The different personalities found inside Mormonism

[JustAnAustralian]

29 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Is there any communication between the church and the "exmormon" community?

Church members or the church as an institution?

For church members there would be plenty of communication. It wouldn't always (or at all) be about the church, but would still be there.

As an institution I'm not sure what this would look like. Dieter F Uchdorf seems to try to reach out in his conference talks but the church can't do much more than that. 

[smac97]

55 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Here's what I can tell you about what people who have left the church feel once on the outside. Most people will just shrug it off and just keep living life, move on, if there's pain, they deal with it quietly.

I agree.

55 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

What I just described is my brother in law, he's a pretty quite guy. But, some choose to push back, and the problem with this personality type is, the more you try to make them irrelevant, the more they're going to show you how relevant they think they are. They dont stop. 

What does "push back" mean here?  If a person leaves the Church, that's their decision.  Nobody is "push{ing}" them, and nobody is "try{ing} to make them irrelevant."

55 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

I have to deal with this as an employer of many people with varying personality types, some very erratic because they've been in and out of jail. Basically,  I've learned how to give people a place to land softly when they're pissed off. 

Okay.  How does that apply vis-a-vis people leaving the Church?

55 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

My question since I've just started listening to apologetics and certain podcast that lean toward disparaging the church name. Is there any communication between the church and the "exmormon" community?

Where is this "community?"  Who are its representatives?  Who appointed those representatives?

Should the Church attempt to confer with its antagonists, particularly the prominent self-appointed types?  John Dehlin?  Sam Young?  Kate Kelly?  Denver Snuffer?  Richard Packham?  

55 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Because in my experience, ignoring people who are trying desperately to say "ok, I'll show you just how relevant I am", can come back and blow up in your face.

What do you mean by "ignoring?"

Thanks,

-Smac

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

I'm not saying militarily, look at this screen shot I've sent you, more in a integrity or having a sense of honor. Put on the armour of God, return with honor. I'm just learning about apologetics and the views of members who have left, its larger than what I originally thought. I think part of the problem with what you say about not being able to leave the church alone is, these people, mostly men, were taught from a young age that honor, courage, integrity and strength are important qualities. You dont lose those qualities when you leave the church, so when your on the outside looking in, I think these men are still in "warrior" mode. There are dozens of articles about becoming a warrior for God, not violently, righteously. ...............

So you see some of these ex-Mormons as cut from the same cloth as Martin Luther, John Calvin, or any other reformer?  But not a craven opportunist like King Henry VIII or Sherem?  Because that is often what it comes down to:  A matter of principle, about which a good person would not lie.  Or an attempt to cover or assuage one's own sinful state.

[Meadowchik]

It's entirely understable. Joseph Smith himself spoke out against all other churches.

It is a very humane thing for a person to raise alarms or warnings when they perceive danger. This can explain much criticism that is vocalised from people who leave a group, perhaps even moreso when open criticism from within is discouraged.

[JLHPROF]

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I agree.

I just noticed your signature quotes - most of which are appropriate for this thread.

--"'Conformity' is doing what everybody else is doing, regardless of what is right.  'Morality' is doing what is right, regardless of what everybody else is doing." -- Evette Carter
--"{T}his is a rebellious people ... which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits..."  -- Isaiah 30:9-10
--"We will see those who profess membership but secretly are plotting and trying to lead people not to follow the leadership that the Lord has set up to preside in this church." -- Elder Harold B. Lee
--"We shall soon be in a world in which a man may be howled down for saying that two and two make four, in which people will persecute the heresy of calling a triangle a three-sided figure, and hang a man for maddening a mob with the news that grass is green." -- G.K. Chesterton
--“Even more problematic is the insistence logically stemming from this presumption of social corruption that all individual problems, no matter how rare, must be solved by cultural restructuring, no matter how radical. Our society faces the increasing call to deconstruct its stabilizing traditions to include smaller and smaller numbers of people who do not or will not fit into the categories upon which even our perceptions are based. This is not a good thing. Each person’s private trouble cannot be solved by a social revolution, because revolutions are destabilizing and dangerous.” --Jordan Peterson

[AtlanticMike]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

What does "push back" mean here?  If a person leaves the Church, that's their decision.  Nobody is "push{ing}" them, and nobody is "try{ing} to make them irrelevant."

