Tacenda Posted August 16, 2016 Posted August 16, 2016 8 minutes ago, Storm Rider said: How are you interpreting that language - just where did it become a mass using any definition? Which one fits? Assemble, gather together, muster, round up, relating to, done by, or affecting large numbers or people or things, a coherent, typically large body of matter with no definite shape.
Storm Rider Posted August 16, 2016 Posted August 16, 2016 31 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Assemble, gather together, muster, round up, relating to, done by, or affecting large numbers or people or things, a coherent, typically large body of matter with no definite shape. It appears that we have a different interpretation of what a large number of people is and is not. Not really an issue, but it is not common issue. If a mass of people is 100 then what is 70,000 people at a football game. What vocabulary do we use when we have groups significantly larger than 100 people? That is the issue when begin using these types of superlative phrases for rather common things - we don't have a vocabulary to use for significantly larger, bigger things. Do you see the problem? As an aside, I would really like to know in that mass of 100 people how many actually were resigning for the first time. If it is five people, then say five people. If it is 15,000 people - now we are actually getting into a mass of people, btw - then say 15,000 people finally freed themselves from the horrible, evil cult of Mormonism. A bit of realism is not such a bad thing, but these individuals are not trying to portray realism - they seek to create propaganda for their chosen cause. I tire of it because politics/media does it so often it has lost its interest. 3
Tacenda Posted August 16, 2016 Posted August 16, 2016 1 hour ago, Storm Rider said: It appears that we have a different interpretation of what a large number of people is and is not. Not really an issue, but it is not common issue. If a mass of people is 100 then what is 70,000 people at a football game. What vocabulary do we use when we have groups significantly larger than 100 people? That is the issue when begin using these types of superlative phrases for rather common things - we don't have a vocabulary to use for significantly larger, bigger things. Do you see the problem? As an aside, I would really like to know in that mass of 100 people how many actually were resigning for the first time. If it is five people, then say five people. If it is 15,000 people - now we are actually getting into a mass of people, btw - then say 15,000 people finally freed themselves from the horrible, evil cult of Mormonism. A bit of realism is not such a bad thing, but these individuals are not trying to portray realism - they seek to create propaganda for their chosen cause. I tire of it because politics/media does it so often it has lost its interest. I understand Storm, but what does the church do, does it not do the same when it wants something?
BlueDreams Posted August 16, 2016 Posted August 16, 2016 4 hours ago, Jeanne said: Sometimes I think you guys still don't have a clue. Fifty..one hundred..thousand..it doesn't matter here okay? As for support, people finally want to meet eachother and also this resignation also included many who couldn't attend but sent papers in. I realize that it is a choice; but, people leave so much more than a religion. If it makes you happy, yes, we lose. i'm confused by the bold. As for the rest, I think the numbers thing is probably the sense that some LDS get from ex/post-LDS that there's a bunch of them running about. It feels trumped up and then kinda falls short. Personally I don't care much about the turn out. I'm more concerned about the dialogue they're building. As sunstoned mentioned, it doesn't build any bridges. In the video, the people there described us/the church as cult-like, domineering, and inferred that we're the cause to suicides, less-loving, cutting, shunning, etc. Instead of asserting that some members or people within the church can be caustic, it becomes this monolithic "the church...." as if the church would agree with every poor decision made by its members. People who've left the church have a problem when LDS paint them in black and white contours. It's no better the other way around. If I pulled out stories that I've heard that were definitely more negative leavings of the church where the people weren't better off, marriages fell apart, they didn't live by higher values or activism, etc. Would it be fair to talk of these with little to no mention of any positive factors that come from oustide the church? Would it be fair to paint this as every ex-members potential future and problem? Would it heal the divide in families? With luv, BD 4
Storm Rider Posted August 16, 2016 Posted August 16, 2016 59 minutes ago, Tacenda said: I understand Storm, but what does the church do, does it not do the same when it wants something? Tacenda, I don't like spinning or propaganda or using superlatives regardless of who is doing it - I don't support anyone or any group doing it. Just because this group has an agenda against the Church does not excuse them in any way. You know me well enough to know that I criticize the Church also.
Tacenda Posted August 16, 2016 Posted August 16, 2016 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Storm Rider said: Tacenda, I don't like spinning or propaganda or using superlatives regardless of who is doing it - I don't support anyone or any group doing it. Just because this group has an agenda against the Church does not excuse them in any way. You know me well enough to know that I criticize the Church also. I know that for the most part Storm ETA: This is somewhat similar to what this group is doing, getting the word out. Making a stand for what they think is right or not right. Just like the church has been doing. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1484522/ Edited August 16, 2016 by Tacenda
JAHS Posted August 16, 2016 Author Posted August 16, 2016 3 hours ago, Tacenda said: I know that for the most part Storm ETA: This is somewhat similar to what this group is doing, getting the word out. Making a stand for what they think is right or not right. Just like the church has been doing. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1484522/ Yes, but the church leaders don't throw out insults and disrespecting remarks and actions towards these people who want changes made. They simply state the doctrines as they know them and encourage others to take heed to them. But I am sure that is not how those who criticize and are leaving perceive it.
