Mississippi Bishop Resigns from the Pulpit

[teddyaware]

This thread is doing a good job of demonstrating why it’s unrealistic to think bitter former members of the church and faithful current members could ever be friends. 

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Maybe we can play dueling Jesuses here. 

Why?  To what end?

 

14 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

 

Your Jesus says to seek out the lost sheep; my Jesus says to treat other the way I would want to be treated.  And if I were cutting ties with a community, I'd want that community to respect my desire for separation and just leave me the hell alone and not turn me into some rehabilitation project for the community to pursue.

Yes?  So? I have shared my own personal experiences with essentially being totally ignored by the members of the ward I live in.  The one I was active in all my adult life.  I get that is someone is hostile and says to leave them alone that such a wish ought to be respected.  But that is not what I see many of you saying here. But really it is no skin off my teeth.  Your my Jesus your Jesus approach is immature. I am not the one who claims to follow what Jesus says as scripture and commandments.  You and others here who claim to follow him are the ones trying to find reason to not seek after the lost sheep.

14 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

As with many things in life, we must make room for nuance and individual circumstance.  In some cases, pursuing lost sheep that don't want to be pursued may be the right course.  In others, it may be best to treat the departing community member with the same dignity and respect that we'd wish to be treated were we ourselves departing.  Still others may require a combination of approaches and tactics.  Calling such nuance "lip service" I think is inaccurate and unfair.  The correct manner to approach (or not) each lost sheep is as individualized as the people they are.    

I have no issue with that. But the individual this thread is about appears to have been dropped like a hot potato.  It is just funny to watch you all gyrate around this topic.

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

No.  Surely you can appreciate the point I am trying to make?  That some folks who leave the Church might resist - and even resent - members of their former community of faith reaching out to them in a "lost sheep" kind of way?  And might those members may also need some time and space to process and re-evaluate the nature and character of their ongoing (if any) relationship with this guy?

I understand your point. Surely the fellow had a few close friends.  Maybe one could reach out to gauge where he is at.  Who knows?

 

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

Absent a shared interest in, and appreciation of, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and of the Restored Gospel that it houses, these folks will need to find some alternative basis, some other common ground, upon which to create a new relationship. 

So members of a ward are only friends based on a shared interest in Mormonism?

 

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

Given the "scorched earth" things he has said and done on social media regarding the Church and its members, their immediately treating him like a "lost sheep," hoping to persuade him to return to the fold, may well be seen as insulting, presumptuous, provocative, etc. 

 

One does not know till one asks. I only had one person other then very close friends who I was open with along my faith journey ask me what was going on. And I was not hostile. And it took that person a year or so. After that, a couple years later a new bishop stopped by. Since then, nothing.   

 

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

So that leaves . . . what?  A generalized desire to be friends based on . . . what?  Shared interests/values are gone.

If the only reason you are friends with members in your wards is because of your share interest in the church your friendship is pretty shallow.  Granted, one won't be close friends to every member of the ward. But I would think one would have more to be friends about then being Latter Day Saints.

 

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

  Whatever goodwill may have existed previously has likely been marred by his public disparagements of his fellow Latter-day Saints as "brainwashed," of their sacred beliefs being "garbage" and "in the bottomless pit of hell," and all of this coming after be used deceit and subterfuge to misappropriate the Church's meeting and sacred convocation.

So? And I wonder how many of his ward members have really seen that videos.  

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

As I said before, perhaps a bit of space and time is what is needed here.  That does not mean the Latter-day Saints only care about ministering to lost sheep who are "nice."  Rather, it may well be the most compassionate and sensible course of action.  Give this guy a chance to calm down, to let his emotions - particularly his anger - dissipate a bit.  There are some folks who manage to harbor resentments against the Church and/or its leaders,, even hard and visceral ones, for a long time.  Years even.  And during that time they may construe a "lost sheep" approach as condescending and/or disrespectful.  Others, however, allow hard feelings to mellow and fade with the passage of time.  Perhaps "reaching out" is most effective when human nature and individual circumstances are taken into account.

Well one never knows till someone asks. Surely there may be one or two ward members who could do a check in.  Then go from there.

 

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

By this guy's current reckoning, Latter-day Saints are "brainwashed," their beliefs are "garbage" and "in the bottomless pit of hell."  He is publicly talking about literally burning books.

Doesn't this strike you as indicative of him being "openly hostile"?

I said that already. That this fellow seems angry and hostile to some extent.

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

And regarding their sacred and cherished beliefs, he might be of a mind to say to them what he has elsewhere said publicly about such things.

Oh my goodness. So because he might say something to hurt a members tender feelings they should just ignore him. Got it. Don't seek out the lost sheep if they might say some words that hurts your feelings. 

Really your efforts to find reasons to ignore a lost sheep are quite humorous.

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

I went through this experience a few years back.  A dear friend, formerly strongly devoted to the Church, spent hours ripping the Church, its leaders, its doctrines, its history, its members, the whole nine yards.  His perspective was that the only people who stay in the Church are A) the profoundly ignorant (who are unaware of "the truth" about the Church) and B) the profoundly dishonest (who are aware of, but don't care about, "the truth").  It was a challenging discussion, and that was many many months after his estrangement from the Church arose.

