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

[Stargazer]

On 5/1/2016 at 6:29 AM, california boy said:

Thanks. It is an interesting concept. Certainly the church has every right to excommunicate whoever they want. Do you also feel a father should excommunicate any of his children who is not living up to his beliefs?  I personally find increased love and communication to be more effective.   I know, crazy liberal attitude. 

One of our sons was companying with a person whom we had offered shelter in his need, and who had repaid us with theft and property destruction, and he refused to disassociate himself from this person (he was an actual multi-convicted felon under community supervision).  We were forced to "disfellowship" him from the family: we demanded that he move out of the house, and told him to stay away until he repented of his conduct.  Eventually, he did repent of his behavior, and is now a married man with a loving wife and two lovely daughters.  And all is well, except for a felony conviction that he got because of the people he was hanging out with.  

Increased love and communication did not help.  Persuasion and long-suffering only went so far.  Ejection and shunning actually helped him turn his life around.  

Imagine that.

On the other hand, we never stopped loving and caring for him.  When he got tossed into jail while he was out making a hash out of his life, my wife went and bailed him out -- against my better judgment, I might add -- so that he didn't have to endure that particular experience.  We helped him as much as we could consistent with the need to keep him at arm's length.  

Make of all that what you will.

[Bobbieaware]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So we want to send the "faith of heart" packing now?  That may cause the membership to drop 50% of what it is.  no offense to any members, but lacing courage to some extent or another is a problem most of us deal with. 

Who joins the Church, or continues to participate in the Church after becoming a born in the Church adult, who doesn't know what's involved with being an active and faithful Latter-day Saint? Yet many members of varying degrees of faith, obedience, spirituallly and courage remain on the good ship Zion, while others who possess similar degrees of talent and spiritual ability jump ship. In other words, not just the extraordinarily faithful and courageous remain on board. It would be interesting to know what it is that causes some leave and others to stay? It likely all boils down to spiritual witness.

[Stargazer]

On 5/1/2016 at 6:46 AM, rockpond said:

I understand the way you feel.  And you can add your statement here to the list of reasons that CB and other LGBT persons feel hostility from the church.

I detect far more hostility against the Church with regard to the issue of homosexual conduct than hostility from the Church against anyone.  The Church is simply reacting to the increasingly strident LGBT insistence that it accept behaviors that the Church has always considered sinful.  The Church won't do it, but at the same time tries to ameliorate the potential for conflict within LGBT families by delaying baptism of such families' children until the children can be considered full adult.  I do see that this is perceived as somehow hurtful, but if a child of a same sex couple were to be a member of the Church in full fellowship, how could it be other than anti-family when the child would be subject to being taught that its parents relationship was against the law of God?  This would seem to me to be more inimical to that family than requiring a waiting period.  

But no opposition to sinful behavior is to be brooked.  This is the simple fact: the Church must accept same sex relationships as just as virtuous as different sex relationships, and nothing else will suffice.  The policy is an expression of both opposition to sin and of support for such families (by not placing the children of such families into the position of repudiating their parents lifestyles).  It is an attempt to tread neutral ground while at the same time not compromising on principle, and so of course it cannot be tolerated.

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

Each member of the Church needs to become a prophet or prophetess in hi or her own right. Until that happens, no answer will ever suffice. The problem is that most of those who are leaving never really had the spirit of revelation to begin with; there shallow-rooted testimonies were growing on nutrientless sand.

I have become a prophet in my own right.

See what it gets me?

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I detect far more hostility against the Church with regard to the issue of homosexual conduct than hostility from the Church against anyone.  The Church is simply reacting to the increasingly strident LGBT insistence that it accept behaviors that the Church has always considered sinful.  The Church won't do it, but at the same time tries to ameliorate the potential for conflict within LGBT families by delaying baptism of such families' children until the children can be considered full adult.  I do see that this is perceived as somehow hurtful, but if a child of a same sex couple were to be a member of the Church in full fellowship, how could it be other than anti-family when the child would be subject to being taught that its parents relationship was against the law of God?  This would seem to me to be more inimical to that family than requiring a waiting period.  

But no opposition to sinful behavior is to be brooked.  This is the simple fact: the Church must accept same sex relationships as just as virtuous as different sex relationships, and nothing else will suffice.  The policy is an expression of both opposition to sin and of support for such families (by not placing the children of such families into the position of repudiating their parents lifestyles).  It is an attempt to tread neutral ground while at the same time not compromising on principle, and so of course it cannot be tolerated.

