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

[ALarson]

12 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. 

Well, you've added some extra words to what Elder Holland said and then put your own spin on what you believe he meant.  

But, that's not what he stated.  Here's exactly what he did say and his meaning is quite clear, IMO:

Quote

 'Don’t you dare bail. I am so furious 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 if none 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

I think this was a glimpse of the frustration and anger he's probably feeling right now.  I do understand some of that too.  

.

Edited May 1, 2016 by ALarson

[Mystery Meat]

18 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well, you've added some extra words to what Elder Holland said and then put your own spin on what you believe he meant.  

But, that's not what he stated.  Here's exactly what he did say and his meaning is quite clear, IMO:

I think this was a glimpse of the frustration and anger he's probably feeling right now.  I do understand some of that too.  

.

I think you are both right.

[Bobbieaware]

25 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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

That was only one of the several points made in my post.

[Bobbieaware]

23 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well, you've added some extra words to what Elder Holland said and then put your own spin on what you believe he meant.  

But, that's not what he stated.  Here's exactly what he did say and his meaning is quite clear, IMO:

I think this was a glimpse of the frustration and anger he's probably feeling right now.  I do understand some of that too.  

.

There you go again, isolating that passage out of the context of the entire address. If one takes that remark in context, it's obvious he is speaking in a spirit of love and genuine concern. You want to find something wrong, and so you do. 

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

There you go again, isolating that passage out of the context of the entire address.

?

You added several words to different sentences throughout his entire quote.  Where have I isolated a passage?

.

Edited May 1, 2016 by ALarson

[JulieM]

20 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

 If one takes that remark in context, it's obvious he is speaking in a spirit of love and genuine concern. 

No, that's not obvious at all.  But you of course are entitled to your opinion.

When is joking about, labeling and laughing at people who are struggling "speaking in a spirit of love and genuine concern"?

Do you have a quote from another part of this talk where he expresses his "love" and "genuine concern" for those who have left the church to counter or clarify what he meant in the portion quoted here?

Please post the other quote (from this same speech), if he did this.  Thanks.

Edited May 1, 2016 by JulieM

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

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.  

 

I think you are reading way more hostility in my question than I wrote. I clearly thanked you for the scriptural tradition of excommunication and clearly acknowledged the churches right to exercise that power. I simply wondered if that principle extended to similar situations such as a child casting aside his parents beliefs. I am guessing you view child leaving the fathers faith differently. Thanks for giving me your perspective.   I am sorry you found my question silly. It was just something I was interested in hearing y our views on. I do disagree with the churches approach on how it handles sinners, but I thought I was pretty clear that it was their decision, not mine. Is that so wrong?

[Jeanne]

12 hours ago, sjdawg said:

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.

I agree..sometimes it seems like the "good cop/bad cop" situation.

[Storm Rider]

55 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think you are reading way more hostility in my question than I wrote. I clearly thanked you for the scriptural tradition of excommunication and clearly acknowledged the churches right to exercise that power. I simply wondered if that principle extended to similar situations such as a child casting aside his parents beliefs. I am guessing you view child leaving the fathers faith differently. Thanks for giving me your perspective.   I am sorry you found my question silly. It was just something I was interested in hearing y our views on. I do disagree with the churches approach on how it handles sinners, but I thought I was pretty clear that it was their decision, not mine. Is that so wrong?

First, it is not the Church of the restoration, but the actual disciples of Christ that first instituted this principle.  Do you disagree with their actions?  

All are sinners.  Any action the Church takes is with, for, and about sinners.  We cannot escape this reality.  Are you against how the Church treats sinners or are you against how the Church treats the proudly unrepentant?

[Tacenda]

45 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I agree..sometimes it seems like the "good cop/bad cop" situation.

I don't know if this applies to the good cop/bad cop, but needed to put it somewhere in this thread.  In my neighborhood and town there were some big winds.  Church has been cancelled today.  Tree branches down, shingles and fences torn off etc.  I see many of my neighbors quickly coming to the rescue of those that need it.  

It made me wonder though. Why don't the members of the church help those that suffer when in emotional need, not just the physical need.  They seem scared off when it's emotional needs, especially if it is a testimony struggle, the emotional needs could be just as bad or worse.  

