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

[Guest]

45 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I wish you were right Bluebell, and maybe you are.  But an email back would have been nice.  He did ask to speak in his office years ago, when I first mentioned I was struggling and couldn't be a Primary teacher.  It was then that I told him I'd read about JS's wives etc.  I received zero emails after that, and he would talk to me occasionally but it was about my sons and basketball.  He's into sports, baseball and basketball in particular.  And he has been their coach at times.  So it was casual conversation about them, never about what I was going through.  So IMO, it was him that couldn't talk about it.  In fact it made me feel like I was bad for even reading material like "In Sacred Loneliness".  For years I've felt like I was at fault.  But more and more, with the essays etc.  I feel exonerated.  

I just have never really gone to the bishop for things.  In fact never.  So maybe I should have been the one to go to him and talk about my doubts face to face.  But it would have been nice for him to bring it up.  But like I told Rain, he did have a Sac. Mtg. to help me.  But it didn't.    

Do you doubt God? Polygamy went on for centuries, and always leaves women "In Sacred Lonliness". Polygamy has always been a difficult way of living, and many Prophets of old were not the best of husbands or fathers. God seems to allow it, only when he decides it is necessary and it is strongly condemned in the BoM. I can assure you if God told me to do it, and we're a threatened with death...then it would end in death. 

[Jeanne]

24 minutes ago, CV75 said:

This is appallingly racist.

It is.  And I apologize.  I let my anger get the best of me and put my passion on this thread with too much animosity. That being said, I think Elder Holland owes me an apology too.

Edited April 30, 2016 by Jeanne

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Well, tell that to Elder Holland.  Listen again, to the clip or the whole thing.  

I did, I guessed I missed the part where he said, worship the Church and not Christ. Or where he said the Church saves us and not Christ. So, I will do a re-listen. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Calm, there is joy outside the church.  Really.  No one has a right to condemn that.  As a leader in any church, it is distasteful.  I am not saying that that doesn't work both ways, but this is one man who takes  the church backwards.

Where did I say there wasn't any joy outside the Church?

[CV75]

5 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

It is.  And I apologize.  I let my anger get the best of me and put my passion on this thread with too much animosity. That being said, I think Elder Holland owes me an apology too.

No apology needed -- i really don't feel that way; I was really just demonstrating how people on the offensive are predisposed to seeing faults that are not there (or at least are entirely subjective in nature and not shared by all), and use that to condemn the Church. Apologies for using your post to demonstrate!

Scott, I just noticed -- apologies if i misled you too!

Edited April 30, 2016 by CV75

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, Pa Pa said:

I did, I guessed I missed the part where he said, worship the Church and not Christ. Or where he said the Church saves us and not Christ. So, I will do a re-listen. 

His emphasis was the church not Christ.  It stuck out like a sore thumb to me.  "This church means everything to me".  He says it twice.  Start at 3:06.  I know he follows up with the gospel of Jesus Christ.  But I wish, he'd swapped the two.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MacLy_mvVIs

Edited April 30, 2016 by Tacenda

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, Pa Pa said:

Do you doubt God? Polygamy went on for centuries, and always leaves women "In Sacred Lonliness". Polygamy has always been a difficult way of living, and many Prophets of old were not the best of husbands or fathers. God seems to allow it, only when he decides it is necessary and it is strongly condemned in the BoM. I can assure you if God told me to do it, and we're a threatened with death...then it would end in death. 

Be very careful about stating or implying that you would rather die than obey God.

 

[carbon dioxide]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Oh pleezzze. Mounting a 40 million dollar campaign to take away gays civil rights. Not letting children being baptized for the sole reason that their parents are apostate gays. Do they name call couples not married apoststes and prevent their children from being baptized?  You really don't get a message loud and clear that gays are not welcome?  Not allowing scout leaders that are gay.   This all goes WAY beyond how the church treats others in sin. The church may have always viewed homosexual relations as sin but the church has launched a full scale attack on gays and their families.  Do you seriously not see how the church treats gays?  

You call it taking away rights.  I call it simply maintaining the status quo.  One can't take away something that did not exist to begin with.  The concept of gay marriage is a foreign one that did not exist in the minds of most people who have lived on this planet since the beginning of time.  It was not even given serious thought 20 years ago among the majority of Americans.  The Church was just against redefining marriage to something it never was before.   I would agree that the Church policy regarding children of SSM couples to be inconsistent and I do not defend it.  But is also a policy that affects very few people.  I wonder if the policy has even affected on child since it was initiated.  One that point I think the Church addressed a problem that really did not exist however the Church policy from what they said was to create less problems between gay couples and their kids.  So I don't know how creating less of a problem would constitute an attack.  

