Scott Lloyd Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 FYI if you are in the contributor group you can open,close and moderate your own threads. NemesisWe can moderate them? Wow. Does that mean we can thread ban people?
Scott Lloyd Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Who+is+Sheldon+Cooper%3FI didn't say I wanted to know him. 1
sethpayne Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 I didn't say I wanted to know him. Then don't click the link. I was just trying to be helpful.
smac97 Posted July 21, 2015 Author Posted July 21, 2015 So having exited the LDS Church, Kate Kelly is now encouraging others to leave the LDS Church. Piety and devotion to the Restored Gospel and the Church housing it has given way to . . . something else. Membership in the LDS Church was previously of such value that it merited candlelight vigils and much histrionics from Kate Kelly when she was deprived of it ("like an execution, a spiritual death . . . very, very extreme," she said). Now, the value of that membership is so trivial that leaving it is just fine if, in the moment, it is not "sparking joy" for the individual (so much for her being "faithful" and "believing," I guess). This reminds me of some remarks I made about a similar tack taken by Denver Snuffer following his exit (in which I also referenced Richard Dutcher, who likewise took this tack), as follows: Okay, I've given Bro. Snuffer's most recent post a solid read. In the main, it is saddening. A few thoughts (">" denotes quotes from his post): > The church must act in accordance with one law, and I must act in accordance with another for the purposes of the Lord to be fulfilled. ==This is troubling. I do not think the Lord operates this way. I do not think He commands the leaders to obey one set of laws and then commands individual members of the Church to act crosswise to those laws. God's house is a house of order. This would be like me telling one of my children to obey the Law of Chastity but then telling another to violate it. It just does not compute for me. ==I am also reminded of similar remarks made by Richard Dutcher when he was exiting the Church a few years back. Specifically, he said "The past few years have been very difficult for me. I’ve been trying to continue my journey toward God while carrying a boat on my back. I hope no one will take offense at this metaphor. I’m not saying that all of us have to leave the boat of Mormonism behind. Many of you will arrive Home in these boats, I’m sure. But, for some unknown reason, our mutual Father in Heaven requires that I take another route." Uh . . . no. I don't think God works this way. (Another brief observation: Elsewhere in his parting letter, Mr. Dutcher extols the virtues of "really expensive Irish beer" and Lapsang Souchong tea. I suppose God gave him his own unique Word of Wisdom. Convenient, that.) ==This sort of special pleading and justification coming from a person who is exiting the Church gives me some serious pause. This pause relates to the person exiting, not the Church. This pause is in response to the sentiment reflected above, which essentially consists of A) publishing statements to the world which B) aggrandize the exiting individual while C) trying to make the Church look bad and D) excuse the exiting individual from observance of the commandments and E) instead explains that God has given the exiting individual a unique / different / better / higher path to proceed on rather than staying in the Church. ==Well, I don't buy it. I don't think God operates that way. It seems like this pattern is in evidence again. Thanks, -Smac
Calm Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 (edited) We can moderate them? Wow.Does that mean we can thread ban people?I think we can just close them and then reopen them, close them again, etc. Will have to go check my thread to be sure. Edited July 21, 2015 by calmoriah
Scott Lloyd Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 Then don't click the link. I was just trying to be helpful.You've gotten really nasty lately, sethpayne.
jkwilliams Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 So having exited the LDS Church, Kate Kelly is now encouraging others to leave the LDS Church. Piety and devotion to the Restored Gospel and the Church housing it has given way to . . . something else. Membership in the LDS Church was previously of such value that it merited candlelight vigils and much histrionics from Kate Kelly when she was deprived of it ("like an execution, a spiritual death . . . very, very extreme," she said). Now, the value of that membership is so trivial that leaving it is just fine if, in the moment, it is not "sparking joy" for the individual (so much for her being "faithful" and "believing," I guess). This reminds me of some remarks I made about a similar tack taken by Denver Snuffer following his exit (in which I also referenced Richard Dutcher, who likewise took this tack), as follows: Okay, I've given Bro. Snuffer's most recent post a solid read. In the main, it is saddening. A few thoughts (">" denotes quotes from his post): > The church must act in accordance with one law, and I must act in accordance with another for the purposes of the Lord to be fulfilled. ==This is troubling. I do not think the Lord operates this way. I do not think He commands the leaders to obey one set of laws and then commands individual members of the Church to act crosswise to those laws. God's house is a house of order. This would be like me telling one of my children to obey the Law of Chastity but then telling another to violate it. It just does not compute for me. ==I am also reminded of similar remarks made by Richard Dutcher when he was exiting the Church a few years back. Specifically, he said "The past few years have been very difficult for me. I’ve been trying to continue my journey toward God while carrying a boat on my back. I hope no one will take offense at this metaphor. I’m not saying that all of us have to leave the boat of Mormonism behind. Many of you will arrive Home in these boats, I’m sure. But, for some unknown reason, our mutual Father in Heaven requires that I take another route." Uh . . . no. I don't think God works this way. (Another brief observation: Elsewhere in his parting letter, Mr. Dutcher extols the virtues of "really expensive Irish beer" and Lapsang Souchong tea. I suppose God gave him his own unique Word of Wisdom. Convenient, that.) ==This sort of special pleading and justification coming from a person who is exiting the Church gives me some serious pause. This pause relates to the person exiting, not the Church. This pause is in response to the sentiment reflected above, which essentially consists of A) publishing statements to the world which B) aggrandize the exiting individual while C) trying to make the Church look bad and D) excuse the exiting individual from observance of the commandments and E) instead explains that God has given the exiting individual a unique / different / better / higher path to proceed on rather than staying in the Church. ==Well, I don't buy it. I don't think God operates that way. It seems like this pattern is in evidence again. Thanks, -Smac It's pretty simple: the dust has settled, and her feelings have changed. Why is that so hard to understand?
