Fair Panel On Family Members Who Leave

[jkwilliams]

In that case see Bluebell's response. The Savior himself came to divide.

 

And some people seem to relish taking that division and running with it.

[Scott Lloyd]

That's not what I intended to imply. I was trying to say, and failed, that the relationship is more important than whether the person who leaves stays in the church.

I accept this clarification and agree with it.

 

Family first, church second. I hope that clarifies.

 

I'm not comfortable with the wording here, but having accepted your clarification as expressed above, I'm not inclined to quibble over the wording in your last sentence.

Edited June 6, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

And some people seem to relish taking that division and running with it.

I think you would be hard-pressed to find faithful members of the Church who will concede that they do such a thing.

Edited June 6, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

That observation applies to some apologetic "defenses", especially when the "attack" is based on misinformation. And I think that's a valid role for apologetics to play. Certainly, if I heard something untrue about any religion I would appreciate hearing a well-reasoned response from someone to set me straight.

 

Not every attack is an overt falsehood. Some are more subtle than that, as, for example, presenting a facially accurate fact but removing explanatory context and nuance, thereby conveying a falsehood using ostensibly true statements. This is called sophistry.

 

Good apologetics goes beyond the mere disputation and correction of overt falsehood. It also restores the context and nuance that the attacker has removed in more subtle deceptions.

 

The problem is that not all "attacks" towards religions are based on misinformation. In fact, it seems to me that there has been a huge shift away from the old "Godmakers" style attacks that were based on misinformation and sensationalism to "attacks" that are based on stuff that is true but not well-known to most LDS members.

 

 

See above. More subtle forms of deception by the use of ostensibly true facts without providing essential context and nuance is, in the end, just as bad as "the old "Godmakers" style of attacks. In fact, it is arguably worse because it is so insidious.

 

 

So while I support and applaud any group's efforts to fight falsehoods with truth, I laugh when apologetics broadens in scope to try and defend the Church against everything people have a problem with.

 

It is the role and right of an apologist to defend the Church whenever and wherever he feels he can, even on matters where a critic might insist there is no valid defense. Who's to say there is no defense? Shouldn't a defense be considered on its merits before the matter is considered indefensible?

 

 

 

 

For example, someone might have a problem with the Church's dealings with the forger Mark Hofmann, where Church money was used to purchase forged documents.

 

In it's defense of the Church in that embarrassing situation, the FAIR Wiki says this:

 

 

 

Quote

However, one should not be surprised if a prophet is deceived. The LDS do not believe their prophets to be infallible.

 

Setting aside the tendency for apologists to seriously overplay the "fallibility" trump card as if they could win every hand with it, it ignores what LDS have been taught over the years about Church leaders (especially the Prophet) having a special power to see people's true motivations.  We even have a name for it:

 

The Gift of Discernment.

 

Here's how Elder Bednar describes it (starting with a quote from Stephen L. Richards):

 

 

 

The Mark Hofmann scenario presents serious problems for a Church that teaches that its leaders have a supernatural ability to detect the motivations of others, and it's situation like this that spur apologists to write "defenses" or explanations that are only convincing to believers.

 

 

 

This is a good example of what I've said here about declaring something indefensible after ignoring nuance.

 

You've declared the behavior of Church leaders "embarrassing" in this instance and summarily dismissed the defense offered on the FairMormon site without giving it due consideration (though, to your credit, you did provide a link to it).

 

For example, you've ignored the fact that for the LDS paradigm of moral agency to work, God must grant people a degree of latitude in sinning, and for that to happen, good people -- including anointed apostles, prophets and other Church leaders -- will occasionally be victimized by the wickedness of others.

 

What need would there be for faith if Church leaders always enjoyed the gift of discernment in each and every instance, if, people were never able to enter the temple unworthily, for example, because the priesthood leader was always able to detect their deception? That would be a pretty remarkable thing, a solid, almost eerie, indication that they were in communication with God. Things are not that cut-and-dried in mortality. One of the things we're here to do is learn to walk by faith.

 

I'll admit the Stephen L Richards quote to me seems a bit too absolutist to be realistic, but can you find a prominent General Authority who has been alive in, say, the last half-century, who says such a thing?

 

And in the end, Hofmann did not succeed. His fraud was exposed. Those who retained their faith in the truth claims of the Church despite Hofmann's forgeries were vindicated.

Edited June 6, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Daniel Peterson]

And some people seem to relish taking that division and running with it.

 

Some may.

