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

[ALarson]

17 minutes ago, canard78 said:

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

"Desperate" is the word that came to mind when I heard the clip.  Desperate and angry.  I don't know if that's accurate, but it's what it felt like to me.

19 minutes ago, canard78 said:

You could use this link instead:

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

Thanks, I'll update my link.

.

Edited April 30, 2016 by ALarson

[Storm Rider]

6 hours ago, canard78 said:

The formatting has gone crazy on this post. Apologies

Canard, I think it is a difficult, painful process to leave the Church, its culture, and its people.  I also believe that the path of faith, living with faith and in faith, is challenging and difficult.  I believe that a faithful person can become extremely frustrated with  those who leave because they focus so heavily on their own spiritual experiences.  If the Spirit moves one to join how does the world convince them it is wrong ---- is the type of thinking I suspect exists.  

In my own struggles of faith I rely heavily on my past spiritual experiences to "get over" the things I don't understand or that pose a problem for me.  That is not to say that I am successful at accepting all things because I am not.  Somethings remain problems and it is easy for me to harp on them IF I allow myself to be undisciplined in my actions.  

I appreciate Holland and his frustration; I understand him.  I appreciate Uchtdorf's comments and his compassion for others; I understand his position.  I appreciate that these are two different men with a different approach.  They are both needed and wanted in the Church.

I honestly believe that the restored gospel is a fullness of truth for Exaltation, but it certainly is not repository of all truth or wisdom.  I know and have talked with those who have left the Church for other churches or faiths and I have felt good about their choice.  I felt good because I sensed that they had found a better path at the present for them.  I do not think they are paths of Exaltation, but luckily I am not the judge of these things and my limited understanding can be suspect.

There are a lot of things that I can think of that I wish I could change or that were better, but I often acknowledge that my church is not an entertainment social structure for Sunday meetings.  It is made of very frail humans, male and female, that are trying to return to God - to fulfill God's purpose for them.  I also believe that some of the members of leave the church are trying to do the same thing. 

[consiglieri]

3 minutes ago, JulieM said:

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 

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.

 

 

[thesometimesaint]

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. 

I would imagine some are lacking faith. It is a common enough theme throughout the Scriptures.

Yes I comfortable with Elder Holland's uses.

Of course they are only human, but they have the authority to speak for the Church.

[JulieM]

16 minutes 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. 

It's not Christlike at all.  It's about as opposite from how Christ would treat struggling members with doubts and questions as one can be.  Why would Elder Holland think, "Let's just poke fun at those struggling and label them with silly nonsensical words and then let's all laugh at them"?

Maybe he didn't plan it like that, but that's how it played out.  

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, canard78 said:

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?

The seeds of my collapsed testimony in the restored church were planted a little over a decade ago while serving as YM president to a couple of struggling gay young men.  Things got worse as my study led me to realize how often the 15 speak "as men".  But I dug in deeper trying to learn, pray, understand.  I worked hard.  Was called as an early morning seminary teacher and I gave it everything I had.  My consistent, heartfelt prayer and study helped me feel the Spirit daily.  In the midst of that Prop 8 hit.  I also learned more about the early history of the church through the year that I taught D&C.  My shelf was getting weak from the weight of everything I had placed there.  I was feeling betrayed by the leaders I had place my trust in for decades of my life.  Apostles of the Lord to whom I had given my all.  Still, I was determined to make it work.  A great man who I loved and admired called me to serve as his counselor in the bishopric.  I accepted and for another four years have served with all my might, mind, and strength.

I have studied enough, read enough, talked with enough people that I know, without a shadow of a doubt, that there are good and valid reasons to leave this church.  Elder Holland's words in Arizona are like a dagger in my back.  It was crass and un-Christlike.  He's either being intentionally ignorant at this point or just willing to say whatever garbage he feels is necessary to make his point.  He clearly has no idea or concern for the amount of work, love, service, and pain I've put into staying in the church.  If he could take a moment to think about people like me, he wouldn't make such horrible statements.

Edited April 30, 2016 by rockpond

[flameburns623]

Elder Holland: 'Don’t you dare bail. I am sofurious 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 ifnone 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.

 Rumi: "Raise your words, not your voice. It is rain that grows flowers, not thunder".

