BYU comm speech "disconnect from those who have lost their faith"

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I think I interpreted the only way I could. 

And yet I read it very different from you.

[Rico]

Quote

 

How do you persistently gloss over the qualifiers "proselytizing efforts" and "assertive apostates"?

That the ones described are said to be not merely "faithless" but seeking to "rescue the rest of us from our naivete"? 

These are not mere doubters, Less-Active or Inactive LDS, nor wounded seekers seeking reasons for faith.

These are scoffers and obstinate ones, uninterested in answers but only in doing harm to the Church.

Evangelical Atheists seeking to damage or destroy faith wherever it can be injured.

 

Flameburns623,

"But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the WOLF coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep." (John 10:12-13)

What would you like to be: a hireling who abandons the flock when the wolves come, or be like the Good Shepherd who lays his life down for every sheep... even while seeking out the lost sheep?

And while you're thinking about that, let me say this: the Catholic Church did not last 2,000 years by running away from every wolf that comes along.  In fact, it has survived precisely by blowing away the cunning and crafty cover of every wolf out there that pretends to be sheep.

 

[Rico]

Mfbukowski,

Quote

 

Mfbukowski:  In seventh grade I learned what a direct object of a sentence was, and an indirect object.

Perhaps you missed that day.

 

I missed not only that day but the entire year :-)

Quote

 

Mfbukowski:  All you have to do is look at the sentence and ask- "What is happening here?  Who is doing what to whom?"

  Quote
"We should disconnect immediately and completely from listening to the proselytizing efforts of those who have lost their faith"

What is the subject of the sentence? 

"WE".

What is the predicate?

"Should disconnect"

What should we disconnect from??

"Proselyting efforts"

See how it works?  Glad to have taught you a little about how the English language works.  Of course others have said the same thing.

 

Okay, so the sentence has been parsed.   What then does it all mean?  Does it mean not listening to the opposition at all?  If so, then you will not understand their arguments. And when you do not understand their arguments, they will have an advantage over your arguments.  As an unintended consequence, you will not be able to form better reasons against them.

And so Elder Ballard would definitely disagree...

"An Evening with Elder M. Russell Ballard"
https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/watch/evening-with-a-general-authority/2016/02?lang=eng

Speaking before church educators last March, he said, "It was only a generation ago that our young people’s access to information about our history, doctrine, and practices was basically limited to materials printed by the Church. Few students came in contact with alternative interpretations. Mostly our young people lived a sheltered life. Our curriculum at that time, though well-meaning, did not prepare students for today, a day when students have instant access to virtually everything about the church from every possible point of view."

He is now advocating for fundamental change in educating Mormon youth.  It is not enough for a church educator anymore to bear testimony when faced with a tough question.  There has to be "doctrinal mastery" which means church educators cannot afford not to read and understand the controversial topics addressed by the recent "Gospel Essays."

He also said, "It is perfectly all right to say, 'I do not know.' However, once that is said, you have the responsibility to find the best answers to the thoughtful questions your students ask.

In teaching your students and in responding to their questions, let me warn you not to pass along faith-promoting or unsubstantiated rumors, or outdated understandings and explanations of our doctrine and practices from the past."

Thus, we now have two church leaders apparently giving contradictory instructions. One says not to listen to the arguments of the critics, and another one who says to find the best answers to "thoughtful questions" which usually comes from critics.  After all, where do the Mormon youth get those questions from if not from critics?

But how in heavens will the answers be found if one refuses to listen first and understand the questions asked?  Can one hear by putting on ear plugs?  One cannot obey two contradictory commands.

"For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?" (1 Corinthians 14:8).

[Rico]

Quote

 

I get a kick out of observing non-LDS people who come on this board who think they've found a real zinger in the Bible that's "going to really put those ignorant Latter-day Saints in their place," only to demonstrate just how unfair and scripturally ignorant they really are. In trying too hard to find fault with the Latter-day Saints these folks become hasty, suspend critical thinking, and forget to thoroughly check with available sources so as to be sure they aren't going to end up putting their foot in their mouth. But of course, that's precisely what you just did. If you had bothered to research Elder Clayton's background, such as his General Conference addresses, you would have come to realize that lovingly and compassionately going after the lost sheep who have lost their faith is a recurrent theme of his. And if you had more thoroughly checked with the Bible you would have come to understand there is Biblical support for the saints of God to refuse to give aid and comfort to the "proselytizing efforts" of apostate enemies of the Church of Christ.