ERayR Posted August 17, 2016 Posted August 17, 2016 4 hours ago, Tacenda said: I know that for the most part Storm ETA: This is somewhat similar to what this group is doing, getting the word out. Making a stand for what they think is right or not right. Just like the church has been doing. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1484522/ A bit of a stretch IMNSHO
Tacenda Posted August 17, 2016 Posted August 17, 2016 3 hours ago, ERayR said: A bit of a stretch IMNSHO Well...
carbon dioxide Posted August 17, 2016 Posted August 17, 2016 On 8/14/2016 at 10:45 AM, juliann said: What is the difference between this and telling people they can pray away clinical depression? Just wow. She probably replaced that medication with kegs of beer.
carbon dioxide Posted August 17, 2016 Posted August 17, 2016 Most were probably perpetual inactives anyway. Will the Church really notice?
carbon dioxide Posted August 17, 2016 Posted August 17, 2016 Society has diluted the word "mass". If a few people get shot, its called a mass shooting. Now a 100 people gathering together is a mass.
Calm Posted August 17, 2016 Posted August 17, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: Most were probably perpetual inactives anyway. Will the Church really notice? I would hope so. God will notice if we fail though. Matt 10: 29-31 Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows. Edited August 17, 2016 by Calm 4
toon Posted August 17, 2016 Posted August 17, 2016 23 hours ago, Storm Rider said: As an aside, I would really like to know in that mass of 100 people how many actually were resigning for the first time. If it is five people, then say five people. If it is 15,000 people - now we are actually getting into a mass of people, btw - then say 15,000 people finally freed themselves from the horrible, evil cult of Mormonism. There was this: Naugle – who left the church 15 years ago and now runs a website called [EDITED] – said that as of Monday, he had processed nearly 12,000 resignations since the mass departures began in November. Boosted by formal quitting ceremonies, like the one in downtown Salt Lake City on Saturday, Naugle said he now completes roughly 100 to 250 resignations a week. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/15/mormon-church-lgbt-mass-resignation-protest-utah If that's true, or anywhere close to that, that's a significant number of resignations, especially since it doesn't take into consideration those who may have resigned on their own, without his assistance.
JAHS Posted August 17, 2016 Author Posted August 17, 2016 1 hour ago, toon said: There was this: Naugle – who left the church 15 years ago and now runs a website called [EDITED] – said that as of Monday, he had processed nearly 12,000 resignations since the mass departures began in November. Boosted by formal quitting ceremonies, like the one in downtown Salt Lake City on Saturday, Naugle said he now completes roughly 100 to 250 resignations a week. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/15/mormon-church-lgbt-mass-resignation-protest-utah If that's true, or anywhere close to that, that's a significant number of resignations, especially since it doesn't take into consideration those who may have resigned on their own, without his assistance. That I would call a mass; but not the 100 that showed up on the one day. This overall general mass resignation that has been going on since November I think is good for both the church and those resigning. Not good in the sense that we want them to leave, but in the sense that we don't waste time on those who truly don't want to be in the church. And if they change their minds someday we will be happy to see them return. 2
Thinking Posted August 18, 2016 Posted August 18, 2016 (edited) On 8/15/2016 at 5:59 PM, JLHPROF said: Unfortunately it's pretty meaningless. Perhaps you should read your own scriptures. D&C 18:10,15-16 Quote Remember the worth of souls is great in the sight of God; And if it so be that you should labor all your days in crying repentance unto this people, and bring, save it be one soul unto me, how great shall be your joy with him in the kingdom of my Father! And now, if your joy will be great with one soul that you have brought unto me into the kingdom of my Father, how great will be your joy if you should bring many souls unto me! Mosiah 28:3 Quote Now they were desirous that salvation should be declared to every creature, for they could not bear that any human soul should perish; yea, even the very thoughts that any soul should endure endless torment did cause them to quake and tremble. Edited August 18, 2016 by Thinking 1
JLHPROF Posted August 18, 2016 Posted August 18, 2016 7 hours ago, Thinking said: Perhaps you should read your own scriptures. D&C 18:10,15-16 Mosiah 28:3 I meant the act of the resignation was meaningless. The rally was meaningless (a publicity stunt). The apostasy of these souls obviously has great meaning. But it had happened long before this meaningless event. Taking your name off the records of a Church you no longer believe in and haven't for years in some cases is meaningless, but losing your testimony and ceasing to believe is a great tragedy and as those scriptures show is something we should and do care about.
