Mormon group plans mass resignation


Urstadt
 Share

Recommended Posts

This is so sad.... I mean, it's just foolish to do this. I mean, yeah, I feel pain when someone is ex-communicated, and yes I was vocal about Kate Kelly. But, I got over it and moved on. I would never hand in my "resignation" or temple recommend over it. Plus, they can repent and return, as many of you on this site have accurately pointed out. As sad as it is, and as much as I disagree with what they're doing, I had wondered if this would happen. Sadly, it has.

 

http://fox13now.com/2014/07/24/mormon-group-plans-mass-resignation-to-protest-excommunications/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not surprised over this at all.  Many stated before KK was ex'd that they would resign if she was.

 

Very sad, but it unfortunately is their decision.  Hopefully some day they will realize that wasn't the best of decisions and will come back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read that. It said that about 100 people showed up, most to show support for those resigning.

 

And the one example they gave was of someone who hadn't been to church in 10 years. This doesn't really seem like a flood of resignations. More like some people with an axe to grind with the church, who hadn't been in a long time, using this as an excuse to make official that which was already the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Call me naive, I didn't see that coming. I never really paid much attention to these things though. A small part of me is glad for the clear line drawn in the sand though.

 

The funny thing is that they're drawing the line themselves.  

 

How often would He gather us, but we would not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My uncle just returned from serving as a Mission President and two of his daughter-in-laws are inactive because of this. Both these women are well education, one with a PhD from Harvard. 

 

My wife is a PhD candidate and a respected health professional yet had the exact same reaction my friends uneducated surfer wife had, "way to show you don't understand your own religion".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the article:

 

She considers her resignation a statement of solidarity with women who, unlike her, want to remain in the faith while voicing support for women’s ordination.

 

No, really.  She's leaving as a sign of support to the ones who are staying.

 

You can't make this stuff up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Some members assume that one can be in full harmony with the spirit of the gospel, enjoy full fellowship in the Church, and at the same time be out of harmony with the leaders of the Church and the counsel and direction they give. Such a position is wholly inconsistent, because the guidance of this Church comes not alone from the written word but also from continuous revelation, and the Lord gives that revelation to the Church through his chosen prophet. It follows, therefore, that those who profess to accept the gospel and who at the same time criticize and refuse to follow the counsel of the prophet are assuming an indefensible position. Such a spirit leads to apostasy. It is not new. It was prevalent in the days of Jesus and in the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith."

Pres. Marion G. Romney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would actually find some comfort in the idea of apostate LDS finding some sense of comfort and relationship with God in liberal Christian fellowships.  The hope is that their anger towards God's holiness standards, and their perceptions of what is wrong in your church, would not so distance them from God that they could not reach some level of spiritual relationship.

 

Conservatives are leaving liberal synods and denominations to either form new, more conservative ones, or to join existing ones that are more conservative.  A few may find that home in your church, but that journey is quite a bit longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went to the resignation website. There's a poem on the About page:

 

"This is not the place for questions
This is not the place for answers
This is not the place for thinking
This is not the place for doubts
 
This is the place for conformity
This is the place for silence
This is the place for the 99
This is not the place for the 1
 
This is not the place for agency
This is not the place for change
If this is not the place for them
Then this is not the place for me"
 
 
Well, that escalated quickly. I wonder if there's going to be an "Occupy Temple Square" movement soon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Some members assume that one can be in full harmony with the spirit of the gospel, enjoy full fellowship in the Church, and at the same time be out of harmony with the leaders of the Church and the counsel and direction they give. Such a position is wholly inconsistent, because the guidance of this Church comes not alone from the written word but also from continuous revelation, and the Lord gives that revelation to the Church through his chosen prophet. It follows, therefore, that those who profess to accept the gospel and who at the same time criticize and refuse to follow the counsel of the prophet are assuming an indefensible position. Such a spirit leads to apostasy. It is not new. It was prevalent in the days of Jesus and in the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith."

Pres. Marion G. Romney.

I wonder if early members who thought blacks ought to have the priesthood and the priesthood ban was put in place due to the will of man and not God was out of harmony with the spirit of the Gospel. I guess, if they lived in Brigham Young's day they would be, but if they lived today, they wouldn't.

 

And yet, the Gospel is eternal and unchanging. Hmmmm....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would actually find some comfort in the idea of apostate LDS finding some sense of comfort and relationship with God in liberal Christian fellowships.  The hope is that their anger towards God's holiness standards, and their perceptions of what is wrong in your church, would not so distance them from God that they could not reach some level of spiritual relationship.

 

Conservatives are leaving liberal synods and denominations to either form new, more conservative ones, or to join existing ones that are more conservative.  A few may find that home in your church, but that journey is quite a bit longer.

I would also hope they would at least keep to some level of godliness, even if they aren't willing to abide all the standards set forth in all the scriptures we have.

altho most the time when people relate tome their friends or family that leave the church it seems to be that they tend to forsake most religiosity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would also hope they would at least keep to some level of godliness, even if they aren't willing to abide all the standards set forth in all the scriptures we have.

altho most the time when people relate tome their friends or family that leave the church it seems to be that they tend to forsake most religiosity.