14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing;and I will receive you,

 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. (2 Corinthians 6)"

 

Bobbieaware,

To whom is the Apostle Paul addressing the verses in 2 Corinthians 6:15-18?  Is it to the "ninety and nine just persons, who need no repentance"?

Or is it to the "lost sheep" themselves?

The clue is in verse 17: "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,"

In the early years of the Church, Corinth has been notorious to the Apostle Paul because it is a city made wealthy through the lucrative trade that goes on its seaport.  Here you see all sorts of pagan philosophy and debauchery meeting each other in one place, thus making life extra difficult for the saints in Corinth.  The saints there, although they have believed the gospel and are baptized have to fight serious struggles against worldly lusts and temptations.  And they don't always succeed. Therefore, although they are considered sheep, yet they continuously wander away from the sheepfold.

Who then will seek out these wandering and straying sheep and tell them the message of verse 17 to "come out from among them" (ie, the pagans and other infidels) and "be separate" if Paul himself will not proselytize them?

Paul also says that the "ministry of reconciliation" was given to them (ie, the Apostles) and that God "was in Christ, reconciling the world to him" (2 Corinthians 5:18-19).  Therefore, as "ambassadors of Christ" he announces to these wandering and straying sheep "BE RECONCILED TO GOD." (v.20).  The entire epistle will not mean anything if these were addressed to the "ninety and nine just persons who need no repentance."

Therefore, as an "ambassador of Christ" the Apostle Paul considers it his duty to seek out the lost sheep and tell them to be reconciled with God.  That will never happen if he disengages and refuses to listen to them.

 

[Damien the Leper]

I think those who no longer believe should just move on and not proselytize but also shut down efforts of proselytizing them to come back also. This meme is wonderful advice for persons of faith and they should adhere always:

 

[mfbukowski]

16 hours ago, stemelbow said:

But we should not disconnect from that.  We'll lose for sure if we do.  It's bad advice, it appears to be an attempt to bring pharisaic practice to our faith, or keep it going.  It's insular, breeding fear and lack of faith in the listener. 

My point was what was being said, not its merits, though quite honestly I feel that any spiritual growth I have experienced while posting here (which was his point) has certainly been in spite of the detritus clogging my eyes and ears from being here.

There are places we should keep our eyes wide open, but not necessarily in a dust storm.

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, Okrahomer said:

Trying to avoid being a "drive-by" poster, but I don't always have time to check in everyday; nevertheless, I think Elder Clayton's advice was sound and good.  While I agree that we should engage in dialogue with folks who do not believe as we do, it makes little sense--and can quite quickly turn into a colossal waste of time--to continue to engage someone who is aggressively proselytizing me toward unbelief.  In my experience, there is little if any actual "dialogue" going on in these situations.  I think Elder Clayton was rightly advising the graduates to disconnect from such situations.

Yeah, I agree- I think that was basically his point.  Wrestling with them in the mud doesn't change anything but it still gets you dirty.

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, consiglieri said:

 

 

I totally agree with this.

 

This was always the way that Jehovah’s Witnesses acted about other religions, including Mormonism.

 

The Mormonism I grew up with openly encouraged its members to learn about other religions because, as the saying went, it will help you better appreciate the truth you have.

 

I always thought that attitude obviously came from a position of strength, or at least security.  (Of course, I have found out later that was probably said by local leaders who were not really aware of all the dirt the top leaders were busy suppressing.)

 

The icky feeling I deal with is that the Mormon Church is turning into the JW’s.

 

And I mean that not as a general slam on JW’s (my brother is one), but on the manner in which they discourage their members from accessing certain kinds of information.

 

I mean, really, if the negative information is just lies and baseless accusations, you would think that would be an easy matter to demonstrate.

 

It is because it is not just lies and baseless accusations that has the natives restless.

