People leaving the church: Is it a "patty-cake" lack of conviction (Holland) or "more complicated than that" (Uchtdorf)?

[canard78]

Among my favourite conference talks, this ranks at the very top. President Uchtdorf shows respect for those who leave and recognises the deep thought that goes into doing so:

Quote

'The search for truth has led millions of people to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. However, there are some who leave the Church they once loved.

One might ask, “If the gospel is so wonderful, why would anyone leave?” Sometimes we assume it is because they have been offended or lazy or sinful. Actually, it is not that simple. In fact, there is not just one reason that applies to the variety of situations. Some of our dear members struggle for years with the question whether they should separate themselves from the Church.

In this Church that honors personal agency so strongly, that was restored by a young man who asked questions and sought answers, we respect those who honestly search for truth. It may break our hearts when their journey takes them away from the Church we love and the truth we have found, but we honor their right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience, just as we claim that privilege for ourselves.'

(06:18, emphasis added)
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/come-join-with-us?lang=eng

It's such a sharp contrast to a recent fireside given by Elder Holland in Tempe Arizona:
 

Quote

'Don’t you dare bail. I am so furious with people who leave this church. I don’t know whether ‘furious’ is a good apostolic word. But I am. What on earth kind of conviction is that? What kind of patty-cake, taffy-pull experience is that? As if none of this ever mattered, as if nothing in our contemporary life mattered, as if this is all just supposed to be “just exactly the way I want it and answer every one of my questions and pursue this and occupy that and defy this – and then maybe I’ll be a Latter-Day Saint”?! Well, there’s too much Irish in me for that.

(2:10, emphasis added)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MacLy_mvVIsha

The full recording is available here:
https://soundcloud.com/secondrescue/jrh-tempe

I've been involved on this board for approaching four years. I joined at a time when I was fully active and working through questions and concerns. I've spent those four years deeply and seriously considering and praying about the choices available and the implication and impact of those choices. The decisions and conclusions I've reached are based on a deep and meaningful conviction of what is right.

Rather than discuss my motives, I'm interested in your experience of working through concerns and resolving to either stay or leave. Many of you have worked through church history and doctrine and concluded to stay. I respect your conviction and conclusion. My own dear mother has been aware of the problematic issues for decades and has concluded to remain fully active. Isn't it more productive to show the respect of President Uchtdorf when the conclusion goes a different direction rather than the approach used by Elder Holland?

Edited April 30, 2016 by canard78
formatting

[canard78]

The formatting has gone crazy on this post. Apologies

[thesometimesaint]

I think the reasons for leaving are as varied as the people leaving.

[canard78]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

I think the reasons for leaving are as varied as the people leaving.

And are they usually patty cake reasons, lacking conviction?

Are you comfortable with the tone and approach Elder Holland uses?

I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. I think Holland has always been a firebrand. 

He spoke at a mission conference in Belgium in 1998 and I loved every word he said. 

I keep wondering what effect Tom Phillips' "October Surprise" had on Elder Holland. 

Holland was the area president who ordained Phillips as a stake president and it's likely that Holland was involved in approving Phillips for the second anointing. 

In early 2014 Phillips tried to take the church and, specifically, President Monson to court over charges of fraud. 

I think that must have deeply hurt and embarrassed Holland and I think he came out fighting. His April 2014 had a similar anger to the talk linked above.

As we try to remember frequently on this group, he and the apostles are only human. 

[Russell C McGregor]

44 minutes ago, canard78 said:

And are they usually patty cake reasons, lacking conviction?

Are you comfortable with the tone and approach Elder Holland uses?

I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. I think Holland has always been a firebrand. 

He spoke at a mission conference in Belgium in 1998 and I loved every word he said. 

I keep wondering what effect Tom Phillips' "October Surprise" had on Elder Holland. 

Holland was the area president who ordained Phillips as a stake president and it's likely that Holland was involved in approving Phillips for the second anointing. 

In early 2014 Phillips tried to take the church and, specifically, President Monson to court over charges of fraud. 

I think that must have deeply hurt and embarrassed Holland and I think he came out fighting. His April 2014 had a similar anger to the talk linked above.

As we try to remember frequently on this group, he and the apostles are only human. 

And so -- much to their annoyance -- are the apostates.

And while every single one of them like to dramatise their apostasy as noble, completely disinterested, and the product of "deep thought," I'm sure that at least one or two of them had at least some motivations that were petty, self-serving and/or ill-considered.