Yes, the Latter-day Saints need to "reach out," but this guy also needs to demonstrate some minimal level of civility regarding their beliefs.  So far he ain't doing well.

Thanks,

-Smac

Jesus did  not say to find the lost sheep only if they are nice to you. I get that it is hard. Especially if he is hostile. Were I an LDS friend of his I would at least give him a call and try to sit down to see what is going on.  Both that is just me. In my active days as an EQ president, a ward mission leader, a bishopric councilor and a bishop I had plenty of times I reached out to in active members and was met with hostility. At times it led to notation of "do not contact" and other times a door was opened for at least a home teacher visit. 

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, Amulek said:

No, you are the one who thinks that "nearly everyone in the ward" needs to keep interacting with a guy who no longer attends church meetings or church activities, so you tell me - what on earth would the Saints in Mississippi need to be doing to satisfy that expectation in your view?

Nope.  Straw man. I never said that.

This is quite hilarious really. Such defensiveness on the subject. I never said what you say above. Try reading what I said and responding to that.

 

13 hours ago, Amulek said:

 

Okay, so I'm just going to come out and say it: That sucks.

Yea straw man arguments usually suck.  Yours does.

 

13 hours ago, Amulek said:

And I'm sorry that has been your experience. If you were in my ward you would have a minister. The only people who don't have assigned ministers are those who have requested no contact from the church. And even then, they are technically assigned a minister - it just happens to be the EQ President; he keeps them all organized in a separate district with himself as their minister, and we honor their wishes (though I think he may send Christmas cards - not with any sort of invite or anything, just a good old fashioned Merry Christmas!).

My wife and I are the assigned ministers for a neighbor of ours who has left the church (but who is still technically a member), and we get along just fine. If I were a betting man, I would put good money on them never coming back into activity. And in some ways that probably makes it easier to just be their friends. And if the church thing ever comes up in the future then I suppose we'll cross that bridge when we get there. I'm really not too worried about it though.

 

Seeking after lost sheep and disaffected  members is hard work. I get that.  In my case I made it easy and said I would welcome an visit or contact here and there.  But...crickets.  Other than a couple close friends who are not members I have little contact. There a couple of couples in the ward who we used to do a lot with. The only times we have  gotten together over the past number of years is when we initiated it.

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, california boy said:

I am not really interested in this whole vilification of this former bishop.  I think if members find that comment so appalling then feel free to never talk to the person again.   I only wanted to share that members don't need other reasons like finding something someone said as a reason to never talk to him again.  

I also learned long ago that I could let what other people do to me to control my behavior towards them, or I can choose to decide for myself, despite what the other person does how I want to treat them.

Why is it vilifying the ex member to speak about their bad actions after leaving but just honesty when you speak about the members bad actions after you left?

You want the freedom to judge the actions of members without condemnation while feeling justified condemning members for judging the actions of an ex member.  This is the double standard I was speaking about on that one post.

Edited January 23, 2024 by bluebell

[Teancum]

On 1/19/2024 at 10:35 AM, smac97 said:

There may be very rare exceptions to the rule here and there, but overwhelmingly our missionaries share our beliefs and issue invitations to join us based on those beliefs.  Tearing down prospective members' existing system of belief just isn't what we do.  As Pres. Hinckley so eloquently put it: "Let me say that we appreciate the truth in all churches and the good which they do. We say to the people, in effect, you bring with you all the good that you have, and then let us see if we can add to it. That is the spirit of this work. That is the essence of our missionary service."  

Oh come on. President Hinckley was just playing nice. Sure, bring your good and take the additions we have, but this may require you to jettison false beliefs.  The message the missionaries preach is that the Church is THE Church of Jesus Christ. All others lack authority to administer the saving ordinances.  None have prophets and apostles.  Christianity is in apostacy. We have all the fixed. For an active believing Catholic to become a Latter day Saint they pretty much are going to have to give up a lot of their beliefs.  That is tearing down something and replacing it with something else.

[Stormin' Mormon]

37 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Oh come on. President Hinckley was just playing nice. Sure, bring your good and take the additions we have, but this may require you to jettison false beliefs.  The message the missionaries preach is that the Church is THE Church of Jesus Christ. All others lack authority to administer the saving ordinances.  None have prophets and apostles.  Christianity is in apostacy. We have all the fixed. For an active believing Catholic to become a Latter day Saint they pretty much are going to have to give up a lot of their beliefs.  That is tearing down something and replacing it with something else.

In my experience (and this may have changed in the 25+ years since I was a missionary), the LDS missionary message isn't so much as "here are some new beliefs that you should embrace," but rather "here's a methodology you can use to find out for yourself if our beliefs are true."  We didn't use proof texts or logic or biblical exegesis to manipulate investigators into the font.  We bore testimony, explained how to pray and receive answers, and then...admittedly got a little pushy about insisting that the investigator actually pray about our message. 

I know that the soft-sell approach was much appreciated by a number of people I baptized, and they would be hard-pressed to characterize such an approach as "tearing down beliefs."  

