"Mass Resignation"

[Guest]

This is what I don't understand: If the Church doesn't agree with you on whether homosexual marriage is apostate behavior, and when children raised primarily in apostate homes should be held to covenants that come with baptism, it invalidates:

 

*The truthfulness of the Book of Mormon

*The prophetic status of Joseph Smith and all other modern prophets

*Modern revelation

*All saving ordinances you've partaken of or planned to partake of

*Other LDS beliefs as outlined in the Articles of Faith?

 

By removing your name from the records, those are the things you're turning your back on. After a full week of sitting with this. I really, honestly and truly don't understand. 

Edited November 16, 2015 by Eowyn

[Blackmarch]

What is saddening is that the event has greased the path for those who are falling.

But on the other hand adversity is what strengthens the faithful and weeds out the tares. ....still not really a happy time.

[BeccaKirstyn]

 

By removing your name from the records, those are the things you're turning your back on. After a full week of sitting with this. I really, honestly and truly don't understand. 

I have been trying to come to terms with this as well, and don't understand it. I have been a little out of touch with old college friends at BYU who I used to remember as strong, faithful members of the Church. When this all started last week, the amount of LDS friends I made while up there that were completely against this policy and beginning to question the Church shocked me. On top of that, I found out that 2 of my friends had already disassociated themselves with the Church and this just brought more fuel to the fire for them. 

It broke my heart, honestly. To see people I knew so well and grew my testimony with fall away from what they used to believe with their whole heart and dedicated 1 1/2-2 years of their lives to serve The Lord for it. But I know this kind of division between the righteous and the unrighteous will become even more evident as time moves along. 

Edited November 16, 2015 by BeccaKirstyn

[Blackmarch]

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?

More or less sums up the explanation letter.

[Guest]

No, it's not a happy time. I take no joy in seeing our brothers and sisters let go of the rod and wander away. It's painful to know that my own (literal, biological) brother and sister are upset under the surface, and nothing I say can ease that because they already decided long ago to make the Church the enemy. I'm sad for friends who haven't received confirmation that this is revelatory and, in fact, merciful. 

 

I am, however, happy and proud that these friends are holding on tight and waiting on the Lord. That even though they don't fully understand and even hurt (because of gay siblings), they are clinging to the principles and ordinances of the Gospel that they have known to be true. Even two who fully disagree with this policy and hope it will change, but still show up every week and keep the covenants they've made. That is strength and bravery, to me.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Eowyn

[lagarthaaz]

I have been trying to come to terms with this as well, and don't understand it. I have been a little out of touch with old college friends at BYU who I used to remember as strong, faithful members of the Church. When this all started last week, the amount of LDS friends I made while up there that were completely against this policy and beginning to question the Church shocked me. On top of that, I found out that 2 of my friends had already disassociated themselves with the Church and this just brought more fuel to the fire for them. 

It broke my heart, honestly. To see people I knew so well and grew my testimony with fall away from what they used to believe with their whole heart and dedicated 1 1/2-2 years of their lives to serve The Lord for it. But I know this kind of division between the righteous and the unrighteous will become even more evident as time moves along. 

 

I've had the same experience. What I think might also be happening is a reflection of the number of 'Sunday Mormons' we have in the church - people who are going through the motions and who have been looking for a chance to get out from under the church's thumb for years. I know a whole lot of "fake faithful" people like this and really do fear that "all is NOT well in Zion".  The reaction of some to recent policy changes has simply provided them with a final reason to feel outraged and leave the church.

[estradling75]

My understanding is that this policy is the decision of humans and is not revealed doctrine.

 

 

I am going to limit discuss to this single single sentence.   This understanding is flat out wrong.  It is claimed by those that should know better, and believed by those that lack understanding of how the church works.  As a way of saying I am still following God but the church is not.

 

The leaders of the church are on record as saying no change are made unless the quorum of the 12 and the First are all in agreement.  That issues presented toward them can and have been tabled for long periods of time before agreement is reached.

