"Mass Resignation"

[Guest]

If the Lord withholds judgment until we have finished this life, we should do no less.

[zil]

While there's nothing explicit, there are explicit instructions to treat everyone as if they had as much worth as we do:

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/5.43-46?lang=eng#42

(love your enemies; I suppose you can argue that one can love someone and consider them of little worth, but I find that hard to compute.)

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/22.37-40?lang=eng#36

(love thy neighbor)

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/luke/6.35-40?lang=eng#34

(love, be merciful, don't judge, etc. - worth re-reading)

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/18.32?lang=eng#31

(don't cast out sinners, minister to them)

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/11.30?lang=eng#29

(don't be angry with each other)

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/64.10?lang=eng#9

(forgive everyone)

 

(Delayed because the church servers were having problems.)

 

I could probably go on all night, but the point seems clear enough to me.  If we are to become like God, and these are to help us become like God, then I have to believe that everyone is of great worth to God, even if their choices and acts turn out to be worthless.  I'll let Him decide: Luke 6:38 breaks my heart (in a good way) every time I read it - I prefer the idea of good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over.  How merciful is our God.

[Guest MormonGator]

While there's nothing explicit, there are explicit instructions to treat everyone as if they had as much worth as we do:

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/5.43-46?lang=eng#42

(love your enemies; I suppose you can argue that one can love someone and consider them of little worth, but I find that hard to compute.)

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/22.37-40?lang=eng#36

(love thy neighbor)

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/luke/6.35-40?lang=eng#34

(love, be merciful, don't judge, etc. - worth re-reading)

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/18.32?lang=eng#31

(don't cast out sinners, minister to them)

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/11.30?lang=eng#29

(don't be angry with each other)

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/64.10?lang=eng#9

(forgive everyone)

 

(Delayed because the church servers were having problems.)

 

I could probably go on all night, but the point seems clear enough to me.  If we are to become like God, and these are to help us become like God, then I have to believe that everyone is of great worth to God, even if their choices and acts turn out to be worthless.  I'll let Him decide: Luke 6:38 breaks my heart (in a good way) every time I read it - I prefer the idea of good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over.  How merciful is our God.

 All this is nice, but often times non-christians use the kindness, tolerance and warmth of LDS members against them. 

(not me, I'm not kind, warm or tolerant) 

[Iggy]

It was announced in branch council sunday that our stake received a little over 600 resignations. Our branch had just one. A sister who has been a Do Not Contact for nearly 25 years. The Branch Presidency went to her home to verify that she really wanted to resign. She said, no not really, but her neighbor told her she had to do it. Turns out her neighbor is a lesibian and an attorney in the next town. Hmmm, I know who that is, the attorney that is. She is a crappy attorney btw. 

 

This sister's husband passed away, and she now wants to remove the Do Not Contact and wants VT. Doesn't want HT because she is alone in the house. Presidency asked if a husband/wife could come visit? Sure, but she still wants VT. See, sometimes going to check on the letter writers sometimes pays off in good ways. 

[zil]

 All this is nice, but often times non-christians use the kindness, tolerance and warmth of LDS members against them. 

(not me, I'm not kind, warm or tolerant) 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/5.10-12?lang=eng#9

(rejoice and be _exceeding_ glad)

 

:)

 

(I think it's possible to be kind without being taken advantage of, though it may be exceeding difficult.)

[Vort]

If the Lord withholds judgment until we have finished this life, we should do no less.

 

I don't understand. Does someone think I suggested that we ought to judge the relative worth of other people or of ourselves?

Edited November 24, 2015 by Vort

[zil]

I don't understand. Does someone think I suggested that we ought to judge the relative worth of other people or of ourselves?

It seemed like _maybe_ you might have been initially, but then you clarified that you were just positing possibilities.  (Maybe the rest of us are just hoping to remind _ourselves_ not to fall into that all too human trap.)

[The Folk Prophet]

I don't understand. Does someone think I suggested that we ought to judge the relative worth of other people or of ourselves?

