"Mass Resignation"

[Guest]

Interesting.

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2015/1114/Mormon-mass-resignation-over-LGBT-rules-Big-deal-for-the-church

 

Funny thing: findings showed that only 5% of such individuals actually attend church even once a month. 

 

This is nothing more than spitting at the wind.

 

Persecutions may rage.

Mobs may combine.

Armies may assemble.

And calumny may defame.

But the truth of God will go forth...till the great Jehovah shall say "the work is done".

Edited November 15, 2015 by Guest

[pam]

Most of those people had already left the church.  This just gave them something to stand behind to justify their actions.

[estradling75]

So this mass exodus...  Is really just a cleaning up of church records?  So that the records more closely represent what we see in the pews on Sunday?

[The Folk Prophet]

Interesting.

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2015/1114/Mormon-mass-resignation-over-LGBT-rules-Big-deal-for-the-church

 

Funny thing: findings showed that only 5% of such individuals actually attend church even once a month. 

 

This is nothing more than spitting at the wind.

 

Persecutions may rage.

Mobs may combine.

Armies may assemble.

And calumny may defame.

But the truth of God will go forth...till the great Jehovah shall say "the work is done".

 

I'm offended that you edited out the boldly, nobly and independently part.

Edited November 15, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[Guest MormonGator]

These people aren't LDS. Even if you personally disagree with a policy (on this I do) you should accept that you aren't in charge and can't make the rules. 

[Maureen]

So this mass exodus...  Is really just a cleaning up of church records?  So that the records more closely represent what we see in the pews on Sunday?

 

I agree. At the moment, those less active or not active at all are still counted as one of the 15 million members. If this is going to generate a "mass" exodus, it should reflect more closely the actual numbers of church members.

 

M.

[Capitalist_Oinker]

On the bright side, our home teaching percentage just went up. 

[Guest]

On the bright side, our home teaching percentage just went up. 

 

Funny not funny. 

[Just_A_Guy]

One doesn't want to be too dismissive of anyone who turns their back on the gospel.  On the other hand, one can't help thinking of 1 John 2:19:

 

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

[Guest]

I know that the charitable thing would be to be saddened at the loss of some of our brothers and sisters following the wrong path.  But for some reason... ummm... nnaah.

[Backroads]

I called it a "paperwork cleanup" this morning.

[JojoBag]

It seems like some people are just looking for something to be offended over.

[pam]

It seems like some people are just looking for something to be offended over.

 

That seems to be the trend this week between this, the Starbucks cup and Target's OCD sweatshirt.

 

Now I see people posting things on facebook about how we shouldn't come behind France in their tragedy.

[Backroads]

My curiosity is piqued, though, by those few who legitimately leaving fairly devote members. How does this affect their religious beliefs? Is Joseph Smith no longer a prophet because of this?

[pam]

So many people, including active members, are letting the thoughts and philosophies of the world dictate their thoughts instead of doctrinal and church teachings.

 

Many of the negative comments I've seen on lds discussion boards on facebook have been from members who state they are active, recommend holding members.

[prisonchaplain]

I'm confused.  How much of a change is this?  Active same-sex involvement has always been a sin in your faith.  Choosing to engage in a civil marriage, to solemnize that sin is a "doubling-down" on the sin, and a rejection of repentance.  So, would not calling such apostasy really be a case of stating the obvious?  As for denying underage children of same-sex parents baptism, I would imagine that the number of such parents willing to see their minors baptized in a church that considers their life choices to be grave sin would be few and far between.  If the child wishes to join, despite his/her parents, or these parents really do not care, asking the candidate to wait until adulthood hardly seems harsh.  Indeed, if the restoration is true, it should be worth waiting for.

 

So...what am I missing?

[Vort]

So...what am I missing?

 

You are allowing your common sense to overcome the knee-jerk PC (sorry) reactionary within, the little voice who insists on (1) being approved of by the cool kids and (2) showing at the top of its (your) lungs how smart and progressive it is.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Vort

[zil]

PC, IMO, you're not missing anything, but others are.  Here are some of the responses your rational thoughts would get:

 

1) It doesn't matter how many.  Or: There are more than you think.  Or: I know half-a-dozen who go to church every week.  (I suspect some hyperbole in there.)