The Church has always not allowed gays to be scout leaders but has changed its policy on the scouts themselves.  So the Church has moved towards more acceptance on the scout issue as they reversed one component recently..  Yes there is going to be tensions between gays and the Church because LBGT issues extend far beyond orientation but the church has soften its position on some things.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

58 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

You call it taking away rights.  I call it simply maintaining the status quo.  One can't take away something that did not exist to begin with.  The concept of gay marriage is a foreign one that did not exist in the minds of most people who have lived on this planet since the beginning of time.  It was not even given serious thought 20 years ago among the majority of Americans.  The Church was just against redefining marriage to something it never was before.   I would agree that the Church policy regarding children of SSM couples to be inconsistent and I do not defend it.  But is also a policy that affects very few people.  I wonder if the policy has even affected on child since it was initiated.  One that point I think the Church addressed a problem that really did not exist however the Church policy from what they said was to create less problems between gay couples and their kids.  So I don't know how creating less of a problem would constitute an attack.  

The Church has always not allowed gays to be scout leaders but has changed its policy on the scouts themselves.  So the Church has moved towards more acceptance on the scout issue as they reversed one component recently..  Yes there is going to be tensions between gays and the Church because LBGT issues extend far beyond orientation but the church has soften its position on some things.

 

I'm not certain the Church ever disallowed boys to be Scouts on the basis of their orientation, so long as they did not act on that orientation. The Church has never been OK with sexual behavior of any sort among Scout-age boys, so I don't know that there was any real policy change such as you speak of here.

Edited May 1, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[sunstoned]

8 hours ago, consiglieri said:

The goal, of course, is to belittle the decision of Mormons to leave the Church, and to denigrate those who do.

The Tempe attendees laugh because they are part of the belittling and the denigrating. 

The decision to leave MUST be scorned as ridiculous--otherwise it puts at risk all those in attendance.

So long as it is a ridiculous decision to leave the LDS Church, nobody present is at risk of doing the same.

 

 

Consider this a rep point.

 

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I wish you were right Bluebell, and maybe you are.  But an email back would have been nice.  He did ask to speak in his office years ago, when I first mentioned I was struggling and couldn't be a Primary teacher.  It was then that I told him I'd read about JS's wives etc.  I received zero emails after that, and he would talk to me occasionally but it was about my sons and basketball.  He's into sports, baseball and basketball in particular.  And he has been their coach at times.  So it was casual conversation about them, never about what I was going through.  So IMO, it was him that couldn't talk about it.  In fact it made me feel like I was bad for even reading material like "In Sacred Loneliness".  For years I've felt like I was at fault.  But more and more, with the essays etc.  I feel exonerated.  

I just have never really gone to the bishop for things.  In fact never.  So maybe I should have been the one to go to him and talk about my doubts face to face.  But it would have been nice for him to bring it up.  But like I told Rain, he did have a Sac. Mtg. to help me.  But it didn't.    

So maybe he thinks it did help you.  Your SP asked how you were.  Make an appointment and go in and tell him.  The Spirit may guide him on some things,  but sometimes He wants us to act first and the SP can't read your mind.  As you told about him talking to you I had the picture in my head of the Savior knocking on the door.  Open it. See if he can help. 

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Be very careful about stating or implying that you would rather die than obey God.

 

I only spoke of polygamy...anything else I will do as he commands.

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, Pa Pa said:

I only spoke of polygamy...anything else I will do as he commands.

Sorry, I'm not comfortable with that. Putting conditions of any sort on one's obedience to God is problematic.

I know we all fall short of perfect obedience, but that's one thing; vowing to not be obedient, however limited that vow might be, is quite another.

Edited May 1, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

No apology needed -- i really don't feel that way; I was really just demonstrating how people on the offensive are predisposed to seeing faults that are not there (or at least are entirely subjective in nature and not shared by all), and use that to condemn the Church. Apologies for using your post to demonstrate!

Scott, I just noticed -- apologies if i misled you too!

Misled me how?

 

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Here is my solution

First, recognize that all people including general authorities might have an off moment or day or say something that might annoy you.  Give them a pass on these occasions. 

Second, read some talks by Elder Holland that you like or agree with.  As the saying goes, don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

I've been dealing with it for years... I don't need advice on how to handle it.  I already know. 

What I asked and what I need is to see evidence of understanding and sympathy from fellow church members. 

