stephenpurdy Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 .... 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. Do they have good explanations for why they think that? -Stephen
stephenpurdy Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 The delusion that Kate Kelly, John Dehlin and others fall into, is that they think they are having an influence on the Church. In cyberspace (Ordain Women, Mormon Stories), we all have the fantasy that we're broadcasting to a vast community, when in reality the target audience is very small. I doubt anybody in my ward has any idea with John Dehlin is. More have heard of Ordain Women (but probably not Kate Kelly) because of the Priesthood Session incident. I would guess that 75% of church members have no idea who these people are, or their organizations, and 99% of those who do are not in agreement with their ideas. Everybody wants to be a martyr for a cause, including Kate Kelly. Problem is, nobody really cares. I agree with this. I didn't know who any of these people were until I started reading this thread 10 minutes ago. -Stephen
Duncan Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 Smac97, Check your PMs, Dude! he's a guy, just in case you weren't aware!
why me Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 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. 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.I think that you may be trolling a little. I think that this quote does confirm that she is encouraging people to leave. I think that you need to be honest in your statements. I do realize that you may also wish people to leave and do support kate in her missionary efforts and that is fine in me. I have no concern about people leaving etc and I certainly don't care if they do. But this quotation speaks volumes: Always remember, you have power. You can exercise that power by sending a message to the church and voting with your feet. You can remove your name from the records of the church as a way to communicate to male church leaders why they can't keep you or others like you. This has been my husband's choice, and for many, many people I respect and admire. 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. This is quite a statement and not very easy to misinterpret. 2
Avatar4321 Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 I agree. If she isn't encouraging people to leave then why tell them about the so called mass resignation day.Do those ever work? Anti Mormons seem to call for them frequently. But I've never seen them work 1
why me Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 (edited) Kate's statement is basically anti-male. It is full of 1970ish radical feminism. For example this statement: 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. But, no one should be made to unduly suffer for the cause of religious parity.Male leaders colonized our minds to make us think we had to play by their rules to be taken seriously. But, we don't have to stay and "endure all things" for our critiques of the patriarchal system, and the harm it causes, to be valid. Our level of orthodoxy does not determine the validity of our thoughts, desires, concerns and demands. Who are the male leaders she is referring to? Obviously, it can be the husbands of the women who she is addressing this statement to. So, she is actually claiming that their husbands are colonizing their minds by being in the priesthood. It is meant to undermine the lds family. Now of course, the lds people that I know do not have patriarchal homes. Just the opposite. But her statement does make for a great 1970ish soundbite. Edited July 18, 2015 by why me 1
why me Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 (edited) That is my read also. IMO in this article she does not come across as trying to convince anyone of a particular path to follow. I think that you must also be trolling a little. What does this statement speak to you? Always remember, you have power. You can exercise that power by sending a message to the church and voting with your feet. You can remove your name from the records of the church as a way to communicate to male church leaders why they can't keep you or others like you. This has been my husband's choice, and for many, many people I respect and admire. 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. ......................................... 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. But, no one should be made to unduly suffer for the cause of religious parity.Male leaders colonized our minds to make us think we had to play by their rules to be taken seriously. But, we don't have to stay and "endure all things" for our critiques of the patriarchal system, and the harm it causes, to be valid. Our level of orthodoxy does not determine the validity of our thoughts, desires, concerns and demands. If I am not mistaking I do believe that you converted to catholicism. Am I right? There is someone on the leading catholic site with your screen name who has left mormonism and joined the catholic faith. If this is you , then you must know that what kate is complaining about in the lds church is also a problem in the catholic church since it are the males who can hold the priesthood and hear confessions from the women. And the highest authorities in the catholic church are all male. Would you encourage a similiar movement as Kate's in the catholic church? However if you are not the same person, just ignore my post. Edited July 18, 2015 by why me 1
