JAHS Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Okay, so members shouldn't dissent and try to "mold the Church in their own image." I don't agree, but I can see the problems with this approach. But then, they shouldn't just leave either. They should stay and just suffer? No but as I have said earlier in this thread, it is irresponsible to encourge others to leave who might otherwise have eventually found joy in the church if they had stayed.
jkwilliams Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Choose ye this day comes to mind.Is the church the same as the Lord?
carbon dioxide Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Is the church the same as the Lord?Almost the same. One can't accept the Lord but reject what he stands for.
jkwilliams Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Almost the same. One can't accept the Lord but reject what he stands for.So everyone who isn't in the church has rejected God?
Kenngo1969 Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 And all of us here are probably giving her exactly what she wants. I'm sure she's glued, with 'bated breath, all aquiver, on the edge of her seat, awaiting the next Kate Kelly thread or post here at MA&DB. She probably even has a Foley cath and/or a portable device so that she can take care of ... ummm ... bodily needs ... without missing the next scintillating post. 1
carbon dioxide Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 So everyone who isn't in the church has rejected God?Of course not. To reject something requires prior knowledge.
jkwilliams Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Of course not. To reject something requires prior knowledge.So, you must think people like Ms. Kelly and me rejected God when we left the church.
Avatar4321 Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Is the church the same as the Lord?Are you the same as your wife?
Kenngo1969 Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 My lovely LDS wife keeps telling me that God works through people in and out of the church, and if they fulfill His will for them, they'll be fine in the eternities."Inasmuch as men [and women, of whatever religious persuasion, or even of no religious persuasion at all] do good, they shall in nowise lose their reward" (Doctrine & Covenants 58:28). (Don't misunderstand: I still think you're a thoroughly reprobate, thoroughly reprehensible human being, John; from what I hear, even your pet maggot couldn't stand your company, and even mere weeds refuse to grow within a five-mile radius of your home; I'm offended we even occupy the same planet. Other than that, I hear you're a pretty OK guy. )
jkwilliams Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Are you the same as your wife?Nope. She is way better than I am.
jkwilliams Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 "Inasmuch as men [and women, of whatever religious persuasion, or even of no religious persuasion at all] do good, they shall in nowise lose their reward" (Doctrine & Covenants 58:28). (Don't misunderstand: I still think you're a thoroughly reprobate, thoroughly reprehensible human being, John; from what I hear, even your pet maggot couldn't stand your company, and even mere weeds refuse to grow within a five-mile radius of your home; I'm offended we even occupy the same planet. Other than that, I hear you're a pretty OK guy. )My wife has quoted that scripture. And you're an OK guy yourself.
mormonnewb Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 (edited) We just had a Waterman thread a couple days ago. Waterman even posted a few times.Sniffer has also been discussed. The only reason I even know about Snuffer is because of this board.I'm guess SISTER Kelly gets mentioned so much because she's in the news way more. I don't think Waterman or Snuffer have been in the news nearly as much.If we compare rate of mention on the board with rate of showing up in national news I bet that Kate and the other two are talked about pretty equal to their general public notoriety. But general public news exposure is not the metric that determines mentions on this Board. If that was the case, we would NEVER talk about JS or BY because they haven't been featured on TMZ in ... I don't know ... ever. Our metric is simply interest to the Board. To the extent that we are interested in a topic, we talk about it. So why is Kate Kelly of such interest to the rest of you? And don't get me wrong. I never get tired of talking about Kate. I've said it once and I'll say it again. I love me some Kate Kelly! I count it as one of my greatest honors that she asked me to serve on the board of OW. And I feel blessed to have been able to work personally with (who am I kidding? FOR) her. For me, it was the first time that I've serve under someone whom I counted as one of my heroes (my ego usually only has room for self-admiration). But I realize that most of you don't see her the same way that I do. Some of you see her as some petulant child -- whining that she isn't getting her way. Okay, fair enough. But why is such a "whiny brat" the subject of HUNDREDS of pages on a message board frequented by people with doctorates and advanced degrees? My wife and I see petulant children all of the time in sacrament meeting and we never give it a single mention at home. For two highly-educated people (okay, one highly-educated person and me) to spend our time pointing out of the foibles of an immature child would be absurd and not reflect highly on OUR character. After all, an ill-mannered child at church might be a slight distraction, but at the end of the day, she is harmless. However, what is it about Ms. Kelly that makes her so dangerous to so many of you? Is it that she is having influence with other woman -- causing them to, as Dr. King would say, "Straighten up their backs"? If so, do you give her credit for such incredible powers of persuasion and sophistry? After all, she must be incredibly gifted to be able to overpower the messages of God's own handpicked apostles and to influence women who were otherwise perfectly happy with their roles in the Church before Ms. Kelly came along. Or is it that she is simply touching a nerve that was already raw and tender? And with or without her, the Church still needs to find a "balm of Gilead."So perhaps, that might be a more fruitful topic of conversation. What we can do to make ALL women feel valued in the Church. Just a thought .... Edited July 19, 2015 by mormonnewb
Scott Lloyd Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 So, you must think people like Ms. Kelly and me rejected God when we left the church.Beware! It's happening again. John baits people into making the thread about him, then goes elsewhere and complains about how badly he was treated.
