Wow! A whole100 people show up for "mass" resignation.

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

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.

I wonder if God is changing the paradigms out there, with the internet now exposing many things unknown before about church history, or even about the Bible, I'm learning. I wonder if God got fed up with His children listening too much to those around them, or church leaders and even reading too much into the scriptures, that God wants us to have our own relationship with Him, and not with a church or group, or group think only. 

I know He would like us to congregate with others, but that's more for support. And that appears to be what a lot of ex-Mormons are doing, sticking together because it's pretty lonely otherwise. 

So often I heard growing up that progression or the inventions in the last 150 years is part of the plan to build up Zion quickly. But what it's done in my eyes is hurt it. And wonder if God is getting folks to think for themselves, doubt more and in turn have more faith in their own God-given spiritual messages.

 

[Jeanne]

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I wonder if God is changing the paradigms out there, with the internet now exposing many things unknown before about church history, or even about the Bible, I'm learning. I wonder if God got fed up with His children listening too much to those around them, or church leaders and even reading too much into the scriptures, that God wants us to have our own relationship with Him, and not with a church or group, or group think only. 

I know He would like us to congregate with others, but that's more for support. And that appears to be what a lot of ex-Mormons are doing, sticking together because it's pretty lonely otherwise. 

So often I heard growing up that progression or the inventions in the last 150 years is part of the plan to build up Zion quickly. But what it's done in my eyes is hurt it. And wonder if God is getting folks to think for themselves, doubt more and in turn have more faith in their own God-given spiritual messages.

 

I still have the questions you do.  I am learning so much..but one thing I can say is...that it is really okay to think for yourself,  To follow an instinct or a gut feeling that is right for you..is not a bad thing.  And if you are wrong, there is a freedom to change..without guilt or penalty of those who don't see God as you do  Hugs to you and wishing you the best.

[sjdawg]

Do you you think there are more or less than 100 Amish people visiting the temple here?   I'm not sure the quantity of people at the resignation event nor the temple open house are what makes the events newsworthy

 

http://www.ldsliving.com/Amish-Visitors-Take-a-Tour-of-LDS-Philadelphia-Temple/s/82838

 

[bluebell]

On August 28, 2016 at 5:38 AM, sjdawg said:

Do you you think there are more or less than 100 Amish people visiting the temple here?   I'm not sure the quantity of people at the resignation event nor the temple open house are what makes the events newsworthy

 

http://www.ldsliving.com/Amish-Visitors-Take-a-Tour-of-LDS-Philadelphia-Temple/s/82838

 

If the article had described the Amish visitors as a 'mass' then i think you'd have a point.  They were smart though and just called it a group.

The term 'mass' event generally means a large amount of people doing something.  It's subjective to a certain degree, but it's also not really that subjective.  If you have 20,000 republicans, for example, and the news reported that there was a mass resignation event where 100 of them publicly became democrats, the use of the term 'mass resignation event' would be questioned and probably ridiculed.  Now, imagine if they used that term if there were 500,000 republicans in the area and only 100 showed up.  It'd be really hard to take the people who labeled it as a 'mass' seriously.

You'd be forced to ask, if the people who labeled it as a 'mass resignation event' didn't believe that the quantity of people who attended was newsworthy, why would they purposely choose the word 'mass' (when it clearly wasn't a mass) in the first place?

[Jeanne]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If the article had described the Amish visitors as a 'mass' then i think you'd have a point.  They were smart though and just called it a group.

The term 'mass' event generally means a large amount of people doing something.  It's subjective to a certain degree, but it's also not really that subjective.  If you have 20,000 republicans, for example, and the news reported that there was a mass resignation event where 100 of them publicly became democrats, the use of the term 'mass resignation event' would be questioned and probably ridiculed.  Now, imagine if they used that term if there were 500,000 republicans in the area and only 100 showed up.  It'd be really hard to take the people who labeled it as a 'mass' seriously.

You'd be forced to ask, if the people who labeled it as a 'mass resignation event' didn't believe that the quantity of people who attended was newsworthy, why would they purposely choose the word 'mass' (when it clearly wasn't a mass) in the first place?

