

The church makes inactive people who don't like our doctrine uncomfortable because we care about our doctrine and we are an active church. Possible why some people choose to leave.

[Pahoran]

Pahoran,

Now that you have finished your rant, would you mind checking out the Pew Memorial Trust surveys that I referenced?

I have. Thank you for asking.

If you do, you will find out that every one of the numbers and statistics that I used in my argument can be substantiated by the data reported from these surveys.

Only the beginning numbers. For instance, Pew reports, and you quoted, "49% say they know 'a great deal' or 'some' about the Mormon religion" (emphasis added.) From that untested self-assessment, you choose to claim, as if it were a conclusion that somehow followed from something, that "one can reasonably assume that 51%, (or most) people in the US would be familiar with the basic Mormon truth claims."

But one cannot "reasonably assume" any such thing, as if all of that 49% had actually seriously studied LDS truth claims from LDS sources.

As I pointed out -- and you deliberately avoided addressing -- people who know nothing at all about the Church of Jesus Christ but what their pastor has told them may well assume that they know everything about it that they need to know, i.e. "a great deal" in their minds. Yet the self-assessment upon which you hang all your vacuous arguments has no control for malicious or lazy misinformation, or uninformed assumption. For example, the very Pew survey upon which you base your smug, self-serving arguments reports that 32% of Americans think "Mormonism" is not a Christian religion. This figure rises to 53% among White EV Protestants, the group most likely to be opinionated enough to imagine themselves as knowing everything there is to know about Mormonism without ever having lowered themselves to opening a Book of Mormon. Yet this is not "knowledge" at all, but a mere opinion; an opinion, furthermore, which is not only unsupportable but which is, by any objective measure, contrary to fact.

As I previously wrote:

"However, absent such study, people may well assume that they know a lot about a subject because they actually know so very little that they have no idea how much there is that they don't know. I bet you can find thousands of Southern Baptists who think they know a lot about Mormonism because their pastor showed them 'The God Makers' twenty years ago."

Does this describe you, Mariner? Are you one of those who know so very little about the subject that you have no idea how much you really don't know? Indeed, given your evident satisfaction with the popularity of the uninformed assumptions of the ignorant majority, why should you bother troubling yourself to actually learn anything?

The fact is that most non-members dismiss the truth claims of Mormonism without ever giving them a serious hearing. No-one has credibly disputed this fact. Those non-members who really know "a great deal" about the Church would at best constitute a tiny subset of those who volunteer themselves as knowing "a great deal" about it; and there is no guarantee at all that any given non-member, however well-informed about the externals, has actually given serious, open-minded consideration to the truth claims of the Church before deciding to reject them.

I know it would be asking for great personal sacrifice on your part, but perhaps you should just admit that you are wrong.

Talk about your miraculous event.

Hey -- prove to me that your darling survey supports the assumptions that you have loaded upon it, and I will. No problem.

Regards,

Pahoran

[selek1]

I once thought no one would be dumb enough to believe that remained open.

There is a difference between "dumb" and "disingenuous".

There is a difference between feigned ignorance and willful misrepresentation in pursuit of an agenda.

For the record, Toronto is not "dumb".

[sjdawg]

And yet many of these people you describe come to church and are welcomed. Imagine that!

and they are talked about in PEC meetings, by home teachers, quorums, and RS leaders. All seeking to change (or improve them). There is no acceptance in the LDS church for a part believer or a social mormon.

[Deborah]

All seeking to change (or improve them). There is no acceptance in the LDS church for a part believer or a social mormon.

So I guess it's a crime to try to help people or improve them. I've sat in on those meetings and the discussions center around how to help them and what they might need. But then the purpose of any religion should be to help people not only with their needs but to become better people. It is in fact accepted that some of these people are just social Mormons or partially active and are they shunned? No. We try to friendship them.

I just wonder why someone who doesn't want others to care about him would go out of his/her way to participate.

[Jeff K.]

and they are talked about in PEC meetings, by home teachers, quorums, and RS leaders. All seeking to change (or improve them). There is no acceptance in the LDS church for a part believer or a social mormon.