Popular Post smac97 Posted July 19, 2015 Author Popular Post Posted July 19, 2015 (edited) Are Snuffer and Waterman being published in news articles? If not, their reach is limited. I can see why Smac is more concerned with Kelly because her impact is probably larger, especially given the frequent reporting of her opinions in the SL Trib which many LDS read in my experience. If you had been posting here longer or were involved with previous message boards some of us hung out on, you would know that Smac has at times become interested in certain events and people having to do dissent against the LDS Church. IIRC, Kelly is the first woman I can remember him posting multiple threads about. A few thoughts: 1. This thread is not about me. 2. I have commented extensively on both Waterman and Snuffer (and the Calderwoods and, a while ago, Grant Palmer). 3. This is not the first time mormonnewb has made false accusations against me regarding my posts. 4. As others here can probably attest, I have a habit of periodically checking Google News (via this link). As news items relating to the LDS Church in particular and/or Mormonism in general come up, I will provide a link to the story and also commentary/analysis from my own point of view. This thread is an example of that. A few days before that I started a thread about LDS activity rates (also a news item gleaned from the link above). A few weeks before that, I started another thread about a news item about Kate Kelly, though I abstained from substantive comment about it. A week before that, I started a thread about the Church's Freedmen's Bureau Project, which was also a news item. A week before that, I started a thread about a bill introduced in Congress which is designed to protect religious freedom, which was also a news item. I could go on, but I think my point is made. I frequently post about A) news items which B) are about the LDS Church and/or Mormonism in general which C) I find interesting or relevant. Waterman, Snuffer, the Calderwoods, and Palmer are not in the news much. Kate Kelly is. 5. I don't think the foregoing habit/hobby is at all a bad thing. I like staying abreast of and analyzing and writing about developments which affect my religious community. 6. It's a little weird that mormonnewbe keeps griping about the foregoing habit/hobby. If ya don't like my choice in topics, please feel free to disregard them. Thanks, -Smac Edited July 23, 2015 by smac97 6
jkwilliams Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Beware! It's happening again. John baits people into making the thread about him, then goes elsewhere and complains about how badly he was treated.Leaving me out of it, do people who leave the church reject God?