[california boy]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

I had not read the post where you went into detail on the relationship, but this was a sincere question that I believe people should use when thinking about the loss of any relationship, whether due to loss of their shared interests, loss of proximity (a lot of people have great difficulty maintaining long distance relationships, especially if not into written correspondence), changes in life situations (more kids means less time and energy for friendship nurturing, chronic illness restricts what shared activities can happen).  I think people have a lot of guilt and confusion and anger over loss friendships when they shouldn’t.  My best friend in high school and through college which I thought would be for life (a nonmember who even came to BYU to study) could not maintain the same sense of closeness once I married though for me it didn’t seem like it need change anything as at that point it was a long distance relationship and we were just writing letters to each other.  We held on until she married and had a child (both were a surprise to me) and then suddenly the letters went to straight chit chat….like I cared about that.  That letter was honestly like she had slapped me, I had a very physical reaction to it.  She had stopped sharing who she really was with me.  Took me awhile to understand but she was someone who was very all in and she likely needed that with her husband and child.  Still have a lot of sorrow and anger surrounding that relationship, both for her not trying to be open about what was going on with her and for me giving up rather than trying to find something new and casual we could share.

My understanding is it is not just whether or not the spouse comes along, it’s other factors as well such as a single being able to have a more flexible schedule usually because they only have their own activities to track or a partner’s willingness for them to invest a lot of resources and attention to something they don’t see as contributing to the relationship/family…the spouses also being at least friends if not as involved helps, but I am too lazy to dig up references tonight, sorry.

Yeah I get all of that.  And like most people, I have had similar experiences in life as you.  I am the first to admit that I don't do a good job of keeping in touch with people that are important in my life.  But honestly, this was different.  It was so abrupt and so universal. There was no fading away.  Usually with friends that I have lost contact with, I still always feel a connection with even if it has been literally years since I have seen them or heard from them.  Just this morning, I got an email from a guy I met while sailing the Greek Islands.  Out of no where, he sends me a note, just to reminisce about the fun we had together and that he missed seeing me.  I don't need daily contact or even regular contact to know that they are still friends even though we aren't physically close to each other any longer.  I think most people can tell the difference between relationships fading and changing to abrupt cutting off of that friendship.

This is just my experience.  I am sure a lot of this had to do with the time this all happened.  The feedback I got at the time is that they didn't want to do anything that might be perceived that they approved of me being gay.  I think people in general feel differently about that now, and maybe things would have turned out differently if we were all in a different place than we were back then.  I also think that since then, many have experienced close relatives and loved ones who have left the Church for other reasons, and they have learned to love them anyway.  I know that has helped soften my family towards me.  

Anyway, it is what it is.  Some people would be willing to cut a friend off immediately if they made any kind of disparaging comment about them or their Church.  Others may understand that sometimes comments come from a place of hurt and anger and are not always exactly how the person feels.  They can get past that and move on.  It is why there isn't some black and white answer over how much this bishop should be villianized for statements he has made.  We all have different levels of compassion and understanding.  And this bishop should also realize that it has only been a couple of weeks since this all happened. Way too early to judge how the ward may or may not treat him over time. I'm sure a lot of them are a big shell shocked over this whole event.  We should all be giving both the ward and this bishop more time before judging them over what they should or should not be doing.

[california boy]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

General thought cb’s comment triggered….

I hate billboards, they ruin many a drive that could otherwise be pleasant.  I see missionaries knocking on doors as no more intrusive in my headspace, maybe even less because I can turn my back on them and send them away, but if I am driving I am always going to be aware of billboards because I can’t close my eyes and focusing on the road gets too hypnotic for me so my eyes must travel across the landscape at least some and text grabs my attention, a very deep programming that is never going to change since I am constantly rewarded by many things even if also punished by things less attractive and interesting like billboards.  It was much more fun and relaxing driving in Canada with its much fewer billboards (and better roads).  So many reasons after crossing the border I relaxed.

This is just to say there are tons of things in our environment that we have to train ourselves not to waste mental and emotional energy on.  I could fume every time I get in the car knowing I am about to be subjected to the onslaught.  Or I could just deal with the unpleasantness by turning on music if alone or having a fun conversation so even if the surroundings aren’t attractive, I am still enjoying myself.

If you have the time and resources to meaningfully actively campaign against something (like me sending letters to representatives and encouraging others who feel likewise to do so) and not just pound your head against a wall where no one notices you (as in me whining about the billboards every time I get in the car or worse going online to do so, thus subjecting myself to even more of their intrusion in my life than is necessary), I think you (generally speaking here) should go for it.  Otherwise why create useless negative drama for yourself about it, the universe has enough of that.  Focus on the good stuff.  A small attractive sign will resolve the issue of people knocking on your door and you can use that mental energy for something that makes you happy.  Why waste even more time and energy complaining about it where nothing changes, except perhaps increasing frustration and bitterness.

THIS!

[california boy]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

Is it vilifying when you pay attention to actual behaviour and not invent or over dramatize it?