Tacenda Posted August 18, 2016 Posted August 18, 2016 2 hours ago, JLHPROF said: I meant the act of the resignation was meaningless. The rally was meaningless (a publicity stunt). The apostasy of these souls obviously has great meaning. But it had happened long before this meaningless event. Taking your name off the records of a Church you no longer believe in and haven't for years in some cases is meaningless, but losing your testimony and ceasing to believe is a great tragedy and as those scriptures show is something we should and do care about. To a lot of people this was healthy to do. I've heard many say that losing their testimony in the church, and the back lash it brings with it, is worse than sometimes divorce, a death in the family, or cancer. I don't know why that is...but it is. Let them have their ceremony, just like our church has their ceremonies. 1
ERayR Posted August 18, 2016 Posted August 18, 2016 4 minutes ago, Tacenda said: To a lot of people this was healthy to do. I've heard many say that losing their testimony in the church, and the back lash it brings with it, is worse than sometimes divorce, a death in the family, or cancer. I don't know why that is...but it is. Let them have their ceremony, just like our church has their ceremonies. Turning ones back on a testimony of God is never healthy. 2
Tacenda Posted August 18, 2016 Posted August 18, 2016 6 minutes ago, ERayR said: Turning ones back on a testimony of God is never healthy. They think they turned their back on the church basically, or it's version of a God. But maybe some or most have discontinued belief in a God. Who knows maybe they would have had a better chance of holding onto that believe of God had they been in a different faith. It's a huge problem in our church. Something the church might need to look into. Why that happens at an alarming rate in our LDS culture.
Anijen Posted August 18, 2016 Posted August 18, 2016 I just want to say that if you suffer from depression it is probably not going to be cured neither by staying in church nor by leaving the church. Please seek professional help and take your legally prescribed meds. I am not a doctor. 2
Sleeper Cell Posted August 18, 2016 Posted August 18, 2016 37 minutes ago, Tacenda said: To a lot of people this was healthy to do. I've heard many say that losing their testimony in the church, and the back lash it brings with it, is worse than sometimes divorce, a death in the family, or cancer. I don't know why that is...but it is. Let them have their ceremony, just like our church has their ceremonies. Except that our church does not have a “renouncing your former church affiliation” ceremony. Even if one believes that participation in a public mass resignation ceremony/media event is a healthy thing, wouldn’t it be better to simply be baptized into another church (or to join a secular organization) focused on positive things more to their liking? For example, joining the Community of Christ (RLDS) through their “Latter Day Seekers” outreach would seem to be a far healthier alternative. They seem to be good people focused on doing good things. I do not doubt that losing one’s testimony and the backlash it [sometimes?] brings with it can be traumatic, but I fail to see how participating in a mass resignation media event is likely to reduce the backlash. You refer to those who compare losing one’s testimony and the backlash to a death in the family. If so, perhaps grief counseling may be a far healthier alternative 1
Avatar4321 Posted August 18, 2016 Posted August 18, 2016 are these 100 people a new group or the same 100 that showed up last time? 2
Damien the Leper Posted August 23, 2016 Posted August 23, 2016 I don't view mass resignation as a sign of discontent and solidarity. Resignation is a personal decision that must be taken seriously and a public spectacle is precisely not that. 4
Jeanne Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 On 8/18/2016 at 9:43 AM, Tacenda said: They think they turned their back on the church basically, or it's version of a God. But maybe some or most have discontinued belief in a God. Who knows maybe they would have had a better chance of holding onto that believe of God had they been in a different faith. It's a huge problem in our church. Something the church might need to look into. Why that happens at an alarming rate in our LDS culture. Fortunately, I am able to retain my belief in God and the Savior. I think what people may not understand is..that it does take a certain amount of courage to make a decision like this and it is not taken lightly. I know that some here think that it is an "attention getting" roundup for those who get together or mingle for a resignation..but..for so many years they have been part of a community of like people and why would they not want to meet for the first time those who they have been perhaps communicating with for months. It is a lonely decision..and for those who mock such a small resignation of a 100, remember that you get to meet with friends two or three times a week..! We used to have that and for some..they have loss so much more. Granted it is a decision of our own..but those resignations are a loss of real live people..with real talents and knowledge enough to quest for truth. I have mentioned before that this was a group of a 100 that got together..and yes, for support. But a lot of resignations went out at the same time that could not meet in SLC. Good riddance...the separation of wheat and tares..are the mantra of our families. All we have is each other and for those who manage to keep their faith in God the Father..it is with great humility and faith they may not have had before. 1
Recommended Posts