Of course that's what was assumed. Anytime you say anything you can just assume that someone will think you're suggesting or applying judgement.

Edited November 24, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[Guest]

Holy cow, where did that left hook come from?

[Vort]

It seemed like _maybe_ you might have been initially, but then you clarified that you were just positing possibilities.

 

Thanks for clarifying, zil. I confess I do not understand this. It does seem to be a pretty common occurrence, with both myself and others, on both this venue and elsewhere. In this case, I responded very narrowly to a specific comment by Eowyn, having to do with the value of a soul changing in God's estimation -- which I actually quoted just to make sure everyone knew what I was talking about -- and yet people still made this enormous leap that I was somehow arguing for judging the comparative worth of souls.

 

Seriously, I don't know how much clearer I could have been, other than just list out all the things I wasn't talking about or trying to say. Which strikes me as an inelegant (not to mention inefficient) way to say something. It's frustrating. In times past, I have responded simply by not responding. I have assumed the best, that people will understand what is plainly written if they merely take the time to read it without imposing their own prejudices. My assumptions of the best have too often not been justified. If I was unclear in my original post, which often happens, then of course it's my job to clear up the misapprehensions I have caused. But when I write something clearly and carefully, then I have done my part in the communication department, and it's up to the reader to apply some care with interpretation and not read into my words non-existent things.

 

In case you can't tell, I'm not talking about this one case. This kind of thing happens a lot, and not just to me. It seems endemic on most internet discussion lists. I have yet to understand how best to respond to blatant (often seemingly intentional) misreadings.

[Maureen]

Yes, I know exactly what you're saying....

 

After reading your whole post I don't think you do.

 

 

You'd like our "membership numbers" to reflect all those who are active or who consider themselves members....

 

My post had nothing to do with what I would like, it was just an observation on how I thought a "mass exodus" would reflect membership numbers. That's all. It wasn't about comparing how other church's count members versus the LDS church; it was only an observation. My observation may be wrong, but that's all it was, just an observation.

 

M.

[Vort]

It was announced in branch council sunday that our stake received a little over 600 resignations.

 

Are you sure of that number, Iggy? Assuming you have a large stake of 3000 members, that represents 20% of membership resigning. I understand that the worldwide resignation rate for this issue has been more on the order of 0.01% (1500 out of 15,000,000, an average of roughly 1 resignation for every 2 stakes). Your stake alone would therefore account for fully 40% of the worldwide resignations on this issue. I rather suspect that is not the case. My numbers might be wrong, of course, but I have difficulty believing that 600 members of a single stake resigned their membership.

[Iggy]

For crying out loud Vort - I haven't a clue how many are in the entire stake. Doesn't matter to me. What matters is that our branch now has 0 requesting resignation.

 

According to the church, there are 3,114 stakes. 15,372,337 members; average of 4,936 members per stake. That would be 12% divided by 7 wards, one less ward because our one person removed her resignation so that is 1.7% per ward.

 

You can suspect all you wish, that is the right Jesus died on the cross for. But I heard what I heard.

 

What are you talking about - total number of world wide resignations? Please give a link to where you read about the total number of resignations world wide.  

[The Folk Prophet]

What are you talking about - total number of world wide resignations? Please give a link to where you read about the total number of resignations world wide.  

 

From the New York Times: "On Saturday, organizers of the mass resignation brought forms and envelopes and talked people through the process. Notaries were there to stamp the letters. Mark Naugle, a lawyer and former Mormon who often helps people leave the church, took form letters from people and mailed them to the church’s records office. He said he received 1,500 resignations on Saturday."

 

Of course it's entirely possible that others sent in their resignation letters via other means, so this may not be accurate. Still. 600 from one stake does seem a bit suspect. On the other hand, it wouldn't surprise me if a large amount of the "world wide" resignations were from only a few stakes. So...

Edited November 24, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[Guest]

I don't understand. Does someone think I suggested that we ought to judge the relative worth of other people or of ourselves?