I would change that to "those who do not wish to change or seek to be closer to God will probably never understand sufieintly to feel accepted." They will be welcome to sacrament meetings and other meetings where we all change and seek to make ourselves better. Those who believe they do not need that path, that they have progressed to the level they are most comfortable with, will probably never be up to the responsibility so many members recieve in their callings.

So the question is a type of stasis in progression (accept me as I am, I need not change) versus progression. I believe Christ would have wanted people to change for the better, and that is also why PEC, hometeaching and so many other organizations exist, they help us draw closer to Christ, and as such, it requires change.

[Bob Crockett]

Unless it's a barking cat.

H.

Isn't your avatar just to provoke the Mormons here? A child molester? Really, now.

[sjdawg]

So I guess it's a crime to try to help people or improve them. I've sat in on those meetings and the discussions center around how to help them and what they might need. But then the purpose of any religion should be to help people not only with their needs but to become better people. It is in fact accepted that some of these people are just social Mormons or partially active and are they shunned? No. We try to friendship them.

I just wonder why someone who doesn't want others to care about him would go out of his/her way to participate.

The problem with the meetings is that they don't address whether people are happy in their current state or even want to to change. The leadership assumes that they know more about what these families need than the families themselves know.

Is it a crime to want to "improve" someone. No? but it can make Church a very uncomfortable place for those focus families. As an example. We had a family in our ward who most considered semi-active. The reason? They had children with extremely high level athletic ability in gymnastics. Practice was several nights a week and that made it impossible for their boys to attend weekly activities at the Church. I sat in many, many PEC meetings where leadership worked on plans to get these kids to activities. They were told that what their family chose to focus on was less important than whatever the weekly activity was. The Ward Leadership had no respect at all for the deliberate decisions made by this family.

In the end I think they just found it easier to start avoiding members fo the ward. I understand that this is just one experience in one ward but my observation is that this is not that uncommon. You are either 100% in the Church or you are a project. There isn't any middle ground.

But enough about that. It has nothing to do with the OP.

Edited January 23, 2012 by sjdawg

[Deborah]

They were told that what their family chose to focus on was less important than whatever the weekly activity was. The Ward Leadership had no respect at all for the deliberate decisions made by this family.

Well, in God's eyes it probably was less important. People are free to do what they want but in a church where ecclesiastical leaders feel a responsibility for the spiritual well-being of their flock it's kind of hard not to try to get people on the right track as far as what priorities should be. If people are going to get offended at this maybe they should re-evaluate the choices they are making and ask if that is what God really wants. If they still feel they need to continue on the path they are on why get offended but just tell the bishop this is the direction God wants us to go now. Unless it is of course not God telling them that but their own egos.

[Pahoran]

Isn't your avatar just to provoke the Mormons here? A child molester? Really, now.

I don't think he chose it just to provoke Mormons here. I think he chose it to show where his real loyalties lie.

Harvey Milk is sometimes lionised as a "martyr" for "gay rights" causes. He was nothing of the sort, having been murdered by a disappointed political colleague. But on the subject of the OP, Toronto's case seems to be instructive; first he decided that he didn't like the Church's stand on a moral issue, namely same sex "marriage," and then he found all sorts of other faults with it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Nomad]

LDSToronto:

Not to put too fine a point on it, Jeff, but here's where you said:

JeffK said:

...don't bother us, in fact don't bother the Catholics either, they have enough people like that, they don't need anymore.

I'm not sure, was this an invitation to not be a part of the church however I, or anyone else, wants to? Because Elder Holland said:

Elder Holland said:

...we're not going to invite somebody out of the church over that any more than we would anything else about degrees of belief or steps of hope or steps of conviction...We really don't want to sound smug. We don't want to seem uncompromising and insensitive.

H.

I'm fairly certain that Elder Holland didn't have sneaky apostates in mind when he said that. When it comes to those types, I'm sure he agrees with Alma in the Book of Mormon:

Alma 5:59-60

59 For what shepherd is there among you having many sheep doth not watch over them, that the wolves enter not and devour his flock? And behold, if a wolf enter his flock doth he not drive him out? Yea, and at the last, if he can, he will destroy him.

60 And now I say unto you that the good shepherd doth call after you; and if you will hearken unto his voice he will bring you into his fold, and ye are his sheep; and he commandeth you that ye suffer no ravenous wolf to enter among you, that ye may not be destroyed.