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

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, mtomm said:

I guess I missed the part where Elder Holland is God the Father.  Funny how us LDS are always confusing that. 

Funny how ill-wishers are always creating that straw man.

[Robert F. Smith]

18 hours ago, california boy said:

I didn't begin from the position of the church being completely evil.  In fact I have never ever indicated that.  Read my comment again.You will see my support of the church for those who find love and peace.  Regrettably it is the churches actions and policies against gays that I have clearly outlined not a single one or which you have denied the church doing. That has pushed me and so many others away from the church. 

Tell me why someone who is sinning should not be welcomed in the church. Why can't a child of such a couple be always welcomed as a member of the church?  Why can't the church invite all to be a part of the community struggling in our weakness to come unto Him. Where did this idea of excommunication and separation from those who sin even come from. Did Christ excommunicate the woman at the well? Or the adulteress?  Were they made to feel unwelcome?  Just who did Christ push away from His church?  Action are what matter. The church has not been Christ like towards gays. Others have certainly noticed. Why haven't you?  

Again, what is notable in this continued diatribe is the absence of a balanced critique.  Good reportage would require telling both the positive and negative features of the case you wish to make.  I am always suspicious of all negativity all the time.  Sounds more like propaganda than an effort to improve anything, and I take it that you would like to see the LDS Church improve in some specific ways.  Could it be that your demand for unconditional surrender by the LDS is unrealistic and ineffective, while a more measured approach might have some hope of success?  In the latter case, could a pat on the back for some policies which seem enlightened gain more traction?  Or do you simply prefer all out war?  In this case, scorched earth policies, with no quarter given.

[Russell C McGregor]

38 minutes ago, sdc999 said:

better than them?  No, I'm no better than anyone else.  More capable than them?  Yes, I believe so.

But "more capable" isn't "better," is it?

I guess it's better to be less capable, then?

38 minutes ago, sdc999 said:

 We had a high priest in our ward use his priesthood to give a blessing to a pregnant woman and assure her everything was going to be okay during home delivery complications.  Home delivery with midwife didn't go so well.  Dead baby.     So yes, without the priesthood, I thought they were crazy for the midwife idea and would have had capable doctors handling the situation.  Baby would be alive.  Sometimes that priesthood can get in the way of rational thinking.

And yet an awful lot of people seem to think home deliveries are a good idea, entirely without the baleful influence of any Mormon "superiority complex" or whatever it's supposed to be.

Funny, that.

 

[Russell C McGregor]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

I am done with you Russell..you won't let up or let go.  It is just goading..not a discussion anymore.  A part of me is still in that box of four walls.  All I did was add some windows.  I think the Lord understands more than you do.

Years ago when I was in Seminary, there was a joke that went like this: "I used to be too humble, but I've worked on it and now I'm perfect." Guffaw, guffaw.

The punchline of the joke being that the speaker is seriously lacking in introspection.

I see that same punchline applying to a whole raft of posts in the last few pages of this thread. "Those Mormons have a superiority complex. They all think they're better than anyone who doesn't believe what they do. I'm so happy I don't think like that any more!"

And what's the unconscious subtext of that?

"I'm better than they are!"

And yet, even when it's pointed out to you, you still don't get it!

I'm not "goading" you. I'm trying to show you (and others) where you are doing exactly what you accuse us of doing.

Exactly.

But you can't see it.

You're oblivious to it.

Oh well.

[Robert F. Smith]

17 hours ago, california boy said:

.............................................................................

Why the need to distort my position and statements?  You have not denied a single statement that I made concerning the actions the church has taken against gays.  I have acknowledged the church not opposing institutionalized discrimination against gays in housing and employment in the state of Utah when it was brought up.  

When it is brought up?  It must always be part of the overall assessment, along with allowing homosexual children to be boy scouts -- in addition to any other accommodations of which you  may be aware (and should mention, so as to encourage more of the same).

I also acknowledge that the church allows a member to be gay as long as they remain single their whole lives. (a future most humans would find un natural and depressing) Is there more that the church has done for the LGBT community?

There are many anchorite or monastic communities associated with various religions, which do not find such practices unnatural or depressing.  Why do you insist on insulting all religious practices with which you don't agree?  Nobody said it was easy.

Why don't you present your reasons why the church is not hostile towards gays. 

Are LDS Church leaders and members actually "hostile" toward homosexuals (active or passive)?  Are Church leaders and members actively "hostile" towards others whom they class as making immoral commitments and decisions (adulterers, prostitutes, alcoholics & other drug abusers, domestic abusers, etc.)?  Or are they genuinely concerned for the eternal welfare of such people, in a Christlike manner?