And if Elder Holland doesn't want people leaving or is so furious about it, why is the church asking members if they want their name removed?  If you don't want them leaving, don't give them a reason to. Or an out, that just says, we don't really care, we're sick of trying to track you down and home teach or visit teach you.  At least that's how I see it.  

 

Edited May 1, 2016 by Tacenda

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I don't know if this applies to the good cop/bad cop, but needed to put it somewhere in this thread.  In my neighborhood and town there were some big winds.  Church has been cancelled today.  Tree branches down, shingles and fences torn off etc.  I see many of my neighbors quickly coming to the rescue of those that need it.  

It made me wonder though. Why don't the members of the church help those that suffer when in emotional need, not just the physical need.  They seem scared off when it's emotional needs, especially if it is a testimony struggle, the emotional needs could be just as bad or worse.  

And if Elder Holland doesn't want people leaving or is so furious about it, why is the church asking members if they want their name removed?  If you don't want them leaving, don't give them a reason to. Or an out, that just says, we don't really care, we're sick of trying to track you down and home teach or visit teach you.  At least that's how I see it.  

 

Physical need is visual.  You can see damage to something like a house.  Emotional suffering is inward and unless one announces they are having it, the vast majority will not know.  Also is the Church asking members if they want their names removed.  I know of no such program going on.  

[Tacenda]

9 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Physical need is visual.  You can see damage to something like a house.  Emotional suffering is inward and unless one announces they are having it, the vast majority will not know.  Also is the Church asking members if they want their names removed.  I know of no such program going on.  

My church leaders knew of my need, but nothing happened, that includes the RS president.  I've seen plenty of situations of inactives. And I've seen plenty of people's posts on NOM, that say they were never approached after becoming inactive from people in their ward, rather they were just avoided. So if the church is life saving or as critical in people's lives, why aren't they approached more often as to why they don't come to church anymore?  I think people are afraid of the answer and don't know it.  It's happened to me so many times as a TBM, being afraid to approach those that quit coming.

Edited May 1, 2016 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

11 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Physical need is visual.  You can see damage to something like a house.  Emotional suffering is inward and unless one announces they are having it, the vast majority will not know.  Also is the Church asking members if they want their names removed.  I know of no such program going on.  

Didn't see the last sentence before I quoted you before.  Ask Pa Pa, and yes I've seen others speak of it elsewhere.  

On this thread 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."

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Sorry, I'm not comfortable with that. Putting conditions of any sort on one's obedience to God is problematic.

I know we all fall short of perfect obedience, but that's one thing; vowing to not be obedient, however limited that vow might be, is quite another.

I am happy to obey anything God tells me to do when he tells me directly.  

When it is some man claiming God is telling him to tell me what to do especially if what that man is telling me to do flies in the face of reason and morals.  Then not so much. 

 

[CV75]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

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.

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

Of course it is fine that we believe what we believe; that goes without saying. I think if we are honest and secure about our place on the bell curve of meekness (struggle) and presupposition (patty cake), what others say becomes less offensive.

Assuming the tendencies of those hearing this message fit somewhere along that bell curve, I'm not sure how reaching very few translates into driving more away, especially in light of all the other messages that are being transmitted that appeal to the various perspectives along that bell curve.

[sdc999]

4 hours 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 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.

These are heart breaking times for many that leave the church.  Many lose family members, people they thought were friends and more.  This isn't losing at the little league game.  This is losing in real life.     Else,  you didn't get the answer you desired from the Holy Ghost about your spouse's stage four cancer - grow up and stop being a cry baby.  I could go on with many more sophomoric examples but that is very poorly thought out statement on Holland's behalf and really indefensible.    

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

First, it is not the Church of the restoration, but the actual disciples of Christ that first instituted this principle.  Do you disagree with their actions?  

All are sinners.  Any action the Church takes is with, for, and about sinners.  We cannot escape this reality.  Are you against how the Church treats sinners or are you against how the Church treats the proudly unrepentant?

I am not for or against any policy the church institutes. That doesn't mean that there aren't consequences and reactions from people affected by those policies. The church can and does what ever it wants. But there are still people leaving the church over those policies. It appears the church is completely ok with that. I have no say. What I think is irrelevant.

Would I do things differently. Yes 

[Russell C McGregor]

7 hours ago, canard78 said:

 

Crickets, Mr @Russell C McGregor?

