Threats To Leave The Church Over Controversial Topics.

[Saints Alive]

Why do people always threaten to leave the church when a controversial statement is made or discovered? Are they hoping the threat will cause the church to change?

[thesometimesaint]

We had people threaten and did leave the Church over changing the names of the Church magazines. IOW. If you're looking for an excuse any will do.

I can't speak to anyone's motivations. But it is possible that some do believe a threat will change the Church.

[canard78]

Some people are hanging onto their testimony by the tips of their fingers. Some people discover that the church isn't what they thought it was. Some people base their testimony on seeing it one way but then read something that turns it on its head. Some people have the gift of 'believing the words of other' (or whatever that gift is) but then read words or actions of that very person (eg Joseph Smith) that undermines that belief.

I don't think many people 'threaten' to leave in the hope of change.

[CV75]

Why do people always threaten to leave the church when a controversial statement is made or discovered? Are they hoping the threat will cause the church to change?

No, I think they're just venting, and/or the so-called controversy is the last straw that they can handle. Maybe they thrive on drama!

[bluebell]

It's probably the same reason that some people threaten to leave the country whenever someone they don't like get's elected president-it's just a form of rebellion (and i don't mean that in a bad way necessarily, but just that it seems to be human nature that when something happens that we really don't like but others do, and we feel like we are being forced to accept it, that we respond with a 'you can't make me!' kind of attitude).

What i find interesting are the people who have already left the church or otherwise have not be active for years, who will use something very contemporary (like Sis. Dalton's 'no lobbying for rights' quote) as the reason that they won't come back.

Does anyone really believe that if that one thing had not of happened, those people would have been in church on Sunday? It's so obvious that their lack of attendance has little to do with 'the one thing' that i completely lose respect for people who try to play that card.

Don't try to use a recent example to justify behavior that has been going on for years-you look dumb.

Edited January 22, 2013 by bluebell

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

They're not "threats", they're just sticking up for what they believe is right. If the political party you're affiliated with launches a new Eating Babies campaign and cites Jonathan Swift without irony, is it a "threat" to state that you will not remain a member if that's the direction the leadership is pulling the party in? No. It's perfectly possible for organizations to go off the rails, and stating that you do not want to be on the train before it does (or jumping off while it's happening) is not a "threat".

In the MLK thread, someone was saying that we have a tendency to minimize the flaws of our heroes. I think there is a great deal of truth to this, including in the Church. But let's remember that our leadership is explicitly fallible, and that the D&C notes that they will only be corrected inasmuch as they seek out wisdom. If they have to seek it, that means they don't currently have it. They're perfectly capable, as am I, of saying dumb stuff. But if we can't speak honestly about controversial topics (and accusing people of "threats" or mere "drama" is an easy way to dismiss their views without actually addressing their points), we're just going through the motions, and I don't think that's ever a good idea.

Especially in the worldwide context, in which women are treated absolutely terribly in some places, I don't want my female friends to have to hear from leadership that they shouldn't lobby for rights. We believe that every woman on earth can literally become a Goddess! We should be the most "feminist" organization on the planet! I don't want any daughters I might have in the future to grow up in (or have to attempt to rationalize) a culture that can seriously say such things in 2013 (and there is a lot more where that came from). By the same token, I don't want my male friends or future sons to grow up in a culture where women are considered inherently "more spiritual" than them. Not only should we be the most "feminist" organization on the planet, we should also be the most "masculinist" organization too, since what we're really talking about here is simply the apotheosis of humanism, based on the principle of loving our neighbors rather than being tyrannical deities who coerce others through unrighteous dominion.

There are a lot of these sorts of things in our culture, whether we're talking about gender, orientation, race, economics, whatever; the thing is, a lot of the time they're not scriptural or gospel teachings, they're just part of the wider society's mores. (Or else they're justified by scriptures which simply don't have to be interpreted as being God's Infallible Word -- there is a lot of crazy stuff in the Bible said to be "of God", but I'm not going to worship a God who kills someone for practicing coitus interruptus, and I don't think the fact that some scribe somewhere claimed that Onan's death was "of God" means that it really was. The epistles of the apostles weren't, I don't think, meant to be taken as infallible, unquestionable capital-T Truth; it's obvious, then, to me, that stuff like "the man is the head of the woman" is just patriarchal society seeping into their teachings, in much the same way that conservative politics does to this day (emphasis on heterosexual monogamy to conform with Republican "family values" which weren't even practiced by our founding Prophets; anti-evolution teachings seeping in from fundamentalist sources, etc)

But when it seeps into statements made by leadership, it gets more and more difficult to justify staying within that culture, with the implication that you support what the leadership is saying. This is precisely what always leads to schism in church history; even a cursory study of religious thought shows how this happens. Personally, I would not have been able to join the church before 1978, for instance; I barely made it in as it is, with the women-can't-hold-Priesthood thing.