But is it fair to assume it’s the members’ fault and blame them as the guilty party, that they all will automatically be the ones dropping off the friendship just because some members do when there is another solid and understandable reason they might feel uncomfortable being around this particular person?

Being aware of bad behaviour on one person’s part doesn’t mean one is giving a pass for bad behaviour on another’s…it is paying attention to context rather than depending on stereotypes for judgment.

I think it is vilifying when people jump all over someone and judge every single word they might say like "brainwashing" as an excuse to judge someone they don't even know or have any idea what that person is really like or don't take into account that words are often said in anger.

And YES, the same needs to be said about how everyone wants to judge an entire ward for being guilty of not handling the situation perfectly.  Everyone needs to calm down, take a step back.  Time might tell a very different story for both groups.  I personally don't believe that every single member of the ward had the exact same reaction to what happened.  Some might have been very offended that the bishop made remarks over the pulpit.  Others might feel it was appropriate and that he has earned the right to present his reasons for leaving to everyone all at once rather than have his departure driven by speculation and gossip.  

[Vanguard]

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

Anyway, it is what it is.  Some people would be willing to cut a friend off immediately if they made any kind of disparaging comment about them or their Church.  Others may understand that sometimes comments come from a place of hurt and anger and are not always exactly how the person feels.  They can get past that and move on.  It is why there isn't some black and white answer over how much this bishop should be villianized for statements he has made.  We all have different levels of compassion and understanding.  And this bishop should also realize that it has only been a couple of weeks since this all happened. Way too early to judge how the ward may or may not treat him over time. I'm sure a lot of them are a big shell shocked over this whole event.  We should all be giving both the ward and this bishop more time before judging them over what they should or should not be doing.

I appreciate the commentary from your whole post and especially this paragraph. Your comment "Others may understand that sometimes comments come from a place of hurt and anger and are not always exactly how the person feel" could be followed up with "Those who leave the church abruptly may understand that some members (and especially close member friends) come from a place of hurt and anger and are confused about how or whether they should even reach out at all to the former member". There is definitely hurt all around.

I feel bad for the former bishop. I did not find any great offense in his commentary at the pulpit though I do not think that was the proper forum for this and for more than one reason. It's a 'vicarious hurt' I go through when I listen to his commentary on social media platforms about what he now thinks of the church. I can imagine I would be reluctant to reach out if I knew him. The combination of his disdain and the fact that he was a bishop makes it an even harder situation. Yes, I'm sure he's hurting but those comments said in a public forum are hurtful even to me who does not know him. I suspect we'll be hearing from him again and I fear it will be more of the same. : ( It reminds me of the board's earlier exchanges re: Tyler Glenn from Neon Trees. It must be horrifically difficult to go through what he went through but I remember not appreciating the artistic license he took regards to the church after his departure. Everybody hurts (REM?). We would all do well to remember this and not pigeon hole those leaving as malicious malcontents who only want to tear down the church or those who remain as 'lip service members' who aren't honoring the mandate to seek out lost sheep wherever they be. : (    

[california boy]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Why is it vilifying the ex member to speak about their bad actions after leaving but just honesty when you speak about the members bad actions after you left?

You want the freedom to judge the actions of members without condemnation while feeling justified condemning members for judging the actions of an ex member.  This is the double standard I was speaking about on that one post.

Can you point to anything in my post where I vilified the members of the ward?  Is all I said was"I only wanted to share that members don't need other reasons like finding something someone said as a reason to never talk to him again."  

Do you think people need to find some horrible thing someone has said before they will sever that relationship with the bishop?  Or is it possible they might be so hurt/angry/betrayed/whatever, that he is leaving the Church is enough for them to server that relationship.  I never made some dramatic exit or public postings.  It didn't change the end result of members no longer having any contact with me.  

[california boy]

17 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

I appreciate the commentary from your whole post and especially this paragraph. Your comment "Others may understand that sometimes comments come from a place of hurt and anger and are not always exactly how the person feel" could be followed up with "Those who leave the church abruptly may understand that some members (and especially close member friends) come from a place of hurt and anger and are confused about how or whether they should even reach out at all to the former member". There is definitely hurt all around.

I feel bad for the former bishop. I did not find any great offense in his commentary at the pulpit though I do not think that was the proper forum for this and for more than one reason. It's a 'vicarious hurt' I go through when I listen to his commentary on social media platforms about what he now thinks of the church. I can imagine I would be reluctant to reach out if I knew him. The combination of his disdain and the fact that he was a bishop makes it an even harder situation. Yes, I'm sure he's hurting but those comments said in a public forum are hurtful even to me who does not know him. I suspect we'll be hearing from him again and I fear it will be more of the same. : ( It reminds me of the board's earlier exchanges re: Tyler Glenn from Neon Trees. It must be horrifically difficult to go through what he went through but I remember not appreciating the artistic license he took regards to the church after his departure. Everybody hurts (REM?). We would all do well to remember this and not pigeon hole those leaving as malicious malcontents who only want to tear down the church or those who remain as 'lip service members' who aren't honoring the mandate to seek out lost sheep wherever they be. : (    

I totally agree with everything you said.  Anger and hurt rarely brings out the best in us on how we respond on both sides of this issue.  

