Thought-provoking Article With a Lot to Chew on

[mrmarklin]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Curious, you don't have to answer, what would you have done had you lived in the days of Joseph Smith marrying other men's wives and marrying young girls because an angel threatened with a sword? To me it wasn't close to moral what Joseph did and members did leave including his closest friends. EDIT: I guess like you with gays being accepted to marry in full fellowship and women getting the PH, and normalizing immorality...Joseph doing what he did was my limit,  hopefully you can feel an inkling of what that was like when finding out about it. I only rant about the church on this board, to get all of my frustration out so I haven't left or really publicly agitated.  

 

I don’t think you understand the sealing ordinance at all. Joseph Smith did and obeyed the Lord’s instructions. 
Nothing was done the Lord didn’t approve. 
 

The only thing that converts and retains members is the Spirit of God. People that have not had the revelation that the Church is true will tend to drop out along the way through life. The Church has many initiatives to encourage people to seek this spiritual level, but obviously some percentage are not converted this way. 
Doctrine and history are almost academic. Look at the vituperative attitudes of the Christian world during the polygamy period. The Church grew at a rapid pace and continued to add many women believers.  Only the Spirit can produce that kind of conversion and loyalty. 

Edited April 22, 2020 by mrmarklin

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, poptart said:

All that I ask is you never quit having those awesome BBQ's and Luaus, esp. the ones the Hawaiians/Polynesians put on.  that's all I ask, change what ever but please, pleeeaaaaase don't get rid of those. 

Okay.  I'm not sure how much say I have in the matter except in my own area, but I'm with you: I love me some good barbecue and good luaus. (If you ever have a chance to visit the Polynesian Cultural Center in Hawai'i, which is run by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ... now there's a place that knows how to put on a terrific luau!  I highly recommend it.)

[poptart]

34 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Okay.  I'm not sure how much say I have in the matter except in my own area, but I'm with you: I love me some good barbecue and good luaus. (If you ever have a chance to visit the Polynesian Cultural Center in Hawai'i, which is run by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ... now there's a place that knows how to put on a terrific luau!  I highly recommend it.)

I've been there, when mom went to BYUH I think she worked there as well.  She did hula in HS, she was pretty good at it.  And yeah, the luau was fantastic as was everything else. 

Funny, we're going through old stuff and I found a lot of moms old photos and and what not from back when.  I know people even there complain about the Latter Day Saints but besides the Catholic Church, I think they were one of the few people besides the Freemasons who had their interests in mind, encouraged them to keep their culture, dance and everything else that made them who they are.  I had heard the early missionaries, besides being very racist also banned a lot of their dances and culture. 

[Kenngo1969]

8 hours ago, poptart said:

I've been there, when mom went to BYUH I think she worked there as well.  She did hula in HS, she was pretty good at it.  And yeah, the luau was fantastic as was everything else. 

Funny, we're going through old stuff and I found a lot of moms old photos and and what not from back when.  I know people even there complain about the Latter Day Saints but besides the Catholic Church, I think they were one of the few people besides the Freemasons who had their interests in mind, encouraged them to keep their culture, dance and everything else that made them who they are.  I had heard the early missionaries, besides being very racist also banned a lot of their dances and culture. 

Mea culpa.  I know you mentioned your background previously, and I believe you did mention Hawaiian roots.  (Memory ain't what it used to be when one gets old! )  Yeah, if an entity's trying to convert the world, it wouldn't make much sense for it to not demonstrate respect for different cultures.  This would be difficult to explain "in short compass," as it were (my phrase), and it would take the thread on a tangent (as if I haven't done that already! ) but a lot of the reason why the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints strives to respect other cultures is because of the Book of Mormon.

[california boy]

10 hours ago, rongo said:

My parents and I have talked a lot about this since they got back from their mission. We are concerned that some monumental doctrinal changes **might** (not that they will, but that it's possible) happen down the road, perhaps decades down the road. Dealbreakers for me would be 1) women ordination, 2) normalizing of immorality, 2a) allowance of gay marriage in full fellowship. 

