Dehlin'S Methodology?

[yootaw]

I take it families are more sympathetic and understanding if you invent a rejection ceremony which you perform at one of their fatih's historical sites and then have it publicized around the world? Don't worry, honey, I may reject everything you believe in, but at least I made a spectacle of my contempt for you.

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?

[wenglund]

I take it families are more sympathetic and understanding if you invent a rejection ceremony which you perform at one of their fatih's historical sites and then have it publicized around the world? Don't worry, honey, I may reject everything you believe in, but at least I made a spectacle of my contempt for you.

I am afraid you aren't empathizing with the victimological mindset. Regardless, whatever they do it is therapeutic, and whatever the Church does it is hurtful and to be feared.

Now, repeat this over and over again until it becomes the truth.

Next, we will empathize with all the victims strung in Mother Teresa wake and show her for the destructive monster that she is.

This is how true joy and liberations is affected.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[why me]

I take it families are more sympathetic and understanding if you invent a rejection ceremony which you perform at one of their fatih's historical sites and then have it publicized around the world? Don't worry, honey, I may reject everything you believe in, but at least I made a spectacle of my contempt for you.

There is one more component in all this. Reading critic boards, one can find a lot of hatred toward the lds church. There is a lot of aggression. If this aggression against the lds church is shown in everyday life by the family member who left, they may be an averse reaction from the believing family. Exmormons can at times become their own missionaries in trying to convince family members that the church is a fraud. This would also get a adverse reaction.

[cwald]

Since John Larsen and his wife are advocating mass resignations, I have no idea what you mean by helping many people. Do you mean helping people to resign from the church? John's podcasts are basically for exmormons and he personally seems to find enjoyment in people resigning.

I have told john l. that I was disappointed in the mass resignation. But that his choice and his path. Perhaps, like You said in another thread...both MS and ME have evolved...changed their course. I don't know? But I do see so many people struggle in faith crisis and the church has done nothing to address the issues.

You have to admit why me...that many of the faithful marginalize those who struggle with doubt. I just heard a faithful say that our opinions wont matter to God in the end.

This does not help.

This is why MS and ME have an audience. If the church had a solution...then perhaps MS would not be needed in the first place.

And a "one size fits all...everybody fits into the same box approach is not going to work. That is just my opinion.

PS WHY ME...why will you not answer my PM?

[why me]

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?

It would be if done in such a public display, allowing the media to jump on it and make the lds church look bad. It would then show contempt for the church that the spouse is a member of.

[Storm Rider]

I have told john l. that I was disappointed in the mass resignation. But that his choice and his path. Perhaps, like You said in another thread...both MS and ME have evolved...changed their course. I don't know? But I do see so many people struggle in faith crisis and the church has done nothing to address the issues.

You have to admit why me...that many of the faithful marginalize those who struggle with doubt. I just heard a faithful say that our opinions wont matter to God in the end.

This does not help.

This is why MS and ME have an audience. If the church had a solution...then perhaps MS would not be needed in the first place.

And a "one size fits all...everybody fits into the same box approach is not going to work. That is just my opinion.

PS WHY ME...why will you not answer my PM?

What do you propose that the Church could do for those who have lost their faith?

[cwald]

What do you propose that the Church could do for those who have lost their faith?

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.

Edited July 3, 2012 by cwald

[why me]

PS WHY ME...why will you not answer my PM?

On the other board, you said that you were disappointed with my posts afterwards and you deleted the PM. I thought you weren't interested in my responses.

Also, hard to establish trust when this happens.

Edited July 3, 2012 by why me

[Storm Rider]

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

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.

There isn't one? What does home teaching and visiting teaching, when done properly, do in regards to assisting those in need, any need? When does the Church teach that love and compassion is not appropriate? I think you have created your own world and then made assumptions without looking at the reality and teachings of the Church.

Are there members who do not show compassion and love? I hope to shout! This is a group of sinners that are trying to be like Christ; they are not Christ and I have never met anyone that professed to be his equal. In addition, I suspect that all this love and compassion you talk about in the MS crowd, how many of them demonstrated he same love and compassion to members of the Church when they served as home teachers and visiting teachers?

[why me]

I have told john l. that I was disappointed in the mass resignation. But that his choice and his path. Perhaps, like You said in another thread...both MS and ME have evolved...changed their course. I don't know? But I do see so many people struggle in faith crisis and the church has done nothing to address the issues.

