Handbook Update, Gay Marriage, Apostasy, Resignations... (Merged Thread)

[Tacenda]

Do you remember the good old days when every town had its one old gay guy that lived at the end of the street, and you had to cross to the other side when you walked to school?  Much simpler times...

That was the only one you knew about, the others were hiding in the closet for fear of you treating them like a disease you don't want to catch.

[Buckeye]

Do you remember the good old days when every town had its one old gay guy that lived at the end of the street, and you had to cross to the other side when you walked to school?  Much simpler times...

 

Dude, those days sucked. For everyone.

[Deborah]

I actually know a couple of people who have new confidence in the church because of the new policy. They were losing faith in the current leaders who appeared to be bringing us into the mainstream and bowing to the world. This confirmed they were not.

 

I was on a LGBT site that supposedly wanted to build bridges with the church and the gay community. Instead all they wanted was to whine and complain and bemoan how unchristian the policy is and feel sorry for themselves and expect others to mourn with them, even though most of them aren't even affected by this policy and have already left the church. They kept coming up with extreme hypothetical scenarios and continually attacking the church and accusing the church of kicking children out. There is no reasoning with people who react purely with emotion. The fact that they were so quick to react and throw accusations tells me they were looking for an excuse to criticize the church and feel like they have a good one now.

 

I am sorry when anyone leaves the church whether over history, an issue like this or any of the other reasons. I am sorry they lose sight of the big picture and hang their testimonies on one thing, but quite frankly if they are going to leave, then do so. They are prolonging their misery by continuing to come back just to criticize or mock those who stay or disparage the character of the prophet and apostles. The church will stand.

[Deborah]

 Take Matthew 19:14 for instance.  I think that makes a pretty good case against baring children from baptism.  But I guess you would probably disagree. 

 

It's not even about baptism. It's about Christ bringing the children to him and blessing them. The church can continue to bless children.

[Mars]

If there is no room for beneficial discussion of the topic then let it lie. But that doesn't mean there is nothing else to build (or continue) your relationship around.

 

relationships take a lot of time and effort, and are ostensibly paid for by the emotional capital of the care you have for the person.  emotional deposits are made by the good you get out of the relationships and debits by the converse.  emotionally bankrupt friendships are understandably terminated.  this is certainly true for me, and i imagine it to be true for the vast majority of human beings on the planet.

 

i'd like to think i have a diverse friendship group.  but my closest friends and confidants are necessarily people who can share the most intimate pieces of my life in high respect and esteem.  this usually happens because they agree on very important points.  it's a rare thing that someone can completely disagree on such passionate issues and maintain respect as well as reinforce it.

 

as for my personal shortcomings and character deficiencies, i can't trust that someone loves and respects me if they turn around and say on facebook to all their gay friends that the Church should lose its tax exemption status as a punitive measure, or be labeled a hate group.  or if they turn around and say all liberals are completely stupid.  at some point, i feel like i'm in the target of their criticism.  "you say X about everyone else who thinks like me - why doesn't that apply to me, too?"  and it becomes a wedge.  i begin to distrust that they seem me as an intelligent, kind, and capable person.

 

i'm doing my best to be a decent and kind human being toward all of God's children, no matter their differentiation markers.  they're God's kids and they deserve my love, kindness, and charity as a function of my ability to give such.  but i fall short of the ideal and i really prefer those closest to me to be pure sources of positivity.  that doesn't mean they need to agree with everything i say and do.  it just means that disagreement and challenges need to be approached with caution "lest esteem thee to be [mine] enemy."  just part and parcel of who i am as a person.

 

as a final general note, please don't construe a rare moment of personal vulnerability as invitation to criticize or suggest changes.  criticism and suggested changes are reserved for people who have earned my trust.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Mars

[Five Solas]

Yes, but it is so dramatic to be able to point to an "attorney" who will bring these poor, defenseless cult members into the light.  Yes, the chap is a true knight on a white horse fighting against the mindless hordes of Mormons that have chained their members into submission.  

 

These events are propaganda at its worst.  It is difficult for me to respect them because of all the blathering and posturing.  Just flaky people supporting flaky behavior.  