 

What does it tell us...   It tells us a few things.  One is that the Quorum of the 12 is not a bunch of yes men to the First Presidency.  That they have and are willing express disagreement, when in council, with the Prophet and First Presidency.

 

Now each of these 15 men have a sound understanding of the Gospel and how to receive revelation. And they have one job.  That job is to study out the issue facing the church, and pray about the correct decision to make, and then follow the promptings of the spirit to guide the church as the Lord wants.   By any stretch of the word that mean lead by Revelation.

 

Therefore to make the claim that it was not revealed... Requires all 15 of these men to neglect the fundamental thing they were called to do.  It requires all 15 of them to chose as the correct path that the Lord wants them on... Something that is not so.  Now anyone can have a bad day, the church leaders are human, but the idea that all 15 are missing the mark, requires serious amount of hubris on the member making the claim.

 

Now was it Revelation in the sense of revealing new Gospel truths...  No of course not.  However it was revelation in the sense of the Lord saying "I want my church to turn right here instead of left."  The Lord might have different instruction tomorrow.  And you can guarantee that part of the reason for the Lord to do so is to test and see who is going to hold true to correct principles gospel and who is going to hold on to something else.  Because that is the whole point of our being here.

[Guest]

Dennis,

 

The Church is or is not true based on our faith in Christ, our testimony of the BoM, and that Joseph was a prophet.  Whether or not children of gay marriages should or should not be baptized between age 8 and 18 is not the cornerstone of our religion.  What are you losing your testimony of?  Does this change any of the three facts I've mentioned above?

 

A relative of mine was given a foster child.  Then just before adoption was granted, the government took that child away and gave her back to the abusive birth parents.  The child had formed a bond with the foster parents.  The child screamed out in terror as they were taken away from them and were told they had to go back to their birth parents.  Is this cause to leave the country?  Think of the children!  How could they do that!  IT'S TIME FOR A REVOLUTION!!!

 

No, the fact is that if you take the emotional element of "think of the children" out of it, the decision by the Church leaders makes all the sense in the world.  As for people treating them differently, that happens with all kinds of issues.  Is that the Church's fault?  I say no.

 

Individuals will always behave in ways that are not in line with the gospel.  That is what happens when dealing with imperfect humans.  But you'll abandon your faith in the testimony of Christ and His Church because you have a disagreement or because some people are behaving badly.  That doesn't sound like someone who is following the Spirit of God, but rather the philosophies of men.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Guest

[Guest]

 

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.

 

And I am going to limit discussion to this one sentence.

 

You are pretty much allowing your tragic experience of the past to cloud your judgment of the present so much so that it succeeded to impede your understanding of exactly what is happening.  It's like a soldier who returns from the ravages of war and suffers from PTSD.  He hears fireworks in the middle of November sees middle-eastern looking neighbors jumping happily up and down in the middle of the street and goes to grab his firearm and starts shooting.  It wasn't until all the people were dead that he realized they were just a Hindi family celebrating Diwali.

 

Just as we couldn't just dismiss the soldier's PTSD, we couldn't just dismiss your emotional trigger either.  We, as your brothers and sisters, are covenanted to serve you that you might experience true healing.  But at the same time, we couldn't just tell Hindi people to stop celebrating Diwali just like we couldn't just have children living  primarily with his gay parents make, and be bound by baptismal covenants.

 

What we can do with the soldier is to help the soldier find healing for the PTSD so that he can understand that a family of Hindi celebrating Diwali is not a threat to his, and the country's, safety.  We can try to teach him how to recognize the difference between somebody who is truly a danger to society and somebody who is not.  We can help him understand the current environment that he is in.

