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

[salgare]

2 hours 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.

It's been rumored this was simply political maneuvering where the Church was politically "meeting in the middle" to obtain their desire for a given legislative outcome.

But of course, Jesus, likely led them to do this based on their great compassion for those afflicted.  Who was it that picked up the award in association with this and the church helping the homeless and cast out gays by donating 2k worth of Bishops storehouse goods?

Yes Jesus was generous that day!

woops, I retract, it was 2.5k

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-mormons-pride-idUSKCN0PC2RU20150702

 

 

 

 

Edited May 1, 2016 by salgare

[Calm]

52 minutes ago, california boy said:

If the only way back to God is by membership in the church then 99% of Gods  children are doomed. If once you become a member and you falter because of imperfect leaders then the worse thing a person could do in life is to join the church and put their salvation at risk. Message here? Stay away from the church at all costs. 

Not an accurate portrayal of what the LDS Church teaches of the only way back to God in part through its work in mortality and post mortality as directed by God and implemented by men.

[california boy]

2 hours 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?

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?  

[california boy]

3 hours 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.

I have presented all the oppressive things the church has done against the LGBT community both within the church and without.  Why don't you list ALL the wonderful things the church has done to help LGBT other than not opposing institutional discrimination in the state of Utah.  

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

He was clear all right, about his level of hatred and contempt for Mormons.  So much so that (as you yourself observe) he had no time for a balanced appraisal.  Maybe we should just round up them Mormons and put them in special camps . . .

I was clear all right about my level of hatred and contempt for Mormons????  Really???  This is what I said in my post.

Quote

While the church has become increasingly hostile toward me because I am gay, I also acknowledge loud and clear that there are MANY who find love and comfort in the church. I only wish them well and encourage them to stay if they find peace there. We all need to remember that the church is only an earthly organization. It will be replaced by Christ himself and the majority of humanity will come to Him by other paths. At 1% the total coming to Christ by the church is insignificant. 

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

 

 

[Russell C McGregor]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Are you still wondering why California Boys sees hostility coming from the church?  Cause I've for a little hint for you ^^^

We, the Latter-day Saints, don't co-operate when people choose to label themselves according to their sins, or the sins they particularly prefer. We see it as a barrier to repentance.

I don't believe there are any "gay people." Or any "homosexual members of the Church."

[Russell C McGregor]

2 hours ago, salgare said:

It's been rumored this was simply political maneuvering where the Church was politically "meeting in the middle" to obtain their desire for a given legislative outcome.

And is there any evidence for this rumour, or are you merely spreading gossip?

 

[sjdawg]

1 hour ago, Russell C McGregor said:

And is there any evidence for this rumour, or are you merely spreading gossip?

 

If there were evidence I suppose it wouldn't be called a rumor.  

 

 

[sjdawg]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

I have presented all the oppressive things the church has done against the LGBT community both within the church and without.  Why don't you list ALL the wonderful things the church has done to help LGBT other than not opposing institutional discrimination in the state of Utah.  

aw...the sweet sound of silence.

 

 

[CV75]

12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Misled me how?

I'm not sure, or whether I actually did; it was a "just in case" apology, depending on whether you objected to my feigning a huff  to make a point (I saw that you had taken note of the same post).

So much of our leaders' teaching about asking questions (and how, and where they lead us) has to do with exercising meekness ("struggle"), not taking the offensive position ("patty-cake").

Edited May 1, 2016 by CV75

[canard78]

12 hours ago, rockpond said:

I was using my experience to show what many who leave have passed through.  Holland's description only fits a subset of those who leave and is a slap in the face to the rest. 

Gosh... You even asked the actual question at the end of the OP.

Shame on you... or something

[canard78]

On 30 April 2016 at 1:23 PM, Russell C McGregor said:

Actually I'm the one who is pointing out that, contra your rather simplistic OP, it's not "either-or."

Not really.

I'm simply pointing out that Mister Runnells's boilerplate doesn't stand up to very much serious scrutiny, let alone "deep thought."

Nobody who knows how to think deeply about Mormon subjects is going to be impressed by his industry-standard material.

But I wish I had a dollar for every time some apostate or anti-Mormon has triumphantly waved a hand at "the CES letter" as if it somehow settles all questions.

Such an assumption shows very little common sense, much less "deep thought."

Unlike you and your fellow apostates, I'm quite comfortable with the notion that people can reach different conclusions than me without being either stupid or dishonest.

Do you assume, along with most who leave the Church and turn into critics, that anyone who stays must be either ignorant of the issues or lying to themselves?

