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

[Rain]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Then why is he so mad at me??   Or at least sounds like it.  I am not unique of course..there are many who are like me.  If he knows me and my heart,,he wouldn't quite put things this way.

I've been angry with my children when they were doing something wrong that I saw would hurt them in some way. It is a natural reaction. That doesnt mean it I was right, or wrong, to get mad. Just something that comes from hurt and worry and being unable to change things.

Edited May 2, 2016 by Rain

[Jeanne]

33 minutes ago, mtomm said:

The only person I knew who could really pull taffy was my mom. She was so good at it. And she still has the marble slab for making candy.  She has a bad arm now and so her days of taffy pulling are over. Unfortunately, none of her off-spring have the patience. Such great memories.

I hear you...I can't do it like grandma..she had the two nails in the wall to wrap that taffy around and around.  Oooo.lots of vanilla and sugar.  Sorry about your Mom's arm but what a nice legacy she has left for good memories!

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, Rain said:

I've been angry with my children when they were doing something wrong that I saw would hurt t g em in some way. It is a natural reaction. That doesnt mean it I was right, or wrong, to get mad. Just something that comes from hurt and worry and being unable to change things.

I agree with this also.  And as parents we don't mean what we say or do..and we are sorry.  I hope this works for Elder Holland too no matter his good intentions.

[SteveO]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yeah, that seems to be an ingrained part of our culture as Mormons:  We'll proclaim that we don't consider the prophets and apostles to be infallible but we also never seem willing to admit that a mistake has been made.  Everything must be justified and explained.  We've seen that now on two threads about Elder Holland over the past week.

So now we're patting each other on the back and strutting around?  Usually I'd let it go, but I feel I contributed substantially to the thread and all it really amounted to was you and others only wanting a      concession from members that Holland was in the wrong.  He phrased it poorly...now what?  Do you feel better now?  

Is this what we're going to do from now on?  Pick apart the words of the brethren every time they speak and demand   apologies for everything that's said that offends our sensibilities?  Like some cheap political thread filled with faux outrage?

I guess man...I'll go back to living with my head in the sand

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, SteveO said:

So now we're patting each other on the back and strutting around?  Usually I'd let it go, but I feel I contributed substantially to the thread and all it really amounted to was you and others only wanting a      concession from members that Holland was in the wrong.  He phrased it poorly...now what?  Do you feel better now?  

Is this what we're going to do from now on?  Pick apart the words of the brethren every time they speak and demand   apologies for everything that's said that offends our sensibilities?  Like some cheap political thread filled with faux outrage?

I guess man...I'll go back to living with my head in the sand

I haven't demanded anything.  I participated in a discussion, like you.

 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, SteveO said:

So now we're patting each other on the back and strutting around?  Usually I'd let it go, but I feel I contributed substantially to the thread and all it really amounted to was you and others only wanting a      concession from members that Holland was in the wrong.  He phrased it poorly...now what?  Do you feel better now?  

Is this what we're going to do from now on?  Pick apart the words of the brethren every time they speak and demand   apologies for everything that's said that offends our sensibilities?  Like some cheap political thread filled with faux outrage?

I guess man...I'll go back to living with my head in the sand

Why be concerned if someone disagrees with something an apostles says at some point?  That's not picking apart his words.  It simply comes off as judgmental and hasty.  Why can't someone say as much?  It seems like if we do so, the defensive response is an attempt to shut down conversation rather than promote it.

[Jeanne]

41 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If he only had "those type of people" in mind, he didn't express that.  He didn't limit it.  Didn't clarify it.  Your explanation in the first paragraph could have been what meant, but it isn't what he said.

Are you now going to concede that he could have phrased it better or did you not really mean that?

 

Right.  You know, we can only go by what was said and often what was unsaid gets attached.  My real hurt was the laughter.

[consiglieri]

2 hours ago, SteveO said:

 

I take it as a sign that this man truly believes in what he is saying.

 

Like when Elder Holland claimed in Dallas the LDS Church is growing faster than ever in its history?

Think about it.

