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

[Tacenda]

8 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

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

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

Thanks for the question, I'll PM.  

[sdc999]

5 hours ago, Pa Pa said:

 

I am presently tasked with finding members who seldom if ever come to Church anymore, and to do what I can to invite them back, or see if they no longer wish to be members.

Pa Pa,  I am curious when this way of thinking came to be?  10 years ago, when we were instructed to find the less actives to invite them back, we were instructed to see if they wished to be contacted, not contacted but NEVER ask if they wish to no longer be members.  We were told that is really not our place to ask and it was detrimental to their salvation should they ever leave.  By them remaining on the roles, there was always that chance or hope that they would become reactivated.  

[Russell C McGregor]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

You're right, the Church has essentially always been hostile toward gays.

That's false.

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

 But as our LGBT brothers and sisters have stopped feeling the need to hide who they are, the Church has responded by becoming more active and vocal in expressing that hostility.

False again.

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

 To the degree that we now have an apostle claiming it is the mind and will of God to shun gay couples and their children. 

The highlighted statement is an egregious falsehood.

It also maligns the brethren.

But both of those features -- the falsehood and the libel -- are fully consistent with your thoroughly apostate ideology.

Edited May 1, 2016 by Russell C McGregor

[sdc999]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

The onus would only be on him if, in the end, you are correct and he is wrong.  In this, the LDS church would have to be the ONLY way back to Christ.  I'm betting not.  But, that's just my opinion. 

[Tacenda]

16 minutes ago, sdc999 said:

Pa Pa,  I am curious when this way of thinking came to be?  10 years ago, when we were instructed to find the less actives to invite them back, we were instructed to see if they wished to be contacted, not contacted but NEVER ask if they wish to no longer be members.  We were told that is really not our place to ask and it was detrimental to their salvation should they ever leave.  By them remaining on the roles, there was always that chance or hope that they would become reactivated.  

Wow, I never caught the part that he needed to ask if they no longer wanted to be members.  That is a good question, why is the church doing this?  I wonder if that means no temple work later either.  

[Jeanne]

In the conversation above between RevTestament and Tacenda,I just had to give them both rep points.  Read Rev's gentle tone and sensitivity in willing to TRY to answer and or help Tacenda with some questions.  Then reading Tacenda's short "Thanks for the question I will PM you" sounds like a sigh of relief.

This is what makes the difference.  Regardless of the answers, a thread is sown to the some fiber of hope and what seems to be emerging trust.  What a difference this would make for all of us in the tapestry of learning life.

Edited May 1, 2016 by Jeanne

[carbon dioxide]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

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

I am curious.  What do you say the Church needs to do to stop being "hostile" to LGBT members?  If you were Jesus, how would you handle this?

[Russell C McGregor]

13 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?

I'm surprised you have to ask that question, Consig.

Elder Holland is a spiritual shepherd who is concerned about the wellbeing of the flock.

If someone leaves the Church, to their own detriment, then the Church's growth doesn't bless them a whole lot, does it?

In fact, I'm inclined to suspect that, if Elder Holland said something like "Don't worry about those who leave the Church because a whole lot more join" -- which is, BTW, still true -- rather a number of the critics would erupt with rage about his callous disregard for those who have left.

Indeed, I even suspect that you might be one of them.

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, sdc999 said:

Pa Pa,  I am curious when this way of thinking came to be?  10 years ago, when we were instructed to find the less actives to invite them back, we were instructed to see if they wished to be contacted, not contacted but NEVER ask if they wish to no longer be members.  We were told that is really not our place to ask and it was detrimental to their salvation should they ever leave.  By them remaining on the roles, there was always that chance or hope that they would become reactivated.  

I will do and say all I can to restore them to fellowship, but certainly not ask anyone to resign. If it comes up during the normal course of discussion, and if they cannot be swayed, then I will give the information to do so. As I have been advised to do, if,they have joined,other Churches then little more to be said. 