Edited April 30, 2016 by flameburns623

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The seeds of my collapsed testimony in the restored church were planted a little over a decade ago while serving as YM president to a couple of struggling gay young men.  Things got worse as my study led me to realize how often the 15 speak "as men".  But I dug in deeper trying to learn, pray, understand.  I worked hard.  Was called as an early morning seminary teacher and I gave it everything I had.  My consistent, heartfelt prayer and study helped me feel the Spirit daily.  In the midst of that Prop 8 hit.  I also learned more about the early history of the church through the year that I taught D&C.  My shelf was getting weak from the weight of everything I had placed there.  I was feeling betrayed by the leaders I had place my trust in for decades of my life.  Apostles of the Lord to whom I had given my all.  Still, I was determined to make it work.  A great man who I loved and admired called me to serve as his counselor in the bishopric.  I accepted and for another four years have served with all my might, mind, and strength.

I have studied enough, read enough, talked with enough people that I know, without a shadow of a doubt, that there are good and valid reasons to leave this church.  Elder Holland's words in Arizona are like a dagger in my back.  It was crass and un-Christlike.  He's either being intentionally ignorant at this point or just willing to say whatever garbage he feels is necessary to make his point.  He clearly has no idea or concern for the amount of work, love, service, and pain I've put into staying in the church.  If he could take a moment to think about people like me, he wouldn't make such horrible statements.

They seem out of touch, many LDS are.  They are in stage 3.  

[canard78]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

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.

I agree that times have changed. I don't agree that Elder's Holland's approach is the appropriate one for the current times. It is, however, perhaps a reflection of the church's apparent changing attitude. When comparing the rhetoric of 2015/16 vs 2013, it seems the wagons are being circled.

[rockpond]

Just now, canard78 said:

I agree that times have changed. I don't agree that Elder's Holland's approach is the appropriate one for the current times. It is, however, perhaps a reflection of the church's apparent changing attitude. When comparing the rhetoric of 2015/16 vs 2013, it seems the wagons are being circled.

Yes... and with every attempt they make to circle, I feel less and less welcome in the church.  If they continue the current trajectory it will reach the point where what I am doing for the sake of my family will no longer be worth the cost.  So they will obviously do what they want but the cost will be me, and my family, and the generations thereafter.  

And for those who will inevitably want to respond to this with comments about me throwing away my salvation, don't bother.  I am very comfortable with my relationship with God and my status with him.  The Church no longer controls that (not that it ever actually did).

[canard78]

51 minutes ago, sdc999 said:

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.

Yep, that's exactly the point.

Even if the reasons for leaving might not be accepted by those who remain, it's a shame when they trivialise the decision to leave. It's not an easy decision and it's not easy to work through the impact of doing so.

[canard78]

20 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The seeds of my collapsed testimony in the restored church were planted a little over a decade ago while serving as YM president to a couple of struggling gay young men.  Things got worse as my study led me to realize how often the 15 speak "as men".  But I dug in deeper trying to learn, pray, understand.  I worked hard.  Was called as an early morning seminary teacher and I gave it everything I had.  My consistent, heartfelt prayer and study helped me feel the Spirit daily.  In the midst of that Prop 8 hit.  I also learned more about the early history of the church through the year that I taught D&C.  My shelf was getting weak from the weight of everything I had placed there.  I was feeling betrayed by the leaders I had place my trust in for decades of my life.  Apostles of the Lord to whom I had given my all.  Still, I was determined to make it work.  A great man who I loved and admired called me to serve as his counselor in the bishopric.  I accepted and for another four years have served with all my might, mind, and strength.

I have studied enough, read enough, talked with enough people that I know, without a shadow of a doubt, that there are good and valid reasons to leave this church.  Elder Holland's words in Arizona are like a dagger in my back.  It was crass and un-Christlike.  He's either being intentionally ignorant at this point or just willing to say whatever garbage he feels is necessary to make his point.  He clearly has no idea or concern for the amount of work, love, service, and pain I've put into staying in the church.  If he could take a moment to think about people like me, he wouldn't make such horrible statements.

I completely emphathise with everything you've said here.

I gripped on to the handrail of "the boat" for about a year longer than I would otherwise have done because I wanted to support the good people of the branch I was in. The difference for me was that my wife had left several years earlier, so I didn't need to stay for her sake. But it was a long, painful and meaningful process.

