Mass Exodus from Church?

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's not complicated. Are there overhead costs to maintain a bishop's storehouse? The building, electricity, purchase and transportation of goods, employees at church HQ who monitor program, the cost of checks & banking, to name a few.

Just because you don't see overhead costs at the local level doesn't mean the costs don't exist as the program is made available to the local level.

 I'm talking about the fast offering fund being a no-overhead charity. It is locally administered. I see it come in and I see it go out, and no one takes a cut. It costs our ward nothing to administer. FO funds are not used to support DI or the Bishops Storehouse. 

 

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

At the end of the year, the ledger is balanced to $0 where excess funds are sent to HQ to be used in whatever way they choose.

Which in effect turns out the same as a monthly accounting. Do you believe the Church has a positive FO balance at the end of the year? It would be wonderful if every ward had a surplus every month and the Church fund were flush.

It's my understanding it does not. Either way, it should not be a reason for people to leave the Church, bringing this back to the topic. 

Edited December 5, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

As a bishop and ward clerk, I administered the fast offering fund in our ward. At the end of the month, the account balance had to be $0.00. If we had a surplus it was allocated to a ward with a deficit. If we were the ones with the deficit, a transfer was made to zero it out. 100% of the donations were used for charity.

If possible, we tried to help more with food and commodities orders from the Bishops Storehouse and Deseret Industries, thereby freeing up the recipient's funds to pay their bills. Our ward's goal has always to be a ward with surpluses, not deficits. I reckon worldwide the FO donations don't meet the needs and moneys have to be moved from other accounts to zero the account.

I'm having a hard time imagining where the overhead idea with FO is coming from.

Apparently some are having a hard time grasping that no "overhead" comes from money that has been designated as fast offering, that the "overhead" is already funded from tithing, which covers the maintenance and operation of the Church, including administrative costs for fast offering and other services.

To put it another way, when I donate money for fast offering or humanitarian service, I expect the funds to be used differently than when I pay tithing.

Edited December 5, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

27 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Gaining eternal life and becoming complete and whole like Christ are just two different ways to say the exact same thing.

They could be, depending on what you mean by eternal life!

[Scott Lloyd]

46 minutes ago, bluebell said:

How is "i know someone that this happened to" hypothetical??

Good point, one that I had already realized even before you posted this.

I hope you noticed that I changed my post. I changed it even before I saw this response.

I changed it to say that I can't evaluate the motives of someone who is unknown to me, even if I were inclined to do so.

Edited December 5, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

45 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

The words of Jesus and two Book of Mormon prophets (who faced it in their own family) on this issue are not to be taken lightly. After 60 years of experience with people I know or come to know who have become inactive or left the Church, I have come to know that this parable and these visions are correct and don't need augmentation, apology, or qualification. I'm fine if we don't agree. It isn't the first and probably won't be the last time. 

You are mistaken to think I do not listen to, understand, or care for them because I insist on holding to my position. Nor do I fault you for insisting you are right. We may disagree, but in no way does this diminish my concern and feelings of charity for them. I have shared those feelings and actions openly and frankly here.

The only "insisting" I'm doing is that it is simplistic and even harmful to place all members who have left into the box you lock them in. It's not realistic and it's harmful. You have made up your mind and are very rigid in your ideology. Everyone will fit into these 2 categories. So every time you talk with someone you are trying figure out which of the 2 categories fit best for them, or maybe even allow a combination of the two. But it's confirmation bias when you have your answer prior to asking the question of a person why they left. You may be listening enough to figure out how you can categorize the person into your preexisting ideas, but you aren't really listening to what they're saying.

Quote

Confirmation bias is a person’s tendency to favor information that confirms their assumptions, preconceptions or hypotheses whether these are actually and independently true or not.

 

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Good point, one that I had already realized even before you posted this.

I hope you noticed that I changed my post, even before I saw this response.

I changed it to say that I can't evaluate the motives of someone who is unknown to me, even if I were inclined to do so.

I didn't see that but i'll go back and read it.

But the above bolded statement is what myself and others have been trying to say this whole conversation.  There is no way to evaluate the motives of someone we don't know, so saying that everyone leaves the church because of embarrassment or worldly influences isn't logical.  It's an attempt to evaluate the motives of people we don't know, which is impossible.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I didn't see that but i'll go back and read it.

But the above bolded statement is what myself and others have been trying to say this whole conversation.  There is no way to evaluate the motives of someone we don't know, so saying that everyone leaves the church because of embarrassment or worldly influences isn't logical.  It's an attempt to evaluate the motives of people we don't know, which is impossible.