We agree that we would not leave the Church or agitate against the Church over these, but that our commitment and enthusiasm would take a major hit. I think big doctrinal changes like these would usher in a big drop in enthusiasm and commitment --- not mass resignations, per se, but a loss of vitality and spirit. Accommodations of society have to actually be God's will, or they will be detrimental to the work. 

I actually think you have summed up what is happening in the Church.  I agree that changing doctrine, allowing gay marriage, or women holding the priesthood won't solve the church problems.  I think it is more, the Church works well for some people.  When it does, then there is little that would tear them away from it.  They could weather most storms.  They ignore historical problems.  They are ok with not allowing gays to marry.  They think women holding the priesthood isn't really an issue.  After all, most women in the Church are more than happy to not hold the priesthood.  I see this in half of my children.  They are quite happy being in the Church and raising their children in those teachings, even when it comes in conflict with their social beliefs.  They really have no interest in discussing some of these fundamental problems some have with the Church.  The vast majority of members fit this scenario.  If the Church works for them and their families, then I see no reason to not support them in their activity in the Church.

For some people, the Church doesn't work quite so good.  Maybe they don't have the kind of personality that allows for micromanaging their lives and choices (such as how many ear rings they have or whether they can have a tattoo or not). Maybe they don't think drinking coffee is a sin.  Maybe they have had a very bad experience with Church leaders.  Maybe their ward is cliquish.  Maybe they don't like wearing white shirts on Sundays. Maybe they are gay.  Maybe they have a gay child.  Maybe they are single and can no longer take feeling like they are incomplete.  Maybe they believe that just because they are born a woman doesn't mean they should be subservient position to the priesthood that only men can hold.  Maybe they are a Democrat.  The reasons one doesn't fit the Mormon Mold is much longer than this.  Some are able to compartmentalize those differences.  Some even take pride that they wear a blue shirt on Sunday and it doesn't bother them that they don't fit the white shirt mold.  Others can't.  

I am positive there are stalwart members that are quick to dispute any or all of these reasons as being valid, or some distortion of what is "real".  Not surprising since they are not a problem stalwart members deal with.  But if any of these issues (and usually it is more than just one) is a real problem in associating with the Church, then there are plenty of reasons you can find in the narrative to justify leaving the Church whether it is Joseph Smiths wives, Book of Abraham problems, how the Church treats gay families, or women not allowed to hold the Priesthood.  The list is pretty long.  Shortening that list by the Church allowing gay marriage or women and the priesthood is not going to change the fact that not all people fit the Mormon Mold.  Just because you grow up in a Church does not mean it is where you feel you belong.

 

 

[poptart]

On 4/22/2020 at 5:17 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

Mea culpa.  I know you mentioned your background previously, and I believe you did mention Hawaiian roots.  (Memory ain't what it used to be when one gets old! )  Yeah, if an entity's trying to convert the world, it wouldn't make much sense for it to not demonstrate respect for different cultures.  This would be difficult to explain "in short compass," as it were (my phrase), and it would take the thread on a tangent (as if I haven't done that already! ) but a lot of the reason why the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints strives to respect other cultures is because of the Book of Mormon.

I former member I know has roots in one of the tribes the LDS church first sent missionaries to.  Story I heard was before Joseph Smith and the rest sent people abroad, they sent people to the natives here, I liked that. 

Ya know, I've read the BOM, not in the order I think most believers would like (I read the beginning part, got bored then skipped to the end because I wanted to read the gory bits then finished the rest.  Hey, at least I finished the whole thing.....) but the thing i've liked most is how you did care for the natives first.  If there's anything that makes me see Christian and Buddhist values is how a people you guys helped out somehow managed to survive genocide and in some cases out do their oppressors.  I'm not happy with how natives are faring esp. with covid-19 but at least you guys cared enough back then and I'm sure even now still do try to help.  When I look at one side that had to overcome horrible racism in Hawaii and is doing quite well while the other side who had everything handed to them and are well, to put it nicely on the way down the socioeconomic ladder, in that sense I'd agree the BOM is true.  I don't believe that's its divinely inspired  but the text does allude to what I consider the highest universal truth, that is cause and affect.  Even the gods themselves are beholden to that.  According to what could be considered my belief of things anyway.  Not to take this off on a tangent either but for giggles, i've spouted stuff like this before and never provided links.  Just so people can have an idea of what i'm rambling on about, here you go!