I don't know where you get this stuff

You have to read some Givens.  The church grows more open by the day, and more accepting of diversity of beliefs- except in matters of morals. On that they are solid, as I think they should be.  The erosion of the family is the worst problem in Western civilization. But the theology is wide open - far more so than it has been for a hundred years.

The difference between McConkie and Givens and Ostler, and Faulconer and Adam Miller is just plain breathtaking.

Or more like a breath of fresh air-

[Abulafia]

2 hours ago, Rico said:

Bobbieaware,

To whom is the Apostle Paul addressing the verses in 2 Corinthians 6:15-18?  Is it to the "ninety and nine just persons, who need no repentance"?

Or is it to the "lost sheep" themselves?

The clue is in verse 17: "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,"

In the early years of the Church, Corinth has been notorious to the Apostle Paul because it is a city made wealthy through the lucrative trade that goes on its seaport.  Here you see all sorts of pagan philosophy and debauchery meeting each other in one place, thus making life extra difficult for the saints in Corinth.  The saints there, although they have believed the gospel and are baptized have to fight serious struggles against worldly lusts and temptations.  And they don't always succeed. Therefore, although they are considered sheep, yet they continuously wander away from the sheepfold.

Who then will seek out these wandering and straying sheep and tell them the message of verse 17 to "come out from among them" (ie, the pagans and other infidels) and "be separate" if Paul himself will not proselytize them?

Paul also says that the "ministry of reconciliation" was given to them (ie, the Apostles) and that God "was in Christ, reconciling the world to him" (2 Corinthians 5:18-19).  Therefore, as "ambassadors of Christ" he announces to these wandering and straying sheep "BE RECONCILED TO GOD." (v.20).  The entire epistle will not mean anything if these were addressed to the "ninety and nine just persons who need no repentance."

Therefore, as an "ambassador of Christ" the Apostle Paul considers it his duty to seek out the lost sheep and tell them to be reconciled with God.  That will never happen if he disengages and refuses to listen to them.

 

Yeah, I think it is similar to the gospel advice to be in the world but not of the world.  Like you say Corinth was a difficult place to be both a Jew and a Christian Jew at that.  They would be getting it in the neck from fellow Diaspora Jews and from Paganism (meant with no disrespect) around.   They were also in a state of flux themselves with internal divisions so it wouldn't have been easy.  Although Paul is a little more open minded when it comes to the food/idol question, more so than his Jerusalem counterparts, so he is not without criticism being heaped on him also.  A real state of flux in 'authority' terms.

I don't see this text as justifying the shunning of anyone, infact Jesus appears within his Jewish context to go out to the weak or questioning, the sinner, the ritually impure, the downcast, the poor.  

Put yourself in a bubble and you'll never grow.  Most of my LDS friends feel I shouldn't even talk about Mormonism let alone maintain any interest in it. (the leave it and leave it alone narrative has been a tremendously powerful one) They have in effect cut me out of their lives.  I think that is sad.  I hope it changes.  None of us are perfect, but I have always believed in the value of dialogue and understanding. 

Edited April 27, 2016 by Abulafia
spelling mistake

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, ttribe said:

I don't understand why there is this insistence to compare one's testimony to the relationship between spouses.  Moreover, I believe I clarified my position in a subsequent post.

That being said, I'll summarize by stating - I don't believe there are some magic words (e.g. Avada Kedavra) that can be uttered by an alleged "anti-Mormon" that are going to automatically wipe out someone's testimony.  Some of the discussion in this thread is the mirror of the warnings given to people of other faiths in TN and KY about me as a missionary.  I thought it was silly then.  I think it's reaching silly-levels to some extent in this thread (I'll not point out, where; sorry).

Now I see the problem.  The words are "Abba Cadabra".

No wonder they don't work for you.

You must be one of them apostate Harry Potter believers.  I can tell by your pronunciation.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Rico said:

Mfbukowski,

I missed not only that day but the entire year :-)

Okay, so the sentence has been parsed.   What then does it all mean?  Does it mean not listening to the opposition at all?  If so, then you will not understand their arguments. And when you do not understand their arguments, they will have an advantage over your arguments.  As an unintended consequence, you will not be able to form better reasons against them.

And so Elder Ballard would definitely disagree...