 

[sdc999]

4 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

But "more capable" isn't "better," is it?

I guess it's better to be less capable, then?

I would say no, it is not better to be less capable.  But most children are less capable than adults and the priesthood doesn't give them any advantage.

4 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

And yet an awful lot of people seem to think home deliveries are a good idea, entirely without the baleful influence of any Mormon "superiority complex" or whatever it's supposed to be.

Funny, that.

 

You miss the point entirely.  The home delivery wasn't bad as many have chosen this way.  When medically, things started going wrong, he relied on the priesthood instead of seeking medical help.  

 

I'm beginning to think that if I said, 'momorns kill newborns', you would respond with 'but abortion is legal and many people do it'.    And no, mormons do not kill newborns.  

[Russell C McGregor]

1 minute ago, sdc999 said:

I would say no, it is not better to be less capable.  But most children are less capable than adults and the priesthood doesn't give them any advantage.

You miss the point entirely.  The home delivery wasn't bad as many have chosen this way.  When medically, things started going wrong, he relied on the priesthood instead of seeking medical help.  

Which is contrary to what the Church teaches; but hey -- why should that slow you down?

1 minute ago, sdc999 said:

I'm beginning to think that if I said, 'momorns kill newborns', you would respond with 'but abortion is legal and many people do it'.    And no, mormons do not kill newborns.  

While I'm beginning to think that for you, any Mormon who every does anything silly only does so because they are a Mormon, and not for any other reason.

I guess that's what happens when you view an entire group as inferior, huh?

 

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, ALarson said:

From my experience, Holland's description fits a very tiny percentage of those who are leaving.  We have lost some incredibly strong leaders in our stake and wards and some of the most stalwart, active families.  I know some of them personally and know that these people went through h*ll before they finally decided they could not longer support the church or attend.  I actually can think of none that I know of who left for "patty-cake" silly reasons,  I have to wonder why he chose that description and where he came up with those words?  Is that how he truly thinks about those who are having issues and questions?

Could it be that Holland was addressing those who do in fact leave for patty-cake reasons.  There are plenty of those, and one can meet them in the blogosphere or in person.  There is little doubt that it is not simply serious, thoughtful people who leave, but some very silly billies.  All have a right to leave, and it is inevitable that some people will leave any religious group, perhaps switching to another religion, or to no religion at all.  Either way, we should not be scandalized by it.  It is nothing new and is a concomitant fact of life.  In my opinion too much can certainly be made of it, as we seem to be doing in this thread.

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Years ago when I was in Seminary, there was a joke that went like this: "I used to be too humble, but I've worked on it and now I'm perfect." Guffaw, guffaw.

The punchline of the joke being that the speaker is seriously lacking in introspection.

I see that same punchline applying to a whole raft of posts in the last few pages of this thread. "Those Mormons have a superiority complex. They all think they're better than anyone who doesn't believe what they do. I'm so happy I don't think like that any more!"

And what's the unconscious subtext of that?

"I'm better than they are!"

And yet, even when it's pointed out to you, you still don't get it!

I'm not "goading" you. I'm trying to show you (and others) where you are doing exactly what you accuse us of doing.

Exactly.

But you can't see it.

You're oblivious to it.

Oh well.

You're oblivious to how you are misreading Jeanne's posts.  Try reading what she writes and only what she writes without imposing your personal biases on it. 

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Could it be that Holland was addressing those who do in fact leave for patty-cake reasons.  There are plenty of those, and one can meet them in the blogosphere or in person.  There is little doubt that it is not simply serious, thoughtful people who leave, but some very silly billies.  All have a right to leave, and it is inevitable that some people will leave any religious group, perhaps switching to another religion, or to no religion at all.  Either way, we should not be scandalized by it.  It is nothing new and is a concomitant fact of life.  In my opinion too much can certainly be made of it, as we seem to be doing in this thread.

Who's to say which patty cake reasons are the best?  Just like who's to say what process to getting a testimony is best.

[Russell C McGregor]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You're oblivious to how you are misreading Jeanne's posts.  Try reading what she writes and only what she writes without imposing your personal biases on it. 

Well then, feel free to point it out to me.

Perhaps we could start with this one:

Quote

Truthfully Russell, I did.  When I was an active girl growing up, I felt bad for all those people who didn't have the true gospel.  I must have been extremely valiant in the spirit world before I came.  I was so much better than the rest..it was sad.