I wouldn't dispute the presence/promotion of an attorney casts the LDS Church in a poor light--which could well have been the organizers' intent.  But that acknowledged, there's no good reason for the LDS Church to make the exit process so cumbersome and bureaucratic.  When I became a Christian in 2005 and joined a local church, I attempted to formally resign shortly thereafter.  I sent a letter to SLC.  The letter was sent back to the local stake president.  He sat on it and nothing happened.  A couple months later--I call SLC again, they tell me it's in the stake presidents hands and I should be hearing from him shortly.  A few months after that, still nothing and I call again.  And this time I ask a not-so rhetorical question, "Do I need to get an attorney?"  Apparently those were the magic words because I had official notice of my resignation later that week.  

 

Was the attorney's presence overkill on the part of the organizers, or just a bit of prudence based on the experience of some?

 

--Erik  

Edited November 17, 2015 by Five Solas

[Zakuska]

That was the only one you knew about, the others were hiding in the closet for fear of you treating them like a disease you don't want to catch.

I had a gay teacher in highschool. Once during the middle of class he called one of the cheer leaders to his desk and asked her if he could borrow some mascarra so he could hide a couple graw hairs in his mustscache he had noticed. She went and got it and then promptly threw it away after class. I guess the icky factor was a little too much for her.

Those days were sad.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Zakuska

[Mars]

I wouldn't dispute the presence/promotion of an attorney casts the LDS Church in a poor light--which could well have been the organizers' intent.  But that acknowledged, there's no good reason for the LDS Church to make the exit process so cumbersome and bureaucratic.  When I became a Christian in 2005 and joined a local church, I attempted to formally resign shortly thereafter.  I sent a letter to SLC.  The letter was sent back to the local stake president.  He sat on it and nothing happened.  A couple months later--I call SLC again, they tell me it's in the stake presidents hands and I should be hearing from him shortly.  A few months after that, still nothing and I call again.  And this time I ask a not-so rhetorical question, "Do I need to get an attorney?"  Apparently those were the magic words because I had official notice of my resignation later that week.  

 

Was the attorney's presence overkill on the part of the organizers, or just a bit of prudence based on the experience of some?

 

--Erik  

 

as a general rule, we treat record keeping "on earth as it is in heaven" and leaving the Church to be more than just a switch between religions.  right or wrong, good or bad, it goes with the territory of the belief that we are the only authoritative Church.  there is a bit of a line that we feel is difficult to cross back over if someone ever changes their mind, so we make sure someone is dead serious or particularly persistent in certain behaviors before moving to excommunicate or have names removed from the records of the Church/Heaven.

 

no mal intent or disrespect is intended.

[Gray]

The latest policy revision reduces the reach if not the type of discrimination put on children of gay parents. Fewer kids will be affected. Whether or not people will be okay with that is hard to predict. 

Edited November 17, 2015 by Gray

[Deborah]

Or perhaps they see scriptures a little differently and think church Doctrine and Policy actually goes against the Gospel and might be mistaken.

Riddle me this. What was the sin of Sodom and Gamorah according to scripture?

Hint: it wasn't homosexuality.

Ezekiel 16:49

 

You apparently didn't read v 50 on: And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

 

**I see someone already noted this.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Deborah

[Meadowchik]

I look forward to your further comments.

 

One example of changes by 2050 is that Christians and Muslims will be basically tied in terms of percentage of world population, yet the shape will be different than now: Forty percent of Christians will be in Africa, percentages of Muslims in Western countries will be increasing.  IOW, it looks as though Islam, which is perhaps the most hardline socially conservative religion in the world will represent a bigger portion of the population than it does now, and not merely in its own more cloistered world regions, but in most countries including Western developed nations. Source for pew study

 

Thus, it would seem to me that a free and peaceful world will desperately need the ability to negotiate the differences of mutliple belief systems.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints can represent a microcosm of this, as it is a global Church led centrally, attempting to maintain a unified structure everywhere while staying true to its core doctrines and practices. 

 

Look at any ward in the Church, and most of the time if you could see all, you will find a member who has been disciplined or even excommunicated who is participating in the ward, welcomed by its members, and remaining part of the ward family.  Look at the messages from our First Presidency and you will see exhortations to love everyone.  So, if the LDS keep their covenants, even magnify them, they will bridge that divide that poses a dilemma to the rest of the world.  And perhaps, in doing so, they will be part of making and keeping the world free and peaceful.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Meadowchik

[Five Solas]

as a general rule, we treat record keeping "on earth as it is in heaven" and leaving the Church to be more than just a switch between religions.  right or wrong, good or bad, it goes with the territory of the belief that we are the only authoritative Church.  there is a bit of a line that we feel is difficult to cross back over if someone ever changes their mind, so we make sure someone is dead serious or particularly persistent in certain behaviors before moving to excommunicate or have names removed from the records of the Church/Heaven.