 

But not, I think, the people who're commonly and publicly accused of doing so.  (I speak with considerable authority regarding one  of those.)

 

And -- I have to say this -- I've always been bleakly amused by the critics who delight in accusing active, believing members of being vicious and divisive while they themselves routinely behave in far more hateful ways than their targets do.

 

At an absolute minimum, you can't plausibly accuse Mormons on the internet of behaving worse than their critics do.  That simply won't fly.

[saemo]

Good points.

One question. So my sister complains that at family get togethers we inevitably talk about the Church, the gospel, and other church related topics (scouting, callings, crazy people during testimony meetings, etc.). My sister complains about this even though of about 30 people at such get togethers she is the only one who is not a member.

Is her expectation that the rest of us not discuss religion at all when she is present (and not in any way shape or form to convert her) reasonable? Is it reasonable for us to expect her not to chime in with her "historical perspective" on the church in such situations?

That is, in my opinion, where I think a lot of tension comes from in that relationship right now. She feels distanced. We want to be accommodating to her so we don't try and tell her how wrong she is, etc. We do discuss other church related topics when we are together. It's a big part of all of our lives. We don't appreciate her snide remarks, however.

Thoughts?

Being part of a Mormon family has a feeling of belonging. Mormonism teaches wonderfully about the importance of families. When you leave Mormonism, the feeling of belonging turns to feelings of exclusion. I don't know of anyone who has left Mormonism who doesn't have to come to terms with no longer belonging to one's own family, but being an outlier. Edited June 6, 2014 by saemo

[Mystery Meat]

And some people seem to relish taking that division and running with it.

 

Sad, but probably true.

 

I, for one, do not. I am sure the Savior did not either. I believe it is a simple reality. Following Christ is divisive. That is becoming more and more true in our day. I believe that following Christ today means following the counsel of his anointed. Doing so and thereby sustaining them (including those who have gone before) is divisive. 

 

I wish it wasn't. I imagine the Savior wasn't bragging when he said what he did. But that doesn't change the fact that it is divisive. 

[jkwilliams]

I think you would be hard-pressed to find faithful members of the Church who will concede that they do such a thing.

 

They probably wouldn't concede that, but there are people who seem to thrive on division. I'm thinking primarily of the number of church members I have heard recently who have taken it upon themselves to determine what level of belief is required to participate in the church; anyone below their standard, they say, should "man up" and leave. I find that incredibly strange.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I'll admit the Stephen L Richards quote to me seems a bit too absolutist to be realistic, but can you find a prominent General Authority who has been alive in, say, the last half-century, who says such a thing?

Did you miss the part where Cinepro got this quote from a talk by Elder Bednar in the last decade? So it would seem that Elder Bednar disagrees with you.  

[jkwilliams]

Some may.

 

But not, I think, the people who're commonly and publicly accused of doing so.  (I speak with considerable authority regarding one  of those.)

 

And -- I have to say this -- I've always been bleakly amused by the critics who delight in accusing active, believing members of being vicious and divisive while they themselves routinely behave in far more hateful ways than their targets do.

 

At an absolute minimum, you can't plausibly accuse Mormons on the internet of behaving worse than their critics do.  That simply won't fly.

 

I wasn't talking necessarily about Mormons on the Internet (or you, no less). Undoubtedly there are just as many on the critic side who relish division.

 

FWIW, I don't recall you ever encouraging anyone to leave the church, which is what I had in mind when I said some people relish division. I have, unfortunately, seen too much of that from allegedly believing Mormons.

Edited June 6, 2014 by jkwilliams

[Scott Lloyd]

They probably wouldn't concede that, but there are people who seem to thrive on division. I'm thinking primarily of the number of church members I have heard recently who have taken it upon themselves to determine what level of belief is required to participate in the church; anyone below their standard, they say, should "man up" and leave. I find that incredibly strange.

Difficult to address that intelligently without a specific citation, but I wonder if some of what you have in mind might be efforts by some individuals who seem to be endeavoring to reshape the Church so that it better suits their own desires. In which case, I wonder who it is that is fostering the division, those trying to remake the Church or those who are reacting to such efforts.

[escott3564]

Difficult to address that intelligently without a specific citation, but I wonder if some of what you have in mind might be efforts by some individuals who seem to be endeavoring to reshape the Church so that it better suits their own desires. In which case, I wonder who it is that is fostering the division, those trying to remake the Church or those who are reacting to such efforts.