"An Evening with Elder M. Russell Ballard"
https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/watch/evening-with-a-general-authority/2016/02?lang=eng

Speaking before church educators last March, he said, "It was only a generation ago that our young people’s access to information about our history, doctrine, and practices was basically limited to materials printed by the Church. Few students came in contact with alternative interpretations. Mostly our young people lived a sheltered life. Our curriculum at that time, though well-meaning, did not prepare students for today, a day when students have instant access to virtually everything about the church from every possible point of view."

He is now advocating for fundamental change in educating Mormon youth.  It is not enough for a church educator anymore to bear testimony when faced with a tough question.  There has to be "doctrinal mastery" which means church educators cannot afford not to read and understand the controversial topics addressed by the recent "Gospel Essays."

He also said, "It is perfectly all right to say, 'I do not know.' However, once that is said, you have the responsibility to find the best answers to the thoughtful questions your students ask.

In teaching your students and in responding to their questions, let me warn you not to pass along faith-promoting or unsubstantiated rumors, or outdated understandings and explanations of our doctrine and practices from the past."

Thus, we now have two church leaders apparently giving contradictory instructions. One says not to listen to the arguments of the critics, and another one who says to find the best answers to "thoughtful questions" which usually comes from critics.  After all, where do the Mormon youth get those questions from if not from critics?

But how in heavens will the answers be found if one refuses to listen first and understand the questions asked?  Can one hear by putting on ear plugs?  One cannot obey two contradictory commands.

"For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?" (1 Corinthians 14:8).

The point is that you have finally figured out that the quote is not about disconnecting from people, but arguments.

Progress. 

[Abulafia]

Quote

The point is that you have finally figured out that the quote is not about disconnecting from people, but arguments.

The big problem is that often people are disconnected from because of their faith position or knowledge.  Perhaps justifiably so (some of us mormons and post mormons can be a royal pain in the backside).  But it happens and it is incredibly sad.  Besides, how can we understand each other if we disconnect from arguments and viewpoints.  

I live with two atheists (husband and son) whom I love deeply.  I am not an atheist myself.  I respect their views.  I understand their views.  I love them anyway. We talk often and discuss often.

[Rico]

Quote

Abulafia:  Put yourself in a bubble and you'll never grow.  Most of my LDS friends feel I shouldn't even talk about Mormonism let alone maintain any interest in it. (the leave it and leave it alone narrative has been a tremendously powerful one) They have in effect cut me out of their lives.  I think that is sad.  I hope it changes.  None of us are perfect, but I have always believed in the value of dialogue and understanding. 

Abulafia,

You hit it right on the head!  They think they are doing themselves a service by isolating themselves from their critics' arguments.  The Mormon migration from Illinois to the mountains of Utah is a symbol of this isolationism, and it doesn't work.  It's committing intellectual suicide in an age when interconnectedness is so pervasive.  And they don't realize it.  That is why it is so refreshing to hear Elder Ballard's call to engage the Church's critics.  The problem of course is that his voice may be the "voice of one crying in the wilderness".

"Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." (Jude 1:3).  Contending earnestly for the faith has been a long-standing commandment to Christians everywhere for the last 2,000 years.  It has never been revoked.  The LDS policy of non-engagement is a tragic mistake which Elder Ballard is pointing out.  I hope more of them will realize this.  But with Elder Clayton's call, there is no reason to hope at all.

[Rico]

Quote

 

Mfbukowski: The point is that you have finally figured out that the quote is not about disconnecting from people, but arguments.

Progress.

 

Mfbukowski,

Actually, I made no interpretation.  I laid down the question at your door:

"Okay, so the sentence has been parsed.   What then does it all mean?  Does it mean not listening to the opposition at all?  If so, then you will not understand their arguments..."

Unfortunately, you did not respond to these questions.  

But if you agree with my interpretation, then do you agree that there is now two contradictory calls from two church leaders, one saying to not listen to critics, and the other saying it's time to engage the critics?

[Russell C McGregor]

6 hours ago, Rico said:

Flameburns623,

"But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the WOLF coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep." (John 10:12-13)

Here we go.

Yet again misapplying a parable to a situation it does not describe.