 

no mal intent or disrespect is intended.

Sounds like you would agree with my suggestion the organizers were being prudent by including the attorney--because the LDS Church (for the reasons you state above) deliberately makes the exit process cumbersome. 

 

Fair enough.

 

--Erik

[Mars]

Sounds like you would agree with my suggestion the organizers were being prudent by including the attorney--because the LDS Church (for the reasons you state above) deliberately makes the exit process cumbersome. 

 

Fair enough.

 

--Erik

 

one fine distinction - perhaps splitting hairs:

 

i don't think it's cumbersome.  the process of sending in your letter is simple.  it's just that we want to make sure you didn't come to the decision lightly.  ideally, the same conditions are set upon your joining.  but real life is messy.

 

more or less, though, yes.  i agree with you.

[rongo]

I wouldn't dispute the presence/promotion of an attorney casts the LDS Church in a poor light--which could well have been the organizers' intent.  But that acknowledged, there's no good reason for the LDS Church to make the exit process so cumbersome and bureaucratic.  When I became a Christian in 2005 and joined a local church, I attempted to formally resign shortly thereafter.  I sent a letter to SLC.  The letter was sent back to the local stake president.  He sat on it and nothing happened.  A couple months later--I call SLC again, they tell me it's in the stake presidents hands and I should be hearing from him shortly.  A few months after that, still nothing and I call again.  And this time I ask a not-so rhetorical question, "Do I need to get an attorney?"  Apparently those were the magic words because I had official notice of my resignation later that week.  

 

Was the attorney's presence overkill on the part of the organizers, or just a bit of prudence based on the experience of some?

 

--Erik  

It was cumbersome in your stake/ward, but you shouldn't paint the rest of the Church with that brush. As outlined in the handbook (and in my experience), it's incredibly easy and non-invasive. The hard part is actually getting people who bellow that they want to resign to actually write some sort of a letter . . .

 

Buckeye pointed out a possibility I hadn't thought of (all contact going through the attorney, instead of the person), but I don't think that's what he was offering. CFR, anyone who knows? Was that part of the attorney's paperwork/offered services?

 

I think it's cowardly and "easy" (cheap grace, Five Solas?  )  to try to avoid having the bishop confirm receipt of the letter. If you're so brave that you're very publicly taking this big step and resigning, go ahead and actually follow the resigning process. You want to stick it to the Church and show your bishop how fed up you are with "the last straw" ---- tell him. 

 

Pre-priinted, fill-in-the blank resignations. Very courageous.

[ERayR]

I actually know a couple of people who have new confidence in the church because of the new policy. They were losing faith in the current leaders who appeared to be bringing us into the mainstream and bowing to the world. This confirmed they were not.

 

I was on a LGBT site that supposedly wanted to build bridges with the church and the gay community. Instead all they wanted was to whine and complain and bemoan how unchristian the policy is and feel sorry for themselves and expect others to mourn with them, even though most of them aren't even affected by this policy and have already left the church. They kept coming up with extreme hypothetical scenarios and continually attacking the church and accusing the church of kicking children out. There is no reasoning with people who react purely with emotion. The fact that they were so quick to react and throw accusations tells me they were looking for an excuse to criticize the church and feel like they have a good one now.

 

I am sorry when anyone leaves the church whether over history, an issue like this or any of the other reasons. I am sorry they lose sight of the big picture and hang their testimonies on one thing, but quite frankly if they are going to leave, then do so. They are prolonging their misery by continuing to come back just to criticize or mock those who stay or disparage the character of the prophet and apostles. The church will stand.

 

From my personal observation over the past forty years the above bolded part is interpreted, as long as you give us what we want we will not attack you.

Edited November 17, 2015 by ERayR

[KevinG]

I had a gay teacher in highschool. Once during the middle of class he called one of the cheer leaders to his desk and asked her if he could borrow some mascarra so he could hide a couple graw hairs in his mustscache he had noticed. She went and got it and then promptly threw it away after class. I guess the icky factor was a little too much for her.

Those days were sad.

 

Are  you sure it was because he was gay.  I'm not sure many young women would keep a mascara after it had been dragged through a man's booger brush.

[Deborah]

My understanding is that the attorney helps by serving as an intermediary.

 

They don't need an intermediary. They don't even need to talk to anyone. My daughter had her name removed years ago just by sending a letter. I'm not even sure why anyone needs to resign, especially if they don't go anyway and are a "no contact".