But why should these things be so? Joseph Smith ordained a black man to the Priesthood! Why did it take until 1978 to get back to his view that blacks were just as worthy as whites? Why the rationalizations about how it was really God's will or a consequence of premortal existence that we still hear? Joseph Smith (from what I can tell, anyway) organized the Relief Society under the pattern of the Priesthood and gave women Keys. Why are we so threatened, then, when people call for women to receive the Priesthood? Joseph Smith taught that there is no such thing except matter, that Gods (who are simply exalted homo sapiens) only rearrange preexisting uncreated material, that God could not create Himself or any other Intelligence ... so why are we still so often so wary of evolution and modern geology? Joseph Smith certainly didn't practice traditional Christian monogamy, and yet we're piously appalled at polygamy and homosexuality and other sexual practices that are simply not our business. (Just because I'm not interested in polygamy or homosexuality or other "alternative" sexual practices doesn't mean that I think those who would be happy in such arrangements should try to conform to the heterosexual monogamy that I want -- and I don't think my monogamy is threatened or lessened if others aren't in the same pattern I am.)

We could have been at the forefront of race relations, gender equality, nontraditional marriages, all sorts of things. It gets more and more difficult for some of us to remain members when it seems like we're going backwards in significant respects -- and not just in marginal local culture, but from the very leadership we're trusting to represent us to the wider world. It's not some sort of "threat" to acknowledge that we might not stay if such views continue to be touted as what we should believe.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Why do people always threaten to leave the church when a controversial statement is made or discovered? Are they hoping the threat will cause the church to change?

I Am a member of this Church because I believe it is true and the principles are true. If we starting do away with thos principles then I would be called to act one way or another...it is a matter of conscience. Sometimes we sail with the wind and sometimes against it, but sail we must. So far I have weathered 34 years of storms and still remain true.

[The Nehor]

Why do people always threaten to leave the church when a controversial statement is made or discovered? Are they hoping the threat will cause the church to change?

There is an analogy in the MMORPG market. I do not play them but friends lament often that when something changes there is always a portions of the people who scream and howl about the change and threaten to leave or actually leave. They are always back within the month. Now if only we could make church attendance that addictive.....

[canard78]

They're not "threats", they're just sticking up for what they believe is right.

(Snip)

I do enjoy your posts Jeremy.

[Questing Beast]

Some are looking for an excuse to leave that convinces them. Some are dreading a change that will cause a rupture. Some are caught unawares by changes that come. Most people who leave do so quietly and never return. Their reasons for quitting are complicated and many of them probably don't understand them that well, but could point to the "final straw" that made them quit. The ones who holler are noticeable that's all....

[The Nehor]

The ones who holler are noticeable that's all....

I just keep thinking that surely the Church could set aside a budget to get these people gags or muzzles.

[Hamba Tuhan]

It's not a scientific survey by any stretch, but just a bit of time spent on an apostate message board will make it very clear that many of these people were miserable as Church members and were quite relieved when a reason to leave presented itself.

[Tacenda]

It's not a scientific survey by any stretch, but just a bit of time spent on an apostate message board will make it very clear that many of these people were miserable as Church members and were quite relieved when a reason to leave presented itself.

Not me, maybe that's why I'm sticking it out.

[Mark Beesley]

Why do people always threaten to leave the church when a controversial statement is made or discovered? Are they hoping the threat will cause the church to change?

Who has threatened to leave the Church?

What constitutes a threat?

[Saints Alive]

Jeremy:

I'm not talking about anyone staying in an organization they disagree with. If you want to leave, leave. There is no reason to make a threat about it as if your leaving will change their mind.

[Saints Alive]

Who has threatened to leave the Church?

What constitutes a threat?

read the feedback on Sis. Dalton's talk on some other sites.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Not me, maybe that's why I'm sticking it out.

Bingo!

[Mark Beesley]

read the feedback on Sis. Dalton's talk on some other sites.

Don't really have time for such nonsense.

[Kevin Christensen]

One footnote to Jeremy's eloquent post. He says "But when it seeps into statements made by leadership, it gets more and more difficult to justify staying within that culture, with the implication that you support what the leadership is saying."

