Dehlin'S Methodology?

[ERayR]

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Another example of why MS is needed.

You have no idea what I know. Another example of self diagnosed omnipotence.

[mrmandias]

I can understand why this event would be seen as offensive. However, I read your post as saying that the act of resigning is a demonstration of contempt for your spouse. Is that what you meant? If so, why? If your spouse resigned, do you think that would really be because he/she held such contempt for you?

Going about it like that would be an expression of contempt, imho.

[ERayR]

The threat is not from the Church, it is from the families. I have personnal met people who have lost their jobs, lost business partners, lost their families, lost custody of their children, been divorced, written out of wills, had the neighborhood children forbidden from playing with their children, shunned and generally socially abused over the decision. It is not trival and not to be taken lightly.

I have no doubt it happens. It happens in all religions and even over issues that are not religious. On the other side I have personally known people who have become disaffected with the church who become insensitive, thoughtless and rude toward family and friends (and possibly business acquaintances) in their zeal to disillusion them also. The do this to the point of being uncomfortable to be around because they will not leave you alone with their new found wisdom. In such cases it is very difficult to continue with any kind of cordial relationship.

[mrmandias]

It was a state park. You inadvertantly point to the root of the problem. The Church thinks everything is there. We specifically and purposefully avoided any Chruch property. The site is maintained with my tax dollars and we had pulled permits. My co-existing, even in a state of difference does not signal contempt. When the Church sees that difference of opinion is not the same as hostility, we will all be better equipt to get along.

There are many national, state and local parks, most of which have no particular Mormon significance. Making a spectacle of one's contempt for Mormons by publicly proclaiming their faith to be tyrannical and abusive is not an attempt at peaceful coexistence and certainly isn't an effort to make ex-Mormons have better relations with their Mormon friends and neighbors. If this is the level of thought one finds in apostate circles, I will pass.

[ERayR]

I have no solution and apparently the church doesn't either. Perhaps that is why MS is needed?

Do you have a solution?

Compassion and love go a long way. Where is the church program to help those who struggle with faith? There isn't one.

Thank God for John dehlin.

Faith is a personal thing and the solution must be personal. I have stated it before, and caught considerable flak , that we choose to believe or not to believe. Each person has their own reasons for making the choice but we each choose. As Joshua said: "Choose ye this day whom ye will serve..."

[wenglund]

Thanks for elaborating! I definitly agree that we are personally responsible for our choices and dispositions. Also, I agree that making the right choices leads to happiness. I wonder if right-side-up and up-side-down are really just matters of perspective though. My experience is that I am happiest when I thoughtfully evaluate what is right-side up for me, and then act accordingly -- even if others, or the church tell me that my view is upside-down. It seems like a lot of the differences of opinion here stem from insisting that there is a 'universal right'.

Yes, to a great extent it is a matter of perspective. And, that is okay. My intent here isn't to insist upon or deny a "universal right" or even general rules--after all, I am fond of saying, "to each their own."

Instead, I am using "rightside-up" and "upside-down" as a rhetorical devise to convey my perspective and to stimulate thought and discussion, not with the intent to dismiss opposing views out of hand, but rather as a way of sharing what I and others have found to be workable strategies (as a general rule for most people), and this in the hopes of individual and collective progress.

For me, it isn't about posturing or positioning (though I can understand that it may come across that way), but mutual edification.

If you have found things different from me that work better for you, then that is great. I, personally, may benefit from you sharing your strategies with me, as I hope you may benefit from me sharing mine with you.

More to the point, though, my interest is focusing where there may be a greater need. I am not so concerned with former members who have moved on and are at peace and content and happy with their new-found spiritual paths, but with those who are struggling, agitated, angry, embittered, sad, grieving, dysfunctional, etc. I am concerned with people whose current life and spiritual strategies aren't working very well for them, and to offer them a plausible alternative, a different way of looking at the gospel that may work for them as it has for me. No harm there.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[ERayR]

I sent you another one. Check and see if it went through.