Calm Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 (edited) It's pretty simple: the dust has settled, and her feelings have changed. Why is that so hard to understand?For me the problem is she was asking people to trust she wanted what was best for the Church and really cared about it because she had a testimony of the Church and believed she had been inspired to know what God wanted for women. She was demanding a major change from an organization and the people in it on the grounds that faithful women like her were desiring it and were desperate for it and it was essential to them for the Church to do this because the Church meant so much in their life and was an integral part of it. Then it turns out that it wasn't that big of a deal for her to not be a member after all? That her life is actually much better outside the Church? If she didn't have this deep belief in the Church that would have sustained her commitment even through excommunication (as I have seen in others) to begin with, why in the world should church leaders or any member ever had listen to her claims? I am not sure I explained that well. Edited July 21, 2015 by calmoriah 2
Scott Lloyd Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 It's pretty simple: the dust has settled, and her feelings have changed. Why is that so hard to understand?She's still working through her identity crisis and dragging millions of people along with her. Not a wholesome thing.
jkwilliams Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 For me the problem is she was asking people to trust she wanted what was best for the Church and really cared about it because she had a testimony of the Church and believed she had been inspired to know what God wanted for women. She was demanding a major change from an organization on the grounds that faithful women like her were desiring it and were desperate for it and it was essential to them for the Church to do this because the Church meant so much in their life and was an integral part of it. Then it turns out that it wasn't that big of a deal for her to not be a member after all? That her life is actually much better outside the Church? If she didn't have this deep belief in the Church that would have sustained her commitment even through excommunication (as I have seen in others) to begin with, why in the world should church leaders or any member ever had listen to her claims? I loved the church, and then I left, and after a few months, I realized I was happier outside. Are people not allowed to change their minds? I don't understand.
sethpayne Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 You've gotten really nasty lately, sethpayne. I just provided a link, Scott. It's not like I put words in your mouth and then refused to retract them once shown to be false. That would be pretty nasty if you ask me.
jkwilliams Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 She's still working through her identity crisis and dragging millions of people along with her. Not a wholesome thing. I somehow doubt she has millions of people following her blindly. People can make up their own minds.
smac97 Posted July 21, 2015 Author Posted July 21, 2015 (edited) It's a pretty good analogy. If a family relationship is sufficiently toxic, sometimes you do have to cut your ties and walk away. It takes a lot to get to that point, not just a "rough patch," but sometimes it's the right thing to do. That's why I am taking issue with Kate Kelly's "does it 'spark joy'?" silliness. She seems to be advocating abandonment of the Church for trivial reasons. Nobody would laud Kate Kelly for encouraging others to abandon their spouse or children simply over a "rough patch" (which seems the semantic equivalent of "absence of sparked joy"). And given Kate Kelly's own prior dramatics about the significance of her excommunication ("like an execution, a spiritual death . . . very, very extreme," she said), why is there such marked indifference amongst her supporters/admirers to the schizophrenic approach she is taking now? Kate Kelly Then: "I'm being disciplined by the Church! Please help me preserve my membership in the Church! I need candlelight vigils! And hundreds of letters of support! And be sure to get the word out about my bishop's employer so that maybe he'll get fired à la Brendan Eich! Pull out all the stops! Help me!" Kate Kelly's Supporters Then: "We love ya, Kate! We'll support you in your efforts to keep your membership in the LDS Church!" Kate Kelly Now: "Membership in the LDS Church? Meh. If it's not sparking joy in the moment, then ditch it with your head held high!" Kate Kelly's Supporters Now: "Yeah, you're right. Who cares about membership! Leaving is sometimes the right thing to do!" Thanks, -Smac Edited July 23, 2015 by smac97 1
Calm Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 (edited) I loved the church, and then I left, and after a few months, I realized I was happier outside. Are people not allowed to change their minds? I don't understand.Not if you are demanding everyone else in the Church change to your standard. I am not sure how to phrase it. If you are asking something significant from others, you should be willing to sacrifice at least the same level of significance in your life. Edited July 21, 2015 by calmoriah 1
jkwilliams Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 That's why I am taking issue with Kate Kelly's "does it 'spark joy'?" silliness. She seems to be advocating abandonment of the Church for trivial reasons. Nobody would laud Kate Kelly for encouraging others to abandon their spouse or children simply over a "rough patch" (which seems the semantic equivalent of "absence of sparked joy"). And given Kate Kelly's own prior dramatics about the significance of her excommunication ("like an execution, a spiritual death . . . very, very extreme," she said), why is there such marked indifference amongst her supporters/admirers to the schizophrenic approach she is taking now? Kate Kelly Then: "I'm being disciplined by the Church! Please help me preserve my membership in the Church! I need candlelight vigils! And hundreds of letters of support! And be sure to get the word out about my bishop's employer so that maybe he'll get fired à la Brendan Eich! Pull out all the stops! Help me!" Kate Kelly's Supporters Then: "We love ya, Kate! We'll support you in your efforts to keep your membership in the LDS Church!" Kate Kelly Now: "Membership in the LDS Church? Meh. If it's not sparking joy in the moment, then ditch it with your head held high!" Kate Kelly's Supporters Now: "Yeah, you're right. Who cares about membership! Leaving is somethings the right thing to do!" Thanks, -Smac It is the right thing to do sometimes.