Elder Holland knows that what he said in Dallas is not true.

He is a man willing to say things that are not true in order to prop up the Church.

That kind of thing is probably eating him up inside.

Which just feeds the anger . . .

 

[SteveO]

5 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Like when Elder Holland claimed in Dallas the LDS Church is growing faster than ever in its history?

Think about it.

Elder Holland knows that what he said in Dallas is not true.

He is a man willing to say things that are not true in order to prop up the Church.

That kind of thing is probably eating him up inside.

Which just feeds the anger . . .

 

Annnnnnnd...this

I'm done with this thread.  Pleasure talking to all of you.

FYI Stemelbow, THIS is why I get concerned when people disagree with the brethren.  Its not the disagreement but the lengths some go to reach these kind of conclusions that disturb me.

 

 

Edited May 2, 2016 by SteveO

[consiglieri]

43 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Neither of them shows any cognitive dissonance. That is merely your false and fatuous accusation.

 

Then maybe you could tell me what exactly Elder Holland is so angry about?

[Rivers]

Just listened to the full talk. It was actually really good.  The part of the talk in question makes a little more sense in context.  The talk is all about trials and suffering. He seems to be talking specifically about those people who leave the church because of life becoming too hard.  He goes on to say and paraphrase "don't jump ship in the storm." 

I think he went a little bit overboard (pun not intended).

[CV75]

On 4/30/2016 at 3:53 AM, 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?

I have found that when one Apostle comes across as offensive, or if I begin on the offensive and want to use another Apostles words to support my position , it really helps to try to understand the actual facts or content of what they saying.

So let’s not give these two talks the patty-cake treatment. I think upon closer analysis, the operative word in Elder Uchtdorf’s talk is “some.” That is where things are not so simple: they are varied and I've bulleted them below from his talk. Some may represent authentic decision-making, and some “patty-cake,” depending on how the person approaches his decision.

• Some of our dear members struggle for years with the question whether they should separate themselves from the Church.
• Some struggle with unanswered questions about things that have been done or said in the past.
• Sometimes questions arise because we simply don’t have all the information and we just need a bit more patience.
• Sometimes there is a difference of opinion as to what the “facts” really mean.
• It is unfortunate that some have stumbled because of mistakes made by men.
• Some might ask, “But what about my doubts?”
• Some might say, “I just don’t fit in with you people in the Church.”
• Some might say, “I don’t think I could live up to your standards.”
• Some might say, “I know a member of your Church who is a hypocrite.”

I think the patty-cake comes in when “some” start with or quickly go on the irrational offensive. They have no less of an excuse to do this than those who assume people only leave the Church because they have been “offended or lazy or sinful.” Elder Holland doesn’t seem to be calling them those things, but observing that, in comparison to how wonderful the Gospel is, it is patty-cake to leave for the fairly indefensible reasons he outlined (wanting the terms of membership 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”).

 

Edited May 2, 2016 by CV75

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Rivers said:

Just listened to the full talk. It was actually really good.  The part of the talk in question makes a little more sense in context.  The talk is all about trials and suffering. He seems to be talking specifically about those people who leave the church because of life becoming too hard.  He goes on to say and paraphrase "don't jump ship in the storm." 

I think he went a little bit overboard (pun not intended).

Good one 

 

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Yeah, that seems to be an ingrained part of our culture as Mormons:  We'll proclaim that we don't consider the prophets and apostles to be infallible but we also never seem willing to admit that a mistake has been made.  Everything must be justified and explained.  We've seen that now on two threads about Elder Holland over the past week.

What a mess of unadulterated horse crap!  You and Julie pat each other on the back over a story you two have made out of whole cloth.  Not a single, NOT ONE, person has said, or alleged, that Elder Holland is perfect, beyond error, or even that taking this single sentence or two out of context does not make it look poorly worded, a bad choice, call it whatever makes your feel good about yourselves.