[sjdawg]

15 hours ago, boblloyd91 said:

I think it could be both. Some people leave after deep thought and contemplating, others leave rather quickly and easily. I think no matter what you need to deeply consider your source of meaning before leaving it to pick up another, because it's dangerous to have a lack of deep conviction. That's why I always got nervous when we would immediately ask people to get baptized on my mission. Not that I was against them getting baptized, but I think you can't rush a shift in your paradigm. You need to consider all of your emotional, social and spiritual factors. I worry I may sound too relativistic by saying this because absolute truth is important as well

For me and my wife this may apply.  Although I studied a lot on my way it is was much easier for me to leave than for her.   She spent months researching for answers to her questions before making a decision to leave the church.   I studied but not as in depth as her.  I'm more prone to patty-cake, taffy pull decisions.   Interestingly, once her decision to leave was made she was also much more committed to it than I was.   When she was done she was absolutely done.  she just walked away from the Church and never looked back.   I maintain friendships and relationships within the church.  I still read about the church.  I still post here.  She doesn't do any of that (outside of relationships with her family members)

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Russell C McGregor said:

That's false.

False again.

The highlighted statement is an egregious falsehood.

It also maligns the brethren.

But both of those features -- the falsehood and the libel -- are fully consistent with your thoroughly apostate ideology.

I wish my statements were false.  I really do.  You might wish to discuss whether or not the church is hostile with gay people.  You already have one witness here with CB.  The desire of many members for our statements and policies to be interpreted as loving and righteous rather than shunning doesn't make them so.  Sorry. 

For someone of your ideology to consider mine as apostate is a compliment. 

[sjdawg]

13 hours ago, rockpond said:

.  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 think Holland is turning into an extremist either intentionally or unintentionally.  Maybe he is playing a role for the group of Apostles but to me he is starting to act/talk like a bit of a dodo.

[rodheadlee]

8 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

For me and my wife this may apply.  Although I studied a lot on my way it is was much easier for me to leave than for her.   She spent months researching for answers to her questions before making a decision to leave the church.   I studied but not as in depth as her.  I'm more prone to patty-cake, taffy pull decisions.   Interestingly, once her decision to leave was made she was also much more committed to it than I was.   When she was done she was absolutely done.  she just walked away from the Church and never looked back.   I maintain friendships and relationships within the church.  I still read about the church.  I still post here.  She doesn't do any of that (outside of relationships with her family members)

I totally respect this. Living your convictions is the best way to go.

[rockpond]

50 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I am curious.  What do you say the Church needs to do to stop being "hostile" to LGBT members?  If you were Jesus, how would you handle this?

Too long of a list and too much of a derail.   Sorry, if you really want my thoughts on it, you can PM me. 

[sjdawg]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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

seems accurate to these eyes.

[sjdawg]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

perhaps this would be a concern if the church were true.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

Of course it is a bit over the top. But sadly true. Carbon diovide asked me How has the church become hostile to you.  I answered the question. Are you not interested in how those affected by the actions of the church feel about some of the aggression towards them have been?  Just how would you have reacted if the church targeted you the way the church has targeted them?  Should I just pretend none of this happened.  Members of the church must surely know how the church is viewed outside the wasach corridor  one could hardly call the church welcoming to gays.   Actions speak louder than words. 

Yet a fair and even-handed account of the broad LDS position on homosexuality would not carry the harsh, angry tone you present, but would instead tell us accurately which actual positions the Church has officially taken in a variety of areas dealing with LGBT issues.  To hear you tell it, one would never know that there are measured assessments not designed to pillory the Church unfairly.  One is falsely led to believe via your rhetoric that the Church is constantly inveighing against LGBT interests in every area of life, when the opposite is the case.

You should focus on specific areas of concern to the Church and to you in which change might be negotiated.  Such would certainly  not include acceptance by the LDS Church of blatant homosexual activity within its ranks, but it might include a variety of humane actions which your diatribe completely excludes.  Why?  Because you begin from the position of the LDS Church being completely evil and having never done anything which  is designed to stop discrimination against LGBT people in various areas of civil life.   LGBT people don't like being lied about, but then neither do the Mormons.

For you facts mean nothing, and perception is everything.  Do you suppose that we might meet in the middle?  At least try?