Here, for "support" in regards my personal response in the face of the expression of some opinion or attitude that does not suit my fancy, I think of what my wife and I discovered when when looked up the word "sustain." These are from our World Book dictionary:

1. To keep up, keep going, maintain, prolong.

2. to supply as with food or provisions.

3. to hold up, to support.

4. to bear, to endure.

5. to suffer, experience (e.g., to sustain a broken leg...)

6 to allow.

7. to agree with

Now that is quite a range of meanings, and I think that the range is quite deliberate. The word was not put in place in our culture to impose a single top-down thought, and a social uniformity, but to point out that when I have enough faith to accept baptism, ordination, and various callings, when I am asked if I sustain the leaders (past, present, local, and institutional), among the meanings that echo in my mind, are the meanings that ask, "Do you have enough faith to put up with the crap? Can you endure it? Or will you fold up your tent and leave when something or someone challenging comes by?"

I also think of the sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit. I've periodically written that for me, that means a willingness to offer up, to at least put at risk, what I think, and what I want. To be able to enter into a dialogue, to give questions and people time. To make my covenant in this connection with respect to what I believe is real, and not insist on perfection or the ideal.

I was a young and impressionable preteen, and then teenager during the sixties, amid all the wrenching turmoil in US society, with the war, the civil rights movement, and interesting discoveries in science and technology. I have heard all sorts of things from members and non-members with which I disagree and or with which I was uncomfortable. The church, I find, is a great place to practice tolerance. I'm not particularly invested in expecting it, people being what they are.

Regarding that particular talk, I think it helps to read the Myers-Briggs profile for the ISFJ type. And consider whether I am listening a doctrine or simply encountering a personality preference. Mine are INFP, and that certainly bugs some people. Especially ESTJs who often make good bishops.

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited January 23, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[canard78]

read the feedback on Sis. Dalton's talk on some other sites.

Apparently on this board even the MDDB tone of discussing the topic is too much for the sensitivities of our readers. It's already locked. That lasted a total of 5 hours.

Perhaps making a thread abusive is a good way of getting a thread locked and thereby conveniently burying an uncomfortable topic that some self-appointed amateur 'apologists' would prefer to be buried and ignored.

[canard78]

Far be it from me that I would threaten to leave the church, I do however think I should take a break from this board for a while. I'm not sure it's good for my spiritual welfare.

When I spend too much time disagreeing with some belligerent members on here it makes me feel like I disagree with the church.

Having said that, there's many an addict who has promised to stay off a substance for their health. Don't be surprised if I'm back within the hour.

[pogi]

Mine are INFP

Me too. No wonder I like your posts!

[Duncan]

Me too. No wonder I like your posts!

in 1996 I did the test and I am ESFJ

[Maidservant]

Far be it from me that I would threaten to leave the church, I do however think I should take a break from this board for a while. I'm not sure it's good for my spiritual welfare.

When I spend too much time disagreeing with some belligerent members on here it makes me feel like I disagree with the church.

Having said that, there's many an addict who has promised to stay off a substance for their health. Don't be surprised if I'm back within the hour.

I hope so. I always look forward to your posts. But heaven knows that any internet break is spiritually refreshing.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Among the meanings that echo in my mind, are the meanings that ask, "Do you have enough faith to put up with the crap? Can you endure it? Or will you fold up your tend and leave when something or someone challenging comes by?"

I also think of the sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit. I've periodically written that for me, that means a willingness to offer up, to at least put at risk, what I think, and what I want. To be able to enter into a dialogue, to give questions and people time. To make my covenant in this connection with respect to what I believe is real, and not insist on perfection or the ideal.

Amen. I should also clarify that I think it's very important to consistently question not just other people's views, but my own as well (which is part of the reason I'm so uncomfortable with basing my association with others on how much we agree). I've never met anyone who agrees with me 100% on anything, and so it always seems odd to me when I hear about others deleting Facebook friends or refusing to talk to people in Church, etc., just because they're from a different political party or have different tastes in clothes/entertainment/whatever. It just seems ... tribal. Heck, I'm even pretty uncomfortable with the practice of locking threads or banning people, even if they disagree with me in offensive ways. The only thing I've ever seen actually work to heal these rifts in our culture is reasoned discussion in which every side is given a chance to present an argument. I can sustain my Bishop, even when he's far more conservative than me; I can do the secular equivalent of "sustaining" other people in my life who are far more liberal than I am, too.

[Edit: Oh, and thanks for the kind words earlier, canard78. I appreciate your posts here as well.]

Edited January 23, 2013 by JeremyOrbe-Smith