It was mass because as far as resignations..they were done.  Not all could attend.  These were people from all over the states and some overseas.  I guess you could say that there was a group of people who showed up for the mass.

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

It was mass because as far as resignations..they were done.  Not all could attend.  These were people from all over the states and some overseas.  I guess you could say that there was a group of people who showed up for the mass.

I definitely could have missed where it was mentioned in the article.  How many resignations were done?

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I definitely could have missed where it was mentioned in the article.  How many resignations were done?

Honestly I don't know exactly..but connected to the site that brought it about..it was well over a hundred.  I will try and find out for sure.

Edited to add:  Although I had already resigned in 2008, I was part of the first resignation in 2009 at the CHB.  There were a lot more and I helped hand carry paperwork and signed signatures to the woman who was the church operating officer with others at that time   That was the biggest one...mainly because of the prop 8 stance.  In any case, the paperwork was huge.  Does it matter..??  For some it was the most difficult thing they had ever done. 

Edited August 29, 2016 by Jeanne

[Storm Rider]

58 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Honestly I don't know exactly..but connected to the site that brought it about..it was well over a hundred.  I will try and find out for sure.

Edited to add:  Although I had already resigned in 2008, I was part of the first resignation in 2009 at the CHB.  There were a lot more and I helped hand carry paperwork and signed signatures to the woman who was the church operating officer with others at that time   That was the biggest one...mainly because of the prop 8 stance.  In any case, the paperwork was huge.  Does it matter..??  For some it was the most difficult thing they had ever done. 

Jeanne, this would seem strange to me if the people that would use this avenue would have difficulty.  It seems like a viable alternative for those who want fanfare, drama, and attention.  Those who want to resign their membership without any other agenda would simply write a letter to their bishop and be done with it - no fanfare, no attention, no drama.  I may be wrong in my assessment of humans, but I don't think so.

On another note, it does appear that these types of events to assist in motivating individuals to resign their membership though they may not participate in this type of event.  Whatever it takes to be happy, I can support.  Of course, the challenge is that I find humans to be almost always incapable of knowing what it is that will make them happy.  We are very good at deceiving ourselves and chasing after the mirages that others tell us what will make us happy.  Were it not so we would not have nearly as many addicts as we have.  

[Jeanne]

36 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Jeanne, this would seem strange to me if the people that would use this avenue would have difficulty.  It seems like a viable alternative for those who want fanfare, drama, and attention.  Those who want to resign their membership without any other agenda would simply write a letter to their bishop and be done with it - no fanfare, no attention, no drama.  I may be wrong in my assessment of humans, but I don't think so.

On another note, it does appear that these types of events to assist in motivating individuals to resign their membership though they may not participate in this type of event.  Whatever it takes to be happy, I can support.  Of course, the challenge is that I find humans to be almost always incapable of knowing what it is that will make them happy.  We are very good at deceiving ourselves and chasing after the mirages that others tell us what will make us happy.  Were it not so we would not have nearly as many addicts as we have.  

Well...it seems that you know more about an ex mormon or resigned member than anyone.  Therefore, I won't quibble with you.  I have walked in your shoes..you have yet to walk in mine.  Thanks, Jeanne

[bluebell]

35 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Does it matter..??  For some it was the most difficult thing they had ever done. 

Spiritually?  No, it doesn't matter.  Not at all.  

When it comes to whether or not something is a 'mass event' by definition?  Yes, I think that's a discussion worth having.  People chose the words they chose to send messages to those who read them.  The question we're discussing is whether or not the message they sent by using the words 'mass resignation' were accurate and/or honest.

For something to qualify as a 'mass event' (such as a mass extinction event, for example) it has to be a large number (relative to the number of the whole of course and compared to the number that happens naturally).  Even if 1500 people resigned on that day, when we consider that it's 1500 out of 15 million, i still don't think that that would qualify as a mass resignation event.

