A better way to talk to/about those who have left the church?

[MrShorty]

Since GC, I have repeatedly returned to Elder S. Mark Palmer's Sat. afternoon talk, "Return Unto Me...That I May Heal You." The theme of the talk was to encourage those who have left the LDS church to return "to your spiritual home." The central part of the talk was talking about a willow tree that blew down in a storm and the efforts to recover the tree rather than cut it up into firewood. The apparent analogy being that those who have left the church are like a blown down tree who need to return to the church in order to be healed.

As much as I appreciated the message of concern for those who have left the church, there were aspects of this talk that didn't sit right with me.

While no analogy is perfect and analogies can be taken too far, I was concerned with the analogy's implication that those who leave the church are a special kind of broken that, if not rehabilitated, means they are only good to be chopped up into firewood. I'm sure some will say that we are all broken in some and need healing, but it often feels like those who leave the church are broken in a different way.

In other contexts, I have seen it said that we often relate to the church and church leaders in a "parent-child" (or other unequal) relationship, and this aspect of the talk seems to perpetuate the same thinking (maybe in more of a "doctor-patient" way). As I have grappled with my own relationship to the church, I often find myself aspiring to a more "peer-peer" relationship where me and the church and the leaders are peers on a spiritual journey. Some of that is trying to heal our brokenness together, but neither of us is more broken than the other. IMO, this is one thing that would improve our communications -- treating those who have left as peers and equals.

The other major thing I saw in this talk was a subtle conflation of the church and the Savior. I especially when he issues his "invitation" to come back to church in the words of the Savior (3 Ne. 9) to return to Him. Particularly when I think of those former LDS who have found new spiritual homes in other Christian churches, I wonder if we really believe that it is necessary for them to return the LDS church in order to return to Christ. Do we believe that people can be healed by Christ in other denominations? Sometimes it seems to me that we absorb (unintentionally?) a certain superiority from our "one true church" rhetoric that can interfere in our conversations with former LDS.

We have people in this group all along the spectrum (from "all-in" LDS to former LDS to never LDS), and I thought I would see if we could talk about the things we already do well and the ways we can improve in our dialogues between LDS and non-LDS.

[bluebell]

I just re-listened to the talk this morning, so it's more fresh in my mind than most of GC.  That doesn't mean that I didn't miss a specific reference to nonmembers somewhere in there.  I listen while I'm doing other things so it wouldn't surprise me if I did. 

Having said that, from my perspective (which isn't to say that your's is wrong, just my initial interpretation of it), it wasn't talking about nonmembers but people who have removed themselves from a relationship with Christ and, and returning I assumed meant to return to Christ and their covenants, rather than return to the church specifically.

Now true, in this context returning to Christ and covenants might also be a call to return to the church (though not all who have left Christ/covenants have actually left the church, so it doesn't have to mean that) but for me the emphasis was on Christ and not the organization.

I'm all for finding better ways to have a relationship with those who have left or were never a part of, the church though.  I do believe that it is necessary for people who have left to return to their baptismal and temple covenants in their journey to become like Christ, I also very much believe that no one has to be a member of this church to return to Him or for Him to be their Savior.

What do you believe is the best way for active members to both hold the truth claims of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (including the 'one true church' claim) and also embrace as equal peers those in other (or no) faith traditions?

 

Edited April 16 by bluebell

[Peacefully]

49 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Since GC, I have repeatedly returned to Elder S. Mark Palmer's Sat. afternoon talk, "Return Unto Me...That I May Heal You." The theme of the talk was to encourage those who have left the LDS church to return "to your spiritual home." The central part of the talk was talking about a willow tree that blew down in a storm and the efforts to recover the tree rather than cut it up into firewood. The apparent analogy being that those who have left the church are like a blown down tree who need to return to the church in order to be healed.

As much as I appreciated the message of concern for those who have left the church, there were aspects of this talk that didn't sit right with me.

While no analogy is perfect and analogies can be taken too far, I was concerned with the analogy's implication that those who leave the church are a special kind of broken that, if not rehabilitated, means they are only good to be chopped up into firewood. I'm sure some will say that we are all broken in some and need healing, but it often feels like those who leave the church are broken in a different way.

