Scott Lloyd Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 At least that's what some insiders told you. Correction: what some insiders may have told him. 1
jkwilliams Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 Apart from anonymous individuals posting online, I am personally acquainted with absolutely no one who left the Church over the gay marriage issue. And I know a good deal of Mormons. Anecdotal and not a representative sample, just responding to comment. Like I said, I've known a few. An American couple I knew in Bolivia come to mind. There have been many times when I've been tempted just to get it over with and send in a resignation letter, but I promised my wife I wouldn't, so I haven't.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 Like I said, I've known a few. An American couple I knew in Bolivia come to mind. There have been many times when I've been tempted just to get it over with and send in a resignation letter, but I promised my wife I wouldn't, so I haven't.But as I understand it, your issue isn't over gay marriage. Or maybe it is; I don't know.
jkwilliams Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 But as I understand it, your issue isn't over gay marriage. Or maybe it is; I don't know. Nope, it isn't. I was just thinking that it was the last straw for the couple I mentioned. I've had a few last-straw moments, but I'm still in nonetheless. A promise is a promise.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 I'm sure they're about as reliable as Grant Palmer's conveniently-anonymous General Authority. Yeah, what's up with that? If there was any veracity to it you'd think the ---- would have hit the fan by now. 1
Gray Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 I know of a couple of people who have left over it. But then again the plural of anecdote is not (quantitative) data. 2
Thinking Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 Thus, I may ask you for a loan, and for very favorable terms. I may loan you up to $1,000,000 with an interest rate of up to 25%.
Kenngo1969 Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 I may loan you up to $1,000,000 with an interest rate of up to 25%.Compounded how often?
Thinking Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 I am personally acquainted with absolutely no one who left the Church over the gay marriage issue. And I know a good deal of Mormons. As an educated man, you know that this statement holds as little water as the one you're criticizing. Of course maybe that's your point. 1. You did not reveal how many people you personally know who have left the church for any reason. Is it none out of one? Five? 50?2. You are a sample size of one.
Thinking Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 Compounded how often? Up to 365 times per year.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) As an educated man, you know that this statement holds as little water as the one you're criticizing. Of course maybe that's your point. Hence, my echoing of rockpond's phrase in the post to which I responded: Anecdotal and not a representative sample, just responding to comment. The trouble with an anecdote is it only takes one anecdote to counter and rebut it. Edited October 16, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
sethpayne Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) Nope, it isn't. I was just thinking that it was the last straw for the couple I mentioned. I've had a few last-straw moments, but I'm still in nonetheless. A promise is a promise. Yeah.... i've known a few people who left over the issue as well. I don't think it was the primary reason but was the last straw, in their minds, as you say. ETA: FWIW I personally wouldn't leave over the gay marriage issue. In fact, I am thankful for the Church's involvement as it propelled the issue into the national spotlight and led to the recent SC ruling. Without Mormon involvement, marriage equality may have taken much longer to accomplish. Also, it's not like you can't be a member and hold an alternate view. I've supported gay marriage since ~2003. And each time a letter was read telling me how to vote on the issue I simply voted the other way. When asked to write congress, I did in fact write in support of marriage equality. At no time has any Church leader given me any grief over having and expressing my own opinion. Now, were the expression of my opinion to include personal insults to Church leadership, then I imagine the outcome would be different. And I know this is off topic a bit but I would just like to add that people do not get kicked out of the Church for doubting or holding alternate views on doctrine and policy. Anyone who claims this either has a nutty Bishop or SP, or is spinning for their own benefit. You get booted from the Church for insulting Church leaders, revealing sacred ordinances, and interfering with Church events. If some feel this is the path to go then great. Go for it. but for heaven's sake don't expect that the Church is just going to stand by while you disrupt and insult its most sacred institutions. But hey, good spin makes for good stories and, I think, can get you all sorts of media attention. That's just not an interest of mine. Edited October 16, 2015 by sethpayne 1
Analytics Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) With a little more detail, Huffpost said, Insiders have indicated that over the last seven years the Mormon Church may have lost up to 1 million members because of all it did to end gay marriage. These formerly loyal Church members decided to side with their lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) family members and friends instead of their Church. Because of the way the Mormon Church works, you're either with them 100 percent on everything or you're out. The reason I posted this is that last sentence--"Because of the way the Mormon Church works, you're either with them 100 percent on everything or you're out." I can imagine an insider saying that up to one million members disagree with the Church's position on same-sex marriage. That could be true. The way the author used the word "because", it sounds like he made a logical inference--he claims that if a Mormon disagrees with the church about anything, he is out. Therefore, since one million Mormons disagree with the Church on same-sex marriage, one million Mormons are out. Clearly, this logic isn't sound. As long as the members who aren't "with them 100 percent" aren't too loud, the Church permits (and the members tolerate) a fair amount of dissonance. Edited October 16, 2015 by Analytics
mfbukowski Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) Yeah.... i've known a few people who left over the issue as well. I don't think it was the primary reason but was the last straw, in their minds, as you say. ETA: FWIW I personally wouldn't leave over the gay marriage issue. In fact, I am thankful for the Church's involvement as it propelled the issue into the national spotlight and led to the recent SC ruling. Without Mormon involvement, marriage equality may have taken much longer to accomplish. Also, it's not like you can't be a member and hold an alternate view. I've supported gay marriage since ~2003. And each time a letter was read telling me how to vote on the issue I simply voted the other way. When asked to write congress, I did in fact write in support of marriage equality. At no time has any Church leader given me any grief over having and expressing my own opinion. Now, were the expression of my opinion to include personal insults to Church leadership, then I imagine the outcome would be different. And I know this is off topic a bit but I would just like to add that people do not get kicked out of the Church for doubting or holding alternate views on doctrine and policy. Anyone who claims this either has a nutty Bishop or SP, or is spinning for their own benefit. You get booted from the Church for insulting Church leaders, revealing sacred ordinances, and interfering with Church events. If some feel this is the path to go then great. Go for it. but for heaven's sake don't expect that the Church is just going to stand by while you disrupt and insult its most sacred institutions. But hey, good spin makes for good stories and, I think, can get you all sorts of media attention. That's just not an interest of mine. I was a bishop during that time and we were specifically instructed NOT to create divisions within the ward over these issues. The instruction was to invite all members to participate, but leave the choice strictly up to them. I had some members who told me they were opposed to the church's position, whom I encouraged to act the way their conscience led them and they are still active and holding responsible callings (Stake auxilliary presidencies, Ward leadership roles) And their positions on gay marriage have not changed. Those who are called to sign temple recommends still sign them for these individuals in the ward and stake Edited October 16, 2015 by mfbukowski 1
mfbukowski Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 I rarely look at the In the News forum anymore. Those who want their threads to get attention and traffic will post them here. If I ran the circus, In the News would be merged with this forum.I have seen that forum but I don't think I have ever read anything on it, or posted on it. Maybe once? I don't even remember.