I can only say that, at the end of the day, I, with Bernard and others, accept the verity of the lessons taught in the parable of Jesus and the vision beheld by two Book of Mormon prophets.

I like the quote that Bernard posted from Elder Holland, his observation that in the vision of Lehi and Nephi, the mist of darkness descended upon everyone universally and that some held on to the rod while others did not. There's nothing in there about the voice of God or His angel directing anyone to let go of the rod or to wander off the path.

 

[Jeanne]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I didn't see that but i'll go back and read it.

But the above bolded statement is what myself and others have been trying to say this whole conversation.  There is no way to evaluate the motives of someone we don't know, so saying that everyone leaves the church because of embarrassment or worldly influences isn't logical.  It's an attempt to evaluate the motives of people we don't know, which is impossible.

This is so true.  I don't mention things a lot here because I know that I will be misunderstood.  Thank you Bluebell for leaving a conversation open to any kind or better understanding of those who may choose to leave.  There are varied reasons and not without great thought and effort for our own understanding.  Perhaps God wants us to find HIm..in a place where we can be understood.  I know that doesn't make much sense...but we are all not heathens who left because we are weak.  Our journey may be different..but the same in what we all really attain to in this life.  At least, it is for me.

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I can only say that, at the end of the day, I, with Bernard and others, accept the verity of the lessons taught in the parable of Jesus and the vision beheld by two Book of Mormon prophets.

I like the quote that Bernard posted from Elder Holland, his observation that in the vision of Lehi and Nephi, the mist of darkness descended upon everyone universally and that some held on to the rod while others did not. There's nothing in there about the voice of God or His angel directing anyone to let go of the rod or to wander off the path.

 

If i'm understanding you right, you agree that you can't actually know why someone leaves the church but at the same time you do know that everyone who leaves the church does so either out of embarrassment or worldly influences.

Is that what you are saying?  I'm not trying to be snarky, i'm just not sure i'm understanding your correctly.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If i'm understanding you right, you agree that you can't actually know why someone leaves the church but at the same time you do know that everyone who leaves the church does so either out of embarrassment or worldly influences.

Is that what you are saying?  I'm not trying to be snarky, i'm just not sure i'm understanding your correctly.

I'm saying that, in the mist of darkness that besets all of us, some cling to the iron rod and proceed along the path; others let go of it and wander off, in some cases becoming lost.

Meanwhile, there are all manner of worldly influences abroad, including the mocking and enticements that proceed from the great and spacious building. These are apt to affect, to varying degrees, those who have let go of the rod.

But what it boils down to, in the final analysis, is not letting go of the rod, even though we may be more or less blinded by the mist of darkness -- or not succumbing to the mockery of others and becoming embarrassed once one has obtained the fruit of the tree of life.

 

[Nofear]

I hold a very similar position to Dr. Peterson's as recently outlined in a blog post (posted without permission, but here is the source):

Quote

Some years ago, I was asked whether I thought there were ever good reasons to leave Mormonism.

I replied that No, there were not.

Now, that answer immediately generated a furious response from some who read it.  But that’s because they didn’t finish reading.  (A few of my most vocal and implacable critics don’t even care to get me right.)

I immediately went on to say that, from my viewpoint, there can be no ultimately valid reason for leaving the Church because, ultimately, the Church’s claims are true.

But, I continued, pending the ultimate and decisive revelation of the Church’s truth, there can and will be seemingly good reasons to abandon it.  As Paul observes in 1 Corinthians 13, while we’re in this life we know only “in part,” and “we see through a glass, darkly.”  “When that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.”  Until then, though, there will be the inevitable human failures, historical ambiguities, and factual complexities.  We’ll be left to thread our way among them, buffeted by our own quirks, areas of ignorance, and occasional impatience, molded by our irreducibly personal experiences, guided by our loyalties, limited by our prejudices, and often flawed in our reasoning.  In the meantime, we can have charity — both for those who doubt and those who leave and, yes, for those who are faithful and who are committed to the Kingdom.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

59 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

 I'm talking about the fast offering fund being a no-overhead charity. It is locally administered. I see it come in and I see it go out, and no one takes a cut. It costs our ward nothing to administer. FO funds are not used to support DI or the Bishops Storehouse. 

But it's not a no overhead charity. How do you think a bishop is able to send someone to the storehouse for food? The storehouse has expenses. Just because you don't see overhead at a local level doesn't mean the church doesn't have overhead to make it available.