In other contexts, I have seen it said that we often relate to the church and church leaders in a "parent-child" (or other unequal) relationship, and this aspect of the talk seems to perpetuate the same thinking (maybe in more of a "doctor-patient" way). As I have grappled with my own relationship to the church, I often find myself aspiring to a more "peer-peer" relationship where me and the church and the leaders are peers on a spiritual journey. Some of that is trying to heal our brokenness together, but neither of us is more broken than the other. IMO, this is one thing that would improve our communications -- treating those who have left as peers and equals.

The other major thing I saw in this talk was a subtle conflation of the church and the Savior. I especially when he issues his "invitation" to come back to church in the words of the Savior (3 Ne. 9) to return to Him. Particularly when I think of those former LDS who have found new spiritual homes in other Christian churches, I wonder if we really believe that it is necessary for them to return the LDS church in order to return to Christ. Do we believe that people can be healed by Christ in other denominations? Sometimes it seems to me that we absorb (unintentionally?) a certain superiority from our "one true church" rhetoric that can interfere in our conversations with former LDS.

We have people in this group all along the spectrum (from "all-in" LDS to former LDS to never LDS), and I thought I would see if we could talk about the things we already do well and the ways we can improve in our dialogues between LDS and non-LDS.

You forget the “not all in” but not out, lol. 

In ward council one time, the leaders were discussing people who left (no names) and said they were probably out there breaking the WOW and doing other “bad” things. I piped up and said we shouldn’t assume that. If I were in the same situation now I would add that I don’t believe drinking coffee, tea or alcohol (responsibly) are “bad” things. It was like they couldn’t imagine people would leave other than they wanted to do break the rules and go wild. As long as people have that holier than thou attitude, there will always be the sense that those who have left are somehow broken.
 

I am still in this church because this is where I find God. I do not believe this is the only place to find Him. I think that He is bigger than that. 

 

We would do well to remember the words of Joseph Smith:

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men [people] the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”

 

Edited April 16 by Peacefully

[manol]

Thank you.

29 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I do believe that it is necessary for people who have left to return to their baptismal and temple covenants in their journey to become like Christ, I also very much believe that no one has to be a member of this church to return to Him or for Him to be their Savior.

I'm trying to understand how the two halves of this sentence do not contradict one another.  Rather than me speculating and probably getting it wrong, can you elaborate?

 

21 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

We would do well to remember the words of Joseph Smith:

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men [people] the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”

Thank  you.

 

 

[MrShorty]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I didn't miss a specific reference to nonmembers somewhere in there.

You didn't, it seemed to me to be a natural extension of the topic, how the ideas we might talk about could also extend to our conversations with nonmembers.

[MrShorty]

1 hour ago, Peacefully said:

You forget the “not all in” but not out, lol. 

I was thinking that the "spectrum of people" in between the different poles might cover those types and various others in between.

[MrShorty]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I do believe that it is necessary for people who have left to return to their baptismal and temple covenants in their journey to become like Christ, I also very much believe that no one has to be a member of this church to return to Him or for Him to be their Savior.

For whatever reason, the first half reminded me of a wise teacher who told a young pupil, "Once you start down [a certain] path, forever will it dominate your destiny." Coupled with the second half, it kind of sounds like, "choose your path and stick with it. It really doesn't matter which path you choose, as long as you make a choice and stick to it."

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

What do you believe is the best way for active members to both hold the truth claims of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (including the 'one true church' claim) and also embrace as equal peers those in other (or no) faith traditions?

I don't know. On one hand, it seems difficult to broadcast a "we are the only true church" confidence in a way that also says, "your church is also...what? good? true? adequate? tolerable?" Maybe we need a more nuanced look at what "true" means. As my own faith in God's ability to redeem people through Christ has evolved, I have come to believe (like most LDS, I think) that God knows how to redeem everyone from every faith tradition (including those who have deconverted from the LDS church). At that point, is it really important to emphasize our "one true church" claim, if all will have a fair chance at redemption no matter what they believed or didn't believe?

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

but for me the emphasis was on Christ and not the organization.