Never said it wasn't their decision. I've sat on my garage floor holding one of my best friends going thru the most difficult time in his life. He was rejected by his parents, for good reason though, they tried everything to get him help with his addiction. They had to think about the other kids. But for 8 years his parents reminded him that if he didn't straighten his life out, there was a chance he wouldn't spend eternity with them. They told him his addiction was satan tempting him. And the worst one, his mom would constantly tell her friends that if he was not an addict, there's a good chance he could of been a bishop, because he was a wonderful boy when he was young. He wasn't someone who would pushback against criticism, he dealt with it internally and it almost killed him. But many people will pushback and challenge authority. It's just human nature, everyone is different. 

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  How does that apply vis-a-vis people leaving the Church

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Should the Church attempt to confer with its antagonists, particularly the prominent self-appointed types?  John Dehlin?  Sam Young?  Kate Kelly?  Denver Snuffer?  Richard Packham?  

Yes.

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

What do you mean by "ignoring

No communication. Why not try? If the correct person is picked to communicate with some of the people you named and I dialogue was started, there's a chance some of this could be turned into a positive.

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

 

No communication. Why not try? If the correct person is picked to communicate with some of the people you named and I dialogue was started, there's a chance some of this could be turned into a positive.

The church has had a long uninterrupted history of reaching out to public malcontents.  Read the history of the Godbeites.  Pres Young let them meet in ward buildings. 

Your story about the addict is insensitive. Just pray you never have an addict child. You can't demand that grieved parents respond in a logical way. The good people are the parents who have spent years trying to help and protect.  The bad guy is really you, the one who condemns the parents.  I can't imagine what the mom would think reading your tale.

Edited February 18, 2021 by Bob Crockett

[AtlanticMike]

12 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

The church has had a long uninterrupted history of reaching out to public malcontents.  Read the history of the Godbeites.  Pres Young let them meet in ward buildings. 

Your story about the addict is insensitive. Just pray you never have an addict child. You can't demand that grieved parents respond in a logical way. The good people are the parents who have spent years trying to help and protect.  The bad guy is really you, the one who condemns the parents.  I can't imagine what the mom would think reading your tale.

Are you reading from left to right, or right to left, honestly sometimes I cant tell? How do get that I'm the bad guy in this story? Is it because I said he was rejected, because right after that I explained they (the parents) tried everything they could to help their son. It got to a point they had to let him go mentally, it was affecting the whole family, the other kids were suffering. If you dont understand that, then your the one that doesn't understand the hell of addiction,  not me Cockett. 

      You said you couldn't imagine what the mom would think reading my tale. Well, I will tell you exactly what she actually did. After many many many many long discussions about her son, I finally told her she needs to stop telling her son he was being influenced by satan. I told her along with many therapists, that she wasn't the cause of his addiction, that was all on him, he did that to himself. But she was not helping by comparing him to other men like me, or the bishop or others in our ward. Everytime she did that, she was essentially beating him over the head with a sledgehammer. Basically, I told her she needed to grow up and stop living under a rock. Funny thing is cockett, she and I are really good friends, she's also taught me quite a bit about handling certain situations with my girls. Have you erected walls around your entire life? That's the vibe I'm getting.

 

 

Ps. Food for thought, since this post is about addiction and problems with kids. I just wanted to say one more thing. If anyone knows someone who is going through an extremely hard time in their life. Think really hard before telling them that everytime you go to the temple, your adding that persons name to the prayer roll. Even though your telling them because you think it will make them feel better, alot of the times, especially someone who is depressed, will take that to mean they're so bad off they need to be put on a list that's for the sick and the in afflicted. It can have the opposite affect of what your intending. 

     

Edited February 18, 2021 by AtlanticMike

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

Are you reading from left to right, or right to left, honestly sometimes I cant tell? How do get that I'm the bad guy in this story? Is it because I said he was rejected, because right after that I explained they (the parents) tried everything they could to help their son. It got to a point they had to let him go mentally, it was affecting the whole family, the other kids were suffering. If you dont understand that, then your the one that doesn't understand the hell of addiction,  not me Cockett. 