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

How has the church become hostile to you.  The Church has always had a standard view on homosexuality.  That being the actions are sinful and make a person unclean before God.  The Church however has become a little less hostile in terms of sexual orientation.  It does not view the orientation as sinful but the actions as determining it.  My heterosexuality is not sinful either.  It only becomes sinful if I act out on it in areas that are out of bounds.  

The Church is both an earthy and a heavenly organization.  The Church as constituted in this mortal world at this time has different roles and responsibilities as the Church in the paradise portion of the spirit world but the same overall doctrines apply.  

You're right, the Church has essentially always been hostile toward gays.  But as our LGBT brothers and sisters have stopped feeling the need to hide who they are, the Church has responded by becoming more active and vocal in expressing that hostility.  To the degree that we now have an apostle claiming it is the mind and will of God to shun gay couples and their children. 

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

But Rockpond, he's not talking about the people who stay. He's talking about those who leave.

What is it with the Resentment Culture that every little thing they don't like threatens to become the banana skin that trips them all the way out of the Church?

 

I was using my experience to show what many who leave have passed through.  Holland's description only fits a subset of those who leave and is a slap in the face to the rest. 

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

This is all a bit over the top, california.  Wouldn't a more measured and accurate account of the LDS position be better here?

Will you call on Elder Holland to give a more measured and accurate account of those who choose to leave the Church?

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why do you assume that your family would follow you out of the Church, if it came to that? Don't they have their own independent testimonies? Do they rely on you to do their thinking for them?

I've seen you mention your family in this context before and, for one not privy to your circumstances, it almost seems as though you are holding them hostage in an effort to make the Church as a whole change its stance to conform to your views.

No, I am not holding them hostage, they are free to do whatever they would like.  But I know each of them and I am confident of what they would do.  

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

No, I am not holding them hostage, they are free to do whatever they would like.  But I know each of them and I am confident of what they would do.  

The onus would be on you (for leading them astray) and on them (for the way in which they exercised their agency), not on the Church of Jesus Christ. 

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Will you call on Elder Holland to give a more measured and accurate account of those who choose to leave the Church?

If his approach had been softer, would it have made a difference in their behavior? Where has the soft approach gotten us so far? We have people thinking they can somehow shift the Church to adapt to their own preferences. Prophets of God would be derelict in their duty if they allowed people to continue to think that. 

[rockpond]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The onus would be on you (for leading them astray) and on them (for the way in which they exercised their agency), not on the Church of Jesus Christ. 

Good thing I won't lead my family astray. 

If I ever leave the church it will only be because it has ceased to be the church of Jesus Christ. 

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If his approach had been softer, would it have made a difference in their behavior? Where has the soft approach gotten us so far? We have people thinking they can somehow shift the Church to adapt to their own preferences. Prophets of God would be derelict in their duty if they allowed people to continue to think that. 

Your consistent but misguided opinion that people want the church to change to "their perspectives" is where you err.  It's where you fail to understand the feelings of myself and others like me and instead of seeking true understanding you fall back on personal biases and misconceptions to explain it.  Oh well. 

Edited May 1, 2016 by rockpond

[carbon dioxide]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm not certain the Church ever disallowed boys to be Scouts on the basis of their orientation, so long as they did not act on that orientation. The Church has never been OK with sexual behavior of any sort among Scout-age boys, so I don't know that there was any real policy change such as you speak of here.

The policy change which I am referring to is not really the Church itself but the BSA allowing gay scouts as being boy scouts and the Church followed the BSA without too much of a fight.  

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Oh boy, you nailed it Jeanne, thank you.  I did feel like a bad seed for awhile.  This board literally saved my life...well, it got close.  That's why statements like Elder Holland's comes off terrible to people like me.   

I've come to view the Church as our "mother" in the gospel. It is her responsibility to propagate the scriptures, and make sure they are available to all who are interested. This the Church does pretty well. But my own mom sometimes irritated me - it seems sometimes she played favorites, etc. If I were to insist that my Church "mother" always be consistent, and never irritate me or "put me out" I would have left a long time ago. Similarly, if I were to insist on liking everything every GA has done and said, I would have gotten disillusioned a long time ago. I simply do not believe everything all the GAs have said - starting with Joseph Smith. I have learned to accept that the GAs are imperfect men who sometimes have incorrect opinions. That doesn't displace my love for the beautiful principles of the restored gospel - which sing in my heart. 

Do you still have issues with JS's polygamy? Or polygamy in general? Is it ok for me to ask what exactly bothered you about JS's apparent polygamy? Was it the way he went about it, or that he apparently lied about it? or all of the above? I don't know that anything I would have to say would help, and I don't wish to derail the thread, so if it is something you wish to talk about I suppose you could PM me.