Perhaps you are right, I think it depends on what we believe is going on beneath the surface meaning of words. Yes, the surface meaning of the words Elder Palmer used was to emphasize coming to Christ and not the church. Do you think if you polled a random collection of LDS, they would impute a generic, "he was encouraging all former Christians to return some kind of participation in their favorite Christian denomination" to his words? Or do you think typical LDS would be more likely to agree that, "he was encouraging former Christians to participate with the LDS church to increase their faith in Christ?" Part of me likes the idea of encouraging people to find any church to participate in without worrying about which church they choose. Perhaps one improvement in our discourse could be to be more explicit about that kind of meaning when that is what we mean. If we want people to find a church, make it more clear that we are talking about any church (including our own, if the LDS church tickles someone's fancy).

As I said, it sometimes seems to me that we often conflate "the church" and "the gospel" and "Christ" as if they are kind of the same thing. Perhaps one thing we could do is to clarify the conflation somewhat.

[MrShorty]

2 hours ago, Peacefully said:

As long as people have that holier than thou attitude, there will always be the sense that those who have left are somehow broken.

And there will be those among the former LDS who pick up on that holier than thou attitude and find it off-putting. I think this is why I think it would be helpful to find some way to truly see ourselves as peers and equals with those who have left (or never joined or never really heard of the church). In some ways, this makes my more cynical side say that the talk wasn't really given to those who have left. The emphasis on the brokenness of former members was really a message for the current all-in membership to make them feel good about their choices to stay active and believing.

Maybe part of what I think would help is simply being aware of some of these things. Do we have a subtle holier than thou attitude in relation to former LDS? If so why? If not, why do we get accused of being holier than thou? What can we do to both encourage a sense of equality within ourselves and help others feel that we see them as peers and equals?

I think this inequality is part of the problem, but I don't really know how to make it better?

[blackstrap]

What shall be done with the following? 

Mat 5 : 13    - salt

Luke 9 : 62  - plow

 

[manol]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

... it seems difficult to broadcast a "we are the only true church" confidence in a way that also says, "your church is also...what? good? true? adequate? tolerable?"

 

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

Do we have a subtle holier than thou attitude in relation to former LDS? If so why? If not, why do we get accused of being holier than thou? What can we do to both encourage a sense of equality within ourselves and help others feel that we see them as peers and equals?

I think this inequality is part of the problem, but I don't really know how to make it better?

 

Having been on the inside looking out, as well as vice-versa, frankly I don't see how the LDS Church as an institution can be true to its long-standing, inherently exclusionary truth claims AND teach its members to see outsiders (including former members) as peers and equals.   I admire and appreciate those individuals who find a way to "draw a bigger circle" so to speak, but that's not something I expect "the Church" to do. 

Edited April 17 by manol

[MustardSeed]

I don’t see a way to both assert belief in the only truth and absence of fear and this judgement when someone leaves.!

I simply can’t stand the focus on alcohol -  like that’s the marker for salvation and righteousness. 
 

I used to judge people who left. I no longer judge people for staying or leaving. I’m still judgmental but not for that!

[stelf]

11 hours ago, MrShorty said:

And there will be those among the former LDS who pick up on that holier than thou attitude and find it off-putting. I think this is why I think it would be helpful to find some way to truly see ourselves as peers and equals with those who have left (or never joined or never really heard of the church). In some ways, this makes my more cynical side say that the talk wasn't really given to those who have left. The emphasis on the brokenness of former members was really a message for the current all-in membership to make them feel good about their choices to stay active and believing.

Maybe part of what I think would help is simply being aware of some of these things. Do we have a subtle holier than thou attitude in relation to former LDS? If so why? If not, why do we get accused of being holier than thou? What can we do to both encourage a sense of equality within ourselves and help others feel that we see them as peers and equals?

I think this inequality is part of the problem, but I don't really know how to make it better?

I find myself in this situation. I truly struggle to feel the Spirit in church any more because I see so much of this off-putting attitude. 

I see it as "othering" those who think and feel and believe different. However, I also think these comments come from a sincere place. Those making this kind of comment truly believe that the way they see things is the correct path so why wouldn't they say these things if they care about others and want them to be happy?

I just wish all of us could be a bit more humble. I think this would help us view others as peers, equals, or brothers and sisters. Recognize that it just might be possible that you don't understand the full truth and mean it! People often pay lip service to the idea that we "see through a glass darkly" while at the same time categorically stating what is true.