If I tell you what I think, you'll be deeply hurt and traumatized, and forced to hit the "Report" button.

So I shall forbear.

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, sdc999 said:

These are heart breaking times for many that leave the church.  Many lose family members, people they thought were friends and more.  This isn't losing at the little league game.  This is losing in real life.     Else,  you didn't get the answer you desired from the Holy Ghost about your spouse's stage four cancer - grow up and stop being a cry baby.  I could go on with many more sophomoric examples but that is very poorly thought out statement on Holland's behalf and really indefensible.    

Unspeakable tragedies have been happening to the human race on an ongoing basis since the dawn of time. If some wait to lose their testimonies, and be angry with God, until they are personally touched by tragedy themselves, it's a sure sign they has been living their lives in a manner somewhat disconnected from the world around them. I don't know about you, but I have been keenly aware of the world's tragedies from an early age, fully aware of the genocides, horrific disasters, and many terrible diseases, etc.,  that have put much of the human race through hell-on-earth experiences. When terrible things happen to me -- and may have -- I don't think to myself "why me," I think "why not me" since these kinds of things have happened, and are still happening, to billions of others.

There's nothing wrong with crying and feeling terrible when tragedy strikes (Lord knows I often have), but these issues of dealing with personal tragedy do become a problem when those so affected start blaming God and the Church for their troubles. and then fall away into forbibben paths. Atheists go through stage 4 cancer and don't blame God for their troubles; yet many of those who formerly had faith in God often do. Like it or not, those who faithfully endure their trials well will receive eternal life, while those who do not -- and do not repent -- will be saved but rewarded with something short of the fullness of eternal glory. Elder Holland's words of warning are for adult believers who seek eternal life to stop living in a patty-cake word of childish naïveté, and wake up to the reality of adult life in a reality affirmed on the principle of opposition of all things -- an immutable realty in which bad and even horrific things happen to good people

Edited May 1, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[mtomm]

On just what is quoted here by Elder Holland my first thought is:

it doesn't really matter how it makes YOU feel or if it makes you angry. It doesn't even matter if it is a patty-cake reason to you,  Elder Holland. They've left and that is sad.  It's bad when people leave.  And your comments are not bringing them back. 

[Jeanne]

With a patty cake smear and a laughing audience..what if he has just given license for other members to be so flippant about members losing testimonies?  Personally, I feel like the butt of  someone's sad joke..and I am sure I don't feel near as worse as those who remain and try to stay.

[sdc999]

17 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Unspeakable tragedies have been happening to the human race on an ongoing basis since the dawn of time. If some wait to lose their testimonies, and be angry with God, until they are personally touched by tragedy themselves, it's a sure sign they has been living their lives in a manner somewhat disconnected from the world around them. I don't know about you, but I have been keenly aware of the world's tragedies from an early age, fully aware of the genocides, horrific disasters, and many terrible diseases, etc.,  that have put much of the human race through hell-on-earth experiences. When terrible things happen to me -- and may have -- I don't think to myself "why me," I think "why not me" since these kinds of things have happened, and are still happening, to billions of others.

There's nothing wrong with crying and feeling terrible when tragedy strikes (Lord knows I often have), but these issues of dealing with personal tragedy do become a problem when those so affected start blaming God and the Church for their troubles. and then fall away into forbibben paths. Atheists go through stage 4 cancer and don't blame God for their troubles; yet many of those who formerly had faith in God often do. Like it or not, those who faithfully endure their trials well will receive eternal life, while those who do not -- and do not repent -- will be saved but rewarded with something short of the fullness of eternal glory. Elder Holland's words of warning are for adult believers who seek eternal life to stop living in a patty-cake word of childish naïveté, and wake up to the reality of adult life in a reality affirmed on the principle of opposition of all things -- an immutable realty in which bad and even horrific things happen to good people

There are some that do leave that blame God but many do not.  They do however blame the church and then it falls to one basic point for them:  Either the church is true and what it claims to be or it is Not.  Many walk away still having a firm testimony of their Savior, just not that the LDS church is correct in believing that it is the one true church. Forbidden paths for some - sure, for others - nope, just another path to Christ.  So the stop crying approach is really insulting to many that stay as well.   I'll call the essays into play again.  Why now?  Because the internet age has debunked so much of the lore that was repeated at firesides over and over by not just ordinary members, but those of authority.  So I guess I would throw Hollands words back at those who stay.   Don't grumble if you decide to stay.  Don't cry about things you have felt mislead about.  That is your circus and your barrel of monkeys.  Holland can  just be furious that other seek Christ elsewhere.     