 

I've that this is generally true when people leave their faith.  Protestants can have a hard time understanding this.  We can leave a church that's gone sideways, and join another, without having much of a crisis of faith.  Likewise, we can "backslide," and later return to our faith.  Often, we will end up in a different church when we do so.

 

For LDS, to leave the Church is to leave the faith.  I wonder if some of these folks--the ones in front of the cameras--the media savvy ones--are playing to the majority Protestant culture--leading us to believe they are just leaving a denomination?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if early members who thought blacks ought to have the priesthood and the priesthood ban was put in place due to the will of man and not God was out of harmony with the spirit of the Gospel. I guess, if they lived in Brigham Young's day they would be, but if they lived today, they wouldn't.

 

And yet, the Gospel is eternal and unchanging. Hmmmm....

 

They are in harmony with the spirit of the Gospel before, within, and after Brigham Young's day - the Gospel is an individual journey and we are to study it within ourselves and our families and build our testimonies line upon line, precept upon precept according to personal revelation and revelation for those under our sphere of God-given authority.

 

But, if they act on those thoughts in a manner inconsistent with the gospel - such as the way Kate Kelley is acting - then one is not in harmony with the spirit of the Gospel.  Note that we have a perfect example of the manner by which Jesus Christ fundamentally corrected the apostate sanhedrin.  He established his authority from Heavenly Father, established Heavenly Father's organization, dedicated His life to the will of the Father, and never once went to the synod to force them to his will.  Even when he is the Son of God whose will is the same as the Father's.  The same exact example we see withJoseph Smith and the apostate churches in his time.  God's house is a house of order not a house of protest.

 

And yes, the Gospel is eternal and unchanging.  But, we profess that we live according to living and breathing Revelation and that there are those that have been Revealed, those that are now being Revealed, and those that are yet to be Revealed pertaining to the Kingdom of God.  God's method of revelation is so important that it is codified in our Articles of Faith and is the main reason we maintain a living Prophet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...the priesthood ban was put in place due to the will of man and not God was out of harmony...

 

This is still out of harmony. The church's position is:

 

"It is not known precisely why, how or when this restriction began in the Church, but it has ended."

 

"The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear."

 

Claiming that the priesthood ban was put in place due to the will of man is not in harmony with the church's straightforward "we don't know" position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet, the Gospel is eternal and unchanging. Hmmmm....

To supplement TFP's excellent answer: the doctrine of Christ is eternal and unchanging. It is God's specific instructions for application of that doctrine, that are wont to change according to circumstances. Were it not so, there would have been no need for any prophets after Adam--or, at most, the role of "prophet" would be limited to restoring carbon copies of the revelations originally given to Adam.

Were Abraham and Joseph Smith wrong to live polygamy; or were Jacob, Paul, and Wilford Woodruff right to discourage it? Was Moses wrong for not leading ancient Israel to Utah; or was Brigham Young wrong for not leading modern Israel to the Holy Land? Was Nephi's killing of Laban justified in light of Moses' proscription on murder?

Anti-Mormons (and a certain stripe of Mormon, actually) are fond of the "Mormon teaching/practice must never, ever change, and if it does than it's obviously a hoax" canard; but that idea--sincerely and universally applied--would inexorably lead one away from any religion that purports to be based in the canon of scripture now available to us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is still out of harmony. The church's position is:

 

"It is not known precisely why, how or when this restriction began in the Church, but it has ended."

 

"The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear."

 

Claiming that the priesthood ban was put in place due to the will of man is not in harmony with the church's straightforward "we don't know" position.

So, the only way to be in line with the current Church's stance is to shrug your shoulders and say "I dunno...."? Ignorance and unknowable mystery are the defining traits of Satan's organizations, not God's (Revelation 17:5; Alma 12:10-11).

 

In the earlier days of Utah, the Brethren were very clear as to why the ban was set in place (I won't bother cutting/pasting here, as I don't want to threadjack. You can look up quotes for yourself; they're not hard to find). The recent essay on blacks and the priesthood pins the origin of the priesthood on... well, it wasn't God. The racist tendencies of early Americans (which included Brigham Young, et al.) seems to be the culprit without being explicitly stated as such. In less than 40 years, the Church's official stance on this issue has done almost a complete 180-degree turn, and I guarantee that it hasn't stopped turning yet.

 

When the spirit of man is the driving force for an action and not the spirit of God, then that action has come about by the will and power of man, and not the will and power of God.

 

By the way, your replies (JAG, anatess, and thefolkprophet) emphasize the point I was making. Marion G. Romney, in his remarks, described being in "harmony with the leaders of the Church and the counsel and direction they give" as part of the "full spirit of the gospel". The changing position on blacks and the priesthood (from what it used to be--blacks couldn't hold the priesthood because of the "curse of Cain"--to today) and the ban itself highlights the difficulties that position presents. If the Gospel is eternal and unchanging but Church practices change radically with no reason given from God and no explanation even being attempted by the leaders, then can lockstep obedience with Church leaders really be considered one of the basic requirements of Christ's eternal Gospel? Or is that level of strict obedience one of the hedges we make around the law?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share