[JVW]

I have never read, or heard, of any member make disparaging remarks about anyone who is not of our faith, or anyone who has left our faith. I'm sure there have been cases of that, but I haven't seen it. I know there are people in the church who may feel like ex-members are going to hell, who may judge and assume they left because they wanted to break God's commandments without feeling bad, or who may view ex-members out of pity. I know of many who have a lot of anxiety around trying to help people learn about the church because they are worried about their souls. People have a lot of these feelings whether it's related to the church or not, about a lot of different aspects of life. If you're not part of the club that someone is passionate about then you want them to be part of the club.

With all that being said, even if the conference talk was overtly talking about those who've left the church as being only worth "firewood" if they aren't replanted in the church, that really ... isn't a very offensive analogy. If someone came up to me at work and was chewing me out for not being as passionate about my career anymore and made that comparison to me, I would be hard pressed to be offended enough to go to HR about it, as an example.

But I will say this. Christians are nasty to LDS. So nasty. Some denominations are better than others, but when it comes to displaying kindness I think the LDS church members are probably the kindest on a general level, when engaging with others in society around sensitive topics. Whether their motivation is to save someone from hell, or to try to get their brownie points in heaven, or they're being secretly judgmental and just ticking off a box, or it's out of Christlike charity. Regardless of the motivation, LDS are super nice and gentle in conversations with other Christians or ex-members while the entire conversation goes "You believe in a different Jesus. You're part of a cult. There is no God and you're an idiot. Joseph was a liar. How dare you assume that I was a sinner before I left the faith. Etc."

I say all this to just bring a temperature check. I don't feel like this topic is necessarily about how LDS can be nicer to people. I think it's more like "how can we, as members, be more Christlike".

[california boy]

11 hours ago, manol said:

Having been on the inside looking out, as well as vice-versa, frankly I don't see how the LDS Church as an institution can be true to its long-standing, inherently exclusionary truth claims AND teach its members to see outsiders (including former members) as peers and equals.   I admire and appreciate those individuals who find a way to "draw a bigger circle" so to speak, but that's not something I expect "the Church" to do. 

I agree that I don't think the church is able to draw a bigger circle so to speak.  The church has created too many hard lines in the sand to be able to draw a big Circle.  It is very much a Church of a very closely defined way or you are not "one of us" type of church.  Sometimes it is stupid silly things like how many ear rings a person should have or tattoos, other times it is very basic and at our very nature of who we are, like who we should fall in love with.  But I think Christ draws as big of circle that He can possibly draw to bring all unto Him.  

It seems to me like the goal of the Church is not to bring "all unto Christ", but rather to bring all that can fit our criteria unto Christ.  The rest who may very well be sinners are turned away until they can no longer sin.  Many call that protecting boundaries set up by the Church.  Of course the Church has every right to do that, but it makes the argument of just how big of circle Christ seems to draw in conflict with how big of circle the Church chooses to draw.

I will say this, if a person/family does fit into that narrow criteria the Church has outlined, then it is a wonderful organization to participate in with a social structure that is one of the best around.  If a person/family does not fit that narrow criteria, the outcome is completely different.  I have children raising their families both within and outside of the Church.  I truly believe all of my children are right where they are suppose to be.  They are all wonderful children raising wonderful families.  None are ahead in some kind of race reaching towards God by the paths they have chosen.

 

[california boy]

28 minutes ago, JVW said:

I have never read, or heard, of any member make disparaging remarks about anyone who is not of our faith, or anyone who has left our faith. I'm sure there have been cases of that, but I haven't seen it. I know there are people in the church who may feel like ex-members are going to hell, who may judge and assume they left because they wanted to break God's commandments without feeling bad, or who may view ex-members out of pity. I know of many who have a lot of anxiety around trying to help people learn about the church because they are worried about their souls. People have a lot of these feelings whether it's related to the church or not, about a lot of different aspects of life. If you're not part of the club that someone is passionate about then you want them to be part of the club.