      You said you couldn't imagine what the mom would think reading my tale. Well, I will tell you exactly what she actually did. After many many many many long discussions about her son, I finally told her she needs to stop telling her son he was being influenced by satan. I told her along with many therapists, that she wasn't the cause of his addiction, that was all on him, he did that to himself. But she was not helping by comparing him to other men like me, or the bishop or others in our ward. Everytime she did that, she was essentially beating him over the head with a sledgehammer. Basically, I told her she needed to grow up and stop living under a rock. Funny thing is cockett, she and I are really good friends, she's also taught me quite a bit about handling certain situations with my girls. Have you erected walls around your entire life? That's the vibe I'm getting.

 

 

Ps. Food for thought, since this post is about addiction and problems with kids. I just wanted to say one more thing. If anyone knows someone who is going through an extremely hard time in their life. Think really hard before telling them that everytime you go to the temple, your adding that persons name to the prayer roll. Even though your telling them because you think it will make them feel better, alot of the times, especially someone who is depressed, will take that to mean they're so bad off they need to be put on a list that's for the sick and the in afflicted. It can have the opposite affect of what your intending. 

     

You have no clue what it means to have an addicted child.  You sit there in condemnation, in self-aggrandizement and patting yourself on the back as a hero.  Offering simple platitudes as solutions. Invoking the temple procedures against me as if I would ever say such a thing or even believe them.  Condemning the suffering parent as the problem.  Condemning me, a pure stranger, for trying to stick up for parent hopelessness.  I hope that somewhere in the eternities you can understand Christian compassion for the utterly hopeless.  A hopelessness that is worse than a dead child. It doesn't always lead to a solution in this life.

 

Edited February 18, 2021 by Bob Crockett

[AtlanticMike]

11 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

You have no clue what it means to have an addicted child.  You sit there in condemnation, in self-aggrandizement and patting yourself on the back as a hero.  Offering simple platitudes as solutions. Invoking the temple procedures against me as if I would ever say such a thing or even believe them.  Condemning the suffering parent as the problem.  Condemning me, a pure stranger, for trying to stick up for parent hopelessness.  I hope that somewhere in the eternities you can understand Christian compassion for the utterly hopeless.  A hopelessness that is worse than a dead child. It doesn't always lead to a solution in this life.

 

Its really simple, if your nice to me, I'm nice to you. When you insinuate that I'm insensitive through my story, And then say I'm really the bad guy, well dont be surprised when I give as good as I get. It's a really simple concept. I dont hold grudges cockett, you can reverse course anytime you want, I'll still be your friend.

[Bob Crockett]

14 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Its really simple, if your nice to me, I'm nice to you. When you insinuate that I'm insensitive through my story, And then say I'm really the bad guy, well dont be surprised when I give as good as I get. It's a really simple concept. I dont hold grudges cockett, you can reverse course anytime you want, I'll still be your friend.

You are insensitive.  You invoke a story about addiction to offer simple platitudes to make you out as a hero.  Why would anybody do that?  I stick up for the poor, condemned parents and now you say you are going to "give as good as I get." 

Well, reach into your heart and ask yourself if that's the right thing.  Perhaps I have an addicted child, and know the heartache and tragedy that comes with it, and I have to see cretins like you post about heroic actions offering platitudes.  And further offered  by you as an indirect means to condemn the Church, but I don't care really about that.  God controls, not you and not the Church members.

 

Edited February 18, 2021 by Bob Crockett

[AtlanticMike]

3 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

You are insensitive.  You invoke a story about addiction to offer simple platitudes to make you out as a hero.  Why would anybody do that?  I stick up for the poor, condemned parents and now you say you are going to "give as good as I get." 

Well, reach into your heart and ask yourself if that's the right thing.  Perhaps I have an addicted child, and know the heartache and tragedy that comes with it, and I have to see cretins like you post about heroic actions offering platitudes.

 

Its real simple cockett, this is the second time you've contacted me in the past week. The first time I called you sir, and tried to explain to you the post you were referring to, was actually me showing another poster what I wanted him to answer for me, it wasn't me making a statement. I gave you the time stamp to actually go back and see that he was the one who originally made the statement. Did you come back an apologize? Nope! 