https://www.nichirenlibrary.org/en/dic/Content/S/185

https://www.nichiren.or.jp/english/teachings/sutra/

Oh, while I'm at it I did like how in the BOM Jesus appeared to take a hard left after leaving the Roman Empire to visit the natives.  Seriously, that's a selling point for me, not only was everyone included, Jesus cared enough to directly visit them.  I like how the LDS art i've seen of Jesus with the natives wasn't white washed, compared to what else i've seen.  Ohh boy some of the racist relatives I have?  Show em pics of early Christian saints from Ethiopia and the racism just oozes out. 

Edited April 23, 2020 by poptart

[mfbukowski]

On 4/21/2020 at 10:59 AM, rongo said:

My parents and I have talked a lot about this since they got back from their mission. We are concerned that some monumental doctrinal changes **might** (not that they will, but that it's possible) happen down the road, perhaps decades down the road. Dealbreakers for me would be 1) women ordination, 2) normalizing of immorality, 2a) allowance of gay marriage in full fellowship. 

We agree that we would not leave the Church or agitate against the Church over these, but that our commitment and enthusiasm would take a major hit. I think big doctrinal changes like these would usher in a big drop in enthusiasm and commitment --- not mass resignations, per se, but a loss of vitality and spirit. Accommodations of society have to actually be God's will, or they will be detrimental to the work. 

Agree. I might leave or not, depending on the spirit.  

It will be interesting when what we now called "millennials" get to be the age of the present Prophets.

That will only be in about 50 years, maybe less.  Heck I will only be about a hundred twenty then.

If there are any Millenial SP's out there, they will be about the right age.

 

Edited April 24, 2020 by mfbukowski

[RevTestament]

On 4/21/2020 at 1:40 PM, Tacenda said:

Curious, you don't have to answer, what would you have done had you lived in the days of Joseph Smith marrying other men's wives and marrying young girls because an angel threatened with a sword? To me it wasn't close to moral what Joseph did and members did leave including his closest friends. ...Joseph doing what he did was my limit,  hopefully you can feel an inkling of what that was like when finding out about it. I only rant about the church on this board, to get all of my frustration out so I haven't left or really publicly agitated.  

I know I have discussed this issue with you in the past somewhat ad nauseam, but I have to take exception to your characterizing "marrying other men's wives" as immoral. Weren't they married until death do you part? So, if they wanted to marry again, how is that immoral? I guess we get into the polygamy is immoral debate there, but it just wasn't in the Bible. Samuel was the son of one of "the two wives of Elkenah." Sam 1:1-2. Deut contains law of inheritance from God if a man have two wives, Deut 21:15, and others. Nowhere did Yeshua condemn polygamy. If you don't care for it, that's fine - don't do it. But to claim everyone else is immoral for entering polygamy is too much for me to silently condone. Those who insist Joseph married other men's wives in the present have the burden of proof, which is not favorable imho, because no offspring come forth from these alleged "marriages." That is strong refuting evidence imho.  Yeah, I know some women said they "married" him, and "you know Joseph," etc, but at that point the tendency to pile on was high for the disaffected. Where are the babies?