Would you like to tell me how not thinking like that isn't "better?"

 

[Robert F. Smith]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Who's to say which patty cake reasons are the best?  Just like who's to say what process to getting a testimony is best.

Well, of course, those are personal, subjective decisions.

One defines patty-cake reasons as silly, insubstantial reasons, such as interference with a desired hedonistic lifestyle.  One can certainly leave because the Word of Wisdom is perceived as too restrictive, or because LDS rules of chastity seem too confining, etc., but those are not among a possible list of deep, intellectual reasons for leaving.

[sdc999]

13 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Which is contrary to what the Church teaches; but hey -- why should that slow you down?

While I'm beginning to think that for you, any Mormon who every does anything silly only does so because they are a Mormon, and not for any other reason.

I guess that's what happens when you view an entire group as inferior, huh?

 

I most certainly do not view the entire group as inferior.  Just you and some really goofy ones.  I have quite a few LDS friends who think the same way as I do. They see inferior ones within their own ranks as well.   There are goofy people in all walks of life and Momonism is no exception.   

[Russell C McGregor]

9 minutes ago, sdc999 said:

I most certainly do not view the entire group as inferior.  Just you and some really goofy ones.  I have quite a few LDS friends who think the same way as I do. They see inferior ones within their own ranks as well.   There are goofy people in all walks of life and Momonism is no exception.

Oh, so Latter-day Saints who think like you aren't inferior.

Just those who disagree with you.

Got it.

(Fish in a barrel.)

 

[Tacenda]

19 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Well, of course, those are personal, subjective decisions.

One defines patty-cake reasons as silly, insubstantial reasons, such as interference with a desired hedonistic lifestyle.  One can certainly leave because the Word of Wisdom is perceived as too restrictive, or because LDS rules of chastity seem too confining, etc., but those are not among a possible list of deep, intellectual reasons for leaving.

I think Elder Holland knows that some of the reasons people leave are for much bigger reasons then wanting to live a hedonistic lifestyle.  They may start living like that afterward, but IMO, it's not the reason they quit belief.  He knows the info on the internet and in the essays are also reasons people quit belief.  How could he not?   

And with new eyes, these people have said it transformed them, like those in the movies...The Truman show, Matrix, Pleasantville and Tangled.  

Edited May 2, 2016 by Tacenda

[carbon dioxide]

3 hours ago, Thinking said:

I used to like Elder Holland. He was the president at BYU when I was there and when he would walk across the campus he would greet the students like he knew them. He said "Hi, how are you?" to me several times. He had no idea who I was but I felt like he cared. Now he seems to be bitter in his rants about those who have chosen to leave the Church.

Good grief.  The total statement lasted about 10-15 seconds.  That makes a man bitter?

[Thinking]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Besides this example, what other "rants" are you referring to?

An Evening With A General Authority

[Russell C McGregor]

33 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I think Elder Holland knows that some of the reasons people leave are for much bigger reasons then wanting to live a hedonistic lifestyle.  They may start living like that afterward, but IMO, it's not the reason they quit belief.  He knows the info on the internet and in the essays are also reasons people quit belief.  How could he not?   

I'm sure Elder Holland knows the difference between reasons and excuses. How could he not?

33 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And with new eyes, these people have said it transformed them, like those in the movies...The Truman show, Matrix, Pleasantville and Tangled.  

And to think I doubted Canard when he talked about the "deep thought" exhibited by those who leave.

 

[Russell C McGregor]

7 minutes ago, Thinking said:

An Evening With A General Authority

So that's your standard of what constitutes a "rant?"

All I can say to that is, "Oh."

 

[Tacenda]

34 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

I'm sure Elder Holland knows the difference between reasons and excuses. How could he not?

And to think I doubted Canard when he talked about the "deep thought" exhibited by those who leave.

 

 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Well then, feel free to point it out to me.

Perhaps we could start with this one:

Would you like to tell me how not thinking like that isn't "better?"

 

Not thinking like that is better, in my opinion. I assume you'd agree. 

But that isn't the point.  She is sharing her experience.  And I don't think her experience is inconsistent with much of our culture, do you?

 

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Thinking said:

I used to like Elder Holland. He was the president at BYU when I was there and when he would walk across the campus he would greet the students like he knew them. He said "Hi, how are you?" to me several times. He had no idea who I was but I felt like he cared. Now he seems to be bitter in his rants about those who have chosen to leave the Church.

Mutual intolerance?

[Bobbieaware]

6 hours ago, mtomm said:

I guess I missed the part where Elder Holland is God the Father.  Funny how us LDS are always confusing that. 