Which in effect turns out the same as a monthly accounting. Do you believe the Church has a positive FO balance at the end of the year? It would be wonderful if every ward had a surplus every month and the Church fund were flush.

Functionally, at a local level it's not totally the same. If you have to balance every month the way funds are distributed could be impacted based on the monthly balance, but if the monthly balance doesn't really matter (and it doesn't), then a bishop can distribute funds even if it doesn't balance to a ledger for a particular month.

It's my understanding it does not. Either way, it should not be a reason for people to leave the Church, bringing this back to the topic. 

ok

 

[Marmonboy]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 

You two are just chasing each other around in circles. Yes, there is overhead--TANSTAAFL. But the overhead does not come from the fast offering funds. 100% of that money is used for its intended purpose, to help the needy. Overhead comes from tithing which is used to run the administration of the Church, including operating expenses for those bishop's storehouses, the paper forms, the computers, etc.

You are both right in you own way.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Apparently some are having a hard time grasping that no "overhead" comes from money that has been designated as fast offering, that the "overhead" is already funded from tithing, which covers the maintenance and operation of the Church, including administrative costs for fast offering and other services.

To put it another way, when I donate money for fast offering or humanitarian service, I expect the funds to be used differently than when I pay tithing.

Well, yes. As a bishop and ward clerk I received donations and I dispersed monetary support. No money was lost in the transaction.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Marmonboy said:

You two are just chasing each other around in circles. Yes, there is overhead--TANSTAAFL. But the overhead does not come from the fast offering funds. 100% of that money is used for its intended purpose, to help the needy. Overhead comes from tithing which is used to run the administration of the Church, including operating expenses for those bishop's storehouses, the paper forms, the computers, etc.

You are both right in you own way.

Which is what I have been saying from the start. Bishops storehouses do not use FO funds. It's not hard to understand. Thanks for the moderate tone. I don't know what TANSTAAFL means, but I'm sure it's pertinent.

Edited December 5, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

52 minutes ago, Nofear said:

I hold a very similar position to Dr. Peterson's as recently outlined in a blog post (posted without permission, but here is the source):

 

I, too, hold a similar position.

I also think that, believing there is ultimately no valid reason for leaving the Church of Jesus Christ (it being true, after all,) does not mean one cannot or does not have charity for those who doubt and those who leave.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

I hold a very similar position to Dr. Peterson's as recently outlined in a blog post (posted without permission, but here is the source):

 

That's a very good way to put it.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The only "insisting" I'm doing is that it is simplistic and even harmful to place all members who have left into the box you lock them in. It's not realistic and it's harmful. You have made up your mind and are very rigid in your ideology. Everyone will fit into these 2 categories. So every time you talk with someone you are trying figure out which of the 2 categories fit best for them, or maybe even allow a combination of the two. But it's confirmation bias when you have your answer prior to asking the question of a person why they left. You may be listening enough to figure out how you can categorize the person into your preexisting ideas, but you aren't really listening to what they're saying.

 

I reject this judgment because you have no way of knowing what I think when I talk with someone who is inactive or has resigned. I have never looked at people to categorize them nor do I wish them any harm. Why would you accuse me of that? The parable of the sower and the visions of the Tree of Life simply explain what happens to us when we choose to walk the path to the Tree of Life or join the Kingdom of God. Simplicity is the hallmark of the Gospel. I accept them as the truth without any need to extrapolate, augment, or parse them, or use them as a club to beat someone who leaves. 

As Elder Holland pointed out, every one of us has to make the choice....to stay or to walk away, whatever it is that may offend or motivate us. I have made plain my attitude and it is one of absolute charity and respect for the agency of the individual who makes the choice, even, as I have said, with close members of my own family, and the extended efforts I have made as a bishop and ward clerk to identify and communicate with disaffected members.

When it comes time, we will account to Jesus for the choices we have made and I'm absolutely certain he will be full of grace and mercy.

Edited December 5, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

 

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But it's not a no overhead charity. How do you think a bishop is able to send someone to the storehouse for food? The storehouse has expenses. Just because you don't see overhead at a local level doesn't mean the church doesn't have overhead to make it available.

 

Let's try one more time. I am talking about the Fast Offering Fund. Not the services provided by the Welfare program.....Bishops Storehouse, DI, etc.

I drive up to the storehouse or DI. I see the building, the lights, the grounds, the fence, the parking lot. The doors, desks, cabinets, shelves, phones, computers, office equipment, electrical wiring, security measures. Some of the employees may be paid. An accountant may be hired to keep their books. The accountants may have supervisors who get paid. Of course all that is overhead. Maybe a lot of it is donated.