An assumption that, while held as an article of faith in certain circles, is hardly redolent of "deep thought."

 

On 30 April 2016 at 1:38 PM, canard78 said:

Did you read the OP to the very end:

"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."

Where have I claimed those who stay are stupid or dishonest?

Have fun pummelling that straw man. It must be incredibly satisfying for you to do it so enthusiastically. 

Crickets, Mr @Russell C McGregor?

[Storm Rider]

5 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?  

The concept of excommunication of those who pridefully refuse to repent is found in the New Testament:

Matthew 18:15-18

      15 ¶Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

      16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

      17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

1 Corinthians 5:2, 11-13

         2 And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.

       11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

       12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

       13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

There are more scriptures that support excommunication or disfellowshipment.  It is not that one sins, but that one is obstinate, prideful, rejecting counsel to repent - these are the ones that are excommunicated or disfellowshipped.  

All sinners are welcome if they recognize they are sinners and striving to live a new life.  Do you see the distinction?  Do you agree that excommunication is founded on scripture and acceptable before God?

[california boy]

4 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

The concept of excommunication of those who pridefully refuse to repent is found in the New Testament:

Matthew 18:15-18

      15 ¶Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

      16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

      17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

1 Corinthians 5:2, 11-13

         2 And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.

       11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

       12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

       13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

There are more scriptures that support excommunication or disfellowshipment.  It is not that one sins, but that one is obstinate, prideful, rejecting counsel to repent - these are the ones that are excommunicated or disfellowshipped.  

All sinners are welcome if they recognize they are sinners and striving to live a new life.  Do you see the distinction?  Do you agree that excommunication is founded on scripture and acceptable before God?

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. 

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

People my age can recall when the word "gay" had a very different meaning.  Having lived among a lot of homosexuals and gotten to know them well, I can say that they have not always been so "gay" in the old sense, which is why someone might put scare quotes around the phrase.  You should respect their right to do so, rather than applying a totalitarian rule that they must comply with PC.  For CB everything is evidence of hostility, including kindness and civility from active, faithful Mormons who believe that homosexual practice is immoral.

I do respect his right to do so and have not applied a totalitarian rule.  Not sure where comments above are coming from.

I was pointing out to you that saying gay people are an oxymoron just might not help them feel welcome among us.

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

We, the Latter-day Saints, don't co-operate when people choose to label themselves according to their sins, or the sins they particularly prefer. We see it as a barrier to repentance.

I don't believe there are any "gay people." Or any "homosexual members of the Church."

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.

[ALarson]

12 hours ago, rockpond said:

I was using my experience to show what many who leave have passed through.  Holland's description only fits a subset of those who leave and is a slap in the face to the rest. 

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?

 

[Storm Rider]

21 minutes ago, 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. 

I don't think that attitude is liberal or conservative.  I think you missed the point, but I suspect it is more you are unwilling to recognize the difference.  I was clear in my post that there is a difference between a person who knowing, consciously sins and prefers to sin rather than repent when confronted with the choice.  

In those scriptures their friends and neighbors came and talked with the individual and yet they refused to repent.  Then two or more came and talked with him and they still refused to repent.  Then the church came and talked with them and they still would not repent.  At this point they were excommunicated.  

The example you cite above is a straw man and has nothing to do with the reality of the situation.  Yes, being unrealistic may assist you to remain convinced you are right, but you are knowingly rejecting scripture and truth in order to maintain the facade of your own pseudo righteousness.  I have no problem, Cal, having differing opinions with another, and particularly with someone I respect and appreciate.  However, when that person gets silly, as you have done, then I will call you on it.  You know better and you don't need distort my position, or the position of the Church, in order to disagree.  Be honest; it is who you are rather than this irregular behavior.

The process is complete with communication and pleading with the wayward individual.  I don't think the example of a child applies much to this situation.  Most children don't "know"; they too often are still trying to determine who they are and what they believe.  At a certain age they gain a much greater liberty to act and do what they choose; however, those choices may make it intolerable for a young adult, 18 years and up, to reside in the home.  It all depends on how egregious their actions become.  However, at some point I can understand the concept of tough love and forcing the individual to choose where they will live.

The body of the saints is not something that can be abused without consequences.  If, after repeated counsel and warnings, an individual persists in proudly rejecting the need to repent, they may be excommunicated in order to bring them to repentance while not harming the body of the saints.  

 

[rockpond]

10 minutes 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?

That's what really scares me about what he said:  Is he so out of touch that he really thinks that about everyone who leaves?  I honestly can't believe that he does.  So why say it.