You go on ad nauseum over nothing.  It does not appear that any of you whining individual have had the integrity to actually listen to the entire talk.  You remind me, oh heck, it is really not worth it.  Enjoy whatever life you want, but you have lost any respect I once had for you.  It is just too easy to throw you in with Consig and just ignore the lot of you.  

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

What a mess of unadulterated horse crap!  You and Julie pat each other on the back over a story you two have made out of whole cloth.  Not a single, NOT ONE, person has said, or alleged, that Elder Holland is perfect, beyond error, or even that taking this single sentence or two out of context does not make it look poorly worded, a bad choice, call it whatever makes your feel good about yourselves.

You go on ad nauseum over nothing.  It does not appear that any of you whining individual have had the integrity to actually listen to the entire talk.  You remind me, oh heck, it is really not worth it.  Enjoy whatever life you want, but you have lost any respect I once had for you.  It is just too easy to throw you in with Consig and just ignore the lot of you.  

Wow..you're as mad as an apostle!!  (Just kidding)..just ignore.

Edited May 2, 2016 by Jeanne

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

What a mess of unadulterated horse crap!  You and Julie pat each other on the back over a story you two have made out of whole cloth.  Not a single, NOT ONE, person has said, or alleged, that Elder Holland is perfect, beyond error, or even that taking this single sentence or two out of context does not make it look poorly worded, a bad choice, call it whatever makes your feel good about yourselves.

You go on ad nauseum over nothing.  It does not appear that any of you whining individual have had the integrity to actually listen to the entire talk.  You remind me, oh heck, it is really not worth it.  Enjoy whatever life you want, but you have lost any respect I once had for you.  It is just too easy to throw you in with Consig and just ignore the lot of you.  

I have read the transcript of his talk.

And what you've written above doesn't, at all, represent what I have said on this thread or in the post that you responded to.  So I'm not really sure why you wrote it unless you just wanted to terminate the discussion with a personal attack.

 

[JulieM]

12 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Wow..you're as mad as an apostle!!  (Just kidding)..just ignore.

This made me laugh (I'm out of rep points.  I owe you one!)  

And I did know you were kidding, of course!

Edited May 2, 2016 by JulieM

[JulieM]

35 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

You go on ad nauseum over nothing.  It does not appear that any of you whining individual have had the integrity to actually listen to the entire talk.  You remind me, oh heck, it is really not worth it.  Enjoy whatever life you want, but you have lost any respect I once had for you.  It is just too easy to throw you in with Consig and just ignore the lot of you.  

I have read the talk and I think it's overall a very good talk except the part quoted in the opening post.   Others feel the same and that's why we're having this discussion.  

Edited May 2, 2016 by JulieM

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

What a mess of unadulterated horse crap!  You and Julie pat each other on the back over a story you two have made out of whole cloth.  Not a single, NOT ONE, person has said, or alleged, that Elder Holland is perfect, beyond error, or even that taking this single sentence or two out of context does not make it look poorly worded, a bad choice, call it whatever makes your feel good about yourselves.

You go on ad nauseum over nothing.  It does not appear that any of you whining individual have had the integrity to actually listen to the entire talk.  You remind me, oh heck, it is really not worth it.  Enjoy whatever life you want, but you have lost any respect I once had for you.  It is just too easy to throw you in with Consig and just ignore the lot of you.  

I believe Rockpond and Julie have been very respectful in their discussions.  Respecting others with different opinions is really worth it,

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

What a mess of unadulterated horse crap!

I think there has been a very civil and respectful conversation so far (for the most part).  People have disagreed, but have been quite polite, IMO, and have even come to some agreement on this topic.

.

Edited May 2, 2016 by ALarson

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, california boy said:

Geese do you have an ax to grind or what.  At some point, you have managed to push me just a little too far in distorting what I have actually said. So I am going to be quite candid and clear with you.  Where did I exhibit any hatred towards the church?  I may not like the actions of the church, but there is no hatred towards the church or it's leaders.  Even so, I have always acknowledged that the church can do what ever it wants against the gay community.  But that doesn't mean there aren't consequences.  When you attack a community as much as the church has done, one can hardly expect some kind of warm and fuzzy feelings for the churches actions.