carbon dioxide Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Leaving me out of it, do people who leave the church reject God?If a person had a testimony at one point and leaves the answer is yes. To reject God's servants is to reject God. He treats it the same. In rare cases, they become a son of perdition. Being in the Church causes one to leave neutrality forever. 1
JAHS Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 But general public news exposure is not the metric that determines mentions on this Board. If that was the case, we would NEVER talk about JS or BY because they haven't been featured on TMZ in ... I don't know ... ever. Our metric is simply interest to the Board. To the extent that we are interested in a topic, we talk about it. So why is Kate Kelly of such interest to the rest of you? And don't get me wrong. I never get tired of talking about Kate. I've said it once and I'll say it again. I love me some Kate Kelly! I count it as one of my greatest honors that she asked me to serve on the board of OW. And I feel blessed to have been able to work personally with (who am I kidding? FOR) her. For me, it was the first time that I've serve under someone whom I counted as one of my heroes (my ego usually only has room for self-admiration). But I realize that most of you don't see her the same way that I do. Some of you see her as some petulant child -- whining that she isn't getting her way. Okay, fair enough. But why is such a "whiny brat" the subject of HUNDREDS of pages on a message board frequented by people with doctorates and advanced degrees? My wife and I see petulant children all of the time in sacrament meeting and we never give it a single mention at home. For two highly-educated people (okay, one highly-educated person and me) to spend our time pointing out of the foibles of an immature child would be absurd and not reflect highly on OUR character. After all, an ill-mannered child at church might be a slight distraction, but at the end of the day, she is harmless. However, what is it about Ms. Kelly that makes her so dangerous to so many of you? Is it that she is having influence with other woman -- causing them to, as Dr. King would say, "Straighten up their backs"? If so, do you give her credit for such incredible powers of persuasion and sophistry? After all, she must be incredibly gifted to be able to overpower the messages of God's own handpicked apostles and to influence women who were otherwise perfectly happy with their roles in the Church before Ms. Kelly came along. Or is it that she is simply touching a nerve that was already raw and tender? And with or without her, the Church still needs to find a "balm of Gilead."So perhaps, that might be a more fruitful topic of conversation. What we can do to make ALL women feel valued in the Church. Just a thought .... Most people will just ignore her or simply disgree with her. But there are members with immature testimonies who might listen to her and allow themselves to be led away by her convincing words, before they are able to develpe a strong testimony and find real eternal joy within God's church. What makes her dangerous is that she is like the pied piper leading God's children away from their families into the secular world. 3
jkwilliams Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 If a person had a testimony at one point and leaves the answer is yes. To reject God's servants is to reject God. He treats it the same. In rare cases, they become a son of perdition. Being in the Church causes one to leave neutrality forever.I'm sorry to disappoint anyone, but I don't find that offensive. I think I agree with my wife. God's will transcends organizations. 1
Popular Post smac97 Posted July 19, 2015 Author Popular Post Posted July 19, 2015 (edited) Mormonnewbe, > But general public news exposure is not the metric that determines mentions on this Board. If that was the case, we would NEVER talk about JS or BY because they haven't been featured on TMZ in ... I don't know ... ever. Our metric is simply interest to the Board. To the extent that we are interested in a topic, we talk about it. So why is Kate Kelly of such interest to the rest of you? I think the basis for our interest is self-evident. But even if it's not, why do you care? > And don't get me wrong. I never get tired of talking about Kate. I've said it once and I'll say it again. I love me some Kate Kelly! I count it as one of my greatest honors that she asked me to serve on the board of OW. And I feel blessed to have been able to work personally with (who am I kidding? FOR) her. For me, it was the first time that I've serve under someone whom I counted as one of my heroes (my ego usually only has room for self-admiration). Okay. I did not know you were on the OW board. > But I realize that most of you don't see her the same way that I do. Some of you see her as some petulant child -- whining that she isn't getting her way. Okay, fair enough. But why is such a "whiny brat" the subject of HUNDREDS of pages on a message board frequented by people with doctorates and advanced degrees? One of which is . . . you. Again, our interest in the OW group and Kate Kelly is rather self evident. And if it's not, why do you care? > My wife and I see petulant children all of the time in sacrament meeting and we never give it a single mention at home. For two highly-educated people (okay, one