[canard78]

19 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes... and with every attempt they make to circle, I feel less and less welcome in the church.  If they continue the current trajectory it will reach the point where what I am doing for the sake of my family will no longer be worth the cost.  So they will obviously do what they want but the cost will be me, and my family, and the generations thereafter.  

And for those who will inevitably want to respond to this with comments about me throwing away my salvation, don't bother.  I am very comfortable with my relationship with God and my status with him.  The Church no longer controls that (not that it ever actually did).

Again, I can connect with what you're saying.

In the end, the final meeting that "did it" for me was sitting in a priesthood meeting where the principles like "the united voice of the First Presidency and the Twelve will never... send forth counsel to the world that is contrary to the mind and will of the Lord." Joseph Fielding Smith (Link)

I realised that I had two options: disrupt the lesson by trying to give a nuanced view of how this is not always true or stay silent and give my tacit support for the position by saying nothing. Recognising that those attending were not there for a nuanced debate about prophetic reliability I stayed silent and resolved to stop attending. It had been on the cards for months. I'd even spent time in Preston Celestial room praying about the decision to leave and had felt assured that it was the right thing to do.

[Vanguard]

59 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 

Agreed. And I like Elder Holland. It reminds me of the current meme "Good, Better, Best" that we now hear all the time regards to the choices we can make. I don't believe Elder Holland's message was the best he could have done. One might argue that these men should be able to be themselves at times without the heavy weight of being viewed as an oracle of God. My answer is no. There are precious few times when speaking publicly that the Q12 can "let their hair down" as it were. And especially when in the same talk they do begin to speak with apostolic authority. You simply can't have it both ways though. They should always recognize the sway they have on their listeners and exercise due caution accordingly. They could do better in this and I believe they are improving which gives me hope and helps me to throw the weight of my support to them.

And yes, Elder Uchtdorf's comments come as a balm to my soul. That is the trajectory I believe the Church will take more often as old guard rotate out and in come the new. :)

[consiglieri]

42 minutes ago, JulieM said:

It's not Christlike at all.  It's about as opposite from how Christ would treat struggling members with doubts and questions as one can be.  Why would Elder Holland think, "Let's just poke fun at those struggling and label them with silly nonsensical words and then let's all laugh at them"?

Maybe he didn't plan it like that, but that's how it played out.  

 

I agree it is not Christ-like.  This is staying in the fold with the 99 and laughing about what and\ idiot the one is who went astray.  (Although it is more like staying in the fold with the 33 and mocking the 67.)

But make no mistake, that is exactly how Elder Holland planned it.

Saying one word you don't mean can always be a mistake.

But this isn't just one word.  This is an entire train of thought, and he uses word after word to mock the decision of those who leave the Church.

And the audience is eating it up with a spoon.

Edited April 30, 2016 by consiglieri

[BlueDreams]

7 hours ago, canard78 said:

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:

....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?

I'm in the both category. As someone else mentioned the reasons are probably about as varied as the person. Some very much are the uchtdorf variety. Others can definitely fit into the Holland model...particularly when their questions aren't actually the major motivating drive. I've met many who have left the church recently in person and have heard more of their stories as well as the contexts around them. Some I get and they really do fit the Uchtdorf descriptors....others.....well... To be honest for a couple I can think of right off the bat Holland's is nice. It was the easier solution so that they didn't have to dig too deep within themselves. They, obviously, wouldn't describe it as such.

But to be honest, I think the "thinking it through" model is oversimplified in general as well. It probably hasn't helped that many of the stories I've been privy to have been in therapy settings. Only a few have been family members. The model is too cerebral for how people actually interact. To date I can think of 1 person who I would say was largely like that. 1 out of at least a dozen (I've lost track).  Another chunk, issues-based concerns were apart of it but it was convoluted with emotional concerns, cognitive distortions, and asserting cultural values as the church. Another chunk have little to nothing to do with intellectual issues...these would fall into the categories people who leave the church hate to have lumped with: lifestyle differences (or sin/shame), weak faiths to begin with, offenses, etc. The problem with internet stories, to me, is that a) it's self-selective of who's story is told and b) the individual can decide what part of their story to bring to the front. And people tend to highlight the stories that fit into a selected accepted narrative.

 

As for myself and working through issues...I'm fairly sure I've mentioned this before in pieces.