        So here you are on another thread trying to take a story that means alot to me and make me out to be a bad guy. Awsome, your a genius. By the way, I came on this board from the very beginning telling stories, that's how I communicate, I'm not going to citation the crap out of every post. Your not going to change me cockett! I'm going to follow the rules and give my perspective. It it makes you uncomfortable look away.

[smac97]

15 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Quote

What does "push back" mean here?  If a person leaves the Church, that's their decision.  Nobody is "push{ing}" them, and nobody is "try{ing} to make them irrelevant."

Never said it wasn't their decision. I've sat on my garage floor holding one of my best friends going thru the most difficult time in his life. He was rejected by his parents, for good reason though, they tried everything to get him help with his addiction. They had to think about the other kids. But for 8 years his parents reminded him that if he didn't straighten his life out, there was a chance he wouldn't spend eternity with them. They told him his addiction was satan tempting him. And the worst one, his mom would constantly tell her friends that if he was not an addict, there's a good chance he could of been a bishop, because he was a wonderful boy when he was young. He wasn't someone who would pushback against criticism, he dealt with it internally and it almost killed him. But many people will pushback and challenge authority. It's just human nature, everyone is different. 

Again, what does "push back" mean here?  Who is "pushing" in the first instance, such that "pushing back" becomes a thing?

And who is it that, in your view, is "try{ing} to make them {those who leave the Church} irrelevant"?

Quote

Quote

Quote

My question since I've just started listening to apologetics and certain podcast that lean toward disparaging the church name. Is there any communication between the church and the "exmormon" community?

Where is this "community?"  Who are its representatives?  Who appointed those representatives?

Should the Church attempt to confer with its antagonists, particularly the prominent self-appointed types?  John Dehlin?  Sam Young?  Kate Kelly?  Denver Snuffer?  Richard Packham?  

Yes.

Okay.  Why do you think this?  What would the purpose and intent be of such discussions.

Also, what "'exmormon' community" are you talking about here?  Who are its representatives?  Who appointed those representatives?

Quote

Quote

Quote

Because in my experience, ignoring people who are trying desperately to say "ok, I'll show you just how relevant I am", can come back and blow up in your face.

What do you mean by "ignoring?"

No communication.

What do you mean by "no communication?"

Also, what of those who leave the Church and want to be left alone?  Isn't that one of the bigger gripes from people who leave?  That they aren't left alone?

Quote

Why not try?

Try what?  Communicating with whom in the "'exmormon' community"?  Communicate how?  About what?  For what purpose?

Quote

If the correct person is picked to communicate with some of the people you named and I dialogue was started, there's a chance some of this could be turned into a positive.

I'm all for individual members seeking to preserve relationships with those who have left.  Certainly.  That's quite a different proposition from suggesting that official representatives of the Church open up communications with self-appointed critics and opponents.  It's an intriguing idea, but I would like to better understand what you have in mind.  For example, with whom do you think the Church should attempt communication?  And on what topics would such a "dialogue" center?

I have a hard time imagining a useful dialogue with these self-selected and already-incredibly-vocal critics.  We already know what they think.  They are quite free with their unsolicited criticisms of the Church, its leaders, members, doctrines, etc.  Wouldn't such efforts merely given them a more prominent platform from which they could continue to hector and speak against the Church?

I also have some real reservations about the trustworthiness of these folks.  I think such communications would need to proceed with decorum, civility and discretion.  I don't for a minute believe that John Dehlin or Bill Reel or Consig would allow that to happen.  They would take every comment made during such a "dialogue" and attempt to convert it into talking points against the Church.

As an attorney, I have often participated in mediation sessions as a means of resolving a dispute.  Mediations only work because of how they are structured.  First and foremost, there is a mediator there to keep the interaction civil and on point.  Second, there is guaranteed discretion.  What Party A says in the mediation cannot later be appropriated and weaponized by Party B in the litigation.  It is understood that what is said in mediation stays in mediation.  Third, there needs to be some possibility of "middle ground," where both Party A and Party B could conceivably agree as to a disputed issue.