And if you've never thought to yourself, "why me", then you are a Christian Stud above everyone I have ever met.  And I have met and conversed with some very strong Christians. And when that topic has come up, I cannot recall one who hasn't said they have thought that at some time in their lives.   

[Bobbieaware]

20 minutes ago, mtomm said:

On just what is quoted here by Elder Holland my first thought is:

it doesn't really matter how it makes YOU feel or if it makes you angry. It doesn't even matter if it is a patty-cake reason to you,  Elder Holland. They've left and that is sad.  It's bad when people leave.  And your comments are not bringing them back. 

I don't know about you, but knowing how I think and feel now, if I were to ever lose my testimony and leave the Church, I would hope those who love me who still remain in the Chuch would feel angry at me for allowing myself to be overcome by the devil, just as my earthly father would feel angry at me if I ever turneded on and abandoned my family. Thinking and feeling as I do now, I would rather that those who love me feel angry about me abandoning the Lord and his Church, and not just feel sorry for me. When I was growing up there were many times when I caused my dad and mom to be angry with me, and it was often those very times when my parents were angriest with me that I came to realize just how much they really did love me. If my parents just felt sorry for me, and didn't care enough do be angry and bitterly disappointed in me, it's unlikely I ever would have realized I how much I needed to repent and turn my life to the better. 

I wonder if you're aware of the fact that even the perfectly loving God gets angry with his children, and that that righteous anger (remember there is righteous and evil anger and they are both quite different) is proof of just how much God loves his children. But those who are spiritually immature, and always looking with an eagle's eye for fault in the Church leaders, will never be able to "get it" because they don't want to get it.

P.S. Do yourself a favor and look up in the scriptures just how many times God is angry with his children in the scriptures, and how that anger is proof of his undying love.

[Jeanne]

4 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

I don't know about you, but knowing how I think and feel now, if I were to ever lose my testimony and leave the Church, I would hope those who love me who still remain in the Chuch would feel angry at me for allowing myself to be overcome by the devil, just as my earthly father would feel angry at me if I ever turneded on and abandoned my family. Thinking and feeling as I do now, I would rather that those who love me feel angry about me abandoning the Lord and his Church, and not just feel sorry for me. When I was growing up there were many times when I caused my dad and mom to be angry with me, and it was often those very times when my parents were angriest with me that I came to realize just how much they really did love me. If my parents just felt sorry for me, and didn't care enough do be angry and bitterly disappointed in me, it's unlikely I ever would have realized I how much I needed to repent and turn my life to the better. 

I wonder if you're aware of the fact that even the perfectly loving God gets angry with his children, and that that righteous anger (remember there is righteous and evil anger and they are both quite different) is proof of just how much God loves his children. But those who are spiritually immature, and always looking with an eagle's eye for fault in the Church leaders, will never be able to "get it" because they don't want to get it.

P.S. Do yourself a favor and look up in the scriptures just how many times God is angry with his children in the scriptures, and how that anger is proof of his undying love.

Oh..I can just promise you that if you left the church they would be angry at you.  So angry that from here on out what ever happens in your life that doesn't work out..is all your fault.  So angry that any or all good things you had done in your life pryor wouldn't even mattter anymore.   I don't feel "poor me"..I feel sad for the people i love and care about..  But the biggest difference is I don't get angry at my TBM family..I am not wanting to kick anyone out of my life..People who leave or struggle are some of the best people you never knew.

[Russell C McGregor]

6 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Oh..I can just promise you that if you left the church they would be angry at you.  So angry that from here on out what ever happens in your life that doesn't work out..is all your fault.  So angry that any or all good things you had done in your life pryor wouldn't even mattter anymore.   I don't feel "poor me"..I feel sad for the people i love and care about..  But the biggest difference is I don't get angry at my TBM family..I am not wanting to kick anyone out of my life..People who leave or struggle are some of the best people you never knew.

But remember that it's Mormons who think they are superior to everyone else, right?