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Well...it seems that you know more about an ex mormon or resigned member than anyone.  Therefore, I won't quibble with you.  I have walked in your shoes..you have yet to walk in mine.  Thanks, Jeanne

That was a good snarky response, but does not help much.  Are you saying that everyone that wants to resign seeks for opportunities in front of the world or not?  

My position is that those of us who choose to remove ourselves from an organization - which I have done a few times - don't seek to do it in front of a lot of people.  We just simply resign and move on.  

What are you saying and why?

[Sleeper Cell]

5 hours ago, Jeanne said:

It was mass because as far as resignations..they were done.  Not all could attend.  These were people from all over the states and some overseas.  I guess you could say that there was a group of people who showed up for the mass.

Suppose only two (2) people had shown up?  Would that still be a “mass” resignation? 

“There were people from all over the states and some overseas?”  Actually, that makes this “mass resignation” event seem even less noteworthy.   The event was held in Salt Lake City, for Pete’s sake,  and still they couldn’t get 100 local disaffected Mormons to show up?   They had to bolster their numbers by bringing in people from out of state and out of the county.  Since I believe that the disaffected Mormons and ex-Mormons living in the SLC area probably number in the tens of thousands, this seems a pretty pathetic turnout for any event that portrays itself as a “mass event.”  

Apparently, the vast majority of disaffected Mormons and ex-Mormons living in the SLC area felt they had better things to do.  Which speaks well of them.    

Edited August 29, 2016 by Sleeper Cell

[JAHS]

4 hours ago, Jeanne said:

It was mass because as far as resignations..they were done.  Not all could attend.  These were people from all over the states and some overseas.  I guess you could say that there was a group of people who showed up for the mass.

Yea. Generally speaking over the last few months there has been a recent "mass" resignation relating to the policy change. But the only way one could report this in a truthful way is that a group of people involved in the general mass resignation showed up on this day to resign.  The way the article put it there were people who "filled out or at least picked up paperwork to resign". 

I am not sure what doing this in front of the media is going to accomplish. Do these people really think the church will change because of this? If they did change the policy would all these resigned members actually come back? I don't think so.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Well...it seems that you know more about an ex mormon or resigned member than anyone.  Therefore, I won't quibble with you.  I have walked in your shoes..you have yet to walk in mine.  Thanks, Jeanne

I think it is inappropriate (and to be blunt arrogant) o see ourselves as being knowledgeable about someone else's experience because they share some global characteristic with ourselves.  Life is too full of meaningful details that make huge differences, including individual personality.  (this goes for current LDS telling exLDS they know because they have also experienced 'whatever' as well as the reverse "I have been where you are" from exLDS)

[Tacenda]

I think those that need to publicly resign may need to express themselves this way. We can't judge for it. Everyone handles pain differently.

I don't think I'd resign, ever, but others need to for integrity sake's. I think it's great if it opens a dialogue for them to express it openly, so it's not like they need to hide for leaving the church, as if they did something bad.

A lot of ex members may even think they do it like that to show a point. This latest mass had a lot to do with suicides by gay members. They can't be in a faith that might perpetuate that.

[Jeanne]

Seriously..they wanted to visit with each other..share stories and talk..and be together.  Kind of like conference.  A conference without families..or old friends.  They had eachother and for the life of me I can't understand why you people begrudge them for this.  Did you not all get together at one time to get info or walk with others in support of prop 8??  Do you not get together as families..friends..for baptisms and marriages???  We don't have that!!  All we have is each other!

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Seriously..they wanted to visit with each other..share stories and talk..and be together.  Kind of like conference.  A conference without families..or old friends.  They had eachother and for the life of me I can't understand why you people begrudge them for this.  Did you not all get together at one time to get info or walk with others in support of prop 8??  Do you not get together as families..friends..for baptisms and marriages???  We don't have that!!  All we have is each other!

I think there wouldn't be much of an issue if they were just gathering together to support each other.  It is using it as to get publicity.  We don't call reporters to tell them we are having ward parties or family reunions where i hang out.