BTW - I do appreciate and respect you...I was pissed at how I was treated here...because the faithful didn't know "which side I was on"....it was inexcusable. They treated me like crap...and that just proved my point about the need for MS.

..I'm on no side BTW...but I appreciate you going to MD and "inviting" me back. And I'm guessing you've had some private words with some of the regulars here. Maybe. Maybe notn

Anyway...check your messages.

I am sorry you felt you were badly treated but when you come to a board like this and put forth your ideas you can expect them to be challenged. I did not see any personal mistreatment. I saw challenges to your ideas that you took personally.

Well, glad you stayed anyway.

[Bit]

It was a state park.

Right. It had no meaning whatsoever to the Latter-day Saints. The rally was merely a difference of opinion.

Carrying U.S. flags and signs boasting "Finally ExMormon," "Research the church" and "Transcend Mormonism," a crowd hiked Ensign Peak on Saturday and chanted "freedom" to the valley below.[/quote']

"Freedom" from what, I wonder. Freedom from those who hold a mere "difference of opinion?"

[ERayR]

Absolutely.

Don't condemn me because you sin differently than I do.

"Stop it."

Then quit trying to get me to say your sin is OK

[wenglund]

It was a state park. You inadvertantly point to the root of the problem. The Church thinks everything is there. We specifically and purposefully avoided any Chruch property. The site is maintained with my tax dollars and we had pulled permits. My co-existing, even in a state of difference does not signal contempt. When the Church sees that difference of opinion is not the same as hostility, we will all be better equipt to get along.

I think your are straining at the gnat and missing the bigger point. The mere difference of opinion isn't interpreted as hostility, though very public and publicized acts of intentional defiance can reasonably be--not that we as a church should necessarily be all that bothered by your relatively benign, quasi-religious group declarations of un-belief.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[John Larsen]

Right. It had no meaning whatsoever to the Latter-day Saints. The rally was merely a difference of opinion.

"Freedom" from what, I wonder. Freedom from those who hold a mere "difference of opinion?"

Indviduals created there own signs. You would have to ask those. For me the rally was about reducing the overall stigma about coming out by having more people come out. The freedom message doesn't resignate with me.

[John Larsen]

I think your are straining at the gnat and missing the bigger point. The mere difference of opinion isn't interpreted as hostility, though very public and publicized acts of intentional defiance can reasonably be--not that we as a church should necessarily be all that bothered by your relatively benign, quasi-religious group declarations of un-belief.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't see difference of opinion as hostility. I see hostility as hostility. We can discuss the causes of the hostility--which, of course, is present on both sides.

I coundn't care less what the Church thinks. My audience is a different set of folks.

Quasi-religious? Maybe. It always facinates me that religous people consider the label of "religous" to be an insult.

Edited July 3, 2012 by John Larsen

[Bit]

Indviduals created there own signs. You would have to ask those. For me the rally was about reducing the overall stigma about coming out by having more people come out. The freedom message doesn't resignate with me.

The organizer of the event purposely held the event at a site which holds deep meaning to the Latter-day Saints. Yes, it's a state park. There are many state parks. Why this one?

The organizer of the event implicitly encouraged individual behavior which is blatantly hostile (signs, etc.). The event itself, therefore, was hostile and actually quite childish, if you want my opinion.

[John Larsen]

The organizer of the event purposely held the event at a site which holds deep meaning to the Latter-day Saints. Yes, it's a state park. There are many state parks. Why this one?

The organizer of the event implicitly encouraged individual behavior which is blatantly hostile (signs, etc.). The event itself, therefore, was hostile and actually quite childish, if you want my opinion.

According to the plaques on the site, the site also held meaning to the Piutes. Was it an blantant act of hostilty for BY to declare the valley in the name of the Mormons when it was already claimed?

I think it would be hard to find a spot that doesn't have some significance to the Church. I think your post speaks to one of our points. Our very existence and our state of being--rejecting the Church--is seen as an act of hostility.