With all that being said, even if the conference talk was overtly talking about those who've left the church as being only worth "firewood" if they aren't replanted in the church, that really ... isn't a very offensive analogy. If someone came up to me at work and was chewing me out for not being as passionate about my career anymore and made that comparison to me, I would be hard pressed to be offended enough to go to HR about it, as an example.

But I will say this. Christians are nasty to LDS. So nasty. Some denominations are better than others, but when it comes to displaying kindness I think the LDS church members are probably the kindest on a general level, when engaging with others in society around sensitive topics. Whether their motivation is to save someone from hell, or to try to get their brownie points in heaven, or they're being secretly judgmental and just ticking off a box, or it's out of Christlike charity. Regardless of the motivation, LDS are super nice and gentle in conversations with other Christians or ex-members while the entire conversation goes "You believe in a different Jesus. You're part of a cult. There is no God and you're an idiot. Joseph was a liar. How dare you assume that I was a sinner before I left the faith. Etc."

I say all this to just bring a temperature check. I don't feel like this topic is necessarily about how LDS can be nicer to people. I think it's more like "how can we, as members, be more Christlike".

There has been many "you and your ilk" comments by members and made pretty regularly on this board, just to pop your bubble.

[Rain]

4 hours ago, JVW said:

I have never read, or heard, of any member make disparaging remarks about anyone who is not of our faith, or anyone who has left our faith. I'm sure there have been cases of that, but I haven't seen it.

It's possible you have seen it, but not recognized it.  I find that is the case for me on a number of things till I learned more from that point of view.

 

4 hours ago, JVW said:

I know there are people in the church who may feel like ex-members are going to hell, who may judge and assume they left because they wanted to break God's commandments without feeling bad, or who may view ex-members out of pity. I know of many who have a lot of anxiety around trying to help people learn about the church because they are worried about their souls. People have a lot of these feelings whether it's related to the church or not, about a lot of different aspects of life. If you're not part of the club that someone is passionate about then you want them to be part of the club.

With all that being said, even if the conference talk was overtly talking about those who've left the church as being only worth "firewood" if they aren't replanted in the church, that really ... isn't a very offensive analogy. If someone came up to me at work and was chewing me out for not being as passionate about my career anymore and made that comparison to me, I would be hard pressed to be offended enough to go to HR about it, as an example.

But I will say this. Christians are nasty to LDS. So nasty. Some denominations are better than others, but when it comes to displaying kindness I think the LDS church members are probably the kindest on a general level, when engaging with others in society around sensitive topics. Whether their motivation is to save someone from hell, or to try to get their brownie points in heaven, or they're being secretly judgmental and just ticking off a box, or it's out of Christlike charity. Regardless of the motivation, LDS are super nice and gentle in conversations with other Christians or ex-members while the entire conversation goes "You believe in a different Jesus. You're part of a cult. There is no God and you're an idiot. Joseph was a liar. How dare you assume that I was a sinner before I left the faith. Etc."

I say all this to just bring a temperature check. I don't feel like this topic is necessarily about how LDS can be nicer to people. I think it's more like "how can we, as members, be more Christlike".

 

Edited April 17 by Rain

[bluebell]

16 hours ago, manol said:

Thank you.

I'm trying to understand how the two halves of this sentence do not contradict one another.  Rather than me speculating and probably getting it wrong, can you elaborate?

 

Thank  you.

 

 

Becoming like Christ, and returning to Christ, are two different things to me.  

I guess I kind of see it like this:  Both are events that happen on the same path, but returning to Christ after walking away from Him is the (new) beginning of the relationship while becoming like Christ is what the relationship causes to happen after time and experience (ultimately culminating in becoming a joint-heir with Christ and gaining all that the Father has).  

When we return to Christ we bring with us all of our weaknesses and sins and mistaken ideas and flatly wrong beliefs back with us, and yoke ourselves to Him flaws and all.  But through the process of sanctification (if we stay yoked), all of that eventually burns away until only the right and good and true in us are left.  If we stay connected to Christ, He'll work us out and lead us through the changes we need to make.   (I think this is as true for members as nonmembers.)

If that includes leaving behind old beliefs and accepting new ones, that doesn't mean our relationship with Him never existed or wasn't sincere.  Just because it looks different at the end than it did at the beginning doesn't mean both versions of our relationship with Him weren't real and authentic and full.