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I know I have discussed this issue with you in the past somewhat ad nauseam, but I have to take exception to your characterizing "marrying other men's wives" as immoral. Weren't they married until death do you part? So, if they wanted to marry again, how is that immoral? I guess we get into the polygamy is immoral debate there, but it just wasn't in the Bible. Samuel was the son of one of "the two wives of Elkenah." Sam 1:1-2. Deut contains law of inheritance from God if a man have two wives, Deut 21:15, and others. Nowhere did Yeshua condemn polygamy. If you don't care for it, that's fine - don't do it. But to claim everyone else is immoral for entering polygamy is too much for me to silently condone. Those who insist Joseph married other men's wives in the present have the burden of proof, which is not favorable imho, because no offspring come forth from these alleged "marriages." That is strong refuting evidence imho.  Yeah, I know some women said they "married" him, and "you know Joseph," etc, but at that point the tendency to pile on was high for the disaffected. Where are the babies?

Natural birth control. But not going to get into it with you.

[Hamba Tuhan]

On 4/22/2020 at 5:40 AM, Tacenda said:

Curious, you don't have to answer, what would you have done had you lived in the days of Joseph Smith marrying other men's wives and marrying young girls because an angel threatened with a sword?

What do you think the Saints then living and impacted did? Have you actually bothered to read their accounts? Here's just one of many, from Elizabeth Ann Whitney, who, along with her husband, received a written revelation from Joseph Smith instructing them to give their daughter to him in marriage:

Quote

My husband revealed these things to me; we had always been united, and had the utmost faith and confidence in each other. We pondered upon them continually, and our prayers were unceasing that the Lord would grant us some special manifestation concerning this new and strange doctrine. The Lord was very merciful to us; He revealed unto us His power and glory. We were seemingly wrapt in a heavenly vision, a halo of light encircled us, and we were convinced in our own minds that God had heard and answered our prayers and intercedings before Him.

Those who learnt of plural marriage in the early period were almost universally repulsed by it -- 'this new and strange doctrine'! -- but they had access to God if they wanted it. Those who went to Him and sought for personal revelation received it ... and left behind a whole series of remarkable and individual accounts. Those who didn't really believe in revelation relied on their own feelings, and it took them out of the Church and left many of them bitter.

So the answer to your question, when reduced for simplicity, is whether one knows how to receive personal revelation or not. Many Saints still have no clue how to do that, insisting that whatever they want/feel is God telling them that they're right and someone else is wrong. It takes, as Moroni taught in the words he left for us, 'real intent'. It takes humility. But the outcome makes the matter something between a person and God instead of between that person and the prophet, whether Joseph, Brigham, or Russell.

[Tacenda]

8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

What do you think the Saints then living and impacted did? Have you actually bothered to read their accounts? Here's just one of many, from Elizabeth Ann Whitney, who, along with her husband, received a written revelation from Joseph Smith instructing them to give their daughter to him in marriage:

Those who learnt of plural marriage in the early period were almost universally repulsed by it -- 'this new and strange doctrine'! -- but they had access to God if they wanted it. Those who went to Him and sought for personal revelation received it ... and left behind a whole series of remarkable and individual accounts. Those who didn't really believe in revelation relied on their own feelings, and it took them out of the Church and left many of them bitter.

So the answer to your question, when reduced for simplicity, is whether one knows how to receive personal revelation or not. Many Saints still have no clue how to do that, insisting that whatever they want/feel is God telling them that they're right and someone else is wrong. It takes, as Moroni taught in the words he left for us, 'real intent'. It takes humility. But the outcome makes the matter something between a person and God instead of between that person and the prophet, whether Joseph, Brigham, or Russell.

It's no different to me than in other religions that have polygamy, like the Branch Davidians, and others. Their members also believed it came from God.  It's amazing what the mind can do, IMO.

Edited April 28, 2020 by Tacenda

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

It's no different to me than in other religions that have polygamy, like the Branch Davidians, and others. Their members also believed it came from God.  It's amazing what the mind can do, IMO.

Have you ever wondered how you might react if, in the end, you learn for certain, from the mouth of God himself, that Joseph truly is innocent of any offense coward God and man, and that all those who assumed the worst about him failed a critical spiritual test divinely ordained to determine whether or not the children of men would be able to discern and heed the voice of the Spirit, or be swayed and persuaded by the cynical, faulty arm of flesh?

[Hamba Tuhan]

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

It's no different to me than in other religions that have polygamy ...

