Threats To Leave The Church Over Controversial Topics.

[TAO]

INFP here too. 44%/25%/62%/22%. Although I think the 62% is a bit higher than it really is. The truth is I both think things through and instinctively act out in the moment. It just depends on what type of events you are talking about.

A lot of the questions, I really could have answered either way.

Edited January 23, 2013 by TAO

[Sky]

Some things I don't have the answers to, and some things bother me quite a bit, but I'm not leaving the Church.

I have a strong enough testimony in the basics, which I think are more important anyway. As long as we can keep our faith and testimonies centered around Christ and His Atonement, I don't think we can go wrong or veer off too far.

Line upon line...

[Duncan]

Bluebell will disagree with me but I always say tongue in cheek of course that i'd quit the Church if John Bytheway became a General Authority

Edited January 23, 2013 by Duncan

[bluebell]

Bluebell will disagree with me but I always say tongue in cheek of course that i'd quit the Church if John Bytheway became a General Authority

You're right, i do disagree that you always say such a thing.

[The Nehor]

Bluebell will disagree with me but I always say tongue in cheek of course that i'd quit the Church if John Bytheway became a General Authority

I would be okay with it as long as we got a J. Golden Kimball type to balance it with a return to the good old days of higher moral standards when Seventies swore over our pulpits.

[Duncan]

I would be okay with it as long as we got a J. Golden Kimball type to balance it with a return to the good old days of higher moral standards when Seventies swore over our pulpits.

It will now be our pleasure to hear from Elders Brandon R. Flowers and Jon J. Heder members of the Quorums of the Seventy following which Sister Elaine Bradley of the Primary Presidency will then address us, the congregation will then sing "You ain't seen nothin yet"

for those not in the know, Elaine Bradley is a female drummer of a band called "Neon Trees" she is also a RM, assuming she is active. the song was written by Randy Bachman, of BTO, a former member of the Church

Edited January 23, 2013 by Duncan

[Calm]

for those not in the know, Elaine Bradley is a female drummer of a band called "Neon Trees" she is also a RM, assuming she is active.

She reported she was active last time I read a news article about her several months ago.

[Tacenda]

It will now be our pleasure to hear from Elders Brandon R. Flowers and Jon J. Heder members of the Quorums of the Seventy following which Sister Elaine Bradley of the Primary Presidency will then address us, the congregation will then sing "You ain't seen nothin yet"

for those not in the know, Elaine Bradley is a female drummer of a band called "Neon Trees" she is also a RM, assuming she is active. the song was written by Randy Bachman, of BTO, a former member of the Church

Is Jon J. Heder Napoleon Dynamite? If so than I vote Pedro as the last speaker!

[volgadon]

Is Jon J. Heder Napoleon Dynamite? If so than I vote Pedro as the last speaker!

Of course Duncan would choose a song written by Canadians...

[DBMormon]

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.

You always seem to be a calm influence and a voice of reason.... I appreciate your posts

[DBMormon]

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

Who claims to be holier is many times perception and wrong, and also many who see others as prideful may if they look see motes and beams. We all have god given weakness Ether 12:27 and it is also God who takes it away Ether 12:27

[Monster]

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

You think we should turn fire hoses and dogs on them also? Talk like that is why people leave.

[Saints Alive]

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.

you know how I feel about that, see my signature.

[Duncan]

Is Jon J. Heder Napoleon Dynamite? If so than I vote Pedro as the last speaker!

yup!

[Duncan]

Of course Duncan would choose a song written by Canadians...

who else would we get?! a sung written by a...gulp...an American...?!

[Tacenda]

You think we should turn fire hoses and dogs on them also? Talk like that is why people leave.

I have to believe Nahor isn't serious and just joking, I've been surprised people on here have taken it seriously. Or maybe he is serious. Nahor?

[CV75]

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.

Interesting—I think being at the forefront on these issues depends on what a person considers to be genuine social progress and the means to attain it, and where he has taken a stand from which to view the world. I’ve seen some references to Meyers-Briggs and that might explain some of it (the personalities we are born with); I also think much of it is addressed in Lehi’s dream (the personalities we have become).

[The Nehor]

You think we should turn fire hoses and dogs on them also? Talk like that is why people leave.

Who claims to be holier is many times perception and wrong, and also many who see others as prideful may if they look see motes and beams. We all have god given weakness Ether 12:27 and it is also God who takes it away Ether 12:27

Does that scripture still apply if the pride is sarcasm?

[Questing Beast]

A hate acronyms....

[Duncan]

Of course Duncan would choose a song written by Canadians...

in case you missed it!

[Alvino]

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?

As Jeremy points out, some may do it out of real indignation.

But let's think about this more pragmatically. Don't you believe that if enough people were to say they would disavow the Church if so-and-so is done the institution would be pressured to change or modify things? There is strength in numbers.

[CV75]

As Jeremy points out, some may do it out of real indignation.

But let's think about this more pragmatically. Don't you believe that if enough people were to say they would disavow the Church if so-and-so is done the institution would be pressured to change or modify things? There is strength in numbers.

Is there a precedent in the LDS Church that institutional changes and modifications came about as a result of disatisfied people organizing and meeting a threshold of disavowal? There is also strength in integrity, and the scriptures indicate that the saints in the last days will be persecuted and their dominions small, but that the Lord will watch over them and help them perpare for His Second Coming.

[Calm]

As Jeremy points out, some may do it out of real indignation.

But let's think about this more pragmatically. Don't you believe that if enough people were to say they would disavow the Church if so-and-so is done the institution would be pressured to change or modify things? There is strength in numbers.

Depends on what it is. In the early days many of the stalwarts had issues with Joseph and ended up not being so stalwart and much of the membership left.

I do believe in this day and age where people have developed the expectation that they deserve to be heard no matter what, that there is no real distance between the leaders and those they lead that can't be removed by an email or petition that some more effective means of communication that gives a sense of direct contact will likely need to be installed, whether it's by more surveys or something else.

[Saints Alive]

As Jeremy points out, some may do it out of real indignation.

But let's think about this more pragmatically. Don't you believe that if enough people were to say they would disavow the Church if so-and-so is done the institution would be pressured to change or modify things? There is strength in numbers.

Well if the church changes policy because of threats of attrition and not guidance from The Lord I'm not sure that's how it should work.

[Alvino]

Is there a precedent in the LDS Church that institutional changes and modifications came about as a result of disatisfied people organizing and meeting a threshold of disavowal?

Not to my limited knowledge of Church history. I also doubt it could happen any time soon because believers accept to easily. I'm just saying that in principle, as a recourse, it could very well work.

There is also strength in integrity, and the scriptures indicate that the saints in the last days will be persecuted and their dominions small, but that the Lord will watch over them and help them perpare for His Second Coming.

I wonder whether you think the 'dominions of the saints' are decreasing now.