[wenglund]

I don't see difference of opinion as hostility. I see hostility as hostility. We can discuss the causes of the hostility--which, of course, is present on both sides.

I coundn't care less what the Church thinks. My audience is a different set of folks.

I am afraid you aren't following the line of discussion very well. I was responding to this statement from you: "When the Church sees that difference of opinion is not the same as hostility, we will all be better equipt to get along."

You obviously care enough about what the Church thinks to not only conflate what the Church may view as hostile, but also to put the onus on those allegedly in the Church who viewed your very public, intentionally publicized, act of defiance against the Church, as hostile.

Actually, if you thought reasonably about it, you would be better equipped to get along if you weren't so quick to divest yourself of personal responsibility and were you to refrain from doing those things that are at high risk of thwarting getting along.

Quasi-religious? Maybe. It always facinates me that religous people consider the label of "religous" to be an insult.

I don't. In fact I think it quite odd that you would think I would think it insulting.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bit]

According to the plaques on the site, the site also held meaning to the Piutes. Was it an blantant act of hostilty for BY to declare the valley in the name of the Mormons when it was already claimed?

Did the Latter-day Saints rally in opposition to the Piutes? Did they declare their "freedom" from the Piutes?

I think it would be hard to find a spot that doesn't have some significance to the Church. I think your post speaks to one of our points. Our very existence and our state of being--rejecting the Church--is seen as an act of hostility.

Rejecting the church is a matter of opinion and personal preference. We all have the freedom to reject whatever we wish. To make a public spectacle of it on a site which has deep significance to Latter-day Saints is, in my opinion, childish. What is the point of such a public spectacle? Can the church not be rejected without all the hoopla? The point is, there is definitely an ulterior motive here, and I think you're playing coy.

[wenglund]

I think it would be hard to find a spot that doesn't have some significance to the Church. I think your post speaks to one of our points. Our very existence and our state of being--rejecting the Church--is seen as an act of hostility.

I am sorry, but what we have been saying (virtually to the contrary) can't rightly be shoehorned into this mantra of yours.

May I suggest a function approach--i.e. try a measure of healthy self-reflection, take personal responsibility for your actions, and sensibly realize that it isn't about differences of opinion, nor is it so much about where the event was held (though it didn't help), rather it is about your vigorously publicizing and making very public your acts of defiance against the Church--which actions rightly run the high risk of being viewed as hostile. If you don't wish to be rightly viewed as hostile, then stop behaving in hostile ways. Simple as that--not that this really matters all that much to me. I am just trying to help.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[John Larsen]

I am sorry, but what we have been saying (virtually to the contrary) can't rightly be shoehorned into this mantra of yours.

May I suggest a function approach--i.e. try a measure of healthy self-reflection, take personal responsibility for your actions, and sensibly realize that it isn't about differences of opinion, nor is it so much about where the event was held (though it didn't help), rather it is about your vigorously publicizing and making very public your acts of defiance against the Church--which actions rightly run the high risk of being viewed as hostile. If you don't wish to be rightly viewed as hostile, then stop behaving in hostile ways. Simple as that--not that this really matters all that much to me. I am just trying to help.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't mind if people view me as hostile. That is there business. I think anyone who went to our little celebration would have a difficult time identifying it has hostile. You can see my speech online. But if people wish to view it through that lense, so be it.

[John Larsen]

Did the Latter-day Saints rally in opposition to the Piutes? Did they declare their "freedom" from the Piutes?

Rejecting the church is a matter of opinion and personal preference. We all have the freedom to reject whatever we wish. To make a public spectacle of it on a site which has deep significance to Latter-day Saints is, in my opinion, childish. What is the point of such a public spectacle? Can the church not be rejected without all the hoopla? The point is, there is definitely an ulterior motive here, and I think you're playing coy.

Childish? I don't think so. But if it is, itis no more or less childish than the "I am a Mormon" videos or the missionary effort. Cannot Mormons simply live their faith without all of the hoopla of such things as "Mormon helping hands" t-shirts? Mind you, I am not critical of these things. I am just saying, that many LDS think they can boldly and strongly proclaim their faith and challenge the world, but when they get a little bit of pushback, they call foul.