1.) there hasn't been an issue that has really shook my faith. Even if they were personally painful (such as skin color and curses and other great folk-beliefs).

2.) I've self selected what to focus on. Some things aren't important for me to put all my energy into. I could care less about most historical nuances, how many stories JS said about the first vision, etc. For the most part I realize I will never fully know what occurred. And that's ok. Plus history is filtered through our own biases.

3.) My first bias that I maintain is that of simple testimony...it was and is the thing I put most energy into. These are simple, experientially based, and constant: there is a God, there are prophets, the BoM is scripture as is the Bible and the DC/PoGP...none are perfect but all are God's word through his peoples, etc. If some of these start to be overshadowed by my concerns, I take a break from my concerns or issues. My faith is not worth a lingering question or issue. I don't believe in persistent deconstruction of ideas, biases, etc. It just looks like doubt masquerading as knowledge to me. And instead of making someone truly neutral it just leaves them with a new set of unacknowledged biases that I prefer not to have

4.) Present-day issues (SSM, Gender concerns, racial issues, sexuality in general, etc)  Pass through these filters as well. I don't pretend to have all answers. I'm careful about making major conclusions. All the conclusions I have made aren't set values but flexible assumptions. And I try to listen to stories that both fit within my paradigm, don't, and are somewhere else all together. It's left me all over the place on the spectrum. In one area I may "fit" into a more progressive end on the LDS spectrum. In others not so much. That should be fairly obvious by my posting history. I guess the overarching theme to these is continually learning and with anchored flexibility. All of these are still filtered/influenced through my bias.

 

With luv,

BD

 

[CV75]

51 minutes ago, canard78 said:

I agree that times have changed. I don't agree that Elder's Holland's approach is the appropriate one for the current times. It is, however, perhaps a reflection of the church's apparent changing attitude. When comparing the rhetoric of 2015/16 vs 2013, it seems the wagons are being circled.

The times -- only 30 months! Come on! -- I'm referring to do not refer to and "age, era or generation" but to the difference in timing between the first general message (which Elder Holland and anyone else was able to absorb), and Elder Holland's subsequent message to a smaller, more distinct group, and according to elder Hales, perhaps what some individuals needed to hear in addition to Elder Uchtdorf's message, who also in the last conference taught (while apparently not agreeing "that the best way to help sinners repent was by condemning, ridiculing, and shaming them"), "No doubt about it, there are times when we need a stern call to repentance. Certainly, there are some who may be reached only in this manner."

47 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes... and with every attempt they make to circle

They draw a circle with love to take you in! (reference credit to Edwin Markham)

[canard78]

55 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The times -- only 30 months! Come on! -- I'm referring to do not refer to and "age, era or generation" but to the difference in timing between the first general message (which Elder Holland and anyone else was able to absorb), and Elder Holland's subsequent message to a smaller, more distinct group, and according to elder Hales, perhaps what some individuals needed to hear in addition to Elder Uchtdorf's message, who also in the last conference taught (while apparently not agreeing "that the best way to help sinners repent was by condemning, ridiculing, and shaming them"), "No doubt about it, there are times when we need a stern call to repentance. Certainly, there are some who may be reached only in this manner."

They draw a circle with love to take you in! (reference credit to Edwin Markham)

What I meant was that the tone of the church has changed. The conference after Tom Phillips' lame attempt to take the church to court over accusations of fraud had a different tone to it, especially from Elder Holland. There's been lots of "stay in the boat" talk in the last couple of years and a doubling down on certain positions and policies.

[canard78]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

 

I agree it is not Christ-like.  This is staying in the fold with the 99 and laughing about what and\ idiot the one is who went astray.  (Although it is more like staying in the fold with the 33 and mocking the 67.)

But make no mistake, that is exactly how Elder Holland planned it.

Saying one word you don't mean can always be a mistake.

But this isn't just one word.  This is an entire train of thought, and he uses word after word to mock the decision of those who leave the Church.

And the audience is eating it up with a spoon.

I think the near-hysterical response from the audience is just as troubling. Group laughter and mockery at the religious decisions of others... I'm sure I've seen that mentioned elsewhere... in a dream... the mockers were in a big building of some sort... nope sorry, it escapes me.

Having said that, it sounds like there are a few gasps of shock in there too.