Or don't you think that's possible?
 

[canard78]

14 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

And so -- much to their annoyance -- are the apostates.

And while every single one of them like to dramatise their apostasy as noble, completely disinterested, and the product of "deep thought," I'm sure that at least one or two of them had at least some motivations that were petty, self-serving and/or ill-considered.

Or don't you think that's possible?

I think it's possible that they may have left for what you or Elder Holland might consider petty reasons. 

There might even be some that I would consider petty. 

I doubt there are many who would, themselves, consider their reasons petty. 

For the unlikely few who do, is it reasonable for Elder Holland to make such a sweeping generalisation and misrepresentation. 

Russell, I don't expect you to think their reasons for leaving are valid... because you're still attending. If you want any kind of dialogue though you would at least need to respect and acknowledge they have given the decision deep thought and have conviction in their conclusions. 

Having said that, and having seen your modus operandi on this board, I'm not actually sure you are interested in dialogue with people who stop believing the same as you. 

[Russell C McGregor]

6 minutes ago, canard78 said:

I think it's possible that they may have left for what you or Elder Holland might consider petty reasons. 

There might even be some that I would consider petty. 

I doubt there are many who would, themselves, consider their reasons petty. 

For the unlikely few who do, is it reasonable for Elder Holland to make such a sweeping generalisation and misrepresentation. 

Russell, I don't expect you to think their reasons for leaving are valid... because you're still attending. If you want any kind of dialogue though you would at least need to respect and acknowledge they have given the decision deep thought and have conviction in their conclusions. 

Well, if Mister Runnells's laundry list of standard anti-Mormon talking points is what passes for "deep thought" among the apostate crowd -- and given how many are so enthusiastic about it, it seems that it is -- then all I can say is that you and I have quite different ideas about what constitutes "deep thought."

6 minutes ago, canard78 said:

Having said that, and having seen your modus operandi on this board, I'm not actually sure you are interested in dialogue with people who stop believing the same as you. 

Sure I am.

But, much like "deep thought," I'm not sure you and I think "dialogue" means the same thing, either.

For me, "dialogue" doesn't mean you get to monologue to your heart's content and I'm only allowed to "validate your feelings."

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

What a great sermon from Elder Holland! Thanks for pointing me to it!

[canard78]

1 hour ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Well, if Mister Runnells's laundry list of standard anti-Mormon talking points is what passes for "deep thought" among the apostate crowd -- and given how many are so enthusiastic about it, it seems that it is -- then all I can say is that you and I have quite different ideas about what constitutes "deep thought."

Sure I am.

But, much like "deep thought," I'm not sure you and I think "dialogue" means the same thing, either.

For me, "dialogue" doesn't mean you get to monologue to your heart's content and I'm only allowed to "validate your feelings."

I'm curious to know how you process President Uchtdorf's words. He says it's not as simple as you seem intent on making it out to be. 

He recognises that the decision actually is one that is often taken seriously. 

You're also conflating "extensive reading" with "deep thought."

I decided to do extensive reading to frame my deep thought. Another person might read only a few key facts and then give them deep and extensive thought before deciding to leave. I wouldn't want to take that approach, but that doesn't mean they don't consider their reason to be valid. 

Would you believe me if I told you I'd given church history and doctrine deep and extensive thought and have reached a conclusion that is different to yours? Or do you assume that I, along with most who leave the church, haven't given it enough thought, otherwise we'd have reached the same conclusion as you?

[Russell C McGregor]

2 minutes ago, canard78 said:

I'm curious to know how you process President Uchtdorf's words. He says it's not as simple as you seem intent on making it out to be. 

Actually I'm the one who is pointing out that, contra your rather simplistic OP, it's not "either-or."

2 minutes ago, canard78 said:

He recognises that the decision actually is one that is often taken seriously. 

You're also conflating "extensive reading" with "deep thought."

Not really.

I'm simply pointing out that Mister Runnells's boilerplate doesn't stand up to very much serious scrutiny, let alone "deep thought."

Nobody who knows how to think deeply about Mormon subjects is going to be impressed by his industry-standard material.

But I wish I had a dollar for every time some apostate or anti-Mormon has triumphantly waved a hand at "the CES letter" as if it somehow settles all questions.

Such an assumption shows very little common sense, much less "deep thought."