You mean like the religion practised throughout the Bible?

Quote

It's amazing what the mind can do, IMO.

If you really believe that, let's see what your mind can do. Please get back to us when your mind has provided you with a vision informing you that plural marriage has been approved by God. We'll wait for your report.

[liberal81]

This is an interesting article. I would like to add a thought or few. I wonder if the Church has reached a saturation point in the US. That would certainly effect the membership numbers. Also, years ago I saw a movie about "You are what you were when you were twelve" Most of the leadership would fit into that definition, especially in their approach to gaining and keeping members, and presentation of the program. While the values of youth have changed the values of the leaders have not. Swales programs have changed as people have changed over the years. Perhaps it is time to re-examine the way the Church is taught to youth (and everyone else for that matter). I think the 'new' Come Follow Me approach is a good step.

.

[nuclearfuels]

On 4/21/2020 at 1:59 PM, rongo said:

My parents and I have talked a lot about this since they got back from their mission. We are concerned that some monumental doctrinal changes **might** (not that they will, but that it's possible) happen down the road, perhaps decades down the road. Dealbreakers for me would be 1) women ordination, 2) normalizing of immorality, 2a) allowance of gay marriage in full fellowship. 

We agree that we would not leave the Church or agitate against the Church over these, but that our commitment and enthusiasm would take a major hit. I think big doctrinal changes like these would usher in a big drop in enthusiasm and commitment --- not mass resignations, per se, but a loss of vitality and spirit. Accommodations of society have to actually be God's will, or they will be detrimental to the work. 

I agree with you. We'd probably do the same thing here.

Wondering what you would do if polygamy was reinstituted?  My wife has studied her ancestors' lives and told me she would agree to it and would appreciate the help sister wives would provide.  

 

 

[Tacenda]

On 4/22/2020 at 8:55 AM, california boy said:

I actually think you have summed up what is happening in the Church.  I agree that changing doctrine, allowing gay marriage, or women holding the priesthood won't solve the church problems.  I think it is more, the Church works well for some people.  When it does, then there is little that would tear them away from it.  They could weather most storms.  They ignore historical problems.  They are ok with not allowing gays to marry.  They think women holding the priesthood isn't really an issue.  After all, most women in the Church are more than happy to not hold the priesthood.  I see this in half of my children.  They are quite happy being in the Church and raising their children in those teachings, even when it comes in conflict with their social beliefs.  They really have no interest in discussing some of these fundamental problems some have with the Church.  The vast majority of members fit this scenario.  If the Church works for them and their families, then I see no reason to not support them in their activity in the Church.

For some people, the Church doesn't work quite so good.  Maybe they don't have the kind of personality that allows for micromanaging their lives and choices (such as how many ear rings they have or whether they can have a tattoo or not). Maybe they don't think drinking coffee is a sin.  Maybe they have had a very bad experience with Church leaders.  Maybe their ward is cliquish.  Maybe they don't like wearing white shirts on Sundays. Maybe they are gay.  Maybe they have a gay child.  Maybe they are single and can no longer take feeling like they are incomplete.  Maybe they believe that just because they are born a woman doesn't mean they should be subservient position to the priesthood that only men can hold.  Maybe they are a Democrat.  The reasons one doesn't fit the Mormon Mold is much longer than this.  Some are able to compartmentalize those differences.  Some even take pride that they wear a blue shirt on Sunday and it doesn't bother them that they don't fit the white shirt mold.  Others can't.  

I am positive there are stalwart members that are quick to dispute any or all of these reasons as being valid, or some distortion of what is "real".  Not surprising since they are not a problem stalwart members deal with.  But if any of these issues (and usually it is more than just one) is a real problem in associating with the Church, then there are plenty of reasons you can find in the narrative to justify leaving the Church whether it is Joseph Smiths wives, Book of Abraham problems, how the Church treats gay families, or women not allowed to hold the Priesthood.  The list is pretty long.  Shortening that list by the Church allowing gay marriage or women and the priesthood is not going to change the fact that not all people fit the Mormon Mold.  Just because you grow up in a Church does not mean it is where you feel you belong.