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

16 hours ago, Amulek said:

No, you are the one who thinks that "nearly everyone in the ward" needs to keep interacting with a guy who no longer attends church meetings or church activities, so you tell me - what on earth would the Saints in Mississippi need to be doing to satisfy that expectation in your view?

Nope.  Straw man. I never said that.

This is quite hilarious really. Such defensiveness on the subject. I never said what you say above. Try reading what I said and responding to that.

I've been reading just fine. Let's recap, shall we?

Back on Page 4, I responded to Diamandhands69 as follows:

Quote

On 1/16/2024 at 11:26 PM, Diamondhands69 said:

He also said the bishop said nearly everyone in the ward has stopped interacting with him. He said it was like the ward disappeared overnight.

I remember breaking up with this girl in high school because I was interested in dating someone else. Strangely, when I left her for that other girl, it was like my ex-girlfriend suddenly stopped interacting with me - almost as though she disappeared overnight. Weird, right?

Interesting fact (not about ex-girlfriend(s)): the bishop in my current ward lives down the street from me, just over a block away. Now, maybe that's a common thing in Utah or other places with large LDS populations, but it's certainly not the norm here in Texas. Anyway, I want to say that, in the last five years, I've had no more than one or two interactions with him outside of church. Don't get me wrong, I like the guy (and his family) - it's just that we're not close personal friends. If he were to resign and stop attending church / church functions, he would effectively disappear from my life - even though I would continue to interact with him the exact same amount as I did before.

 

You omitted my winky emoji (shame on you), left out the second paragraph, ignored my other comments on the subject in subsequent posts, and responded as follows:

On 1/21/2024 at 12:19 PM, Teancum said:

Quote

I remember breaking up with this girl in high school because I was interested in dating someone else. Strangely, when I left her for that other girl, it was like my ex-girlfriend suddenly stopped interacting with me - almost as though she disappeared overnight. Weird, right?

So what you are saying is that the ideal of seeking out the lost sheep is just lip service apparently.

 

Since that is neither what I was saying, nor what I was originally responding to, I attempted to correct you and replied as follows:

21 hours ago, Amulek said:

No, what I was commenting on was the former bishop's alleged complaint that, after leaving the church, nearly everyone in the ward stopped interacting with him.

What on earth do you think interaction from "nearly everyone in the ward" ought to look like for someone who no longer attends ward meetings or other church functions? And where, pray tell, do you think these interactions ought to be taking place?

 

To which, you quoted me and replied:

18 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

No, what I was commenting on was the former bishop's alleged complaint that, after leaving the church, nearly everyone in the ward stopped interacting with him.

What on earth do you think interaction from "nearly everyone in the ward" ought to look like for someone who no longer attends ward meetings or other church functions? And where, pray tell, do you think these interactions ought to be taking place?

I have no idea. It it in the sacred books of the religion you claim to believe.  You tell me. [...]

However, the sacred books of the religion I "claim to believe" (classy dig there, by the way) say nothing about nearly everyone from a congregation needing to interact with someone after they leave their faith community.

You see what I was talking about there, right? Not some generalized conceptualization of seeking the lost sheep, but about how this particular bishop was complaining about how nearly everyone from his ward stopped interacting with him after he left the church. And I don't see how you couldn't understand that I was talking about that specific situation because it's literally what you quoted and chose to respond to.

So, no, if you think ward-wide interaction is still expected whenever someone leaves the church, then you don't get to just throw that back in my face and say, 'well, you tell me.'

Which is why I responded as I did and said, "No, you are the one who thinks that 'nearly everyone in the ward' needs to keep interacting with a guy who no longer attends church meetings or church activities, so you tell me - what on earth would the Saints in Mississippi need to be doing to satisfy that expectation in your view?"

Which now brings us back, full circle, to your accusation that I was employing a straw man argument and that I should "[try] reading what I said and responding to that."

You see, I have been reading what you said. It seems, however, that you haven't really been doing the same.

If you don't want to actually engage with me and, instead, merely want to use my comments as a segue for your complaints about the church, feel free to have at it. Next time, however, maybe just stick with your complaints and leave me out of it.

 

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

16 hours ago, Amulek said:

Okay, so I'm just going to come out and say it: That sucks.

Yea straw man arguments usually suck.  Yours does.

So, when I express empathy at the way you have been treated by former friends after leaving the church you decide to take that quote out of context and use it as a springboard for a dig against me?

Wow. Just...wow.

 

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Seeking after lost sheep and disaffected  members is hard work. I get that.  In my case I made it easy and said I would welcome an visit or contact here and there.  But...crickets.  Other than a couple close friends who are not members I have little contact. There a couple of couples in the ward who we used to do a lot with. The only times we have  gotten together over the past number of years is when we initiated it.

I don't know what to tell you man. Out of sight - out of mind. Not saying that it ought to be that way, but that's just how it is for a lot of people.