jkwilliams Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 Not if you are demanding everyone else in the Church change to your standard. I don't think that's what she was doing, but I could be wrong.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 I loved the church, and then I left, and after a few months, I realized I was happier outside. Are people not allowed to change their minds? I don't understand.Did you act like a continuing reality TV show personified?
jkwilliams Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 Did you act like a continuing reality TV show personified? According to some people, yes.
Bobbieaware Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 Unless your relationship is in a rough spot, such that it is not presently "sparking joy," in which case ditching one's family - by Kate Kelly's reasoning - is pretty okey dokey. None of us would laud a person who, while in a difficult time with his family, abandons his children by using the justification that he is "following his heart."Latter-day Saints do not, I think, give primacy to "following your heart." Following the Spirit, yes. And in the LDS paradigm, I don't think we can feasibly claim that the Spirit will instruct Latter-day Saints to abandon the Church established by God.Thanks,-SmacWhen in Gethsemane, if the Savior followed his own will and took the easy way out, so that he could pursue his own path to "happiness," we'd still be in lost our sins. Kelly's advocacy of the "do whatever makes you happy" attitude is evidence of a mind that's ignorant of things of deep spiritual import. Christ said if we are to be like him we must first PICK UP OUR OWN CROSS and follow in his footsteps, the footsteps of the Man of Sorrows. In other words, live lives of personal sacrifice, lives of deep humility and submissiveness to the divine will. And Paul said we will be glorified with Christ if we first suffer with him. Meaning, in part, that God's chosen path for us is a difficult journey where through faith in Christ we learn to how overcome and eventually conquer our own selfish carnal desires. Kelly's advocacy for a version of the "if it feels good do it" philosophy is evidence she seems to be ignorant of some of important principles that are essential to know for successful gospel living.
jkwilliams Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 When in Gethsemane, if the Savior followed his own will and took the easy way out, so that he could pursue his own path to "happiness," we'd still be in lost our sins. Kelly's advocacy of the "do whatever makes you happy" attitude is evidence of a mind that's ignorant of things of deep spiritual import. Christ said if we are to be like him we must first PICK UP OUR OWN CROSS and follow in his footsteps, the footsteps of the Man of Sorrows. In other words, live lives of personal sacrifice, lives of deep humility and submissiveness to the divine will. And Paul said we will be glorified with Christ if we first suffer with him. Meaning, in part, that God's chosen path for us is a difficult journey where through faith in Christ we learn to how overcome and eventually conquer our own selfish carnal desires. Kelly's advocacy for a version of the "if it feels good do it" philosophy is evidence she seems to be ignorant of some of important principles that are essential to know for successful gospel living. Wow, it sounds like you're comparing being in the church to Jesus' suffering in Gethsemane. I know sacrament meetings can be pretty bad, but not that awful.
Bobbieaware Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 Wow, it sounds like you're comparing being in the church to Jesus' suffering in Gethsemane. I know sacrament meetings can be pretty bad, but not that awful.My post speaks for itself and makes all the necessary clarifications in order to disabuse someone of any infantile or snarky interpretations of the same.
jkwilliams Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 My post speaks for itself and makes all the necessary clarifications in order to disabuse someone of any infantile or snarky interpretations of the same. I'm not the one who said leaving the church is taking the easy way out.
Bobbieaware Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 (edited) I'm not the one who said leaving the church is taking the easy way out.? Edited July 21, 2015 by Bobbieaware
Scott Lloyd Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 (edited) I'm not the one who said leaving the church is taking the easy way out.You're the one who distorted her analogy beyond any reasonable resemblance to what she actually said and made a sacrilegious joke about it. Edited July 21, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
jkwilliams Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 You're the one who distorted her analogy beyond any reasonable resemblance to what she actually said. She reduced the painful experience of leaving the church to "if it feels good, do it." Sorry, but that is really cold.
Recommended Posts