I understand the Church's position (which you have described quite well).  You statement does not, however, have anything to do with the post that I replied to.

There are LGBT persons who feel hostility from the Church.  You replied to a post of mine that was responding to a comment from someone that was indicative of that hostility.  The fact that the LGBT individuals feel hostility doesn't speak to the rightness or wrongness of various positions (be they doctrine or policy).  It just speaks to the way those teachings and pronouncements make people feel.  The Church is welcome to be as stridently opposed to homosexual relationships as it wants to be.  But it does not get to dictate how others feel about that opposition.

[consiglieri]

30 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Who joins the Church, or continues to participate in the Church after becoming a born in the Church adult, who doesn't know what's involved with being an active and faithful Latter-day Saint? Yet many members of varying degrees of faith, obedience, spirituallly and courage remain on the good ship Zion, while others who possess similar degrees of talent and spiritual ability jump ship. In other words, not just the extraordinarily faithful and courageous remain on board. It would be interesting to know what it is that causes some leave and others to stay? It likely all boils down to spiritual witness.

It has sometimes occurred to me that among those who have the most trouble with the Church are those who took its truth claims seriously to begin with.

I know that is the case with me.

I think those who never really took the truth claims seriously don't have a lot of issues with the fact that those claims have difficulty withstanding scrutiny.

 

[Jeanne]

3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Generally speaking the answer would be no. The widespread unpopularity of the LDS Church, coupled with the extraordinary expectations of commitment, personal responsibility, moral worthiness and level of activity the Church desires it's new converts to fully embrace, most definitely puts the LDS Church in the non-patty-cake category. Like Elder Holland said, being a fully believing and participating member of the LDS Church isn't for the faint of heart. Isn't this obvious?

Believe me...I am convinced.  being a fully believing and participating member of the LDS Church is not for the faint of heart!  Had my heart attack about 8 years ago.  What to do with all the weak people anyway? 

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, canard78 said:

And that's the crux of what everyone's being saying in defence of what Holland said (you, @Hamba Tuhan and @Robert F. Smith for example).

Imagine I wrote a blog post or comment on this forum saying:

"I'm furious when people leave their former faith tradition and join Mormonism. What sort of patty cake, taffy pull commitment did they have before?"

Would you all agree with my statement or would you instead say that I was being unfair to the majority of those who join the church. Would you point out that there are a few who join for trivial reasons (missionary crush for example) but that many, perhaps most, join for deeply considered, sincere reasons. 

Might you also point out that my broad, generalising statement was not just uncharitable but also not representative?

If I then replied that others had talked about the other reasons people joined (at different times, to a different audience) and that my statement stood, unchanged, might you point out that my statement was not representative and that I should, at least, put clarifying words into my statement to make it clear that I was taking about a very specific minority. 

Or would the fact that I have an Irish great-great grandfather absolve me of needing to do anything like that. 

Robert, you have definitely called me out (often quite rightly) for making unsubstantiated generalisations. Is there really a difference. 

It really doesn't matter to me whether we are speaking of an LDS apostle, or of a Presbyterian minister (anti-Mormon Wes Walters), or of Sandra Tanner (I have defended them all). Indeed, I have an ancestral line of Methodist and Presbyterian ministers, and I hold all of them in very high regard.

The difference is that (if I wanted to make a valid comparison) I would actually quote the example rather than creating an invidious, fake quote.  Then my critique would be more valid.  I would also want to place the quote in proper context, isolating a particular class -- rather than making it appear that all classes had been included.  If one is so minded, it is not difficult at all to find fault with St Paul in his NT epistles, as long as one is willing to take his words out of context.

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, california boy said:

 On 5/2/2016 at 8:34 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

C'mon, california boy, take heart.

You should be rejoicing that LGBT rights have been declared legal in most jurisdictions, and that the tide has turned.  You should be less angry, and far more accepting of the fact of diversity in modern American society.  Certainly the Mormon community has had to learn to be far more accepting in a number of areas.  That's a good thing, isn't it?  Tolerance comes hard for some, and the law kicks in where & when there is foot-dragging.  So you can't have it all, so what?

You used to be so much more civil and understanding on this board.  Just step back and take stock.  How does it really look?  Is the glass half-full, or half-empty?

Edited May 4, 2016 by Robert F. Smith