2 minutes ago, canard78 said:

I decided to do extensive reading to frame my deep thought. Another person might read only a few key facts and then give them deep and extensive thought before deciding to leave. I wouldn't want to take that approach, but that doesn't mean they don't consider their reason to be valid. 

Would you believe me if I told you I'd given church history and doctrine deep and extensive thought and have reached a conclusion that is different to yours? Or do you assume that I, along with most who leave the church, haven't given it enough thought, otherwise we'd have reached the same conclusion as you?

Unlike you and your fellow apostates, I'm quite comfortable with the notion that people can reach different conclusions than me without being either stupid or dishonest.

Do you assume, along with most who leave the Church and turn into critics, that anyone who stays must be either ignorant of the issues or lying to themselves?

An assumption that, while held as an article of faith in certain circles, is hardly redolent of "deep thought."

[canard78]

12 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Actually I'm the one who is pointing out that, contra your rather simplistic OP, it's not "either-or."

Not really.

I'm simply pointing out that Mister Runnells's boilerplate doesn't stand up to very much serious scrutiny, let alone "deep thought."

Nobody who knows how to think deeply about Mormon subjects is going to be impressed by his industry-standard material.

But I wish I had a dollar for every time some apostate or anti-Mormon has triumphantly waved a hand at "the CES letter" as if it somehow settles all questions.

Such an assumption shows very little common sense, much less "deep thought."

Unlike you and your fellow apostates, I'm quite comfortable with the notion that people can reach different conclusions than me without being either stupid or dishonest.

Do you assume, along with most who leave the Church and turn into critics, that anyone who stays must be either ignorant of the issues or lying to themselves?

An assumption that, while held as an article of faith in certain circles, is hardly redolent of "deep thought."

Did you read the OP to the very end:

"Many of you have worked through church history and doctrine and concluded to stay. I respect your conviction and conclusion. My own dear mother has been aware of the problematic issues for decades and has concluded to remain fully active."

Where have I claimed those who stay are stupid or dishonest?

Have fun pummelling that straw man. It must be incredibly satisfying for you to do it so enthusiastically. 

[Meadowchik]

Some join the Church on flimsy motives ...It would follow that some also leave based on flimsy motives.

 

[boblloyd91]

3 hours ago, canard78 said:

And are they usually patty cake reasons, lacking conviction?

Are you comfortable with the tone and approach Elder Holland uses?

I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. I think Holland has always been a firebrand. 

He spoke at a mission conference in Belgium in 1998 and I loved every word he said. 

I keep wondering what effect Tom Phillips' "October Surprise" had on Elder Holland. 

Holland was the area president who ordained Phillips as a stake president and it's likely that Holland was involved in approving Phillips for the second anointing. 

In early 2014 Phillips tried to take the church and, specifically, President Monson to court over charges of fraud. 

I think that must have deeply hurt and embarrassed Holland and I think he came out fighting. His April 2014 had a similar anger to the talk linked above.

As we try to remember frequently on this group, he and the apostles are only human. 

I think it could be both. Some people leave after deep thought and contemplating, others leave rather quickly and easily. I think no matter what you need to deeply consider your source of meaning before leaving it to pick up another, because it's dangerous to have a lack of deep conviction. That's why I always got nervous when we would immediately ask people to get baptized on my mission. Not that I was against them getting baptized, but I think you can't rush a shift in your paradigm. You need to consider all of your emotional, social and spiritual factors. I worry I may sound too relativistic by saying this because absolute truth is important as well

[canard78]

49 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Some join the Church on flimsy motives ...It would follow that some also leave based on flimsy motives.

Most 8 year olds might match the first half of your statement. But the 8 year old would probably disagree. 

Flimsy in whose eyes though? Have you come across the conversion model by Hoffmeiyer?

It depends who you're talking about. I agree that sometimes new members seem to come and go on a whim. But I don't think that's who Holland had in mind when he spoke about people leaving and the concerns triggering their departure. 

[CV75]

6 hours ago, canard78 said:

Isn't it more productive to show the respect of President Uchtdorf when the conclusion goes a different direction rather than the approach used by Elder Holland?

It depends. There is something for everyone in their respective messages, which differ by audience for one thing (general vs smaller). Each apostle has to take responsibility for his ministry, just as we do in how we take their messages. The talks are some 30 months apart, too, maybe times and circumstances have called for a different message each time (see Elder Hale's talk from the last conference). I find some personalities more comfortable to deal with than others, and that probably influences how I take their message, which is why I try to choose that  the Spirit guide me.