highly-educated person and me) to spend our time pointing out of the foibles of an immature child would be absurd and not reflect highly on OUR character. After all, an ill-mannered child at church might be a slight distraction, but at the end of the day, she is harmless. I have a former friend and co-worker who, as a direct result of Kate Kelly, has resigned from the Church and taken her family with her. From the LDS paradigm, that's not "harmless." Kate Kelly is now publishing news articles in which she openly encourages Latter-day Saints to abandon their faith. That's not "harmless." > However, what is it about Ms. Kelly that makes her so dangerous to so many of you? "Dangerous" in the sense of encouraging apostasy? Is that what you mean? > Is it that she is having influence with other woman -- causing them to, as Dr. King would say, "Straighten up their backs"? If so, do you give her credit for such incredible powers of persuasion and sophistry? I credit her with encouraging Latter-day Saints to "raise hell" in the LDS Church. And now I credit her with openly encouraging others to apostatize from the LDS Church. > After all, she must be incredibly gifted to be able to overpower the messages of God's own handpicked apostles and to influence women who were otherwise perfectly happy with their roles in the Church before Ms. Kelly came along. Apostasy doesn't require anything "incredible." She has an agenda, a blog, a pliant media, and supporters helping her. > Or is it that she is simply touching a nerve that was already raw and tender? I will own that. When she trespassed onto sacred ground, in open defiance of the Church, and when she did so to conduct a protest during a sacred convocation so as to distract from and disrupt that convocation, that touched a nerve for me. When she encourages Latter-day Saints to "raise hell" in the Church, that touched a nerve. When she publicly accused her bishop of being "cowardly" and "unchristlike," that touched a nerve. When she repeatedly publicized her bishop's employer, in an apparent attempt to initiate a Brendan Eich-type blowback on him as retribution, that touched a nerve. When she publicly encourages her followers to leave the LDS Church, that touches a nerve. > And with or without her, the Church still needs to find a "balm of Gilead." I hope she returns to the Church. Really. Thanks, -Smac Edited July 19, 2015 by smac97 5
Damien the Leper Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 It's a good thing I didn't encourage my kids to drop out of school because they were unhappy with some of their teachers.Not even close to being the same thing.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 A few thoughts: 1. This thread is not about me. 2. I have commented extensively on both Waterman and Snuffer (and the Calderwoods and, a while ago, Grant Palmer). 3. This is not the first time mormonnewb has made false accusations against me regarding my posts. 4. As others here can probably attest, I have a habit of periodically checking Google News (via this link). As news items relating to the LDS Church in particular and/or Mormonism is general come up, I will provide a link to the story and also commentary/analysis from my own point of view. This thread is an example of that. A few days before that I started a thread about LDS activity rates (also a news item gleaned from the link above). A few weeks before that, I started another thread about a news item about Kate Kelly, though I abstained from substantive comment about it. A week before that, I started a thread about the Church's Freedmen's Bureau Project, which was also a news item. A week before that, I started a thread about a bill introduced in Congress which is designed to protect religious freedom, which was also a news item. I could go on, but I think my point is made. I frequently post about A) news items which B) are about the LDS Church and/or Mormonism in general which C) I find interesting or relevant. Waterman, Snuffer, the Calderwoods, and Palmer are not in the news much. Kate Kelly is. 5. I don't think the foregoing habit/hobby is at all a bad thing. I like staying abreast of and analyzing and writing about developments which affect my religious community. 6. It's a little weird that mormonnewbe keeps griping about the foregoing habit/hobby. If ya don't like my choice in topics, please feel free to disregard them. Thanks, -SmacI can attest to what Smac has said here. Years ago, when I marveled over his ability to keep abreast of news events concerning the Church, he let me in on his Google News secret (or whatever the equivalent of it was back then. I think it is a good practice. All committed and faithful Latter-day Saints should do it. I apreciate his commentary. It helps me crystallize my own thinking on current topics. And I agree that somebody who doesn't like a topic is free to ignore it. He shouldn't impose his own interests and preferences on the rest of us. 3
Calm Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 FairMormon does a Front page collecting news items: http://www.fairmormon.org/media/signup Receive daily updates via email containing news clippings about how the Church is represented in the media. This is a free service; you can unsubscribe at any time. 1
JAHS Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Not even close to being the same thing.See my posts after that one and post #217 above.