 

 

I wish this could be pinned, well said california boy! 

[smac97]

On 4/22/2020 at 8:55 AM, california boy said:

I actually think you have summed up what is happening in the Church.  I agree that changing doctrine, allowing gay marriage, or women holding the priesthood won't solve the church problems.  

I'm not sure what "problems" you reference here.

Quote

I think it is more, the Church works well for some people.  When it does, then there is little that would tear them away from it.  They could weather most storms.  

I think there is a lot more to it than that.  If the Church is what it claims to be, then the keeping of covenants is a lot more than the programs of the Church "work{ing} well for some people."  A lot more.

Quote

They ignore historical problems.  

Some do.  And some seek to understand and contextualize and come to terms with such problems.

The Church, meanwhile, has long encouraged its members to become "gospel scholars," an an endeavor that surely includes studying the history of the Church.  And the Church itself has become much more candid in recent years about its history.

Quote

They are ok with not allowing gays to marry.  

Yes.  On principled and reasoned grounds.

Quote

They think women holding the priesthood isn't really an issue.  

For most the vast majority of women in the Church, it isn't:

Quote

“Equality is an interesting term,” said Sister Linda K. Burton, general Relief Society president, in a video posted last April featuring the leaders of three LDS Church auxiliaries talking about the role of women in church leadership. “It doesn’t always mean sameness. We are of equal value no matter where we are — in the church or in the home. In the home we are co-equal spiritual leaders. I think that’s an important thing that sometimes is misunderstood. We can have equality while having different roles.”

For the most part, Sister Burton said, “I don’t think (LDS) women are after the authority (of the priesthood) — I think they are after the blessings. And they are happy that they can access the blessings and power of the priesthood.”

The empirical research seems to support Sister Burton. For their landmark book, “American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us,” David Campbell and Robert Putnam conducted two extensive surveys on religion and public life in America. They found that an overwhelming majority of LDS women — 90 percent — are opposed to priesthood ordination for women. By comparison, 52 percent of LDS men oppose priesthood ordination for women.

More recently, the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life conducted a national survey of Mormons in America. It found that overall 87 percent of Latter-day Saints — 90 percent of LDS women and 84 percent of LDS men — are opposed to women being ordained to the priesthood. The number climbs as high as 95 percent among those who claim a high degree of religious commitment. Even among those who claim a lower degree of religious commitment, 69 percent are opposed.

Funny how some critics of the Church speak as if the rightness of female ordination is a foregone conclusion.

Quote

After all, most women in the Church are more than happy to not hold the priesthood.  I see this in half of my children.  They are quite happy being in the Church and raising their children in those teachings, even when it comes in conflict with their social beliefs.  

Yep.  Because "social beliefs" are often ephemeral, fleeting, man-made, ever-changing, and morally untethered.

Quote

They really have no interest in discussing some of these fundamental problems some have with the Church.  

And yet here you are, discussing "fundamental problems" with us on this board.  For years.

Most folks don't like to argue.  Most folks want to live and let live.  Most folks want to let you go your own way, and have that sentiment reciprocated.  Most folks aren't particularly thrilled at the prospect of enduring endless criticism and slanders of their sacred beliefs from self-appointed critics and gainsayers.  

But this board happens to include a number of faithful Latter-day Saints who are quite willing to discuss "some of these fundamental problems some have with the Church."  

Quote

The vast majority of members fit this scenario.  If the Church works for them and their families, then I see no reason to not support them in their activity in the Church.

I'm not sure you appreciate the scope of the commitment envisioned by Latter-day Saints.

I drive a 2004 Chevy Cavalier because it "works for me."  I live in Provo and telecommute most days because it "works for me."  I play racquetball and walk along the Provo River Trail because it "works for me."  I enjoy old movies and TV series because they "work for me."  And so on.