Like I said, I'm sorry that's been your experience. I know plenty of inactive / former members from my current ward who still get along just fine with the ward members they used to be friends with. I recognize that isn't always the case, and maybe it won't always be that way even for you. And if it doesn't, well, you could always consider moving to Zion (a.k.a., Texas) instead.

 

[Amulek]

16 hours ago, california boy said:

I would think if they were really friends, it wouldn't matter whether I was still a member of the Church.  They would still want to go on bike rides with me, skiing, sailing, movies, maybe check in on me if I was sick, all the things we did before I left the Church.  Is that a crazy expectation?  

I don't think so. I've had experiences with friends leaving the church ever since I was a teenager. It's never really bothered me. Don't get me wrong, I still think most of them ought to have remained in the church, but I liked them all just the same.

 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, teddyaware said:

This thread is doing a good job of demonstrating why it’s unrealistic to think bitter former members of the church and faithful current members could ever be friends. 

They can be the same way staunch Democrats and Republicans can be friends, avoid talking about whatever causes extreme disagreements.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Quote

There may be very rare exceptions to the rule here and there, but overwhelmingly our missionaries share our beliefs and issue invitations to join us based on those beliefs.  Tearing down prospective members' existing system of belief just isn't what we do.  As Pres. Hinckley so eloquently put it: "Let me say that we appreciate the truth in all churches and the good which they do. We say to the people, in effect, you bring with you all the good that you have, and then let us see if we can add to it. That is the spirit of this work. That is the essence of our missionary service."  

Oh come on. President Hinckley was just playing nice.

He was accurately characterizing the missionary and proselytizing program and objectives of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Sure, bring your good and take the additions we have, but this may require you to jettison false beliefs. 

Yes, converts may need to abandon not only some beliefs, but also practices and behaviors that are incompatible with discipleship.

My father served his mission in Argentina, and he said many converts there struggled to set aside some aspects of machismo-related sexual conduct (marital infidelity, sex outside of marriage, domestic violence, etc.).  These are "false beliefs" that converts just "jettison."  Can I assume you do not find this problematic?

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

The message the missionaries preach is that the Church is THE Church of Jesus Christ.

Yes.

The message is not that we are the sole receptacles and sources of good and truth and light from God.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

All others lack authority to administer the saving ordinances. 

Yes.  At some point, every religious group ends up advancing exclusivistic truth claims.  So unless you are faulting all such claims from all other religious groups, this complaint lacks probative weight and value.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

None have prophets and apostles. 

AFAIK, few other Christian sects claim to "have prophets and apostles."

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Christianity is in apostacy. We have all the fixed.

Not sure what this means.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

For an active believing Catholic to become a Latter day Saint they pretty much are going to have to give up a lot of their beliefs. 

They can retain far more than they have to give up.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

That is tearing down something and replacing it with something else.

I respectfully disagree.  It is building, renovating and improving on what the individual already has.  Nobody joins the Church with a "blank slate" of morals, beliefs, behaviors, etc., and many of those are fully or partially compatible with living as a Latter-day Saint.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

I don't think so. I've had experiences with friends leaving the church ever since I was a teenager. It's never really bothered me. Don't get me wrong, I still think most of them ought to have remained in the church, but I liked them all just the same.

For the most part, this has been my experience as well.  The exception is the difficulty in maintaining cordiality with someone who goes out of his or her way to express contempt, disrespect, denigration, etc. of the Church as part of the relationship.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

On 1/22/2024 at 12:27 AM, Duncan said:

The hypocrisy of Dehlin and others like him, they want the church to comment on the issues, the membership to know about these issues then the church comes out with something and they don't like it. Well, Dehlin is going bellyup anyways so his opinion is garbage anyways

Dehlin is going belly up?  Really?  When is this happening?  

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

In my experience (and this may have changed in the 25+ years since I was a missionary), the LDS missionary message isn't so much as "here are some new beliefs that you should embrace," but rather "here's a methodology you can use to find out for yourself if our beliefs are true."  We didn't use proof texts or logic or biblical exegesis to manipulate investigators into the font.  We bore testimony, explained how to pray and receive answers, and then...admittedly got a little pushy about insisting that the investigator actually pray about our message. 

I know that the soft-sell approach was much appreciated by a number of people I baptized, and they would be hard-pressed to characterize such an approach as "tearing down beliefs."  

If they had religious practices before their conversion did they continue them?  If they were Catholic before did they continue to partake of Catholic communion?  Attend Mass?  Do the bit with the Rosary?  Except the orthodox Christian creeds?  If no, you helped to tear down their beliefs.  Say it any way that makes you feel better I guess. Heck I baptized almost 50 people and a number of them were quite faithful in another religion. We taught the message of a FV and told them all Church's were wrong and that Mormonism had the truth. 

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

I've been reading just fine. Let's recap, shall we?

Back on Page 4, I responded to Diamandhands69 as follows:

 

You omitted my winky emoji (shame on you), left out the second paragraph, ignored my other comments on the subject in subsequent posts, and responded as follows:

 

Since that is neither what I was saying, nor what I was originally responding to, I attempted to correct you and replied as follows:

 

To which, you quoted me and replied:

However, the sacred books of the religion I "claim to believe" (classy dig there, by the way) say nothing about nearly everyone from a congregation needing to interact with someone after they leave their faith community.