 

2) It's punishing the child for the parents' sin.  (It seems some people cannot distinguish between punishment, consequence, and/or suffering; and they tend to forget that in addition to being a blessing, baptism is a covenant - indeed, it's only a blessing if you keep the covenant.)  This is always followed by one or two scriptures, perhaps an Article of Faith, in isolation, as if the meaning of the entire body of scripture doesn't impact the meaning of each individual part.

 

Also lots of specific variations were brought up (divorced parents, one becomes homosexual; etc.) and the policy was declared unfair in such situations (as if bishops and those above them can't interview, ponder, pray, and send the information up the line even when it seems like the policy has no flexibility (again, reading a few policies without the context of the rest of the handbook and other training material)).

 

Many especially find fault in the requirement to disavow the parents' same-gender sexual relationship before baptism or a mission.  The ability to put that in context seems lost: should we baptize someone or send them out as a missionary if they don't believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, or that the Book of Mormon is true?  When someone is raised in a household whose very existence proclaims that same-gender marriage (in the mind of said couple) is not a sin, it's only reasonable to ensure the child of that family understands that it is a sin according to the organization they're about to join / represent before putting them under covenant to obey (or preach) that doctrine.

 

And it's clear from the ensuing comments that they were hoping the church would one day change their stance on same-gender sex, as if the scriptures on that topic would suddenly be declared null and void.

 

One last thought (sorry for the length so far): Exodus 20:12 requires children to honor their parents.  Baptism would turn that from commandment to covenant, since baptism is a covenant to obey all of God's commandments.  But some of the rest of those commandments include things like sharing the Gospel (the one that teaches same-gender sex is a sin).  How in the world could a minor child of same-gender parents (or one parent in a same-gender marriage) keep both commandments at the same time?  Better for the child not to enter into the covenant until they can understand exactly what they're getting into, and stand a chance of keeping that covenant.  And in the meantime, do their best with honoring their parents.

[Guest]

I'm offended that you edited out the boldly, nobly and independently part.

To be honest, I wanted to.  But I was in a hurry to get ready for church.

[Guest]

I'm confused.  How much of a change is this?  ...

 

So...what am I missing?

 

You're missing absolutely nothing.  For more on that, see the 19 page knock-down drag-out debate here.

 

If I may, please note my two posts on the matter:  #120 & #328.   :)

[estradling75]

I'm confused.  How much of a change is this?  Active same-sex involvement has always been a sin in your faith.  Choosing to engage in a civil marriage, to solemnize that sin is a "doubling-down" on the sin, and a rejection of repentance.  So, would not calling such apostasy really be a case of stating the obvious?  As for denying underage children of same-sex parents baptism, I would imagine that the number of such parents willing to see their minors baptized in a church that considers their life choices to be grave sin would be few and far between.  If the child wishes to join, despite his/her parents, or these parents really do not care, asking the candidate to wait until adulthood hardly seems harsh.  Indeed, if the restoration is true, it should be worth waiting for.

 

So...what am I missing?

 

 

You are over thinking it PC..

 

By this action the LDS gave a big poke in the eye of the "Homosexual Agenda"   You know the one that says the only way you are not a hater, and a bigot is if you embrace our lifestyle.  This group was riding high on success from pushing through gay marriage...  But instead of buckling under to their victory the LDS church doubled downed.  Saying you can change the laws but you aren't changing us or God's word.

 

Needless to say that provoked a reaction.  And that is what you are seeing.

[JojoBag]

These are people who never really had a testimony or lost it. This is what you get when you listen to the wisdom of the world. This goes back to the liberals idea of "fairness" and "equality."

I also wonder if they were already disaffected and were looking for an adequate excuse to justify their disaffection.

[JojoBag]

These are people who never really had a testimony or lost it. This is what you get when you listen to the wisdom of the world. This goes back to the liberals idea of "fairness" and "equality."

I also wonder if they were already disaffected and were looking for an adequate excuse to justify their disaffection.