busybee Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 (edited) This from here https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-27?lang=eng : Daniel Tyler recalled: “Soon after the Prophet’s arrival in Commerce (afterwards Nauvoo) from Missouri prison, Brother Isaac Behunin and myself made him a visit at his residence. His persecutions were the topic of conversation. He repeated many false, inconsistent and contradictory statements made by apostates, frightened members of the Church and outsiders. He also told how most of the officials who would fain have taken his life, when he was arrested, turned in his favor on forming his acquaintance. He laid the burden of the blame on false brethren. …“When the Prophet had ended telling how he had been treated, Brother Behunin remarked: ‘If I should leave this Church I would not do as those men have done: I would go to some remote place where Mormonism had never been heard of, settle down, and no one would ever learn that I knew anything about it.’“The great Seer immediately replied: ‘Brother Behunin, you don’t know what you would do. No doubt these men once thought as you do. Before you joined this Church you stood on neutral ground. When the gospel was preached, good and evil were set before you. You could choose either or neither. There were two opposite masters inviting you to serve them. When you joined this Church you enlisted to serve God. When you did that you left the neutral ground, and you never can get back on to it. Should you forsake the Master you enlisted to serve, it will be by the instigation of the evil one, and you will follow his dictation and be his servant.’”15 We can never truly be neutral about the church once we leave. Especially after we have had a testimony of it's truthfulness. I've seen it happen more than once. We either have to turn back to the truth or we will fight against it. Edited July 18, 2015 by busybee 3
Gray Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 I agree in general, but i think in this case it's not so much judging as just stating the obvious. It's obvious that she does not have a testimony of the church or many of the truth claims of the church. Her presiding theme in that article is to stay if it makes you happy, not stay if you believe it's true. Whether or not it's true isn't even part of her equation that i can see. That's not something someone would advocate who did believe that this was Christ's church Obviously she doesn't believe anymore. But that's probably a pretty natural reaction to being excommunicated
Gray Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 No doubt there are people who think that. I have a hard time seeing another religion "exalt" women the way the LDS Church does. How many groups say that there is a heavenly mother who is a divine being in her own right. Being exalted, she is able to do all things. She can command black holes and other things in the universe to do her will. How many say that women have the potential to be like our heavenly mother in every way. All they have to do is be faithful in the few things that God asks of them and they will be ruler over all things. Yet for some, that is not enough. So they give up the promises of being rulers over all things for eternity for a pet cause they have in mortality. There is nothing known about Heavenly Mother or what she might be able to do.
Gray Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 Now if we could only encourage her to leave the Chirch alone...Funny but when I left Methodism I never felt the need to denounce it. Did the Methodists force you out? 1
Bobbieaware Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 (edited) This from here https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-27?lang=eng : Daniel Tyler recalled: “Soon after the Prophet’s arrival in Commerce (afterwards Nauvoo) from Missouri prison, Brother Isaac Behunin and myself made him a visit at his residence. His persecutions were the topic of conversation. He repeated many false, inconsistent and contradictory statements made by apostates, frightened members of the Church and outsiders. He also told how most of the officials who would fain have taken his life, when he was arrested, turned in his favor on forming his acquaintance. He laid the burden of the blame on false brethren. …“When the Prophet had ended telling how he had been treated, Brother Behunin remarked: ‘If I should leave this Church I would not do as those men have done: I would go to some remote place where Mormonism had never been heard of, settle down, and no one would ever learn that I knew anything about it.’“The great Seer immediately replied: ‘Brother Behunin, you don’t know what you would do. No doubt these men once thought as you do. Before you joined this Church you stood on neutral ground. When the gospel was preached, good and evil were set before you. You could choose either or neither. There were two opposite masters inviting you to serve them. When you joined this Church you enlisted to serve God. When you did that you left the neutral ground, and you never can get back on to it. Should you forsake the Master you enlisted to serve, it will be by the instigation of the evil one, and you will follow his dictation and be his servant.’”15We can never truly be neutral about the church once we leave. Especially after we have had a testimony of it's truthfulness. I've seen it happen more than once. We either have to turn back to the truth or we will fight against it.This is the kind of information that truly helps to put things in proper perspective. Its obvious to me Kelly was attempting to use measured language in her not too subtile attempts to encourage members to leave the Church, but she wasn't subtitle enough to not let her true thoughts and feelings clearly show through. Edited July 18, 2015 by Bobbieaware 1