[ALarson]

Just now, canard78 said:

I think the near-hysterical response from the audience is just as troubling. Group laughter and mockery at the religious decisions of others... I'm sure I've seen that mentioned elsewhere... in a dream... the mockers were in a big building of some sort... nope sorry, it escapes me.

Having said that, it sounds like there are a few gasps of shock in there too.

Maybe some of it was nervous laughter?  Either way, there was laughter and this wasn't pleasant to watch especially with how it appeared that Elder Holland was encouraging this type of jovial reaction.  

Quite the contrast to the loving words of President Urchtdorf.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

I'm in the both category. As someone else mentioned the reasons are probably about as varied as the person. Some very much are the uchtdorf variety. Others can definitely fit into the Holland model...particularly when their questions aren't actually the major motivating drive. I've met many who have left the church recently in person and have heard more of their stories as well as the contexts around them. Some I get and they really do fit the Uchtdorf descriptors....others.....well... To be honest for a couple I can think of right off the bat Holland's is nice. It was the easier solution so that they didn't have to dig too deep within themselves. They, obviously, wouldn't describe it as such.

But to be honest, I think the "thinking it through" model is oversimplified in general as well. It probably hasn't helped that many of the stories I've been privy to have been in therapy settings. Only a few have been family members. The model is too cerebral for how people actually interact. To date I can think of 1 person who I would say was largely like that. 1 out of at least a dozen (I've lost track).  Another chunk, issues-based concerns were apart of it but it was convoluted with emotional concerns, cognitive distortions, and asserting cultural values as the church. Another chunk have little to nothing to do with intellectual issues...these would fall into the categories people who leave the church hate to have lumped with: lifestyle differences (or sin/shame), weak faiths to begin with, offenses, etc. The problem with internet stories, to me, is that a) it's self-selective of who's story is told and b) the individual can decide what part of their story to bring to the front. And people tend to highlight the stories that fit into a selected accepted narrative.

 

As for myself and working through issues...I'm fairly sure I've mentioned this before in pieces.

1.) there hasn't been an issue that has really shook my faith. Even if they were personally painful (such as skin color and curses and other great folk-beliefs).

2.) I've self selected what to focus on. Some things aren't important for me to put all my energy into. I could care less about most historical nuances, how many stories JS said about the first vision, etc. For the most part I realize I will never fully know what occurred. And that's ok. Plus history is filtered through our own biases.

3.) My first bias that I maintain is that of simple testimony...it was and is the thing I put most energy into. These are simple, experientially based, and constant: there is a God, there are prophets, the BoM is scripture as is the Bible and the DC/PoGP...none are perfect but all are God's word through his peoples, etc. If some of these start to be overshadowed by my concerns, I take a break from my concerns or issues. My faith is not worth a lingering question or issue. I don't believe in persistent deconstruction of ideas, biases, etc. It just looks like doubt masquerading as knowledge to me. And instead of making someone truly neutral it just leaves them with a new set of unacknowledged biases that I prefer not to have

4.) Present-day issues (SSM, Gender concerns, racial issues, sexuality in general, etc)  Pass through these filters as well. I don't pretend to have all answers. I'm careful about making major conclusions. All the conclusions I have made aren't set values but flexible assumptions. And I try to listen to stories that both fit within my paradigm, don't, and are somewhere else all together. It's left me all over the place on the spectrum. In one area I may "fit" into a more progressive end on the LDS spectrum. In others not so much. That should be fairly obvious by my posting history. I guess the overarching theme to these is continually learning and with anchored flexibility. All of these are still filtered/influenced through my bias.

 

With luv,

BD

 

Great post, BD.  Given your experiences, who do you think benefits from the Elder Holland quote in the OP?

[thesometimesaint]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

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

That is perhaps the most asinine question to ask. 

[Calm]

2 hours 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).

I have in one case..in a sense.  It was based on a deep need to belong, so in that sense not flimsy, but since as soon as she left being surrounded by LDS she changed to what the group she was then with was most comfortable with, one could define her choices for both joining and leaving as flimsy.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

They draw a circle with love to take you in! (reference credit to Edwin Markham)

I'm not feeling any love, empathy, or understanding at all from Elder Holland.  Sorry.

[thesometimesaint]

Just now, rockpond said:

I'm not feeling any love, empathy, or understanding at all from Elder Holland.  Sorry.

Then go with what Elder Uchtdorf said.