Another thought: Elder Holland is speaking for himself, admitting he may not be using very apostolic terminology about it. Elder Uchtdorf is speaking for how everyone should act, or strive to act.

Edited April 30, 2016 by CV75

[ALarson]

7 hours ago, canard78 said:

Elder Holland: 'Don’t you dare bail. I am so furious with people who leave this church. I don’t know whether ‘furious’ is a good apostolic word. But I am. What on earth kind of conviction is that? What kind of patty-cake, taffy-pull experience is that? As if none of this ever mattered, as if nothing in our contemporary life mattered, as if this is all just supposed to be “just exactly the way I want it and answer every one of my questions and pursue this and occupy that and defy this – and then maybe I’ll be a Latter-Day Saint”?! Well, there’s too much Irish in me for that.

I don't know what's more disturbing.  That he would state this in an almost mocking tone or that the audience actually laughed when he said it.  I have to believe that most everyone there has had a family member painfully struggle with issues and questions.  And to seem to make light of that with the language Elder Holland used and for people to laugh is quite astonishing to me.

President Uchtdorf is amazing and really expresses with love the same message:  

7 hours ago, canard78 said:

President Uchtdorf:  "One might ask, “If the gospel is so wonderful, why would anyone leave?” Sometimes we assume it is because they have been offended or lazy or sinful. Actually, it is not that simple. In fact, there is not just one reason that applies to the variety of situations. Some of our dear members struggle for years with the question whether they should separate themselves from the Church."

What a difference!:

ETA:

Here's a link that jumps to that short portion of the video clip of Elder Holland for those who want to listen to it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=130&v=MacLy_mvVIs

.

Edited April 30, 2016 by ALarson

[ALarson]

Quote

Holland:  "Don’t you dare bail. I am so furious with people who leave this church. I don’t know whether ‘furious’ is a good apostolic word. But I am. What on earth kind of conviction is that? What kind of patty-cake, taffy-pull experience is that? As if none of this ever mattered, as if nothing in our contemporary life mattered, as if this is all just supposed to be “just exactly the way I want it and answer every one of my questions and pursue this and occupy that and defy this – and then maybe I’ll be a Latter-Day Saint”?

Also, is that a jab at Runnells?  

[sdc999]

2 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

 

Nobody who knows how to think deeply about Mormon subjects is going to be impressed by his industry-standard material.

 

Wow, you and I may agree with the term 'industry-standard'.  I think that is the reason the church wrote the essays. (my opinion)  Because 'industry-standard material' was so prevalent on the LDS side as well.  And sometimes just as inaccurate.  

[sdc999]

6 hours ago, canard78 said:

  Quote

'Don’t you dare bail. I am so furious with people who leave this church. I don’t know whether ‘furious’ is a good apostolic word. But I am. What on earth kind of conviction is that? What kind of patty-cake, taffy-pull experience is that? As if none of this ever mattered, as if nothing in our contemporary life mattered, as if this is all just supposed to be “just exactly the way I want it and answer every one of my questions and pursue this and occupy that and defy this – and then maybe I’ll be a Latter-Day Saint”?! Well, there’s too much Irish in me for that.

 

Yes,  that's why I left the church.....   pfft...   I wanted to risk my amazing marriage to a wonderful woman. (Still married and will be 23 years next month) and put my family though the hell.  A year and a half of what my wife calls a terrible time in our marriage until she began to see what I was seeing.  It was an amazing journey of finding out who friends really were and yes, gasp, shunning.  No more phone calls to my wife, no more kids invited over to play, no more accepted invitations for kids to play at our house.  Mother in Law who refused to speak to me for 7 months or hardly see her grandkids or daughter.    All because we had the audacity to not believe in what the LDS church stood for anymore and to simply worship Christ in another church setting.   And I must say, after some said we would suffer and not be blessed, we are blessed beyond measure.  We attend a wonderful supporting church, have great supporting friends and our children have grown into young ladies that attend church on their own away at college.  And Christ is still our Savior - imagine the patty-cake, taffy-pull experience we have gone through.