I think that second point, discretion, is not feasible with self-appointed attention seekers like John Dehlin, Bill Reel, Sam Young, etc.  No way would they agree to a candid exchange of viewpoints predicated on those viewpoints not being later weaponized.  Of course they would seek to do that.  Look at how these guys handled their excommunications.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 18, 2021 by smac97

[MiserereNobis]

17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

But not a craven opportunist like King Henry VIII or Sherem?  Because that is often what it comes down to:  A matter of principle, about which a good person would not lie.

Saint Thomas More: "Nevertheless, it is not for the Supremacy that you have sought my blood, but because I would not bend to the marriage!!"

[AtlanticMike]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, what does "push back" mean here?  Who is "pushing" in the first instance, such that "pushing back" becomes a thing?

And who is it that, in your view, is "try{ing} to make them {those who leave the Church} irrelevant"?

Okay.  Why do you think this?  What would the purpose and intent be of such discussions.

Also, what "'exmormon' community" are you talking about here?  Who are its representatives?  Who appointed those representatives?

What do you mean by "no communication?"

Also, what of those who leave the Church and want to be left alone?  Isn't that one of the bigger gripes from people who leave?  That they aren't left alone?

Try what?  Communicating with whom in the "'exmormon' community"?  Communicate how?  About what?  For what purpose?

I'm all for individual members seeking to preserve relationships with those who have left.  Certainly.  That's quite a different proposition from suggesting that official representatives of the Church open up communications with self-appointed critics and opponents.  It's an intriguing idea, but I would like to better understand what you have in mind.  For example, with whom do you think the Church should attempt communication?  And on what topics would such a "dialogue" center?

I have a hard time imagining a useful dialogue with these self-selected and already-incredibly-vocal critics.  We already know what they think.  They are quite free with their unsolicited criticisms of the Church, its leaders, members, doctrines, etc.  Wouldn't such efforts merely given them a more prominent platform from which they could continue to hector and speak against the Church?

I also have some real reservations about the trustworthiness of these folks.  I think such communications would need to proceed with decorum, civility and discretion.  I don't for a minute believe that John Dehlin or Bill Reel or Consig would allow that to happen.  They would take every comment made during such a "dialogue" and attempt to convert it into talking points against the Church.

As an attorney, I have often participated in mediation sessions as a means of resolving a dispute.  Mediations only work because of how they are structured.  First and foremost, there is a mediator there to keep the interaction civil and on point.  Second, there is guaranteed discretion.  What Party A says in the mediation cannot later be appropriated and weaponized by Party B in the litigation.  It is understood that what is said in mediation stays in mediation.  Third, there needs to be some possibility of "middle ground," where both Party A and Party B could conceivably agree as to a disputed issue.

I think that second point, discretion, is not feasible with self-appointed attention seekers like John Dehlin, Bill Reel, Sam Young, etc.  No way would they agree to a candid exchange of viewpoints predicated on those viewpoints not being later weaponized.  Of course they would seek to do that.  Look at how these guys handled their excommunications.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks,

-Smac

First, thank you again for breaking down you response, I love it and you really make me think. But today I'm going to respond back in one big jumbled response. So, I don't know alot about the people you listed, maybe except the guy who does Mormon stories, I've listened to hours of his podcast. I'm still on BOM Geography and history. But if there's this group of people out there trying to "change" the church teachings from the outside, I dont see a problem with communicating with them, or him, or her, or however or whoever. The more I research, the more I realize how big the "exmormon" community is. 

      So I like to think outside the box. So here's one example I just pulled out of thin air. Something that would have a positive outcome in my opinion.  Lets say the brethren organized a charity event, a huge charity event that was somewhere in Utah, lasted all day Saturday and it included many of the brethren and some of the more prominent members of the exmormon community. The goal would be to collect as much money, clothes, and food for the disadvantaged members in the community. The press could be there, a face to face friendship could be cultivated. And I bet there would be no talk about religion, just helping people in the community. A positive event like that has the potential to redirect alot of the waisted energy used to demean people on both sides. If you dont like that idea, what about a charity golf event🤣. I would love to see Pres. Nelson try to hit a golf ball. This is a direction to my knowledge the brethren haven't explored,  I could be wrong though. 