Fast offering money was not used for any of that. The bishop sees what happens to the money. There's no obfuscation by the Corporate Church.

Then the ward receives $500 in fast offering donations and the bishop disperses $500 to help members in need pay bills or get medical help. None of that $500 was siphoned off by Welfare Services to pay for the painting of the parking stall lines at the Storehouse. Not a penny. If the wards have a monthly/yearly surplus and the Church uses that surplus of other purposes (I assume it is to balance all the wards that end with deficits, which is what I understand to be true), the FO fund still stands as a no-overhead charity. From my observations, the Church is extremely responsible in how it keeps costs down and to maximize benefits. The use of volunteer workers being a prime example.

For some reason we can't get straight what we are talking about or agree on what overhead is,  but that's ok. At lest we are talking.

Edited December 5, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[HappyJackWagon]

24 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I reject this judgment because you have no way of knowing what I think when I talk with someone who is inactive or has resigned. I have never looked at people to categorize them nor do I wish them any harm. Why would you accuse me of that? The parable of the sower and the visions of the Tree of Life simply explain what happens to us when we choose to walk the path to the Tree of Life or join the Kingdom of God.....from a spiritual perspective. Simplicity is the hallmark of the Gospel. I accept them as the truth without any need to extrapolate, augment, or parse them, or use them as a club to beat someone who leaves. 

Why? Because you have quite forcefully claimed there are only 2 reasons someone leaves the church. Therefore everything you hear must fit into those two categories. IF everything fits into those 2 categories you can't be hearing the real story because I have experience beyond those 2 reasons. By virtue of the dichotomy you've set up people either leave for reason 1 or reason 2. So either you are right and every single person who has left the church has done so for those 2 reasons or there are more reasons out there as I suggest.

If you are hearing only those 2 reasons when you talk to people it is either because of confirmation bias or because you haven't spoken to very many people. I trust that you've spoken to many people (as you've said) which leaves me with confirmation bias as the reason for your claim. If you are utilizing a confirmation heuristic (or as some people refer to it, System 1 thinking) then you are not really open to hear what is being said because it doesn't fit with your preconceived ideas.

Edited December 5, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[Bernard Gui]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Why? Because you have quite forcefully claimed there are only 2 reasons someone leaves the church. Therefore everything you hear must fit into those two categories. IF everything fits into those 2 categories you can't be hearing the real story because I have experience beyond those 2 reasons. By virtue of the dichotomy you've set up people either leave for reason 1 or reason 2. So either you are right and every single person who has left the church has done so for those 2 reasons or there are more reasons out there as I suggest.

If you are hearing only those 2 reasons when you talk to people it is either because of confirmation bias or because you haven't spoken to very many people. I trust that you've spoken to many people (as you've said) which leaves me with confirmation bias as the reason for your claim. If you are utilizing a confirmation heuristic (or as some people refer to it, System 1 thinking) then you are not really open to hear what is being said because it doesn't fit with your preconceived ideas.

Believe as you wish. 

Edited December 5, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Believe as you wish. 

I'm confused by your response. Are you backing away from your claim that everyone who leaves the church does so because of the two reasons you proposed, based on your reading of the parables? Did I misunderstand you or are you conceding that your position is untenable?

[Jeanne]

The rod wasn't there anymore.  The "word" of God had changed ...at least to my own life experience and knowledge.  I didn't let go.  It became unsteady and let go of me.

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm confused by your response. Are you backing away from your claim that everyone who leaves the church does so because of the two reasons you proposed, based on your reading of the parables? Did I misunderstand you or are you conceding that your position is untenable?

I took it to mean he is tired of arguing with you, that it's fruitless. But I should let him speak for himself.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

The rod wasn't there anymore.  The "word" of God had changed ...at least to my own life experience and knowledge.  I didn't let go.  It became unsteady and let go of me.

I was reflecting on this during lunch.

I love the beauty of Lehi's dream for the truths that it teaches. It is one of my favorite parts of holy writ. And I do like well-crafted imagery.

The iron rod is an especially good metaphor because of the characteristics it has. It is tangible, solid, substantial, durable, supportive, protective. The word of God is all of those things. Contrast it with the ethereal, temporary nature of the great and spacious building, symbolizing the pride of the world. It is hovering in mid air, symbolizing that it is without foundation. It eventually collapses "and the fall thereof was exceedingly great." It has no substance. Ultimately it will not support or protect its inhabitants or those who are attracted to it.

No, the word of God does not change. It remains within reach on the path toward the love of God, although we might change ourselves in relationship to it.