Edited May 1, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

12 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

seems accurate to these eyes.

So california boy is accurately portraying the official LDS position on discrimination against LGBT people in housing, jobs, and public access?  Not.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

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

Why the non sequitur?  Should we lie about the LDS position on homosexuality, or should we tell the truth?  Your call.

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yet a fair and even-handed account of the broad LDS position on homosexuality would not carry the harsh, angry tone you present, but would instead tell us accurately which actual positions the Church has officially taken in a variety of areas dealing with LGBT issues.  To hear you tell it, one would never know that there are measured assessments not designed to pillory the Church unfairly.  One is falsely led to believe via your rhetoric that the Church is constantly inveighing against LGBT interests in every area of life, when the opposite is the case.

You should focus on specific areas of concern to the Church and to you in which change might be negotiated.  Such would certainly  not include acceptance by the LDS Church of blatant homosexual activity within its ranks, but it might include a variety of humane actions which your diatribe completely excludes.  Why?  Because you begin from the position of the LDS Church being completely evil and having never done anything which  is designed to stop discrimination against LGBT people in various areas of civil life.   LGBT people don't like being lied about, but then neither do the Mormons.

For you facts mean nothing, and perception is everything.  Do you suppose that we might meet in the middle?  At least try?

No matter what the Church does to help LGBT, none of it is worthy to mention because the Church still opposes gay marriage or the homosexual lifestyle.  One would think why the Church should even bother to ever do something positive for gays since it will be ignored anyway.

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Why the non sequitur?  Should we lie about the LDS position on homosexuality, or should we tell the truth?  Your call.

It's not a non-sequitur... You defend Holland's biased portrayals but decry CB's.  Be consistent. 

We should tell the truth.  Does that apply to Holland or just those whose opinions differ from yours?  

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yet a fair and even-handed account of the broad LDS position on homosexuality would not carry the harsh, angry tone you present, but would instead tell us accurately which actual positions the Church has officially taken in a variety of areas dealing with LGBT issues.  To hear you tell it, one would never know that there are measured assessments not designed to pillory the Church unfairly.  One is falsely led to believe via your rhetoric that the Church is constantly inveighing against LGBT interests in every area of life, when the opposite is the case.

You should focus on specific areas of concern to the Church and to you in which change might be negotiated.  Such would certainly  not include acceptance by the LDS Church of blatant homosexual activity within its ranks, but it might include a variety of humane actions which your diatribe completely excludes.  Why?  Because you begin from the position of the LDS Church being completely evil and having never done anything which  is designed to stop discrimination against LGBT people in various areas of civil life.   LGBT people don't like being lied about, but then neither do the Mormons.

For you facts mean nothing, and perception is everything.  Do you suppose that we might meet in the middle?  At least try?

Yes, let's meet in the middle.  Could you share with us some of the things that you feel the church has gotten wrong with respect to its LGBT members and policies?

[sjdawg]

12 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So california boy is accurately portraying the official LDS position on discrimination against LGBT people in housing, jobs, and public access?  Not.

I don't recall him mentioning anything about housing, jobs, and public access.  He was quite clear when describing the hostility he was referring to.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

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

The Church was already doing it anyway. It wasn't a matter of following 

[Robert F. Smith]

13 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

No matter what the Church does to help LGBT, none of it is worthy to mention because the Church still opposes gay marriage or the homosexual lifestyle.  One would think why the Church should even bother to ever do something positive for gays since it will be ignored anyway.

You are a prime example of my point:  You and california boy feel that lying about the overall LDS Church position is O.K. because they do so much else that is "bad."  And that is maddening.  In your anger and spite, it seems all right to bear false witness about the Mormon Church.  Why not, if it salves your hurt and pain.  Merely opposing LGBT marriage in LDS exoteric and esoteric rituals, or opposing active homosexual conduct means to you that any lie about what other policies or beliefs the Mormons have is O.K.  That seems justified to you.  How does that differ from any other tendentious set of notions used in propaganda against an organization?  Hitler and Stalin used the same big lie approach to smashing their enemies.  Civility is the real victim, and you are a perpetrator of that harsh mistreatment.