 

I believe that John is referring to a couple of Bob Crockett's posts on MDB.  BCSpace has also taken a rather vocal similar standing.

[jkwilliams]

I believe that John is referring to a couple of Bob Crockett's posts on MDB.  BCSpace has also taken a rather vocal similar standing.

 

I wasn't thinking of anyone in particular and not those two at all. You did cause me to remember back to when I was struggling with my faith and trying to figure out what I was going to do in regards to the church. One guy told me I was past the point of no return, that I was a coward (he used another word), and that I should be a man and walk away, no matter the consequences to my family. I thought he was crazy then and still do.

 

I've seen this a number of times, unfortunately.

[Rain]

FWIW, I don't recall you ever encouraging anyone to leave the church, which is what I had in mind when I said some people relish division. I have, unfortunately, seen too much of that from allegedly believing Mormons.

 

I don't doubt that and find it sad.  I have to say though that I get very frustrated when on non lds related boards people who left the church complain and complain and rant about being contacted by the church causing those not familiar with our church to think we are stalkers and yet those complaining refuse to have their names removed.

[stemelbow]

If someone in particular is better off, or would be better off, outside the church I'd encourage he or she to leave. The Church isn't for everyone. We're tiny in a sense with just a few million people, many of which aren't really believers as they say anyway. If authentic and Christ's Church it doesn't seem it was ever meant to be something for everyone, otherwise we wouldn't be so insignificant in the world-wide sense. Besides as it is, it seems God would prefer some to work for Him outside the Church. never know who that'll be. His mighty work extends beyond the works the Church, and some people seem to grow closer to Him outside then in. Some people are miserable as members, it seems.

I don't mean to cause or thrive on division with that view though. I'd hope, actually, such a view expresses opposition to division.

Edited June 6, 2014 by stemelbow

[Scott Lloyd]

I believe that John is referring to a couple of Bob Crockett's posts on MDB. BCSpace has also taken a rather vocal similar standing.

Well, I've never been one to invite someone to leave the Church. Not my province, nor is it one I would desire to have.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't doubt that and find it sad. I have to say though that I get very frustrated when on non lds related boards people who left the church complain and complain and rant about being contacted by the church causing those not familiar with our church to think we are stalkers and yet those complaining refuse to have their names removed.

Yeah, that's hardly fair.

[Scott Lloyd]

If someone in particular is better off, or would be better off, outside the church I'd encourage he or she to leave. The Church isn't for everyone. We're tiny in a sense with just a few million people, many of which aren't really believers as they say anyway. If authentic and Christ's Church it doesn't seem it was ever meant to be something for everyone, otherwise we wouldn't be so insignificant in the world-wide sense. Besides as it is, it seems God would prefer some to work for Him outside the Church. never know who that'll be. His mighty work extends beyond the works the Church, and some people seem to grow closer to Him outside then in. Some people are miserable as members, it seems.

 

Actually, the Church is for everybody. All are invited to come unto Christ, "and he denieth none."

 

Of course, there are requirements, but it is within the capability of everyone to measure up to them, though no one is forced to do so.

 

As for being "miserable as members," I don't know that the Church is to blame for this so much as the vicissitudes of life that are the lot of everyone.

[Scott Lloyd]

Did you miss the part where Cinepro got this quote from a talk by Elder Bednar in the last decade? So it would seem that Elder Bednar disagrees with you.  

I did miss that.

 

Nevertheless, I still would maintain that gifts of the Spirit (including the gift of discernment) are not received on demand, that God bestows them at times and under circumstances that suit Him, the reasons for which might not be altogether clear to mortals.

 

I would be surprised to learn that Elder Bednar -- or any of the Brethren -- disagree with the above.

[stemelbow]

Actually, the Church is for everybody.

in a sense I actually agree, but in another sense I do not. I tend to agree with Elder Whitney when he said, "Perhaps the Lord needs such men on the outside of his Church, to help it along. They are among its auxiliaries, and can do more good for the cause where the Lord has placed them, than anywhere else. And the same is true of the priesthood and its auxiliaries inside the Church. Hence, some are drawn into the fold and receive a testimony of the Truth; while others remain unconverted–for the present; the beauties and glories of the gospel being veiled temporarily from their view, for a wise purpose. The Lord will open their eyes in his own due time. God is using more than one people for the accomplishment of his great and marvelous work. The Latter-day Saints cannot do it all. It is too vast, too arduous, for any one people."

All are invited to come unto Christ, "and he denieth none."

