ERayR Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 (edited) Shocking Fox 13, who is generally the most hostile to the church and the most eager to try and cast the church in a bad light, covered it. They are a joke of a news organization. Anyway, this event was a total joke and a sham. No believing LDS resigned that day. Mola of course no believing LDS resigned that day. If they were believing LDS they would not resign. Just panning for the cameras. Bussed in demonstrators. Edited July 25, 2014 by ERayR 1
Nofear Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 This is a letter somebody posted on google+. I confess not reading it all the way through or very carefully. But he does mention protest of Kate Kelly (but then gives very different reasons). https://plus.google.com/110921261135277605330/posts/8iShD5PUhjR
Scott Lloyd Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 I am not sure a out that given the way the numbers were reported, but they probably preferred to have a nonstory they could pretend was one than nothing at all since they had dragged themselves out there to attend.If they felt they had to air something to justify their time, they should have been reporters or journalists enough to dig a little deeper, asked more probing questions and reported how many of the participants were already de facto apostates and antagonists to begin with, using this as a means to push their agenda. <That> would have made an interesting story.
ERayR Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 This is a letter somebody posted on google+. I confess not reading it all the way through or very carefully. But he does mention protest of Kate Kelly (but then gives very different reasons). https://plus.google.com/110921261135277605330/posts/8iShD5PUhjR My what subliminal vitriol. Covering all the bases in his resignation. 1
bluebell Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 This is a letter somebody posted on google+. I confess not reading it all the way through or very carefully. But he does mention protest of Kate Kelly (but then gives very different reasons). https://plus.google.com/110921261135277605330/posts/8iShD5PUhjR He's pretty demanding. You know, for someone who's basically upset that the church had the gall to request things from a member that she didn't feel she needed to do. 3
Duncan Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 From one of my faves "This kingdom will roll forward with or without us as individuals. Men and women who even momentarily take their eyes off of God’s glory and seek to exalt themselves, or who become entangled in the vain things of this world, will find that the kingdom quickly moves on without them. Unfortunately, none of us is immune from this all-too-human tendency. In the final dramatic hours of the Savior’s life, even His Apostles—those stalwart men who certainly should have known better—argued with one another about who should be accounted the greatest. (See Luke 22:24.)" Elder Marlin K. Jensen, Oct. 1989 GC 4
Thinking Posted July 26, 2014 Posted July 26, 2014 So only 100 showed up, and of that number, some came to "show support" for those who were resigning? Why were they only there to "show support"? Is it because one can't resign from something one doesn't belong to?So, far from being the planned "mass resignation," it draws only 100, of whom only a fraction (who knows how large) are actually there to do the resigning. Many, if not most, of the rest are your garden variety anti-Mormon.This thing appears less impressive the closer one looks at it. A contrived non-event event staged for media who don't seem to fully understand how extensively they are being used. Are you going to judge the validity of a group or event by its size? I think that sometimes faithful LDS forget that your own church was organized with only six members.
smac97 Posted July 26, 2014 Author Posted July 26, 2014 Are you going to judge the validity of a group or event by its size? I think that sometimes faithful LDS forget that your own church was organized with only six members. If the Church characterized its organization as a "mass" event, then I think a bit of ribbing would be in order. But it doesn't, so there isn't. Thanks, -Smac
The Nehor Posted July 26, 2014 Posted July 26, 2014 Are you going to judge the validity of a group or event by its size? I think that sometimes faithful LDS forget that your own church was organized with only six members. And if all six resigned on the spot it would be insane to characterize it as a mass resignation even if it would be tragic.
JLHPROF Posted July 26, 2014 Posted July 26, 2014 Are you going to judge the validity of a group or event by its size? I think that sometimes faithful LDS forget that your own church was organized with only six members. No, we are going to judge the definition of "mass" when referring to a 15 million member (activity level aside) organization. We are talking a microscopic fraction when we say 100/15,000,000. There's probably more members than that that pass away every month.