Damien the Leper Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) This article came off to me as using passive voice, was passive aggressive and highly biased and misleading. Now I have to read something by Simon Blackburn so as to compensate for the brain cells lost whilst reading the article.Scott, can I get a little back up here? Edited October 16, 2015 by Valentinus
Scott Lloyd Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 This article came off to me as using passive voice, was passive aggressive and highly biased and misleading. Now I have to read something by Simon Blackburn so as to compensate for the brain cells lost whilst reading the article.Scott, can I get a little back up here?I think you're doing fine on your own. 1
Damien the Leper Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 I think you're doing fine on your own.Thanks buddy. You're the best! 1
Kenngo1969 Posted October 17, 2015 Posted October 17, 2015 Up to 365 times per year. You're shrewd. Very shrewd!
Teancum Posted October 17, 2015 Posted October 17, 2015 Another hit piece on the church at the Huffington post. Basically attacking the Church because the Church went on a campaign against gay marriage. Normal stuff but this particular claim I found interesting: "Insiders have indicated that over the last seven years the Mormon Church may have lost up to 1 million members because of all it did to end gay marriage. These formerly loyal Church members decided to side with their lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) family members and friends instead of their Church." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-karger/mormon-church-bleeding-me_b_8299882.html I don't know where they get this from but really 1 million over gay marriage? I am sure a some members might decide to with the LGBT group over Christ but I can't think of one person that has left over gay marriage. If one million is true, I should be aware of at least 5 or 10 by myself.Like most who have posted on this thread I am calling bull hooey on this.
mfbukowski Posted October 17, 2015 Posted October 17, 2015 Thanks buddy. You're the best!OK now I am jealous. Just because he is beating me in points, that doesn't mean he is the "best" Just because he is better looking than me, and nicer definitely, and smarter and better at writing and a true professional and, and and.... BBBWWWAAAAAAAAA!!!!! 1
mfbukowski Posted October 17, 2015 Posted October 17, 2015 Like most who have posted on this thread I am calling bull hooey on this.I think the adult term is "bovine boo-boo".
Thinking Posted October 17, 2015 Posted October 17, 2015 You're shrewd. Very shrewd! Well, when you first requested a loan,Thus, I may ask you for a loan, and for very favorable terms. you did not specify for whom the terms should be favorable. 1
why me Posted October 17, 2015 Posted October 17, 2015 Nope, it isn't. I was just thinking that it was the last straw for the couple I mentioned. I've had a few last-straw moments, but I'm still in nonetheless. A promise is a promise.But of course, they must have known about the proclamation and I think that the proclamation is very clear. What should the church do when such a proclamation is under threat? Surely, the couple must have supported the proclamation and if not, there leaving was only a matter of time. I don't think that it is in the interest of the church to let the world slide in the opposite direction of the proclamation.
Stargazer Posted October 17, 2015 Posted October 17, 2015 Roger Nicholson of FairMormon (known here as Wiki Wonka) has addressed the matter of the treatment of Mormonism and Mormon-related subjects on Wikipedia. He has done this in a number of places, including the FairMormon Conference. But here's a link to his article in Interpreter: a Journal of Mormon Scripture.I freely admit that some controversial subjects get a lot of attention, and not necessarily from the best-intended people. Now, I am the originator of a few LDS-related articles on Wikipedia, namely these: Bruce D. Porter - I am personally acquainted with Elder Porter, having served with him in our mission, and a few years later we were branch presidents in the same Servicemens Stake in GermanyRudolf K. Poecker - He was my and Elder Porter's mission presidentRobert C. Oaks - I saw he didn't have a WP article, so I created one for himThe current state of these three articles is much advanced from my original versions; they have all be expanded and improved by other editors in the years since. To the best of my knowledge, none of these articles have ever undergone any vandalism. Of course they are about relatively minor players in the LDS scene, so perhaps would naturally attract rather less attention that other articles. But I do understand that there have been and will continue to be what Wikipedia calls "edit wars" over LDS-related articles. I am sure that the RCC's articles have also attracted negative attention. It goes with the territory.
Recommended Posts