Both ME and MS have changed directions. ME when it started attempted to be balanced and fair, although the ME panel or discussion were stacked against the believing member. But there was some resemblance of fairness. I know that John wanted me to come on for an interview because of involvement on the other board. I think that he has moved past these kind of interviews. Now I think that he caters to the exmormon audience.

MS as seen by the Coe interview is basically designed to get people out of the church or at least to have people question the faith. Listening to the Coe podcast and John's questions, they were asked with the intent for Michael Coe to expound on the foolishness of the book of mormon. FAIR needed to step in with their own take on it and they did.

Basically both podcasts encourage doubt. At least that is my opinion about it.

[cwald]

On the other board, you said that you were disappointed with my posts afterwards and you deleted the PM. I thought you weren't interested in my responses.

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.

Edited July 3, 2012 by cwald

[why me]

Yes. But more importantly, so 100s of others can see these people as an example and find courage to do so themselves.

I doubt if this were the main reason for the mass stunt. There was something more behind it since various issues were mentioned for the resignations. And publicity was sought for it. Courage seems to be the least of the reasons.

[cwald]

Both ME and MS have changed directions. ME when it started attempted to be balanced and fair, although the ME panel or discussion were stacked against the believing member. But there was some resemblance of fairness. I know that John wanted me to come on for an interview because of involvement on the other board. I think that he has moved past these kind of interviews. Now I think that he caters to the exmormon audience.

MS as seen by the Coe interview is basically designed to get people out of the church or at least to have people question the faith. Listening to the Coe podcast and John's questions, they were asked with the intent for Michael Coe to expound on the foolishness of the book of mormon. FAIR needed to step in with their own take on it and they did.

Basically both podcasts encourage doubt. At least that is my opinion about it.

okay.

I actually liked the podcasts with Mike...and especially George. And Tom and Glen.

They got burned out.

But, John made it clear that he couldn't get faithful members to come on. I don't blame them. And yeah...perhaps the podcast evolved. Perhaps MS has evolved as well.

Edited July 3, 2012 by cwald

[why me]

Next, we will empathize with all the victims strung in Mother Teresa wake and show her for the destructive monster that she is.

This is how true joy and liberations is affected.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

This has already been attempted by the late Christoper Hitchens when he wrote his book about Mother Theresa and Missionaries of Charity. His title of the book speaks volumes: The Missionary Position. Nothing is sacred.

[cwald]

Edit

Edited July 3, 2012 by cwald

[wenglund]

I have noticed, and appreciated your comments in this and other threads regarding the choice to leave being right for some people. Thanks for reminding me of that.

Your welcome. However, I don't so much suggest that it is right as it is I respect people's choices and wish them well.

I'd like to understand more what you mean by viewing the experience as upside down, and how this is helpful to those interested in progress. Can you elaborate? Thanks.

Sure. Without getting too detailed, as I understand things, there are ways of viewing things which tend to enhance personal and inter-personal growth, and ways of viewing things that do the opposite, ways of viewing things that work to everyone's benefit and ways of viewing things that work to our detriment, ways of viewing things constructively and ways of viewing things destructively, and ways of viewing things with a healthy perspective and ways of viewing things dysfunctionally. The former I consider to be the rightside-up view, and the latter as upside-down.

Those interested in progress would want to know the difference between the rightside-up view and the upside-down view so they can assess their own views accordingly, and choose the rightside-up view. Absent this awareness, one may unwittingly adopt an upside-down view and think they will progress, only to eventually discover they ended up otherwise.

One of the key elements of the rightside-up view is that for the most part we, individually, are free agents, the captains of our personal ships, and we get to choose the direction we wish to travel and how we wish to travel, and are thus responsible for and accountable for our progress and where we end up. If we are happy, it is in large part because we have correctly chosen and abided the way of happiness. If we are unhappy, it is in large part because we haven't correctly chosen or abided the way of happiness, or have chosen instead the path of unhappiness. We, personally, and not others, are responsible for our dispositions

If you would like to look at specifics in relation to certain former members, I would be pleased to do so.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cwald]

Chirp

Chirp chirp.

Very well why me...perhaps another night?

Edited July 3, 2012 by cwald

[wenglund]

I have no solution and apparently the church doesn't either.

Actually, the Church does have a solution. It is called "the gospel." And, that solution is being spread throughout the world by many member missionaries, including here.

It entails looking to and trusting in God rather than man, which is the opposite from what is proposed by MS and the like.