The very few people I know who I think may have left for "patty-cake" reasons would actually say that they haven't "left", they're just consider themselves as not being terrible active right now.

[ALarson]

17 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That's what really scares me about what he said:  Is he so out of touch that he really thinks that about everyone who leaves?  I honestly can't believe that he does.  So why say it.

I agree.  It makes me believe that he must think this way, or he wouldn't have expressed it in this manner.  Maybe he was being extreme or exaggerating, but he can't take those words back once they were spoken (and he knows that too since everything is recorded these days).

I was left wondering if this is what he says publicly, what is being said behind closed doors?  I hate to feel that members who are in pain and have struggled and suffered are being mocked and belittled like this (or that the Apostles are "furious" with them).  It was just an odd thing for him to express in such a jovial, natural manner and in public.

.

Edited May 1, 2016 by ALarson

[CV75]

31 minutes ago, ALarson said:

From my experience, Holland's description fits a very tiny percentage of those who are leaving.

I think an expanding experience will show that the meekness or presupposition involved the decision-making process of those that leave most certainly follows a bell curve, like everything else,and is why the talks cover the gamut. The watchmen on the tower are seeing and calling to everyone.

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think an expanding experience will show that the meekness or presupposition involved the decision-making process of those that leave most certainly follows a bell curve, like everything else,and is why the talks cover the gamut.

I can only speak from my own personal experience with the many I know who have left the church and I know they did not leave for "patty-cake" silly reasons.  I believe it was wrong for Elder Holland to paint with such a broad stroke here.  You can believe otherwise and that's fine.

The watchmen on the tower are seeing and calling to everyone.

They won't reach everyone speaking publicly in this manner.  They will actually reach very few, but they may drive more away.

.

 

Edited May 1, 2016 by ALarson

[CV75]

29 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That's what really scares me about what he said:  Is he so out of touch that he really thinks that about everyone who leaves?  I honestly can't believe that he does.  So why say it.

This represents, in my opinion, a perception coming from the flatter end of the bell curve. If the fruits are fear, condemnation and second-guessing, it's time to try taking a broader look at what our Church leaders are saying--there is something for everyone.

[Bobbieaware]

57 minutes 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?

 

I listened to Elder Holland's entire address and within the context of the complete address his usage of the expression "patty- cake" is perfectly clear. Why other people of obvious intelligence on this board can't seem to figure out what Elder Holland is saying is perplexing to me. All he is saying is that if those who are wavering in their faith expect to have every one of their question answered by someone other than the Holy Ghost, have every one of their doubts thoroughly assuaged, and have every aspect of their trial of faith swiftly or easily lifted are living in a paddy-cake dream world. Elder Holland wants us to understand that the trial of our faith is intentionally designed by divine wisdom to be extremely difficult because the rewards for successfully prevailing in the trial of faith are extremely great. Most, if not all, of the prophets have had to pass through tremendously difficult trials of faith, and the rank-and-file members of the Church who genuinely desire to inherit the fullness of eternal glory are expected to pass through the same. Life was meant to be extremely hard and the trial of faith very great. Those who expect the leaders of the Church to answer all a doubter's questions, without that doubter first learning how to obtain the answers he desires on his own through the gift of Holy Ghost, are being childish and unrealistic  -- hence the expression patty-cake. In a nutshell, his message is grow up and stop being cry babies.

Edited May 1, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

I listened to Elder Holland's entire address and within the context of the complete address his usage of the expression "patty- cake" is perfectly clear. Why other people of obvious intelligence on this board can't seem to figure out what Elder Hilland is saying is perplexing to me. All he is saying is that if those who are wavering in their faith expect to have every one of their question answered by someone other than the Holy Ghost, have every one of their doubts thoroughly assuaged, and have every aspect of their trial of faith swiftly or easily lifted, are living in a paddy-cake dream world. Elder Holland wants us to understand that the trial of our faith is intentionally designed by divine wisdom to be extremely difficult because the rewards for successfully prevailing in the trial of faith are extremely great. Most, if not all, of the prophets have had to pass through tremendously difficult trials of faith, and the rank-and-file members of the Church who genuinely desire to inherit the fullness of eternal glory are expected to do the same. Life was meant to be extremely hard and the trial of faith very great. Those who expect the leaders of the Church to answer all a doubter's questions without that doubter first learning how to obtain the answers he desires on his own through the gift of Holy Ghost, are being childish and unrealistic  -- hence the expression patty-cake. In a nutshell, his message is grow up and stop being cry babies.

I don't know anyone who left because they didn't get swift and easy answers.