 

What we can do with you is to help you find healing for your own version of PTSD so that you can understand that a baptismal covenant is a PROMISE that you make to stand as a witness of the Savior and to bear his name to all people and cry for repentance.  This promise is not just a promise that you can ignore without eternal consequences.  Your baptismal covenant requires that you, not only try to bring yourself closer to Christ, but also bring others along with you.  Now, think of a child whose parents are of the same gender.  When he makes that baptismal covenant, he is now covenanted to stand as a witness of the Savior.  He will now have to stand infront of his parents and desire for them to DIVORCE.  Gay marriage only has one path to repentance - and that is divorce.  So that child, because of his baptismal covenant, is now put in an impossible situation of either 1.) desiring to break his baptismal covenant with eternal consequences by not desiring for his parents to repent, 2.) desiring to fulfill his baptismal covenant and desiring to break up his own family.

 

Now think about that.  Allowing the child to be baptized will put the child in the situation where he either 1.) breaks his baptismal covenant,  or 2.) breaks his family.  With your experience growing up in a divorced household in the 60's, I would think that you would feel that it is more a cruelty to make a child desire that his parents divorce or break his baptismal covenant.

 

Therefore, the Lord's way of having the child wait until he is an adult and can now stand individually from the teachings of his parents before making that baptismal covenant and be subject to its eternal consequences is more the Merciful path.

 

Of course, those who believe that gay marriage should not be considered a sin against God's plan for Eternal Families would see option 3 - have the child be baptized and his parent's gay marriage be made acceptable to the Lord.  That is not something the Church can do.

Edited November 16, 2015 by anatess

[NeuroTypical]

Two stories:

 

1.  I personally know a guy who ended his membership in the church after hearing the news.  He hadn't gone for years.  He was an outspoken critic of mormons, the church, the notion of Christian deity, and Utah culture. He married someone who (I thought, at the time) was a female, but apparently there's been some sort of undefined transsexual change in gender status that doesn't come across well in Facebook posts.  He brews beer and drinks it with the SLC pagan community.  The morning the news hit, he posted his name removal letter for all to see.

 

I'm sure there are many with similar stories, and they are populating this mass-resignation.

 

2.  I went on splits with the bishopric one year, as they visited all the DoNotContact names on their rolls.  (Yes, bishops are responsible for everyone on their rolls, whether they demand no lds contact or not.  So once every year or so, a bishop will try to check in with them.)  Visited lots of angry, defensive, evasive, unhappy people, all of whom complained about being visited by Mormons.  We let them know the process to have their names removed, which would end their membership in our church and stop the visits.  They all said they'd start writing their letters the moment they closed the door.  I was Executive secretary for 2 years after that experience, and none of them ever actually ever had their names removed.  

 

I'm sure folks like these are populating this mass-resignation too.

[Guest]

 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.  

 

This comment shows how ignorant these resignations are.  If they don't even bother to check the facts before resigning, how important was their faith in the first place?

[NightSG]

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?

 

Pretty much.  Though I do think it would be fitting for the Church to announce that all removal requests not received via proper channels (i.e. the bishop the member's current residence is assigned to or the bishop of the last ward attended) go in the trash.  Make it so the "protest resignations" on the square are pure theatrics.

[NightSG]

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? 

 

There will always be people who throw temper tantrums when you point out something blindingly obvious that they refuse to agree with.

 

Be thankful you're not a LDS single adult, where there seems to be a higher concentration of people like that.

[cdowis]

Though I do think it would be fitting for the Church to announce that all removal requests not received via proper channels (i.e. the bishop the member's current residence is assigned to or the bishop of the last ward attended) go in the trash.  Make it so the "protest resignations" on the square are pure theatrics.

 

You are obviously unaware of court decisions regarding a request to remove one's membership.  Doing as you suggest would certainly involve the church in a lawsuit.

 

There is hysteria on both sides of this very delicate issue, and you are the poster boy on the LDS side. "Throw it in the trash" only feeds the hatred of the church.

Edited November 17, 2015 by cdowis

[Lopaka]

This is my first posting. I've followed the forum, but was never moved to participate until today.

 

 

THIS IS MY COMMENT ON FACEBOOK AFTER " MASS RESIGNATION" WAS POSTED.