To borrow your metaphor, Elder Clayton did not tell the shepherds to abandon the flock. He told the flock to reject the blandishments of would-be rustlers.

6 hours ago, Rico said:

What would you like to be: a hireling who abandons the flock when the wolves come, or be like the Good Shepherd who lays his life down for every sheep... even while seeking out the lost sheep?

And while you're thinking about that, let me say this: the Catholic Church did not last 2,000 years by running away from every wolf that comes along.  In fact, it has survived precisely by blowing away the cunning and crafty cover of every wolf out there that pretends to be sheep.

Like President Ivins did with Mister Runnells, for example?

 

 

[Abulafia]

Rico, I can give my anecdotal experience.   I attended an interfaith event at an LDS chapel sometime last year.  It was a wonderful event where Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Mormons and mainstream Christians (no Catholics at that event) could celebrate their connectedness whilst acknowledging their differences.   I spent the time talking to a Jew who was keen to talk and learn from my own experience.

 

Whilst the Stake President appeared to know of me from my fb posts and was welcoming, I felt a palpable distance from some who reacted to my attendance with confusion and *fear* for want of a better word.  Same thing happened when I went to a Givens fireside.   Why are you even here? Was one response from an old friend. 

This is how it has played out for me.  Many unsubscribing to my fb feed or unfriending me, which in effect cuts out our friendship since that is the platform for keeping in touch.

 

Mormons are told to use social media to proselytise, and they do.  Every day in many cases.  I don't mind, but should I put my twopenneth in, if history, leave takers, or ethics are discussed - and I will then be told to butt out because my contributions are seen as negative and it is assumed I think I know better.  I don't,  these are my authentic beliefs and I try and remain true to myself.

The upshot is that given that I appear to be hurting my active friends I have for the first time deleted them from my list.  Not because I wanted to.  I didn't.   I have come to feel that so many are just not ready for nuance.   

Edited April 27, 2016 by Abulafia
spelling

[Okrahomer]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yeah, I agree- I think that was basically his point.  Wrestling with them in the mud doesn't change anything but it still gets you dirty.

I never emerge from any sort of contentious exchange feeling good, uplifted or inspired--nothing of the "peacable things of the Kingdom."  You'd think after so many such experiences one would start avoiding them, and I do better now than I once did; nevertheless, Elder Clayton's advice to the BYU graduates serves as a timely reminder of Elder Ballard's instructions regarding such discussions:.

"Every disciple of Christ will be most effective and do the most good by adopting a demeanor worthy of a follower of the Savior. Discussions focused on questioning, debating, and doubting gospel principles do little to build the kingdom of God. ...And remember that contention is of the devil (see 3 Nephi 11:29). There is no need to argue or contend with others regarding our beliefs."

 

[Abulafia]

Quote

"Every disciple of Christ will be most effective and do the most good by adopting a demeanor worthy of a follower of the Savior. Discussions focused on questioning, debating, and doubting gospel principles do little to build the kingdom of God. ...And remember that contention is of the devil (see 3 Nephi 11:29). There is no need to argue or contend with others regarding our beliefs."

Perhaps that should have been told to the early LDS missionaries then.  It is only through discussion and exchange that we can truly learn from each other.  Conversation shouldn't be a one way street.  It's also in direct contradiction with Jude.  I agree that angry or mocking argument isn't helpful in a sincere discussion.  

 

Quote

Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints. 

 

[Abulafia]

Also, the portrayal of Jesus in the gospels is someone who was quite forceful in his argument against local and national religious authority figures.  So adopting the demeanor of Jesus can be used as a rhetorical spin on any and all sides of the divide.

[Okrahomer]

52 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Perhaps that should have been told to the early LDS missionaries then.  It is only through discussion and exchange that we can truly learn from each other.  Conversation shouldn't be a one way street.  It's also in direct contradiction with Jude.  I agree that angry or mocking argument isn't helpful in a sincere discussion.  