 

I find it amusing how some people on this board continually misconstrue the plain meaning of words. I causes me to wonder how often that misconstrual is caused by an inability to think critically, and how often it is the product of dishonesty. In my post, I made it clear that earthly parents who really do love their children may become righteously angry from time-to- time if those same children disobey sound counsel and do things that are morally wrong and spiritually destructive. I believe a prophet of God can experience these same emotions of righteous anger when some of the members of the Church rebel and go over to the dark side.

My point in reminding you that even Heavenly Father frequently feels righteous anger was to demonstrate that, just like concerned earthly parents and prophets, the God of perfect love himself can also experience righteous anger as a consequence of his perfect love. The scriptures clearly indicate that the Lord's earthly Church leaders can, and should, also experience righteous anger, which is why D&C 121 says that for the saint's own good a Church leader may have to 'reprove' (discipline) them with sharpness (stinging reproof) at times, and this because the leaders love and are deeply concerned for the welfare of the members under their stewardship.

I clearly remember the day when a Church leader righteously rebuked me because of something I shouldn't have done, but all the while I was grown up enough to perceive that he was chastising me because he genuinely loved and cared for me. When I was growing up it was the parents in my neighborhood who didn't get rigjteously angry with their kids, and just allowed them to do whatever the heck they wanted to do, without any correction or discipline, who ended up with children who didn't feel secure and deeply loved. 

This whole "controversy" is a tempest in a teapot caused by those spiritually immature souls of the type who think it's wrong for parents, teachers, Church leaders, and even God himself, to feel and express righteous indignation, even if it means that the uncorrected will go swiftly down to hell. Heaven forbid that anyone should be righteously chastised for their own good. Better that we should all be playing spiritual patty-cake and Ring Around the Rosie as the world increasingly heads toward perdition. It was the apostle Paul who said that any Church members who are unwilling to bear chastisement are unworthy to be counted as the true followers of Christ...

5 And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:

 6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

 7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?

 8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

 9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

 10 For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.

 11 Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.

 12 Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees; (Hebrews 12)

Edited May 2, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[canard78]

10 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

If I tell you what I think, you'll be deeply hurt and traumatized, and forced to hit the "Report" button.

So I shall forbear.

I'll take that as an acknowledgment that you didn't read the OP properly. 

Have a nice day. 

Edited May 2, 2016 by canard78

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

I find it amusing how some people on this board continually misconstrue the plain meaning of words. I causes me to wonder how often that misconstrual is caused by an inability to think critically, and how often it is the product of dishonesty. In my post, I made it clear that earthly parents who really do love their children may become righteously angry from time-to- time if those same children disobey sound counsel and do things that are morally wrong and spiritually destructive. I believe a prophet of God can experience these same emotions of righteous anger when some of the members of the Church rebel and go over to the dark side.

My point in reminding you that even Heavenly Father frequently feels righteous anger was to demonstrate that, just like concerned earthly parents and prophets, the God of perfect love himself can also experience righteous anger as a consequence of his perfect love. The scriptures clearly indicate that the Lord's earthly Church leaders can, and should, also experience righteous anger, which is why D&C 121 says that for the saint's own good a Church leader may have to 'reprove' (discipline) them with sharpness (stinging reproof) at times, and this because the leaders love and are deeply concerned for the welfare of the members under their stewardship.

I clearly remember the day when a Church leader righteously rebuked me because of something I shouldn't have done, but all the while I was grown up enough to perceive that he was chastising me because he genuinely loved and cared for me. When I was growing up it was the parents in my neighborhood who didn't get rigjteously angry with their kids, and just allowed them to do whatever the heck they wanted to do, without any correction or discipline, who ended up with children who didn't feel secure and deeply loved. 

This whole "controversy" is a tempest in a teapot caused by those spiritually immature souls of the type who think it's wrong for parents, teachers, Church leaders, and even God himself, to feel and express righteous indignation, even if it means that the uncorrected will go swiftly down to hell. Heaven forbid that anyone should be righteously chastised for their own good. Better that we should all be playing spiritual patty-cake and Ring Around the Rosie as the world increasingly heads toward perdition. It was the apostle Paul who said that any Church members who are unwilling to bear chastisement are unworthy to be counted as the true followers of Christ...

5 And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:

 6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

 7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?

 8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

 9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

 10 For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.

 11 Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.

 12 Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees; (Hebrews 12)

I have no problem with Elder Holland expressing righteous indignation.  What bothers me is his misrepresentation of so many church members.