 

Edited April 17 by bluebell

[bluebell]

14 hours ago, MrShorty said:

For whatever reason, the first half reminded me of a wise teacher who told a young pupil, "Once you start down [a certain] path, forever will it dominate your destiny." Coupled with the second half, it kind of sounds like, "choose your path and stick with it. It really doesn't matter which path you choose, as long as you make a choice and stick to it."

I believe that what path we take makes a lot of difference.  But I also believe that if that path has Christ on it, then He'll direct us to the right destination.  I don't believe He directs the every path to the right destination though. 

Quote

I don't know. On one hand, it seems difficult to broadcast a "we are the only true church" confidence in a way that also says, "your church is also...what? good? true? adequate? tolerable?" Maybe we need a more nuanced look at what "true" means. As my own faith in God's ability to redeem people through Christ has evolved, I have come to believe (like most LDS, I think) that God knows how to redeem everyone from every faith tradition (including those who have deconverted from the LDS church). At that point, is it really important to emphasize our "one true church" claim, if all will have a fair chance at redemption no matter what they believed or didn't believe?

If all paths lead to the same destination then I think you would be right, we wouldn't need to talk about the benefits of one path over another at all.  I believe that God knows how to redeem everyone from every faith tradition because I believe that He knows how to get everyone onto the correct path eventually.  I don't believe that because I think that all paths lead to the same place.  

Quote

Perhaps you are right, I think it depends on what we believe is going on beneath the surface meaning of words. 

I think it's a classic example of how we don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.  I grew up in an inactive family who never left the church (we didn't go ever but my parents had no issues being included in the membership of the church) but certainly left Christ (or rather, had no relationship with Him whatsoever) and needed to return.  And having lived in a family with both versions of my parents, I can see how second version was so much better than the first, even though I had no problems with the first whatsoever because they were amazing people and parents in both versions. 

So when I hear talks like this one, that is the perspective I listen with.  You have a different history and so a different perspective, and hear things that I didn't.  Both perspectives are useful I think.

Quote

As I said, it sometimes seems to me that we often conflate "the church" and "the gospel" and "Christ" as if they are kind of the same thing. Perhaps one thing we could do is to clarify the conflation somewhat.

I agree.

Edited April 17 by bluebell

[bluebell]

14 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Maybe part of what I think would help is simply being aware of some of these things. Do we have a subtle holier than thou attitude in relation to former LDS? If so why? If not, why do we get accused of being holier than thou? What can we do to both encourage a sense of equality within ourselves and help others feel that we see them as peers and equals?

I think this inequality is part of the problem, but I don't really know how to make it better?

Feeling better than people who you think are wrong is a universal human weakness.  Most liberals feel superior to conservatives and vice versa.  Same for people who wore masks and those who refused.  Same for the conspiracy theorists and those who think that conspiracy theorists are crazy.  Jeep drivers feel superior to toyota drivers and toyota drivers feel superior to jeep drivers (the rivalry between wrangler/rubicon drivers and land cruiser drivers is both bitter and also embarrassing because it's so stupid).

Members of the church can certainly have a holier than thou attitude.  Ex-members sometimes believe they are superior to those who still believe.  As followers of Christ we should do better regardless of how anyone else acts.  It seems like following the second greatest commandment of loving each other like we love ourselves would be the answer for all of these groups, but we really seem to struggle with that one.  A lot.

[The Nehor]

13 hours ago, blackstrap said:

What shall be done with the following? 

Mat 5 : 13    - salt

Luke 9 : 62  - plow

 

Those are directed at what we would call active members.

[MrShorty]

@blackstrap re: tasteless salt and delinquent plow drivers. I see this as one of those "contraries" that we can maybe use to understand truth. Somehow we have to reconcile the description of God as patient, gracious, tolerant with the description of God as vengeful and quick to condemn. Perhaps part of the reconciliation is timing. When does God decide that tasteless salt is good for nothing but to be trodden under foot of people? When does God decide that the uncommitted plow driver is never going to commit and must therefore be permanently let go? I think most of us believe as Elder Palmer noted that "It is not too late."

[Calm]

3 hours ago, JVW said:

With all that being said, even if the conference talk was overtly talking about those who've left the church as being only worth "firewood" if they aren't replanted in the church, that really ... isn't a very offensive analogy.