Kenngo1969 Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 (edited) he's a guy, just in case you weren't aware!Smac97 and I have spoken on the phone. Now that you mention it, I suspected there's a reason he has such a deep voice ... P.S.: Reminds me of the State Farm commercial: Man, on phone with agent: "You'd do that for me? I'd like that."Suspicious wife: "Who are you talking to?"Man: "It's Jake, from State Farm ."Wife: "Jake, from State Farm , at 3 in the morning? [Grabs phone].Wife: "Who is this?"Man: "It's Jake, from State Farm ."Wife: "What're you wearing, 'Jake, from State Farm' ?'"Jake: "Uhhhh ... Khakis."Wife, to Husband: "She sounds hideous!"Man: "Well, she's a guy, so ..." (Not that you sound hideous, or anything, Smac ... ) P.S.: And that, of course, reminds me of this: Prince Humperdinck: "Say man and wife! Say man and wife!"Impressive Clergyman: "Man and wife." * * * Later, after Westley stops Buttercup from doing something unutterably tragic ("There's a shortage of perfect breasts in this world," he says. "It would be a pity to damage yours." As Buttercup explains her motivation behind her intended drastic action, she says:) Buttercup: "I got married. I didn't want to. It all happened so fast."Westley: "It never happened."Buttercup: "What?"Westley: "It never happened."Buttercup: "But it did. I was there. This old man said 'Man and wife.'"Westley: "Did you say, 'I do'?"Buttercup: "No. We sort of skipped that part."Westley: "If you didn't say it, you didn't do it." Edited July 18, 2015 by Kenngo1969
HappyJackWagon Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 and they never seem to get the amount they are shooting for anyways, and the reality is in Utah say 100 people resign but in all the missions in Utah they baptize that many plus more Yeah, but is that really the point? "It doesn't matter if 100 leave because we'll baptize 105 new members to replace them." Failure to retain the base is a recipe for shrinkage. Most of the 100 will have been long term, faithful members who have been paying tithing all of their life and have served in multiple leadership positions. Exchange 100 previous stalwarts for 105 new converts of which 30 will stay active for 6 months and it's hardly a good trade. I think people underestimate the caliber of the people who are choosing to leave. Sure there are the standard inactives who just continue to be inactive, but the biggest problem comes from the former bishops and RS presidents, YM/YW leaders, former missionaries etc. Every sould is equally important to God but many who are leaving have made significant contributions to the church.
Kenngo1969 Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 Yeah, but is that really the point? "It doesn't matter if 100 leave because we'll baptize 105 new members to replace them." Failure to retain the base is a recipe for shrinkage. Most of the 100 will have been long term, faithful members who have been paying tithing all of their life and have served in multiple leadership positions. Exchange 100 previous stalwarts for 105 new converts of which 30 will stay active for 6 months and it's hardly a good trade. [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969.] As much as many of those who become disaffected like to crow about their credentials ("[Xth]-generation Mormon, ancestors crossed the plains with the pioneers, former bishop's counselor, bishop, high counselor, stake president's counselor, stake president ..." Yada-yada-yada), I don't think rates of disaffection are highest in that group (and that's assuming the person bearing the un-testimony is being truthful about his "credentials.") I think it's simply a matter that the higher profile one is, the more attention, camera time, podcast time, press ink, et cetera, he tends to get. I think the rates of disaffection among that group actually are the lowest. 4
HappyJackWagon Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 As much as many of those who become disaffected like to crow about their credentials ("[Xth]-generation Mormon, ancestors crossed the plains with the pioneers, former bishop's counselor, bishop, high counselor, stake president's counselor, stake president ..." Yada-yada-yada), I don't think rates of disaffection are highest in that group (and that's assuming the person bearing the un-testimony is being truthful about his "credentials.") I think it's simply a matter that the higher profile one is, the more attention, camera time, podcast time, press ink, et cetera, he tends to get. I think the rates of disaffection among that group actually are the lowest.I have no way of knowing the rates of disaffection for any group so I can't speak to that. But in my interactions I am continually shocked by the calib er of former church leaders among the disaffected. I think it's a major problem that people who have previously given their ALL to the church are choosing to leave despite the negative social/family stigma that comes with it. One might suggest that those people were never truly converted or didn't have a strong testimony but I would argue against that all day because I know many of these people to have been the most devout, thoughtful, service oriented members of the church. Now it feels like the church is willing to write them off as a "sad but acceptable loss" because the ratio's are ok.