 

Holy cow, where did that left hook come from?

 

Uhmm.  Yeah... 

 

Vort,

 

I think you read way too much into my post.

[Guest]

My post had nothing to do with what I would like, it was just an observation on how I thought a "mass exodus" would reflect membership numbers. That's all. It wasn't about comparing how other church's count members versus the LDS church; it was only an observation. My observation may be wrong, but that's all it was, just an observation.

 

M.

 

Ah!! I re-read your post.  I get it now.

 

It was a misunderstanding of the word "should".  This time you used the word "would".  I'm not nit-picking.  I get it now.  But the first post made me think otherwise.  Now, re-reading it I guess it was fine.  No, there was nothing wrong with using the word "should".  It's just that it was ambiguous.  I and Le both took it to be the alternate meaning.  Sorry.

 

Well, I think it was a nice trip down the rabbit hole.  But I believe it was a worthwhile trip.  We got to explore the differences in counting practices.  We got to explore the meaning behind the numbers and why we do what we do with regard to them.

 

Carry on...

Edited November 24, 2015 by Guest

[NeuroTypical]

From the New York Times: "On Saturday, organizers of the mass resignation brought forms and envelopes and talked people through the process. Notaries were there to stamp the letters. Mark Naugle, a lawyer and former Mormon who often helps people leave the church, took form letters from people and mailed them to the church’s records office. He said he received 1,500 resignations on Saturday."

 

Heh.  And if anyone should know what a "mass resignation" should look like, it's the NYT.

 

[NightSG]

I don't understand. Does someone think I suggested that we ought to judge the relative worth of other people or of ourselves?

 

How else are you going to decide whether it's more beneficial to you to be their friend or sell their organs on the black market?

[Vort]

How else are you going to decide whether it's more beneficial to you to be their friend or sell their organs on the black market?

 

I wasn't going to say it out loud. I guess someone needed to.

[zil]

Thanks for clarifying, zil. I confess I do not understand this. It does seem to be a pretty common occurrence, with both myself and others, on both this venue and elsewhere. In this case, I responded very narrowly to a specific comment by Eowyn, having to do with the value of a soul changing in God's estimation -- which I actually quoted just to make sure everyone knew what I was talking about -- and yet people still made this enormous leap that I was somehow arguing for judging the comparative worth of souls.

 

Seriously, I don't know how much clearer I could have been, other than just list out all the things I wasn't talking about or trying to say. Which strikes me as an inelegant (not to mention inefficient) way to say something. It's frustrating....

 

In case you can't tell, I'm not talking about this one case. This kind of thing happens a lot, and not just to me. It seems endemic on most internet discussion lists. I have yet to understand how best to respond to blatant (often seemingly intentional) misreadings.

Vort,

 

I suspect we all understand the frustration.  I think in part it stems from all of the following:

• We're dealing with text only, so we don't have all those visual and audio clues to help us understand
• We're all from different backgrounds (and have limited knowledge of each others' backgrounds) and use language differently, have different priorities, fears, assumptions, etc.
• And the human knee-jerk reactions (for defense, justification, validation, etc.) are all very strong, so most of us sometimes react really fast rather than stopping to consider alternate possibilities.

For example: in my youth, I tended to jump to conclusions about (judge) other people quite quickly, based on external appearance.  I've since gained enough experience to know it's not possible to do that correctly, and gained enough understanding of my own flaws to not want others to do that to me.  So I tend to be overly-reactive to things which even come close to sounding like judgements about others (in hopes of encouraging everyone to be generous - even though if I took a breath, I would probably realize that there's no evidence they lack generosity in the first place).  And, of course, I now run the risk of my over-reaction coming off as judging the person who might have been judging!  :: dizzy ::

 

I don't think you can do more than you've done - try to be clear, explain yourself when others take what you said so far out of your intended context that it's needed, try to assume the best, and let some of it go.

 

(For the record: some things make my knee jerk really hard and fast.   And I pretty much always regret it afterwards.)