Indeed, and it seems many learn to come unto Christ without being a member of the Church. Wise and powerful is He ready and able to reach all of humanity while this Church creeps along among the few.

 

Of course, there are requirements, but it is within the capability of everyone to measure up to them, though no one is forced to do so.

Most people understand there to be requirements in life. Some certainly hate the concept of commandments given them by others. But in the end it seems most live by principles and most feel guilt when they falter and feel the need to do better.

 

As for being "miserable as members," I don't know that the Church is to blame for this so much as the vicissitudes of life that are the lot of everyone.

Of course you don't know that. neither do I. I'd prefer to take people at their word on this. Many have suggested they are better off outside of the Church. I accept that. And in the end, it may very well be proven that they were far better off outside. I'm all for individual happiness, progress and such. We're all different and we all see things differently and God tends to work on each of us differently.

[Calm]

I'm kind of immature at times, needless to say.  And I don't express myself very well.  I should have said, I hate when religion can divide .......So it's frustrating what religion can do in that respect. 

since I know plenty of nonreligious 'dividing' over things that have nothing to do with religion. It would be better said "what we do using religion as an excuse". As long as we place the responsibility of our and others' actions on something outside us, change for the better won't occur. People can find reasons wherever they want to excuse their own actions, first and foremost in others' actions...they are then only victims and therefore not accountable.

It is an immature approach to life and helps no one, IMO.

[Scott Lloyd]

in a sense I actually agree, but in another sense I do not. I tend to agree with Elder Whitney when he said, "Perhaps the Lord needs such men on the outside of his Church, to help it along. They are among its auxiliaries, and can do more good for the cause where the Lord has placed them, than anywhere else. And the same is true of the priesthood and its auxiliaries inside the Church. Hence, some are drawn into the fold and receive a testimony of the Truth; while others remain unconverted–for the present; the beauties and glories of the gospel being veiled temporarily from their view, for a wise purpose. The Lord will open their eyes in his own due time. God is using more than one people for the accomplishment of his great and marvelous work. The Latter-day Saints cannot do it all. It is too vast, too arduous, for any one people."

 

That there are people on the outside of the Church who are tools in the hand of God to accomplish His purposes does not mean they wouldn't be better of having embraced the covenants entailed by acceptance of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

Indeed, and it seems many learn to come unto Christ without being a member of the Church. Wise and powerful is He ready and able to reach all of humanity while this Church creeps along among the few.

 

But sooner or later, they must accept the Savior's Church as the vehicle for administering the ordinances and covenants of salvation and exaltation. It is Christ Himself who ordered it as such, not Church leaders. They are only His servants doing His will.

 

Most people understand there to be requirements in life. Some certainly hate the concept of commandments given them by others. But in the end it seems most live by principles and most feel guilt when they falter and feel the need to do better.

 

 

I see profound meaning in Christ's words, "My yoke is easy and my burden is light."

 

Of course you don't know that. neither do I. I'd prefer to take people at their word on this. Many have suggested they are better off outside of the Church. I accept that. And in the end, it may very well be proven that they were far better off outside. I'm all for individual happiness, progress and such. We're all different and we all see things differently and God tends to work on each of us differently.

 

Be that as it may, Christ has established His Church and restored it in latter days with the intent that all will come unto Him by accepting the ordinances and covenants He has established.

Edited June 7, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

That there are people on the outside of the Church who are tools in the hand of God to accomplish His purposes does not mean they wouldn't be better of having embraced the covenants entailed by acceptance of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

It makes more sense to me that God would work with individuals on the outside and in so doing, they benefit to the max. I just plain disagree with you at this point on this.

 

But sooner or later, they must accept the Savior's Church as the vehicle for administering the ordinances and covenants of salvation and exaltation. It is Christ Himself who ordered it as such, not Church leaders. They are only His servants doing His will.

That's the easy mechanical part that, as it turns out, can happen for people even after they are gone. The learning to love and be like unto God is taking, it seems, all sorts of routes for people, many of whom have no mortal affiliation with the Church at all.

 

I see profound meaning in Christ's words, "My yoke is easy and my burden is light."

And so does many a Catholic.

 

Be that as it may, Christ has established His Church and restored it in latter days with the intent that all will come unto Him by accepting the ordinances and covenants He has established.

And, as it is, most will not accept these ordinances and covenants while in this mortal journey. Most of those ordinances and perhaps even covenants will occur for those that are dead. This may suggest, at the very least, that God intends most to live outside the Church.