[DennisN]

I was one of the people who resigned from the Church this weekend.  I hope the moderators will approve my post and allow it to become part of this conversation, because I am writing as a friend to everyone here.  I have no interest in picking a fight over the so-called "mass resignation" or the LDS policy which caused it.  I'm not anti-LDS and I send nothing but goodwill to my LDS acquaintances here, whom I know only because I often read your interesting and though-provoking posts.  I hope my perspective on this will be useful.

 

(Full disclosure: I used to post quite frequently on lds.net, but I created a new username tonight so I could make this post.  The old username was based on an email address that no longer exists, which I guess makes password recovery very hard.)

 

I converted to the Church about twenty years ago with high hopes.  I drifted away within a few years, sadly, but four years ago I listened to "The Spirit of God" on YouTube and felt something inside me burst into flames.  One thing led to another, and soon I found myself thinking more and more about returning to the Church.  I thought of myself as a re-investigator.  It is no exaggeration to say that I spent many months in earnest prayer and contemplation.  I decided to visit Salt Lake City to maybe connect with the Spirit more, and I ended up making three separate trips.  On each one I prayed and tried to make myself as open as possible to the voice of Heavenly Father so that I could follow his will.  I studied the Scriptures, followed the Word of Wisdom, and starting preparing for a return to sacrament meetings even though I knew it would be hard.

 

Why was I so bothered by this recently announced policy about children of same-sex partners?  Keep reading. 

 

I had a tough childhood.  My father abandoned my mother and me when I was a baby.  In elementary school I was constantly reminded that I was different.  It was the 1960s, and all the other kids had two parents, but not me.  I remember many nights sobbing myself to sleep because I was ostracized as weird by the other kids and their parents.  One friend told me his parents had ordered him to stop playing with me because I was a bad influence on him.  Even though his parents' action was unfair and based on stereotypes of broken homes, it stuck to me like a tattoo and still stings as I write this almost five decades later.

 

I managed to get through my childhood okay, but the battle scars were deep and lasting, and they made me especially sensitive to children who are excluded from anything for no good reason.  When I read last week of the Church's policy to deny baptisms to children living with same-sex parents, I was aghast.  Certainly the debate over same-sex marriage is complex and contentious, and I really don't know how this will all turn out.  But the Church's policy, in my opinion, passed up a golden opportunity.  Instead of slamming the door in the faces of these innocent children, it could have said, "Come unto Christ, we will hold and bolt the door open for you no matter who you are, no matter where you came from, and no matter what your parents do.  Walk with us and do not stumble, for we follow our Savior's words: 'But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it is better for him that a heavy millstone be hung around his neck, and that he be drowned in the depth of the sea.'"

 

So I am deeply saddened by comments here like "What's the big deal, so what if they have to wait?" and "Some people are just looking for things to be offended over."  Yes, it is a big deal to close the door to Christ to anyone, and I, for one, have never been on the hunt for things to be offended over.  Far from it.  If anything, my journey back towards the LDS Church was based on forgiveness, healing, and hope.  

 

My understanding is that this policy is the decision of humans and is not revealed doctrine.  If so, there's room for improvement, and pronto.  How differently things would have unfolded if the policy had left the baptism decision to the bishop, to be made on a case-by-case basis with the child's well-being held as the absolute top priority.  And I've read many comments (on other online forums) by active LDS mothers who support the Church but who nevertheless are being ripped apart by this policy.  

 

My letter of resignation from the Church, which I mailed on Friday, was taken from an on-line template and was worded rather sternly, so I doubt that the Church will try to contact me to discuss my decision.  Part of me hopes that this policy is changed and that the Church will reach out to invite me back.  I'd probably return.  

[prisonchaplain]

Dennis, I'm not LDS, so you need to help me understand your strong reaction.  You were aghast.  Why?  Most children do not make the decision to be baptized without their parents' approval.  LDS theology does not bar those not baptized in LDS fonts to eternal damnation.  Children cannot become members of the church without their parents approval.  Given all that, why is it so traumatizing to say to a child of gay parents that they cannot be considered for baptism until they are adults?  In fact, if the church were to do as you ask, and eagerly seek our the children of gay parents for baptism, would the LBGT community not be aghast?  "Why," they might ask, "would a church that condemns our lifestyle recruit for baptism from amongst our children?"  It seems the church could not win here.  Yet, you say this policy is what drove you to resign.  Why?