Sadly, some are intent on looking to and being a part of the problem rather than solution.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cwald]

Actually, the Church does have a solution. It is called "the gospel." And, that solution is being spread throughout the world by many member missionaries, including here.

It entails looking to and trusting in God rather than man, which is the opposite from what is proposed by MS and the like.

Sadly, some are intent on looking to and being a part of the problem rather than solution.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Nice try, but no. You continue to make my point.

[wenglund]

Nice try, but no. You continue to make my point.

If your point was that you have embraced and become part of the problem and inanely rejected the viable solution, then I made your point. Otherwise, your not making sense and thus make my point. Either way, it is not going so well for you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[yootaw]

What do you propose that the Church could do for those who have lost their faith?

I've recently read a reinterpretation of the golden rule: Don't just treat others how you want to be treated, treat others how they want to be treated. I think that this is a better approach to the golden rule. Starting with an acknowledgement that other people may not want the same things that you want opens you to listening and understanding how others want to be treated. Acting on this understanding becomes easy.

As an extension of this idea, I think that individual members can go a long way in preserving relationships by not assuming what has motivated disaffection. Simple minded explanations of why people stay (they've been brainwashed, ignorant of historical problems, etc) never reflect the value that individuals find in their participation. Likewise, simple minded reasons for leaving (duped by critics, haven't really studied the issues, etc.) are equally shallow.

In the end, I think that the only thing that the church can really do here is to promote a culture of understanding. I think that on the whole, this is the direction that the leadership of the church has taken.

[cwald]

I've recently read a reinterpretation of the golden rule: Don't just treat others how you want to be treated, treat others how they want to be treated. I think that this is a better approach to the golden rule. Starting with an acknowledgement that other people may not want the same things that you want opens you to listening and understanding how others want to be treated. Acting on this understanding becomes easy.

As an extension of this idea, I think that individual members can go a long way in preserving relationships by not assuming what has motivated disaffection. Simple minded explanations of why people stay (they've been brainwashed, ignorant of historical problems, etc) never reflect the value that individuals find in their participation. Likewise, simple minded reasons for leaving (duped by critics, haven't really studied the issues, etc.) are equally shallow.

In the end, I think that the only thing that the church can really do here is to promote a culture of understanding. I think that on the whole, this is the direction that the leadership of the church has taken.

Agreed. ..I hope the membership will just listen and follow the prophets' counsel.

[yootaw]

Your welcome. However, I don't so much suggest that it is right as it is I respect people's choices and wish them well.

Sure. Without getting too detailed, as I understand things, there are ways of viewing things which tend to enhance personal and inter-personal growth, and ways of viewing things that do the opposite, ways of viewing things that work to everyone's benefit and ways of viewing things that work to our detriment, ways of viewing things constructively and ways of viewing things destructively, and ways of viewing things with a healthy perspective and ways of viewing things dysfunctionally. The former I consider to be the rightside-up view, and the latter as upside-down.

Those interested in progress would want to know the difference between the rightside-up view and the upside-down view so they can assess their own views accordingly, and choose the rightside-up view. Absent this awareness, one may unwittingly adopt an upside-down view and think they will progress, only to eventually discover they ended up otherwise.

One of the key elements of the rightside-up view is that for the most part we, individually, are free agents, the captains of our personal ships, and we get to choose the direction we wish to travel and how we wish to travel, and are thus responsible for and accountable for our progress and where we end up. If we are happy, it is in large part because we have correctly chosen and abided the way of happiness. If we are unhappy, it is in large part because we haven't correctly chosen or abided the way of happiness, or have chosen instead the path of unhappiness. We, personally, and not others, are responsible for our dispositions

If you would like to look at specifics in relation to certain former members, I would be pleased to do so.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

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'.

[Calm]

However, I read your post as saying that the act of resigning is a demonstration of contempt for your spouse.

Not sure how you got that since he was rather specific about the conditions:

if you invent a rejection ceremony which you perform at one of their fatih's historical sites and then have it publicized around the world

[Calm]

But I do see so many people struggle in faith crisis and the church has done nothing to address the issues.

Don't agree....about the second part, agree with the first.

You have to admit why me...that many of the faithful marginalize those who struggle with doubt. I just heard a faithful say that our opinions wont matter to God in the end.

If I understand him correctly based on other posts, he means anyone's opinion won't matter, only the truth....which will of course be the Lord's. In the end, no matter who you are--saint or sinner, slave or free, male or female, black, white or in between, it is God's opinion that matters. Edited July 3, 2012 by calmoriah