This may be why you don’t view what you have heard in the Church as disparaging.  (Just saying your filter may be turned lower than many others, which isn’t necessarily an issue if you personally treat non or exmembers well.)

Out of curiosity, how do you view a comment that other faiths are pretending or playing at “church”?  Do you see that as offensive or not?

[MrShorty]

4 hours ago, JVW said:

I have never read, or heard, of any member make disparaging remarks about anyone who is not of our faith, or anyone who has left our faith.

I agree that the attitude I am seeing is not disparaging or anything malicious or representing ill-will. It's more of a paternalistic, patronizing attitude that suggests, "You don't know what is best for you, but we do, so come join us and let us enlighten you." Always with the best of intentions.

4 hours ago, JVW said:

But I will say this. Christians are nasty to LDS. So nasty.

I'm not sure it is as bad as all that, but I agree in kind if not degree. Many Christians have the same superiority complex towards us, and we don't appreciate their patronizing or their condescension either. Any possibility that the issues are similar? What would improve the dialog between LDS and those Christians who believe we are the downed trees who need rescuing? When I think about it, it seems to me that some of the same principles could improve that dialog -- being seen as an equal rather than a degenerate, trusting that I have good reasons for believing what I do, and so on.

[manol]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Becoming like Christ, and returning to Christ, are two different things to me.  

That's what I thought you were saying, but wanted to be sure.  Thank you.

I think that when we have returned to Christ, we will be like him, for we shall see him as he is.  In other words, I don't think "becoming like Christ" and "returning to Christ" are two different paths with two different destinations. 

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

@blackstrap re: tasteless salt and delinquent plow drivers. I see this as one of those "contraries" that we can maybe use to understand truth. Somehow we have to reconcile the description of God as patient, gracious, tolerant with the description of God as vengeful and quick to condemn. Perhaps part of the reconciliation is timing. When does God decide that tasteless salt is good for nothing but to be trodden under foot of people? When does God decide that the uncommitted plow driver is never going to commit and must therefore be permanently let go? I think most of us believe as Elder Palmer noted that "It is not too late."

It’s common knowledge that the Latter-Day Saints believe the only individuals who are “permanently let go” are the sons of perdition. And who are the son’s of perdition? They are formerly valiant believers who once had great faith in God and powerful testimonies born of the Holy Ghost that Jesus is the Christ, but who in the process of time allow themselves to spiritually degenerate in disobedience to God’s laws until they arrive at  the point when they become implacable enemies of God who are utterly hardened in rebellion against eternal truth.

The sons of perdition are those who steadfastly resist accepting God’s gracious invitation to come unto Christ in faith, repent of their sins and obtain divine pardon until it’s everlastingly too late. Why everlastingly too late? It’s because at the final judgement Gods perfect mind will be able to perfectly discern who among his children will never be willing to accept Christ in faith and seek forgiveness through the acceptance of the blessings of his infinite and eternal atoning sacrifice. All the remainder of God’s children will, without compulsion, eventually be persuaded to come unto Christ in faith, repent of their sins, receive forgiveness, obtain a glorious resurrection, and inherit a heavenly mansion in one of God’s three kingdoms of post-resurrection glory.

31 Thus saith the Lord concerning all those who know my power, and have been made partakers thereof, and suffered themselves through the power of the devil to be overcome, and to deny the truth and defy my power—

32 They are they who are the sons of perdition, of whom I say that it had been better for them never to have been born;

33 For they are vessels of wrath, doomed to suffer the wrath of God, with the devil and his angels in eternity;

34 Concerning whom I have said there is no forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come—

35 Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him unto themselves and put him to an open shame.

36 These are they who shall go away into the lake of fire and brimstone, with the devil and his angels—

37 And the only ones on whom the second death shall have any power;

38 Yea, verily, the only ones who shall not be redeemed in the due time of the Lord, after the sufferings of his wrath.

39 For all the rest shall be brought forth by the resurrection of the dead, through the triumph and the glory of the Lamb, who was slain, who was in the bosom of the Father before the worlds were made. (Doctrine and Covenants 76)

Edited April 17 by teddyaware