 

 

Hi, Abulafia:

I apologize.  I probably misused the "elipses" in my quote, because Elder Ballard agrees with you (as do I) that gospel discussions and conversations are worthwhile and good.  The whole premise of his talk goes to engaging in gospel discussions on the Internet.  And certainly LDS missionaries are not out there today avoiding such conversations.  What I was hoping to do with my butchered quote was to show that Elder Clayton and Elder Ballard agree--with you and me, and Jesus as a matter of fact--that contentious (angry, mocking and insincere) discussions about the gospel should be avoided.

[Okrahomer]

1 hour ago, Abulafia said:

Also, the portrayal of Jesus in the gospels is someone who was quite forceful in his argument against local and national religious authority figures.  So adopting the demeanor of Jesus can be used as a rhetorical spin on any and all sides of the divide.

I also agree with you here.  And I have full confidence that were Jesus here today, he would still be quite forceful.  On the other hand, as humble followers of Christ we ourselves are commanded to avoid contention.  This is the principle that lies behind Elder Clayton and Elder Ballard's advice.

[Abulafia]

Totally agree, I guess my on the ground experience has coloured my view somewhat.  I tend to allow a pretty free reign on my fb page, and I try and understand that people can feel terribly hurt and angry and sometimes they need to get it out of their system in order to forgive and move on.  Post Mormons need to forgive both themselves and those who they feel have misled them.  It can take days, weeks and years, but everyone is deserving of support.

I once had a friend literally almost cause an accident (my son was driving), because someone had called the church a cult and I responded that some of the actions can be seen as cult like.  My friend was devastated, angry and though she told me that my fb feed was full of ranting and raving people, ...at that moment...the only person who was ranting and raving was her. So often my friends seem not to be able to differentiate between critiquing actions, history or cultures with attacking them personally.  So many times the mocking, deriding, belittling can come from overzealous active LDS.  We can all do better, that's for sure. (Me included).



On the 'contention' issue - I guess it is that thing about exactness with words.  

[consiglieri]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I don't know where you get this stuff

You have to read some Givens.  The church grows more open by the day, and more accepting of diversity of beliefs- except in matters of morals. On that they are solid, as I think they should be.  The erosion of the family is the worst problem in Western civilization. But the theology is wide open - far more so than it has been for a hundred years.

The difference between McConkie and Givens and Ostler, and Faulconer and Adam Miller is just plain breathtaking.

Or more like a breath of fresh air-

I have read a lot of the Givens' work.

The fundamental problem is that they do not speak for the LDS Church.

There are a lot of people talking about Mormonism, but the only people who speak for Mormonism discourage "diversity of beliefs"--and some beliefs if spoken will get you bounced.

[stemelbow]

3 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Rico, I can give my anecdotal experience.   I attended an interfaith event at an LDS chapel sometime last year.  It was a wonderful event where Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Mormons and mainstream Christians (no Catholics at that event) could celebrate their connectedness whilst acknowledging their differences.   I spent the time talking to a Jew who was keen to talk and learn from my own experience.

 

Whilst the Stake President appeared to know of me from my fb posts and was welcoming, I felt a palpable distance from some who reacted to my attendance with confusion and *fear* for want of a better word.  Same thing happened when I went to a Givens fireside.   Why are you even here? Was one response from an old friend. 

This is how it has played out for me.  Many unsubscribing to my fb feed or unfriending me, which in effect cuts out our friendship since that is the platform for keeping in touch.

 

Mormons are told to use social media to proselytise, and they do.  Every day in many cases.  I don't mind, but should I put my twopenneth in, if history, leave takers, or ethics are discussed - and I will then be told to butt out because my contributions are seen as negative and it is assumed I think I know better.  I don't,  these are my authentic beliefs and I try and remain true to myself.

The upshot is that given that I appear to be hurting my active friends I have for the first time deleted them from my list.  Not because I wanted to.  I didn't.   I have come to feel that so many are just not ready for nuance.   

I do agree that you highlight the very problem we as LDS are largely unable and unwilling to deal with.  It's a sad position to find ourselves in for sure.  I surely hope one day the fear, the skepticism, the defensiveness, the overall bad attitudes just leave us.  But they won't unless we're able to accept that it's there and we need to fix it. 

Thanks for your patience with us. 

[consiglieri]

3 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Yet again misapplying a parable to a situation it does not describe.

Thank you for the timely reminder that parables have only one correct application.