Popular Post bluebell Posted July 18, 2015 Popular Post Posted July 18, 2015 No, she just presents one side as degrading, devaluing women, with male leaders turning women into drones by somehow "coloniz[ing]" their minds and the patriarchal system trying to trap people into playing by their rules while ignoring the harm the critics are so willing to point out; making church, their life dangerous for them by causing pain,heartsickness and exhaustion, senses of being trapped instead of being able to breath, living in agony and anguish, rejected by church leaders and members engaging both in control games and in charades (as in meaningless pretend games perhaps) and as a result having to deal with cog dis, heavy dogma and injustices, undue suffering.....but wait! do not abandon hope yet for the other side of the boundary line opens up a whole new life that is freeing, safer, more peaceful---and has an easy peace, as well as calm, rest, with wonderful experience of resolution and beauty, abundancy, full of hope and joy, full of amazing opportunities on this path...if one is honest. And it is a course that will empower you, will give you a voice that will be listened to where it never happened for real before...just was a charade. Don't forget how she also said that the only people who can be happy in the church (who can thrive) are "the least talented, least articulate, least nuanced thinkers, least likely to take a stand against abuse, and the least courageous people." So yeah, she's totally neutral in her approach as to whether or not people should stay in the church. 8
bluebell Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 Obviously she doesn't believe anymore. But that's probably a pretty natural reaction to being excommunicated True. But we know what the scriptures teach about the natural man. It's not an excuse or justification for anything. (And we all struggle with it whether in the church or out).
Kenngo1969 Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 I have no way of knowing the rates of disaffection for any group so I can't speak to that. But in my interactions I am continually shocked by the calib er of former church leaders among the disaffected. ...So ... a few questions, if you don't mind:How many bishops do you personally know (or know of) who've left the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Of those not in another category I list here (so as to avoid duplication: e.g., if someone has served as a bishop, then later as a stake president, and has left the Church of Jesus Christ) how many former stake presidents do you personally know (or know of) who've left the Church of Jesus Christ? Of those not in another category I list here, how many former counselors of stake presidents do you personally know (or know of) who've left the Church of Jesus Christ? Of those not in another category I list here, how many former high councilors do you personally know (or know of) who've left the Church of Jesus Christ? How many others who've held similar positions, e.g., ward and stake primary presidents, ward and stake relief society presidents, ward and stake Sunday school presidents, do you personally know (or know of) who've left the Church of Jesus Christ? Even if we're now talking about a relatively large sample of people, how do you know how representative your sample is of the more than 15 million members of record of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? How will we control for other factors that might be unique in your area (as much as the leaders of the Church strive for uniformity, I don't think a ward in, e.g., Los Angeles, can necessarily compare with one in Salt Lake City, or Atlanta, or Chicago, or somewhere else. People who serve in positions I've mentioned tend to have pretty high levels of education. On another thread, Mystery Meat posited that one reason why professionals tend to be called to, e.g., stake positions, is because they set their own schedules, client loads, et cetera, and, thus, tend to have more time to devote to Church service. Some studies have shown that religious commitment and educational level correlate pretty strongly, especially among Mormons. Do you know why your experience might fly in the face of such data?I have others, but those'll do for now. Thanks. 3
Scott Lloyd Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 (edited) Yeah, I've complained about some of the things you have said to and about me. So, if you don't want to interact with me, that's fine. The only thing I can remember is when you said I was following Satan. OK, I looked it up. The last time I said anything about you was over a year ago, when you went after me for suggesting that an ex-Mormon might have something useful to say about how members deal with their loved ones who leave the church. Was I a bit harsh? Probably, so I apologize for that, but it wasn't your finest hour. Given that the board where you did that has a reputation as a cesspool of defamation and vile slander of the Church, its leaders and some of its other members, and given that contributors to this board have, without their consent -- or even their awareness, in some cases -- become the subjects of discussion on that board, I think people posting here should be warned that you have taken part in that to some degree. Edited July 18, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 3