 

Setting the record straight: I recognize that some of this will fall on deaf ears, but remember that homosexuals may be baptized, hold leadership positions, and even go to the Temple. And yes, there are gay bishops in the Church. The policy, which I didn't understand when it was issued, tries to avoid conflicts within the family between parents and their children. So, the parents trump the Church as it allows the parents to be the absolute authorities when it comes to their children until the child reaches majority. However, having said that, there may be exceptions to the policy for each circumstance is dealt with individually. This is policy not doctrine. Unlike the guy in the article, I haven't been inactive for 17 years, so I'm not leaving the Church. Pretty easy to leave something you haven't been in for two decades. Also, it's knee-jerk reaction to something not fully understood by the person.

 

Keep The Faith

[Anddenex]

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.  

 

I will focus solely on this incorrect application, which another poster specified, regarding a letter of resignation.  There appears to be a movement online telling people that if they write a letter, a strongly worded letter, that the Church will not contact and just remove their name.  This movement, false as it is, specifies if you specify in the letter "Do Not Contact Me" that the Church will not contact, or rather that the Church can not contact you.  This is false.

 

While in a bishopric we received one of these uninformed letters.  We did what we were supposed to, verify the recipient, explain the covenants that will be lost, and to make sure the person understood fully the consequences of their decision. 

 

Imagine, if the Church actually honored this uninformed letter.  How easy it would be for someone, someone who harbors hate for another member, who could easily write a letter in their name, forge their signature, and specify "Do Not Contact Me."  The Church, the bishop or stake president will visit the member within their presiding stake/ward.  If not in their ward, then the information is passed to the right leaders.

 

Common sense goes a long way in the Church regarding the removal of a name from the Church.  There are also policies regarding a letter sent, and every attempt made to contact, and after so many days (I believe 90) the name will be removed if all efforts of contact have been accomplished.

 

People who send a letter to Salt Lake, will find that their letter will be sent to their presiding stake president and then their bishop, by which their bishop will seek to verify recipient.  

 

The letters are immaturely written (the copy and paste online ones).  If one wants to remove their name from the records of the Church, simply write your own letter, or the following Sunday (or during the week), meet with the bishop and let them know.  

[cdowis]

This may be useful to any of your friends who have questions or problems in this area.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Here is some background on this policy (regarding minor children of SSM).

 

Church Handbook gives policies and procedures for church leaders. These policies can be changed and modified according to changing conditions.. Recently this policy was clarified -->>

 

When a child living with such a same-gender couple has already been baptized and is actively participating in the Church, provisions of Section 16.13 do not require that his or her membership activities or priesthood privileges be curtailed or that further ordinances be withheld. [iOW it only affects minor children who are not members of the church] *Decisions about any future ordinances for such children should be made by local leaders with their prime consideration being the preparation and best interests of the child.* [iOW local leaders are given flexibility based on the child's interests]

 

*All children are to be treated with utmost respect and love. They are welcome to attend Church meetings and participate in Church activities. All children may receive priesthood blessings of healing and spiritual guidance.* https://www.lds.org/pages/church-handbook-changes?lang=eng

Edited November 19, 2015 by cdowis

[NightSG]

You are obviously unaware of court decisions regarding a request to remove one's membership.  Doing as you suggest would certainly involve the church in a lawsuit.

 

Not at all; courts have long upheld the concept of an established procedure that doesn't place an unreasonable burden.  Telling someone they need to go to their local office instead of flying to headquarters is pretty much the epitome of a reasonable process that reduces the burden on the complainant.

 

Try delivering your taxes in person at IRS headquarters sometime.  While you're at it, make up your own tax forms and see if they accept those, or if they make you follow the procedure.

Edited November 19, 2015 by NightSG

[Bini]

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.

 

I agree with this.

 

 

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.

 

Yes, a lot of this is going around on social media. I haven't backed any of it, personally, but I did remove my Pray For France overlay on FB because I've decided to acknowledge the other countries and people that have also been attacked and not just one nation. If there was a nice Pray For The World overlay, I'd load it up and sport it, but there isn't one yet. So for now, my profile pic is without an overlay.