     One thing I really believe in life is there's always a positive direction for any situation you find yourself in.  Is an idea like this just to far out there in your opinion?

   

[Ahab]

14 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

First, thank you again for breaking down you response, I love it and you really make me think. But today I'm going to respond back in one big jumbled response. So, I don't know alot about the people you listed, maybe except the guy who does Mormon stories, I've listened to hours of his podcast. I'm still on BOM Geography and history. But if there's this group of people out there trying to "change" the church teachings from the outside, I dont see a problem with communicating with them, or him, or her, or however or whoever. The more I research, the more I realize how big the "exmormon" community is. 

      So I like to think outside the box. So here's one example I just pulled out of thin air. Something that would have a positive outcome in my opinion.  Lets say the brethren organized a charity event, a huge charity event that was somewhere in Utah, lasted all day Saturday and it included many of the brethren and some of the more prominent members of the exmormon community. The goal would be to collect as much money, clothes, and food for the disadvantaged members in the community. The press could be there, a face to face friendship could be cultivated. And I bet there would be no talk about religion, just helping people in the community. A positive event like that has the potential to redirect alot of the waisted energy used to demean people on both sides. If you dont like that idea, what about a charity golf event🤣. I would love to see Pres. Nelson try to hit a golf ball. This is a direction to my knowledge the brethren haven't explored,  I could be wrong though. 

     One thing I really believe in life is there's always a positive direction for any situation you find yourself in.  Is an idea like this just to far out there in your opinion?

   

I am more the "teach people how to fish" type of personality than the "just give them a fish" type, but whatever floats your boat.

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

First, thank you again for breaking down you response, I love it and you really make me think. But today I'm going to respond back in one big jumbled response. So, I don't know alot about the people you listed, maybe except the guy who does Mormon stories, I've listened to hours of his podcast. I'm still on BOM Geography and history. But if there's this group of people out there trying to "change" the church teachings from the outside, I dont see a problem with communicating with them, or him, or her, or however or whoever. The more I research, the more I realize how big the "exmormon" community is. 

I see no evidence that John Delin has any interest in helping the Church.  To the contrary, I have seen ample evidence that he wants to "change" the Church by undermining it.  By trying to tear it down.  By disparaging its cumulative honor, efforts and reputation.

Quote

      So I like to think outside the box. So here's one example I just pulled out of thin air. Something that would have a positive outcome in my opinion.  Lets say the brethren organized a charity event, a huge charity event that was somewhere in Utah, lasted all day Saturday and it included many of the brethren and some of the more prominent members of the exmormon community.

Who are these "prominent members?"  And why should they be singled out for particular attention?

Again, what "'exmormon' community" are you talking about here?  Who are its representatives?  Who appointed those representatives?

I have some real concerns about the Church seemingly "legitimizing" critics.  Essentially awarding them for their most vexatious behavior against the Church.  

Also, wouldn't a charitable event be better by making it truly ecumenical?  Invite everyone to participate, not just members and well-known former members?

Quote

The goal would be to collect as much money, clothes, and food for the disadvantaged members in the community. The press could be there, a face to face friendship could be cultivated. And I bet there would be no talk about religion, just helping people in the community.  A positive event like that has the potential to redirect alot of the waisted energy used to demean people on both sides. If you dont like that idea, what about a charity golf event🤣. I would love to see Pres. Nelson try to hit a golf ball. This is a direction to my knowledge the brethren haven't explored,  I could be wrong though. 

I am intrigued by the idea in the abstract.  I just wonder if it can be converted into practice.

Quote

     One thing I really believe in life is there's always a positive direction for any situation you find yourself in.  Is an idea like this just to far out there in your opinion?

In the abstract, I like the idea.  I like the idea of building bridges.  But I am not comfortable with the idea of singling out "prominent" former members.  I think doing so would incentivize further obnoxious behavior, since such behavior is what created the prominence.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 18, 2021 by smac97

[ksfisher]

57 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

So I like to think outside the box. So here's one example I just pulled out of thin air. Something that would have a positive outcome in my opinion.  Lets say the brethren organized a charity event, a huge charity event that was somewhere in Utah, lasted all day Saturday and it included many of the brethren and some of the more prominent members of the exmormon community. The goal would be to collect as much money, clothes, and food for the disadvantaged members in the community.

https://feedutah2021.org/

[AtlanticMike]

41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I see no evidence that John Delin has any interest in helping the Church.  To the contrary, I have seen ample evidence that he wants to "change" the Church by undermining it.  By trying to tear it down.  By disparaging its cumulative honor, efforts and reputation.