Scott Lloyd Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 (edited) So ... a few questions, if you don't mind:How many bishops do you personally know (or know of) who've left the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Of those not in another category I list here (so as to avoid duplication: e.g., if someone has served as a bishop, then later as a stake president, and has left the Church of Jesus Christ) how many former stake presidents do you personally know (or know of) who've left the Church of Jesus Christ? Of those not in another category I list here, how many former counselors of stake presidents do you personally know (or know of) who've left the Church of Jesus Christ? Of those not in another category I list here, how many former high councilors do you personally know (or know of) who've left the Church of Jesus Christ? How many others who've held similar positions, e.g., ward and stake primary presidents, ward and stake relief society presidents, ward and stake Sunday school presidents, do you personally know (or know of) who've left the Church of Jesus Christ? Even if we're now talking about a relatively large sample of people, how do you know how representative your sample is of the more than 15 million members of record of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? How will we control for other factors that might be unique in your area (as much as the leaders of the Church strive for uniformity, I don't think a ward in, e.g., Los Angeles, can necessarily compare with one in Salt Lake City, or Atlanta, or Chicago, or somewhere else. People who serve in positions I've mentioned tend to have pretty high levels of education. On another thread, Mystery Meat posited that one reason why professionals tend to be called to, e.g., stake positions, is because they set their own schedules, client loads, et cetera, and, thus, tend to have more time to devote to Church service. Some studies have shown that religious commitment and educational level correlate pretty strongly, especially among Mormons. Do you know why your experience might fly in the face of such data? I have others, but those'll do for now. Thanks. Brilliant, Kenngo! Reminds me of a talk I heard President Packer give many years ago. It was about people who become disaffected because they know of a Mormon who has done this or that contemptible thing. His question to them was something like this: You've been a member of the Church for many years. You've held callings in it. You've interacted with many of its members. Regarding the behavior you speak of, how typical is it for the Church or its members? I should look up that talk from President Packer (he would have been Elder Packer back then) and add it to my thread about the wit and wisdom of Boyd K. Packer. Edited July 19, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 2
BookofMormonLuvr Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 This from here https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-27?lang=eng :Daniel Tyler recalled: “Soon after the Prophet’s arrival in Commerce (afterwards Nauvoo) from Missouri prison, Brother Isaac Behunin and myself made him a visit at his residence. His persecutions were the topic of conversation. He repeated many false, inconsistent and contradictory statements made by apostates, frightened members of the Church and outsiders. He also told how most of the officials who would fain have taken his life, when he was arrested, turned in his favor on forming his acquaintance. He laid the burden of the blame on false brethren. …“When the Prophet had ended telling how he had been treated, Brother Behunin remarked: ‘If I should leave this Church I would not do as those men have done: I would go to some remote place where Mormonism had never been heard of, settle down, and no one would ever learn that I knew anything about it.’“The great Seer immediately replied: ‘Brother Behunin, you don’t know what you would do. No doubt these men once thought as you do. Before you joined this Church you stood on neutral ground. When the gospel was preached, good and evil were set before you. You could choose either or neither. There were two opposite masters inviting you to serve them. When you joined this Church you enlisted to serve God. When you did that you left the neutral ground, and you never can get back on to it. Should you forsake the Master you enlisted to serve, it will be by the instigation of the evil one, and you will follow his dictation and be his servant.’”15 We can never truly be neutral about the church once we leave. Especially after we have had a testimony of it's truthfulness. I've seen it happen more than once. We either have to turn back to the truth or we will fight against it.I don't believe this. There are plenty of former LDS you have gone on to live peaceful, moral, upstanding lives full of faith in Jesus Christ. The caricature of ex-LDS as demon possessed drunkards whos sole focus and obsession is with trying to destroy the church is something that should be left to die. 1
jkwilliams Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 Given that the board where you did that has a reputation as a cesspool of defamation and vile slander of the Church, its leaders and some of its other members, and given that contributors to this board have, without their consent -- or even their awareness, in some cases -- have become the subjects of discussion on that board, I think people posting here should be warned that you have taken part in that to some degree. I have never engaged in defamation or slander of anyone in the church or out of it.
Robert F. Smith Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 (edited) ............................................................................................ We can never truly be neutral about the church once we leave. Especially after we have had a testimony of it's truthfulness. I've seen it happen more than once. We either have to turn back to the truth or we will fight against it.I don't believe this. There are plenty of former LDS you have gone on to live peaceful, moral, upstanding lives full of faith in Jesus Christ. The caricature of ex-LDS as demon possessed drunkards whos sole focus and obsession is with trying to destroy the church is something that should be left to die.Mormon history is filled with excellent examples of members who have left for one reason or another and later returned to the faith, and in the meantime had a good reputation and would not deny their previous testimony. It is also filled with other examples of apostates who bore false witness virtually from the get-go after leaving, and who have dedicated their lives to the destruction of Mormonism. By any means necessary. We need to be more specific, and to avoid these broad generalizations. Complexities abound, including having the Tanners call other apostates to account for their unethical behavior. Edited July 18, 2015 by Robert F. Smith 3
Recommended Posts