[Bob Crockett]

My understanding is that the attorney helps by serving as an intermediary. By giving him power of attorney, the church will interact with the attorney rather than send a local leader to speak with the individual. Bishops and Stake Presidents are normally good about this issue - basically just checking with the individual to make sure the resignation is legit. But sometimes the local leader can be overbearing. I can see why a resigning member would find it beneficial to have the interaction come through her legal counsel than face-to-face (especially if its a free service).

 

 

Right.   It was a good thing to use an attorney.  (What requires the church to "interact with the attorney?"  Some legal rule?)

[KevinG]

When I consider how cumbersome it is to get my tithing statement from the Ward Clerk every year, delays in getting a letter of resignation acknowledged by Salt Lake City don't seem so nefarious.   

[rongo]

The process is:

 

1) write a letter with your name, date, and stating that you resign your membership.

 

2) give to a member of the bishopric

 

3) bishop informs you that he gave it to the stake president, and you will receive a letter within 30 days from the stake president confirming that it happened. Done

 

Your stake dragged its feet. Ours never has.

 

Now, you can email it in, for crying out loud! Or (as you did) send it directly to Salt Lake. Once, my stake president told me I had a member of my ward who resigned (who I didn't even know we had --- her record appeared simultaneous with his phone call). I visited her, confirmed that this was her desire, and told her she would get a letter in 30 days from the stake president. Done.

 

For those who say that the 30 day "cooling off period" is cumbersome (they said they wanted to resign, after all) --- as has been said, we consider it to be a serious matter. Not one to be undergone in heat of emotion (which is the definition of the media spectacle mass resignation phenomenon). It's not cumbersome ---- it gives people a little room before it's final. It's no more cumbersome than the waiting periods for divorces to finalize.

[Buckeye]

It was cumbersome in your stake/ward, but you shouldn't paint the rest of the Church with that brush. As outlined in the handbook (and in my experience), it's incredibly easy and non-invasive. The hard part is actually getting people who bellow that they want to resign to actually write some sort of a letter . . .

 

Buckeye pointed out a possibility I hadn't thought of (all contact going through the attorney, instead of the person), but I don't think that's what he was offering. CFR, anyone who knows? Was that part of the attorney's paperwork/offered services?

 

I think it's cowardly and "easy" (cheap grace, Five Solas?  )  to try to avoid having the bishop confirm receipt of the letter. If you're so brave that you're very publicly taking this big step and resigning, go ahead and actually follow the resigning process. You want to stick it to the Church and show your bishop how fed up you are with "the last straw" ---- tell him. 

 

Pre-priinted, fill-in-the blank resignations. Very courageous.

 

I can't find the source now, but I watched a news report (KSL maybe) where the attorney was interviewed. That is precisely the rationale he gave. People give him power of attorney. The church then interacts with him. His clients don't have to worry about receiving any contact from the church. 

 

Per Erik's experience, I also imagine that having an attorney speeds up the process. Though in my personal experience the process seems to be more streamlined now than in the past.

[Buckeye]

 

They don't need an intermediary. They don't even need to talk to anyone. My daughter had her name removed years ago just by sending a letter. I'm not even sure why anyone needs to resign, especially if they don't go anyway and are a "no contact".

 

I can't tell you have many times I've sat in ward council with a bishop who says "there is no such thing as a do not contact list." 

 

I my experience, so long as you're on the records, you're going to get contacted a few times a year on average. This is especially true now that we have so many missionaries will less people to teach. 

[Deborah]

When I consider how cumbersome it is to get my tithing statement from the Ward Clerk every year, delays in getting a letter of resignation acknowledged by Salt Lake City don't seem so nefarious.   

 

I started paying on line. How simple and it records everything you paid.

[Deborah]

 

I can't tell you have many times I've sat in ward council with a bishop who says "there is no such thing as a do not contact list." 

 

 

True in reality though I have been in meetings where we talked about not contacting the person if they have the no contact. However, how many pay attention to such details.

[Five Solas]

...

 

I think it's cowardly and "easy" (cheap grace, Five Solas?  )  to try to avoid having the bishop confirm receipt of the letter. If you're so brave that you're very publicly taking this big step and resigning, go ahead and actually follow the resigning process. You want to stick it to the Church and show your bishop how fed up you are with "the last straw" ---- tell him. 

 

Pre-priinted, fill-in-the blank resignations. Very courageous.

Cheap shot, rongo.  How exactly does this help your cause?