stemelbow Posted July 27, 2014 Posted July 27, 2014 I think that you got it wrong on this one. It wasn't about making a lesson of its leader. Rather it was about understanding boundaries that one must have when a member of the church. No church can have protest movements working from the inside for change, especially a church which claims to be revelatory. Would you feel the same if the church claimped down on a polygamous protest movement inside the church? A movement that was putting pressure on the church to reinstate polygamy? Or a movement from within the church to have a vocational priesthood? Should the church allow all protest movements from within its own body? And where does god fit in with these protest movements sprouting up within his church? At times we need to see the forest for the trees and not just see a tree in the forest. We now have kate telling members who want change to stay in the church and work for change from within. What kind of church will it be with various people calling for change here and there and at odds with each other? Should all this be allowed to exist within a church body? Contention, strife, etc? All churches have created their own boundaries to safeguard the forest. We're all trying to change and if change for the good, that would mean the church changes too. We are, after all, the Church. But with that said, I may have been a little off and can agree with your point in principle.
Guest Posted July 27, 2014 Posted July 27, 2014 It's sad to see so many leave the church, though.They are not really leaving, it is a case of the "wheat and tares". The people who are resigning are not Bishop or Stake Presidents. In many cases they are people who have mentally left long ago, and now they have been given as reason to have their 15 mins of fame, and then they flame out.
Teancum Posted July 27, 2014 Posted July 27, 2014 Smac can you provide a link where KK suggest people raise hell with the church? Thanks.
strappinglad Posted July 27, 2014 Posted July 27, 2014 In 2011 there were about 280,000 convert baptisms. That is over 760 per day. With 100 resignations , I think we are still , on balance, ahead. 4
Coreyb Posted July 27, 2014 Posted July 27, 2014 Dang! I live right next to the COB and I always miss the protests and resignations
Calm Posted July 27, 2014 Posted July 27, 2014 (edited) Smac can you provide a link where KK suggest people raise hell with the church? Thanks.http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58110298-78/kelly-church-women-mormon.html.csp 8:52 Edited July 27, 2014 by calmoriah
smac97 Posted July 27, 2014 Author Posted July 27, 2014 (edited) Smac can you provide a link where KK suggest people raise hell with the church? Thanks. See Cal's post. Out of curiosity, were you skeptical of this claim (that she encouraged others to "raise hell" in the Church)? I wouldn't blame you if you were. But for listening to her say it myself, I probably would have been skeptical too. Thanks, -Smac Edited July 27, 2014 by smac97
carbon dioxide Posted July 27, 2014 Posted July 27, 2014 I don't get the logic of this resignation. The whole purpose of being a member of the LDS Church is one believes they are in Christ church and membership is required to obtain Celestial Glory. So one is going to give up Celestial glory to make a statement of support for Kate Kelly? These people were already on the fence for some other reason and they used this as a final excuse. That is the only thing that makes sense to me. 1
Teancum Posted July 27, 2014 Posted July 27, 2014 http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58110298-78/kelly-church-women-mormon.html.csp 8:52Thanks
Teancum Posted July 27, 2014 Posted July 27, 2014 See Cal's post.Out of curiosity, were you skeptical of this claim (that she encouraged others to "raise hell" in the Church)? I wouldn't blame you if you were. But for listening to her say it myself, I probably would have been skeptical too.Thanks,-SmacNo not really. Just curious to read or hear it myself.
Mudcat Posted July 27, 2014 Posted July 27, 2014 I think it's interesting that she chose to make a "statement of solidarity" with women who want something different than she does. Isn't that the opposite of solidarity? I also want to know how leaving an organization will increase your 'voice'? Are they hoping that the church will pay more attention to their disagreements if they are ex-members? IMO she was showing some since of unity rather than uniformity.
Bernard Gui Posted July 27, 2014 Posted July 27, 2014 Just a note that on my computer the SLTrib article about Ms Kelly has a link that reveals temple content.
nosmelone Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 (edited) Micah N. one of the two organizers of this group was in my ward. It saddens me to see him leave because he is a great person. All who knew him knew that these issues existed in his view of the church. Just for the record I realistically see him coming back to the church one day. He was a great teacher during EQ and put a lot of effort into his lessons. Also for the record I in know way advocate his decision and know that leadership in our ward have tried to work with him....beyond that friends in our ward have had conversations with him about this as well and he is well aware that KK and JD have not advocated people leaving the church and if he were to come back someday that he may regret assisting others down that path. Edited July 28, 2014 by nosmelone
Recommended Posts