[canard78]

29 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I don't know what's more disturbing.  That he would state this in an almost mocking tone or that the audience actually laughed when he said it.  I have to believe that most everyone there has had a family member painfully struggle with issues and questions.  And to seem to make light of that with the language Elder Holland used and for people to laugh is quite astonishing to me.

President Uchtdorf is amazing and really expresses with love the same message:  

What a difference!:

ETA:

I found a link with just that video clip of Elder Holland for those who want to listen to it:

http://www.lifeaftermormonism.net/video/elder-holland-tempe-arizona-devotional-dont-you-dare-bail

(I'm not familiar with the above site, and searched for temple content and found none, so I hope it's ok to post.)

.

You could use this link instead:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=130&v=MacLy_mvVIs

And yes, when you consider the content whole talk, compared to the "Join with us" talk, they sound worlds apart.

 

[canard78]

1 hour ago, boblloyd91 said:

I think it could be both. Some people leave after deep thought and contemplating, others leave rather quickly and easily. I think no matter what you need to deeply consider your source of meaning before leaving it to pick up another, because it's dangerous to have a lack of deep conviction. That's why I always got nervous when we would immediately ask people to get baptized on my mission. Not that I was against them getting baptized, but I think you can't rush a shift in your paradigm. You need to consider all of your emotional, social and spiritual factors. I worry I may sound too relativistic by saying this because absolute truth is important as well

And if that's the case, wouldn't it be nice if Elder Holland had been able to be more sophisticated in his messaging by recognising both sides of what you describe?

Instead, his characterisation ends up sounding like an angry man on the ropes.

[consiglieri]

6 hours ago, canard78 said:

'Don’t you dare bail. I am so furious with people who leave this church. I don’t know whether ‘furious’ is a good apostolic word. But I am. What on earth kind of conviction is that? What kind of patty-cake, taffy-pull experience is that? As if none of this ever mattered, as if nothing in our contemporary life mattered, as if this is all just supposed to be “just exactly the way I want it and answer every one of my questions and pursue this and occupy that and defy this – and then maybe I’ll be a Latter-Day Saint”?! Well, there’s too much Irish in me for that.

 

 

Why is Elder Holland so upset about people leaving the Church when in Dallas he said we are adding double-digit stakes every week?

 

 

 

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, canard78 said:

And are they usually patty cake reasons, lacking conviction?

Are you comfortable with the tone and approach Elder Holland uses?

I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. I think Holland has always been a firebrand. 

He spoke at a mission conference in Belgium in 1998 and I loved every word he said. 

I keep wondering what effect Tom Phillips' "October Surprise" had on Elder Holland. 

Holland was the area president who ordained Phillips as a stake president and it's likely that Holland was involved in approving Phillips for the second anointing. 

In early 2014 Phillips tried to take the church and, specifically, President Monson to court over charges of fraud. 

I think that must have deeply hurt and embarrassed Holland and I think he came out fighting. His April 2014 had a similar anger to the talk linked above.

As we try to remember frequently on this group, he and the apostles are only human. 

No....he needs to talk to me!

[JulieM]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Some join the Church on flimsy motives ...It would follow that some also leave based on flimsy motives.

I haven't seen any leave for "flimsy motives" myself, but maybe (especially for those who may join quickly after only a few weeks of discussions or joined without really having a testimony).

Those I've known who aren't attending anymore were life time, temple going members (and some were leaders who loved the church and served for years).  The process they went through took many excruciatingly pain filled years before they finally decided to leave and it wasn't for "patty-cake" silly reasons.

This video made me sad to hear and it's too bad he felt he needed to use those insulting words and it's even more sad that some thought they were funny 

[Tacenda]

14 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I haven't seen any leave for "flimsy motives" myself, but maybe (especially for those who may join quickly after only a few weeks of discussions or joined without really having a testimony).

Those I've known who aren't attending anymore were life time, temple going members (and some were leaders who loved the church and served for years).  The process they went through took many excruciatingly pain filled years before they finally decided to leave and it wasn't for "patty-cake" silly reasons.

This video made me sad to hear and it's too bad he felt he needed to use those insulting words and it's even more sad that some thought they were funny 

Thanks for this...

I'm still an active member.  I don't dare be anything different...maybe one day, I'll find my own path.  ETA:  I guess I'm the one that tried to do a half gainer and then got back in the boat and put my life jacket on and am waiting for the sunshine to come.  Oh, it's getting so tiresome to stay in the boat!!

Edited April 30, 2016 by Tacenda