Ok here's another idea for you. The guy you mentioned above basically has a platform to do whatever and say whatever he wants. Obviously he is free to do that, and thank goodness we live in a country he can do that. But, that doesn't mean the church cant ruffle his feathers a little bit. What if the church came out and called his bluff. I've seen on one of his videos that he has actually offered time for a church representative to come onto his show. Well, they should do it. Maybe it could be a once a month podcast dedicated with a church representative, on his podcast. A real debate, no teleprompters, a civil conversation. Theres got to be somebody out there in utah who could handle that. 

[AtlanticMike]

16 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

https://feedutah2021.org/

Yes. I love this. Do you think it would be beneficial to have an event like this with the exmormon community? 

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Ok here's another idea for you. The guy you mentioned above basically has a platform to do whatever and say whatever he wants. Obviously he is free to do that, and thank goodness we live in a country he can do that. But, that doesn't mean the church cant ruffle his feathers a little bit. What if the church came out and called his bluff. I've seen on one of his videos that he has actually offered time for a church representative to come onto his show. Well, they should do it. Maybe it could be a once a month podcast dedicated with a church representative, on his podcast. A real debate, no teleprompters, a civil conversation. Theres got to be somebody out there in utah who could handle that. 

Would you be willing to move to Utah to be on his show?  Or maybe you could do it with Zoom or Skype or Microsoft Teams or something like that so you could do it from wherever you live.  I have better things to do with my time.  Even this is better than that.

[ksfisher]

4 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Yes. I love this. Do you think it would be beneficial to have an event like this with the exmormon community? 

I think making it about religion would detract from the purpose of the event.  It would also drive away corporate sponsors as well as members of the community who are not members or former members of the church.

[AtlanticMike]

5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Would you be willing to move to Utah to be on his show?  Or maybe you could do it with Zoom or Skype or Microsoft Teams or something like that so you could do it from wherever you live.  I have better things to do with my time.  Even this is better than that.

Definitely not moving to Utah. Im a coastal kinda guy, I have salt water running through my veins, and apparently the only salt water you guys have out their smells like sulfur, no thanks🤣. Why would I go on his show, his show isnt dedicated to discussing the ins- and-outs  of my roofing business. I'm talking about having a representative from the church go on his show, not just some random person. 

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Definitely not moving to Utah. Im a coastal kinda guy, I have salt water running through my veins, and apparently the only salt water you guys have out their smells like sulfur, no thanks🤣. Why would I go on his show, his show isnt dedicated to discussing the ins- and-outs  of my roofing business. I'm talking about having a representative from the church go on his show, not just some random person. 

If you are a member of the Church, and as far as I know you are, then you are a representative of the Church.  Every member is.  And no member has the authority to speak for every other member of the Church, so no one member's statements should be taken or understood as a statement from every other member.  So you will see some members who don't agree with my statements and some other members who do and the same can be said of any other member's statements.  We do not all agree with each other on everything and yet on some things we do.  

So, anyway, if you don't want to be on his show, then I think I can understand why you would not.  But you could, if you wanted to, and as a member you would be a representative of the Church.

[AtlanticMike]

6 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I think making it about religion would detract from the purpose of the event.  It would also drive away corporate sponsors as well as members of the community who are not members or former members of the church.

I'm not saying change the event you sent me a link to. What if the brethren, the leaders of the rlds , and exmormon community all got together and picked one disadvantaged neighborhood somewhere in Utah to do a charity event. Not to talk religion,  but to build an ongoing relationship. It's not like our church isn't doing something similar now with the NAACP. They've taken positive steps to reach out to the NAACP . Gee whiz, we had doctrine in our church for 140 years that banned black people from the most important ceremonies in our church. If we can reach out to the NAACP , what I'm suggesting isnt that far fetched.