The Church had exactly the right response to us. Good on Mike Purdey.

[wenglund]

I don't mind if people view me as hostile. That is there business. I think anyone who went to our little celebration would have a difficult time identifying it has hostile. You can see my speech online. But if people wish to view it through that lense, so be it.

By your own admission, the vast majority of exposer to your so-called little celebration comes not by way of physical attendance, but by way of news stories about your event and the things on your website publicizing the event. Given that it was so widely reported, and the way that it was reported and publicized, and the things that were focused on, and that this is the predominate face that has been put on it, it is easy to see how your overt act of defiance would reasonably be viewed as hostile. You would have to be rather insular, in denial, or daft to not realize this.

However, this is a free country. You are at liberty to chose your own behaviors. It is just that, as Dr. Phil is fond of say, "when you chose the behavior, you choose the consequence." In other words, when you behave in ways risky to being reasonably interpreted as hostile, then you choose the consequence of being viewed as hostile, and whether you care or not if people view you as hostile, it is dysfunctional for you to try and shift the blame for the consequence to the Church, though that may be the bad habit you have gotten into.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 3, 2012 by wenglund

[juliann]

^{John, you say the church isn't the real problem, it is the members. I do think the church has been very plain about how we are to treat those that choose different paths. They can only do so much, however, and then it is an individual problem that only the individuals can control. Because most leave takers do so quietly, I'm willing to bet that most members have not even observed poor treatment (I don't think posters are being disingenuous when you get the "huh?" responses). I have observed people being ostracized in my extended family but it has not been over religion.}

^{So I'm asking what you see as a solution when it is a matter of intrafamily dynamics that outsiders aren't likely to be able to influence. For instance, I have seen lawsuits over wills that torn once close family to shreds and all of the lecturing on being Christlike that can be produced is useless. I would see trying to divide up the church, so to speak, in very similar terms. I think it is a step forward that you are able to come here and dialogue even though you are getting pointed responses. Dehlin has not been able to do that. I'm wondering if there can be more understanding in a group that has disengaged for the most part and has no interest in pushing the church to change doctrines and such. Can you see this happening?}

[wenglund]

^{I think it is a step forward that you are able to come here and dialogue even though you are getting pointed responses.}

I agree. this is very much to John Larson's credit, and ought to be loudly applauded.

^{Dehlin has not been able to do that.}

And, I think this speaks volumes about him.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[why me]

To make a public spectacle of it on a site which has deep significance to Latter-day Saints is, in my opinion, childish. What is the point of such a public spectacle? Can the church not be rejected without all the hoopla? The point is, there is definitely an ulterior motive here, and I think you're playing coy.

The meaning of the event was to garner publicity and to embarrass the mormon church. Outside of that, it had very little meaning. Was it childish? Perhaps. But I think that it was more sinister than being childish.

[why me]

^{John, you say the church isn't the real problem, it is the members. I do think the church has been very plain about how we are to treat those that choose different paths. They can only do so much, however, and then it is an individual problem that only the individuals can control. Because most leave takers do so quietly, I'm willing to bet that most members have not even observed poor treatment (I don't think posters are being disingenuous when you get the "huh?" responses). I have observed people being ostracized in my extended family but it has not been over religion.}

This has been my point when people criticize the lds church for the behaviour of individual families. Also, I know quite a few families whose kids leave the fold or become inactive. I see no hostility or shunning. Just the opposite. I truly believe that the majority of families show love for the one's that stray. We just don't hear from them.

[why me]

^{I'm wondering if there can be more understanding in a group that has disengaged for the most part and has no interest in pushing the church to change doctrines and such. Can you see this happening?}

I don't know where this exists in exmormon organizations or internet boards. I see just the opposite. Even John's wife wishes the church to change its policy on same sex union or marriage. Most have an axe to grind so that they can feel justified in being in the place where they are at now.

Edited July 3, 2012 by why me