[Jeanne]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think it is inappropriate (and to be blunt arrogant) o see ourselves as being knowledgeable about someone else's experience because they share some global characteristic with ourselves.  Life is too full of meaningful details that make huge differences, including individual personality.  (this goes for current LDS telling exLDS they know because they have also experienced 'whatever' as well as the reverse "I have been where you are" from exLDS)

I understand what you are saying Calm.  Many times CB has told me he has been where I am..but that doesn't seem to bother anyone.

[Calm]

It always bugs me and I hope the post reflected that.  I have seen several posters say this on a regular basis.  I just sometimes control myself better.  I think I probably rate about mentioning it once a year or so.  Already annoyed at something today so I guess that pushed me far enough I went the rest of the way to get my quota for 2016.  

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Seriously..they wanted to visit with each other..share stories and talk..and be together.  Kind of like conference.  A conference without families..or old friends.  They had eachother and for the life of me I can't understand why you people begrudge them for this.  Did you not all get together at one time to get info or walk with others in support of prop 8??  Do you not get together as families..friends..for baptisms and marriages???  We don't have that!!  All we have is each other!

No one calls the media and has reporters show up for baptisms, weddings, and ward parties though. 

When you call the news it means you have an agenda that goes beyond wanting to hang out and visit. It doesn't have to mean your agenda is bad or wrong, but the agenda definitely exists. 

And when you mislabel the event as part of achieving your agenda then it's reasonable that people will discuss it. 

It doesn't mean anyone is begrudging that people want to gather with like-minded people. 

[Storm Rider]

3 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Seriously..they wanted to visit with each other..share stories and talk..and be together.  Kind of like conference.  A conference without families..or old friends.  They had eachother and for the life of me I can't understand why you people begrudge them for this.  Did you not all get together at one time to get info or walk with others in support of prop 8??  Do you not get together as families..friends..for baptisms and marriages???  We don't have that!!  All we have is each other!

May it be like you say some day where a group of exMos, want-to-resign folks just get together to visit.  Had this been the case no one would have ever heard about it; more importantly, it would not have been announced in the news with an expectation that the media show up to dramatize the "event".  

For some reason, I don't think you are being very fair in evaluating this situation.  Why?

Regardless, I can still hope that one day it will be as you describe it.  Until then, I am not holding my breath.

[Sleeper Cell]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

 

I think those that need to publicly resign may need to express themselves this way. We can't judge for it. Everyone handles pain differently.

I don't think I'd resign, ever, but others need to for integrity sake's. I think it's great if it opens a dialogue for them to express it openly, so it's not like they need to hide for leaving the church, as if they did something bad.

A lot of ex members may even think they do it like that to show a point. This latest mass had a lot to do with suicides by gay members. They can't be in a faith that might perpetuate that.

 

Under most other circumstances, I would agree with you.  But I think it is unreasonable for someone to participate in a media event and then expect immunity from any criticism of the very words and actions they have gone out of their way to publicize.   In short, if people don’t want to be judged, they shouldn’t bring their case to the court of public opinion. 

[sjdawg]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

I think there wouldn't be much of an issue if they were just gathering together to support each other.  It is using it as to get publicity.  We don't call reporters to tell them we are having ward parties or family reunions where i hang out.

The church takes advantage of plenty of opportunities to get media exposure.  Food drives, charity donations, Amish people attending a temple open house.  Maybe not every ward activity gets publicized but some do.

[sjdawg]

8 hours ago, Sleeper Cell said:

Under most other circumstances, I would agree with you.  But I think it is unreasonable for someone to participate in a media event and then expect immunity from any criticism of the very words and actions they have gone out of their way to publicize.   In short, if people don’t want to be judged, they shouldn’t bring their case to the court of public opinion. 

You mean like the LDS Church and Prop 8?

 

[Sleeper Cell]

2 hours ago, sjdawg said:

You mean like the LDS Church and Prop 8?

Did the LDS Church or its members “expect immunity from any criticism of the very words and actions they …[went] out of their way to publicize” during the Prop 8 campaign?

BTW, has anybody in this thread argued that the participants in this resignation media event had no right to do so?  Do you honestly think that any participant in this thread would condone the firing of someone for participating in this resignation media event or the organizing of a boycott of their business?