You see what I was talking about there, right? Not some generalized conceptualization of seeking the lost sheep, but about how this particular bishop was complaining about how nearly everyone from his ward stopped interacting with him after he left the church. And I don't see how you couldn't understand that I was talking about that specific situation because it's literally what you quoted and chose to respond to.

So, no, if you think ward-wide interaction is still expected whenever someone leaves the church, then you don't get to just throw that back in my face and say, 'well, you tell me.'

Which is why I responded as I did and said, "No, you are the one who thinks that 'nearly everyone in the ward' needs to keep interacting with a guy who no longer attends church meetings or church activities, so you tell me - what on earth would the Saints in Mississippi need to be doing to satisfy that expectation in your view?"

Which now brings us back, full circle, to your accusation that I was employing a straw man argument and that I should "[try] reading what I said and responding to that."

You see, I have been reading what you said. It seems, however, that you haven't really been doing the same.

If you don't want to actually engage with me and, instead, merely want to use my comments as a segue for your complaints about the church, feel free to have at it. Next time, however, maybe just stick with your complaints and leave me out of it.

 

So, when I express empathy at the way you have been treated by former friends after leaving the church you decide to take that quote out of context and use it as a springboard for a dig against me?

Wow. Just...wow.

 

I don't know what to tell you man. Out of sight - out of mind. Not saying that it ought to be that way, but that's just how it is for a lot of people.

Like I said, I'm sorry that's been your experience. I know plenty of inactive / former members from my current ward who still get along just fine with the ward members they used to be friends with. I recognize that isn't always the case, and maybe it won't always be that way even for you. And if it doesn't, well, you could always consider moving to Zion (a.k.a., Texas) instead.

 

Well ok then.  Apologies for misunderstanding you.  By the way I am not crying in my cheerios over lack of contact from my ward.  I should disclose the sister missionaries have stopped a few times recently but we keep missing each other. Last time I was in outside at the back of my property and I heard my dogs give their "someone is here" bark.  We have a large property and by the time I got back into the house and went to the door they had just got into their car which for some reason they parked it up the road a bit (we live rural).  I tried to wave at them and invite them in but they did not see me.  

Look I know going after lost sheep have lots of situations and factors that impact how to go about it.  It is hard in the best of circumstances.  Having attempted it many, many times when active I realize it can be hard, discouraging and time consuming with often little to know positive results from the believers stand point.

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

This thread is doing a good job of demonstrating why it’s unrealistic to think bitter former members of the church and faithful current members could ever be friends. 

They can be the same way staunch Democrats and Republicans can be friends, avoid talking about whatever causes extreme disagreements.

Or else be willing to talk about disagreements in an environment of mutual respect and civility.

We will always have a "Birds of a Feather" component to our voluntary associations with each other, but I think some segments of our society have gone too far down the road of "Either you agree with me or you're a terrible person to be shunned and avoided"-style tribalism.  I think this is most visible in the areas of A) political affiliation/ideology, B) religious affiliation/ideology, C) LGBT issues, and D) environmentalist issues.

I have a brother-in-law who is deeply passionate about movies, whereas I have more of a passing interest and a "it's mostly just entertainment" attitude.  We get along fine, though, because our relationship is not built on shared interest in movies, and because there isn't any sense of need or urgency for either of us to alter our perspectives on this topic.

I have a neighbor who is heavily involved in barbecue.  Conversely, the neighbor has no interest in my hobby of freeze drying food.  Again, we get along fine because we have other shared interests, and because neither of us feels any need to alter the other's perspective.

In contrast, I have a relative who is very vocal in her political ideology and beliefs, and who is ardent in her desire to talk about political issues.  However, she can't seem to have a discussion in which she allows reasonable minds to disagree.  Conversations with her almost always go from generic topics to political ones, and from the political to the partisan, and from the partisan to moral judgments and condemnations.  On political matters, it's her way or the highway.  So I mostly avoid her.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 23, 2024 by smac97

[Teancum]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

He was accurately characterizing the missionary and proselytizing program and objectives of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Yes, converts may need to abandon not only some beliefs, but also practices and behaviors that are incompatible with discipleship.

My father served his mission in Argentina, and he said many converts there struggled to set aside some aspects of machismo-related sexual conduct (marital infidelity, sex outside of marriage, domestic violence, etc.).  These are "false beliefs" that converts just "jettison."  Can I assume you do not find this problematic?

Yes.

The message is not that we are the sole receptacles and sources of good and truth and light from God.

Yes.  At some point, every religious group ends up advancing exclusivistic truth claims.  So unless you are faulting all such claims from all other religious groups, this complaint lacks probative weight and value.

AFAIK, few other Christian sects claim to "have prophets and apostles."

Not sure what this means.

Typo again. Sorry.  I meant the message is Christianity is in apostacy and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have fixed all that.  

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

They can retain far more than they have to give up.