Is that the reason for your constant anti-Mormon hate speech?  Is that the reason why LGBT persons militate against the Mormons and get them fired from their jobs?  Consequences through extortion.  And any lie in furtherance of that anti-Mormon program is O.K., including the lie that the LDS Church is doing all manner of horrible things against the homosexual community.

WHERE did I insult anyone's religious beliefs????  Just because there are some monastic communities that also practice celibacy does not change the fact that I think celibacy is unnatural and depressing.  Are you seriously suggesting that humans were naturally meant to be celibate?  That they are hardwired NOT to connect with someone and share their life with them?  Darn right, a celibate life is unnatural.  Do you insult others beliefs when you got married?  Or is it just gays that are insulting others religions by wanting to marry.  Getting married is a core belief of the church and has been since it's beginning.

Getting married and condemning the practice of homosexuality within their ranks are core beliefs of Mormons and Orthodox Jews, but that doesn't mean that either of them goes out of their way to attack the notion of celibacy -- which is practiced within Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Christianity, and within Buddhism.  Yet you find it just fine to throw invective around against monastic practices, demonstrating enormous disrespect and insensitivity.  But you couldn't care less.

 You certainly are not going to deny that are you?  It is just gays that the church has decided it would be more natural for them to not marry.  For everyone else the law of chastity is no sex outside of who one is legally and lawfully married.  For gays, it is no sex for ever.  Fine.  the church can teach what it wants.  Not being allowed to share my life with someone I love and am deeply committed to would be VERY depressing.  You really find that insulting?  Give me a break.

How about giving Mormons a break?  After all, you can practice homosexuality freely in American society, and you can even get married as a homosexual.  No one is requiring you to be a Mormon.  Yet you would deny the Mormons their free agency.

Yes LDS Church leaders are hostile towards homosexuals.  I will once again post my reasons for having this belief.\

Quote

You quoted yourself:  

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 apostates 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?

I heavily criticized you for this complete failure to be evenhanded in your words about the LDS Church and homosexuals, and here you are shamelessly repeating and defending your own one-sided hate propaganda.  LGBT persons are always welcome in LDS meeting houses, homosexual children can be members of LDS scout troops, primary, etc.  Proposition 8 in California was a sincere and legal effort by Catholics, Evangelicals, the Black Church, and Mormons (asked to come into the effort by the Catholics) to defend the principle of marriage only between members of the opposite gender, but members of the LGBT community immediately thereafter began persecution of Mormons, demonstrating against them, and getting them fired from their jobs.  So much for legal political action.  For you, any failure of the LDS Church to declare homosexual activity to be moral is cause for direct, prejudicial action against that Church.  So much for religious freedom and for mutual respect for diverse belief systems.  You want everyone in lockstep.  Yet Mormons do not go about trying to get LGBT people fired, and don't demonstrate against them.

 Every single one of those things the church has done, and you have not disputed a single one.  The church is aggressive against gays even when they are not members of the church. Go figure.  While I acknowledged that the church did not oppose non discrimination laws in Utah, one could hardly make the case that the church is fighting for non discrimination laws in other areas.

Actually, LDS leaders fought hard for non-discrimination laws in Utah.  To the dismay of some members who are slow to accept free agency for others. Your lie is that, Oh they did not oppose them.  You cannot even give credit where it is due.

 There has been no statements opposing the actions of North Carolina or Missouri from church leaders for example.  You seem to think the church has treated LGBT with some kind of love and respect, yet you have not been able to come up with a list of actions that have shown such love or respect for the LGBT community.  Can you point to any political campaign aimed at adulterous, alcoholics, and other drug abusers, domestic abusers where the church has spent 40 million dollars and 70% of the ground force passing laws against them?  I think not, but I may be wrong.  Have they barred their children from membership in the church?  So this time, instead of calling me a hater of the church, show me where the church has been aggressive in the areas YOU mentioned to the degree the church has towards the gay community.  Is all you have managed to do is chastise me for my reason why I think the church is pretty aggressive in attacking the LGBT community.