[yjacket]

 And yes, there are gay bishops in the Church.

Welcome to the forums, glad to have you.  I do not agree with this statement.  Bishops are required to be married, so unless there are homosexual bishops that are married this isn't happening.  If they are "homosexual bishops" and married-I don't think I'd classify them as homosexual.

 

Now there might be former bishops who have since "come out", but that is quite different than saying the Church has homosexual bishops.

[NeuroTypical]

Oy.  Semantics.  Hopefully, within 10 years, we'll have this figured out.

 

- In possession of same-sex attraction is one thing.

 

- Acting on same-sex attraction is something else.

 

Right now, we use the same group of words (gay, homosexual) to both.  And there is confusion and teeth gnashing and frogs falling from the sky.  Actually more than that, people off tossing the words around often simply don't even think that deeply about the issue at all.  Confusion.  Strife.  Misunderstanding.  Ignorance.  Unrighteous judgment.  

 

We don't know enough from Lopaka's post to know which definition they're using.  Same with yjacket's response.  It's possible they're in total agreement with each other, and just don't know it because of the ham-handed ambiguous English words we're using. 

 

Come on humans - fix this English language issue quickly.  

[LeSellers]

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.

It is plain that you don't understand what membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints means.

It means you have been baptized (and that the baptism has not been cancelled). It means you are still under the obligation to live up to your covenants.

Gross apostasy (with an accompanying court) and a request to have one's name removed from the records are the only ways to become a former member, an non-member-with-a-membership-record.

Why is the number of Saints so concerning to you?

Lehi

[Maureen]

It is plain that you don't understand what membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints means.

It means you have been baptized (and that the baptism has not been cancelled). It means you are still under the obligation to live up to your covenants.

Gross apostasy (with an accompanying court) and a request to have one's name removed from the records are the only ways to become a former member, an non-member-with-a-membership-record.

Why is the number of Saints so concerning to you?

Lehi

 

I'm not sure what your post here has to do with my post that you quoted.

 

My post is just an observation of what formal resignations would mean in regards to actual membership numbers. From what I've read, quite a few members formally resigning have been inactive for a while and some for many years. They are not active members but are still counted as members. Official name removals would reflect more accurate membership numbers.

 

You don't agree with my observation?

 

M.

[LeSellers]

My post is just an observation of what formal resignations would mean in regards to actual membership numbers. From what I've read, quite a few members formally resigning have been inactive for a while and some for many years. They are not active members but are still counted as members. Official name removals would reflect more accurate membership numbers.

 

You don't agree with my observation?

Your statement seems to say that members of the Church must show up every week to be "real" members. If they're not in the pews on Sunday, they're not actually and should be be seen as members.

There are a lot of reasons that people do not (often can not) be in meetings.

If it's a matter of real apostasy, then it's still not in my hands, and while I'd want to have the effects of my breaking the covenants I'd made nullified, so my apostasy, already having negated the blessings of that covenant, would no longer weigh on me, they are free to choose their own. That's what agency is all about: the ability to make bad choices, which come with bad outcomes.

We see a lot of people who rant about there not being 15 million "Mormons", but only 6 or 3 or whatever. They go on and on about a deception, tht the numbers of members is a fraud. (I've even seen a few who've claimed that the numbers include all those on whose behalf we've done baptisms for the dead. Ridiculous.) What they're actually trying to say is unclear, but they are adamant.

Lehi

Edited November 21, 2015 by LeSellers

[Maureen]

Your statement seems to say that members of the Church must show up every week to be "real" members. If they're not in the pews on Sunday, they're not actually and should be be seen as members....

 

My statement doesn't even come close to saying or even hinting at such a thing.

 

The people that I am reading about that have decided to officially resign are the ones that are admitting that they are not active members. I'm taking them at their word.

 

M.