Avatar4321 Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 But general public news exposure is not the metric that determines mentions on this Board. If that was the case, we would NEVER talk about JS or BY because they haven't been featured on TMZ in ... I don't know ... ever. Our metric is simply interest to the Board. To the extent that we are interested in a topic, we talk about it. So why is Kate Kelly of such interest to the rest of you? And don't get me wrong. I never get tired of talking about Kate. I've said it once and I'll say it again. I love me some Kate Kelly! I count it as one of my greatest honors that she asked me to serve on the board of OW. And I feel blessed to have been able to work personally with (who am I kidding? FOR) her. For me, it was the first time that I've serve under someone whom I counted as one of my heroes (my ego usually only has room for self-admiration). But I realize that most of you don't see her the same way that I do. Some of you see her as some petulant child -- whining that she isn't getting her way. Okay, fair enough. But why is such a "whiny brat" the subject of HUNDREDS of pages on a message board frequented by people with doctorates and advanced degrees? My wife and I see petulant children all of the time in sacrament meeting and we never give it a single mention at home. For two highly-educated people (okay, one highly-educated person and me) to spend our time pointing out of the foibles of an immature child would be absurd and not reflect highly on OUR character. After all, an ill-mannered child at church might be a slight distraction, but at the end of the day, she is harmless. However, what is it about Ms. Kelly that makes her so dangerous to so many of you? Is it that she is having influence with other woman -- causing them to, as Dr. King would say, "Straighten up their backs"? If so, do you give her credit for such incredible powers of persuasion and sophistry? After all, she must be incredibly gifted to be able to overpower the messages of God's own handpicked apostles and to influence women who were otherwise perfectly happy with their roles in the Church before Ms. Kelly came along. Or is it that she is simply touching a nerve that was already raw and tender? And with or without her, the Church still needs to find a "balm of Gilead."So perhaps, that might be a more fruitful topic of conversation. What we can do to make ALL women feel valued in the Church. Just a thought ....That argument can't be serious. Of courses news isn't going to be driving our discussions about dead people. It's perfectly reasonable to affect our discussion of living people though. We don't frequently talk about president nelson either. It's the news driving it. 1
Damien the Leper Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 JK,> She wasn't encouraging people to leave but saying that she was no longer encouraging people who aren't happy to stay in the church.==The title of the piece is "If staying in LDS Church doesn’t ‘spark joy,’ it’s OK to leave."==And she also said this: "I let her know that staying is not the only honorable choice."==And this: "Kondo encourages the aspiring de-clutterer to ask themselves: 'Does it spark joy?' If the item does not spark joy, it should be discarded to free up space."==And this: "It is like discovering air in your lungs for the first time, to let go of the heavy burden of dogma and injustices that act like ritual in Mormonism’s charade."==And this: "It’s not a sign of defeat or weakness to leave an institution that causes you pain. It’s quite the opposite."==And this: "I don’t wish for Mormon women to follow me — or to follow anyone. I want them to follow their own hearts, aspirations and dreams. Sometimes the culmination of that journey will lead them out of the church — and that’s O.K.!"==And this: "There is hope and joy to be found in abundance outside of Mormonism."==And this: "For many women the safer and more peaceful choice is to leave the church. Give yourself permission to make the best choice for you."==And this: "Always remember, you have power. You can exercise that power by sending a message to the church and voting with your feet."==And this: "You can remove your name from the records of the church as a way to communicate to male church leaders."==And this: "A mass resignation event is scheduled in Salt Lake City at City Creek Park on Saturday, July 25, at 2 p.m. I think it is important to register dissent and let church leaders know what the cost of their rigidity is."==And this: "In the end, there is no one true way to dismantle patriarchy. It will take both people on the inside continuing to agitate and people leaving the church and marking their dissent to facilitate the necessary equality overhaul of Mormonism."==And this: "I wish now to amend my original advice: If the church does not “spark joy” in you, leave with your head held high." ==I don't see how these statements can be reconciled with your statement that "She wasn't encouraging people to leave." > As for the "accusations," I know quite a few active LDS, men and women, who think the church devalues women. The difference is that they don't say so in public. ==And hence they do not "accuse" the Church. Quite a difference, that. Thanks, -SmacI read those as Kate saying that the church not only is not the best option but that there are other options as well. Leaving Mormonism (and theism), for me, has been like rebirth and the world, despite its problems, is paradise as I get to engage with friends, family, members of this board and people I don't know. Leaving faith is like having a huge burden lifted from my shoulders. Christ said to pick up our crosses. I prefer my high school cross country slogan, "It's just a wall. Run through it." Overcome and transcend the burden. Mormonism was a burden and I overcame it. Just like many others have done and will do. If there is an afterlife, I'll kindly show myself to purgatory or outer darkness.
Recommended Posts