I respectfully disagree.  It is building, renovating and improving on what the individual already has.  Nobody joins the Church with a "blank slate" of morals, beliefs, behaviors, etc., and many of those are fully or partially compatible with living as a Latter-day Saint.

Thanks,

-Smac

See my comment to @Amulek  A convert gives up quite a lot especially if they were practicing another faith tradition.  Call it what you want.  The church wins converts often at the expense of then jettisoning religious many traditions they once believed. 

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

In my experience (and this may have changed in the 25+ years since I was a missionary), the LDS missionary message isn't so much as "here are some new beliefs that you should embrace," but rather "here's a methodology you can use to find out for yourself if our beliefs are true."  We didn't use proof texts or logic or biblical exegesis to manipulate investigators into the font.  We bore testimony, explained how to pray and receive answers, and then...admittedly got a little pushy about insisting that the investigator actually pray about our message. 

I know that the soft-sell approach was much appreciated by a number of people I baptized, and they would be hard-pressed to characterize such an approach as "tearing down beliefs."  

If they had religious practices before their conversion did they continue them? 

Some, certainly.  Observance of holidays, for example.

10 minutes ago, Teancum said:

If they were Catholic before did they continue to partake of Catholic communion? 

Likely not.  But they do take the Sacrament.

10 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Attend Mass? 

Likely not.  But they do attend services on Sunday.

10 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Do the bit with the Rosary? 

I assume "the bit" is a reference to this:

Quote

The Rosary^[1] (/ˈroʊzəri/; Latin: rosarium, in the sense of "crown of roses" or "garland of roses"),^[2] also known as the Dominican Rosary^[3][4] (as distinct from other forms of rosary such as the Franciscan Crown, Bridgettine Rosary, Rosary of the Holy Wounds, etc.), refers to a set of prayers used primarily in the Catholic Church, and to the physical string of knots or beads used to count the component prayers. When referring to the prayer, the word is usually capitalized ("the Rosary", as is customary for other names of prayers, such as "the Lord's Prayer", and "the Hail Mary"); when referring to the prayer beads as an object, it is written with a lower-case initial letter (e.g. "a rosary bead").

So, likely not.  But they do continue to pray in many other ways and venues.

10 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Except the orthodox Christian creeds? 

Likely not.  But they do accept sacred writings in addition to the Bible.

Meanwhile, do Latter-day Saints and Catholics both have faith in Jesus Christ?  That He died for our sins?   That He called and appointed apostles anciently, and that they led the ancient church He organized?  Do they believe in sacred ordinances officiated by those with "priesthood" authority?  Do they believe discipleship involves faith, repentance, obedience, service to others, personal sacrifice, work, creating and participating in communities of faith, etc.?

10 minutes ago, Teancum said:

If no, you helped to tear down their beliefs. 

Some beliefs and behaviors need to be supplanted, yes.  Most converts, however, have ample beliefs and behaviors that ought not be torn down, but rather strengthened, modified and improved upon.  Many converts bring with them beliefs and behaviors that can and ought to be applied by the Latter-day Saints.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

44 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Typo again. Sorry.  I meant the message is Christianity is in apostacy and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have fixed all that.  

"Apostasy" as in . . . what?  What do you think this means?

"Apostasy" in the context used by the Church generally refers to the Great Apostasy:

Quote

Following the death of Jesus Christ, wicked people persecuted and killed many Church members. Other Church members drifted from the principles taught by Jesus Christ and His Apostles. The Apostles were killed, and priesthood authority—including the keys to direct and receive revelation for the Church—was taken from the earth. Because the Church was no longer led by priesthood authority, error crept into Church teachings. Good people and much truth remained, but the gospel as established by Jesus Christ was lost. This period is called the Great Apostasy.

This apostasy resulted in the formation of many churches with conflicting teachings. During this time, many men and women sought the truth, but they were unable to find it. Many good people believed in God and Jesus Christ and tried to understand and teach truth, but they did not have the full gospel or priesthood authority. As a result, each generation inherited a state of apostasy as people were influenced by what previous generations passed on, including changes to Christ’s gospel.

Some inspired people, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, recognized that practices and doctrines had been changed or lost. They tried to reform the churches to which they belonged. Without priesthood authority, however, Christ’s gospel could not be returned to its original form. A restoration was needed.

"Good people and much truth remained, but the gospel as established by Jesus Christ was lost."

44 minutes ago, Teancum said:

See my comment to @Amulek  A convert gives up quite a lot especially if they were practicing another faith tradition.  Call it what you want.  The church wins converts often at the expense of then jettisoning religious many traditions they once believed. 

I agree.  Some traditions and beliefs and behaviors, but not all.  There are plenty of good and virtuous traditions, beliefs and behaviors that remain intact and are even strengthened by joining the Church.

The Church seems to enjoy more success in proselytizing in areas with a strong Christian tradition, more so than areas without it.  To me, that indicates that investigators find a lot of commonality and familiarity in terms of what they already believe and what the Church is presenting.  Yes, they may have some beliefs and behaviors that need to be modified or, in some circumstances, entirely set aside when joining the Church.  I would not characterize this as missionaries "tearing down" faith, though.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 23, 2024 by smac97