You also have continually labeled my attitudes towards the church as hatred.  This is a big lie.

The LDS Church spends huge amounts of money in helping people get through various addictions and bad behaviors, and all you can do is lie about what the LDS members in California did to support Prop 8.  Did you learn nothing from the long discussions we had on this board about Prop 8?

 I have been posting on this board for 10 years.  I have stated over and over again including in this very thread that the church has a lot of good in it and that it is for some people a great place for them to find peace and joy.  I have also stated over and over again that I have always supported my children's activity in the church.  You want to deflect the issues against the gay community towards me, yet in order to do that you have to make statements against me that have no basis in fact simply because you can not dispute the aggressive action the church has taken towards the LGBT community.  If you think this is somehow just my own perception of the church, then you gotta get out a little more.  There are a LOT of people that think the Mormon church is hostile towards gays.  If you want proof of that, I would be more than happy to present it to you.

Deliberately lying to people who don't know any better about what has in fact taken place, and deliberately putting a negative spin on everything associated with it, can in fact get a lot of ignorant people to support your POV.  But is that the same as an honest, evenhanded appraisal?

This thread is about reasons why people leave the church and how much thought and prayer go into such a decision.  How the church has treated the gay community is a BIG part of many leaving the church.  Just look on this board of the number of people who have left and are considering leaving in part because of the church's aggressive actions towards the LGBT community.  Read the thread on the rock star, and how he wanted to stay active in the church until the latest volley against gays.  The church simply doesn't care.  I don't expect to see any lessening of these aggressive actions towards the LGBT community. 

Yeh, if you repeat a lie often enough, some people will actually believe it.  Indeed, the bigger the lie the better.  People leave churches for a variety of reasons, both good and bad.  They always will.  So what?

 

Edited May 3, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, consiglieri said:

I would like to register my objection over Russ getting suspended.

While Russ can be pointed and personal in some of his comments, I believe he brings a valuable perspective to the discussions on this board.

You just like him because he constitutes an excellent straw dog for you, Counselor.  And you very much need one.

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, ALarson said:

If that's the case, and Elder Holland was just addressing the few who have left for silly reasons, then in hind sight, he may wish now that he had clarified rather than painting with such a broad brush.  I'd also imagine that he hears more detailed stories that I do and knows of some who left without much thought, but I honestly have not known anyone who I'd classify as "silly billies" or who have left for "patty-cake reasons".

I have met plenty of them in person, and have even met some on this board.  Many have no idea what they are doing or why.

I think this thread is an expression by some here who have gone through this.  Many (like myself) struggled for a few years and came back to full activity.  Some here did not return, but still have family members in the church, so they are still involved and are still members.  It's hard enough to go through this painful experience without hearing an Apostle get up and make light of what we have gone through or may still be going through. It's painful for them to know that their family members are hearing Elder Holland's words too.  These are the same family members who are also trying to understand and help bring them back.  

I think a little understanding and empathy from both sides would be a great way to handle this topic.  I know I could do better too.

.I would recommend that you not take it personally.  Only if the shoe fits should you wear it.  Holland was speaking of a select group, and he certainly has a right to single them out for attention.

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

10 hours ago, rockpond said:

We aren't talking about the entire subject of representation.  We're talking about how a man, speaking publicly as an apostle, chose [to] misrepresent those who leave the church.

I understand. Any language that does not validate people in their apostasy is a misrepresentation.

Edited May 3, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, mtomm said:

You are wrong to call me an ill-wisher. I don't equate apostles with the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ or God The Father. They have a calling, they do their best within their own limitations. I don't need a lecture telling me that God gets angry sometimes and so that makes it okay for the apostles to disparage those struggling with the Church.

I didn't call you an ill-wisher.  I merely asserted the fact that ill-wishers are typically the ones who use the false equation of a GA and God the Father as an excuse to take a hit at the LDS faith.  You are the one who said "I guess I missed the part where Elder Holland is God the Father.  Funny how us LDS are always confusing that."  Only you know what you meant by that.