I can take or leave these things.  I can change them to suit my preferences, or change my preferences to suit them, at any time, for any reason or no reason at all.  These are merely matters of taste and convenience and preference and habit.  That's all.  I could walk away from such things at any time.  They just aren't worth that much to me.  

My devotion to the Restored Gospel, however, is on an entirely different plane.  I really believe the Church is what it claims to be.  I believe that God exists, that Jesus Christ is His Son, that Joseph Smith experienced his theophanies, that the priesthood was restored, and that the Church is the nascent, inchoate Kingdom of God on the earth.  So the ordinances I have received, the covenants I have made, and strive to keep, are not aptly described as "the Church works for" me.  That doesn't come close to explaining things.

I likewise cherish my family and my citizenship.  I am devoted to them not merely because they "work for me," but because they deserve my allegiance, despite whatever flaws they have.

Quote

For some people, the Church doesn't work quite so good.  Maybe they don't have the kind of personality that allows for micromanaging their lives and choices (such as how many ear rings they have or whether they can have a tattoo or not).

I reject this characterization.  The Church doesn't micromanage.  It presents generalized principles and precepts, and I choose to follow them (albeit quite imperfectly).  

Quote

Maybe they don't think drinking coffee is a sin.  Maybe they have had a very bad experience with Church leaders.  Maybe their ward is cliquish.  Maybe they don't like wearing white shirts on Sundays. Maybe they are gay.  Maybe they have a gay child.  Maybe they are single and can no longer take feeling like they are incomplete.  Maybe they believe that just because they are born a woman doesn't mean they should be subservient position to the priesthood that only men can hold.  Maybe they are a Democrat.  The reasons one doesn't fit the Mormon Mold is much longer than this.  Some are able to compartmentalize those differences.  Some even take pride that they wear a blue shirt on Sunday and it doesn't bother them that they don't fit the white shirt mold.  Others can't.

Being a member of the Church, being a disciple of Jesus Christ, is not about such things.

Quote

I am positive there are stalwart members that are quick to dispute any or all of these reasons as being valid, or some distortion of what is "real".  Not surprising since they are not a problem stalwart members deal with.

Actually, "stalwart members deal with" such things all the time.  But the "stalwart" part of them helps prevent the foregoing grievances from overcoming their covenants.

Quote

But if any of these issues (and usually it is more than just one) is a real problem in associating with the Church, then there are plenty of reasons you can find in the narrative to justify leaving the Church whether it is Joseph Smiths wives, Book of Abraham problems, how the Church treats gay families, or women not allowed to hold the Priesthood.  The list is pretty long.  

I quite agree.  To paraphrase a line from the Disney movie, Pollyanna: "When you look for the bad in (the Church of Jesus Christ), expecting to find it, you surely will." 

If you look for reasons and justifications for leaving the Church, expecting to find them, you surely will.  That is not the point, really.  I could similarly look for reasons and justifications to abandon my wife and children, or forsake my citizenship.  The problems are there, after all.  My family members aren't perfect.  My country isn't perfect.  They have flaws, even substantial ones.  But I value my family, and the commitments I have made to them.  I likewise value my citizenship and the commitments I have made to my country.

As I see it, the issue here is not the presence or absence of "problems."  Rather, the issue here is the presence or absence of commitment, devotion, and allegiance despite those problems.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 13, 2020 by smac97

[Rivers]

Our society as a whole(including churches) is increasingly becoming more accepting of LGBT people.  Shouldn’t we be seeing LGBT suicide rates be dropping across the country?

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Rivers said:

Our society as a whole(including churches) is increasingly becoming more accepting of LGBT people.  Shouldn’t we be seeing LGBT suicide rates be dropping across the country?

 

By certain theories yes. 

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, Rivers said:

Our society as a whole(including churches) is increasingly becoming more accepting of LGBT people.  Shouldn’t we be seeing LGBT suicide rates be dropping across the country?

 

Many don't adhere to a "church" as much as the members in the LDS church. They are more a one on one with Jesus, not a people. So if their church doesn't support the LGBTQ they move on to the next church.