"Bad parts" of Mormon History...forget about it?

[_BishopRic]

There is a third and actual option beyond the pejoritive binary ones you suggested--that being, that I view thing differently from you, and that difference is causing you difficulty (not me).

Sorry Wade, all I hear in this post is the typical rationalizations any perpretator makes when they are caught. I don't see any benefit to going forward with this discussion if all you are going to do is deny the wrongdoings any reasonable person can see the church did in the past.

I guarantee you that with that approach, you will never get an exmo to listen to your attempts to "bridge the divide."

[_Jason Bourne]

Here is what I think is reasonable. The Church is responsible for disclosing, in good faith, whatever information it deems pertinent to fascilitating a growth in testimony of Christ and his restored gospel. Beyond that, investigators and members, to the extent they desire, and in good faith, are then responsible for learning the information they are taught, and researching further information as they may personally wish and need, so as to determine for themselves whether they have experienced a growth in testimony of Christ and his restored gospel. And, to the extent that they do grow in their testimony, they may choose to commit themselves (through covenants, etc.) to Christ and his restored gospel.

As such, if one's testimony is lost through further investigation (and contrary to the intents and beliefs of the Chruch), that is one's personal responsibility, not the Church's. And, if one subsequently experiences hurt, anger, and feelings of unfairness, then that is also one's personal responsibility, and not the Church's

.

Well Wade you and I will have to agree that we are widely apart on this and remain cordial. I just cannot get to where you are with this. It seems to me that an organization that demands total honesty from me ought to exemplify it. I think if I were like what you describe above in my business dealings and I used the same reasoning that you do for such dealings when explaining to my bishop why I withheld crucial information from people when closing a business transaction he would withhold my temple recommend.

Honestly, it seems astonishing to me that you and others can so easily apply such a low standard as well as twist and turn to arrive at the conclusion you do on this topic for the Church but you would never ever cut so much slack to people or other organizations in the other areas of your lives.

Thanks for patiently engaging me on these points. We will just have to respect each others points of view and I can do that.

[_Moniker]

The poet John Lydgate once said: "You can please some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time."

Unfortunately, no matter how well intended, nor how caring, loving, and thoughtful the Church is in meeting its three-fold mission in Christ, there well always be those whose feelings will get hurt, and who may find themselves blaming and judging the Church on boards such as this. At least they will have good people like you to discuss things with--that is, until you may inadvertantly hurt their feelings as well.

Ha, I missed this part. I snipped too quickly.

Wade, I came to these boards to help my family and specifically my step-son and his father have a better relationship. I enjoy a lot of these people that are both practicing LDS and ex-Mos. I'm not trying to steer anyone to a faith, or a lifestyle, or to anything AT ALL. That is the Church's mission, no? So, if I hurt someone's feelings they can probably wake up tomorrow and not feel as though they've had their world heaved upside down, question their entire life, question what once made sense to them as it turns into doubt, feel they were misled, etc... etc... I'm pretty sure the person that I offended could just tell me what was up and I could retort back -- or we could make up. No biggie. Leaving the Church is a biggie, Wade. I'm fairly certain you do recognize that -- or else you wouldn't be on here.

Certainly, leaving the Church can be a "biggy" for some people (though not all). But, as you may guess, that is beside my point. I wasn t' speaking to the gravity of leaving for some, but rather the seeming impossibility of no one getting hurt and leaving the Church regardless of whatever good the Church may do.

To take the point one step further, given that the overwhelming majority of Church members and former Church members do not feel a need to weep and wail against the Church on boards such as this, but many may be moved instead by gratitude and appreciation and respect for the Church (even when they may disagree with various Church beliefs and policies), may give some indication where the fault (for those looking to place blame--that would not be me) for the hurt may lay. So, for those inclined to finger-point, that may be a more logical starting point.

As for me, I am not so much interested in looking backwards and using history for purposes of judgementalism, but rather in looking forward to what good there may yetr be, and working towards that end. I can respect, though, if others choose differently.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Does the Church keep up with members that leave? I've seen it stated often that the "majority of Church members and former Church members do not feel a need to weep and wail against the Church" a few times. How do you know? Is there a way to know that for certain? Does the Church keep tabs on what former members do?

Something about LDS makes a good amount of people sort of "weep and wail" for a bit when they leave, it appears to me. I think I'd be interested in finding out why that was so, rather than calling them weepers and wailers -- that sort of strikes me as not recognizing their legitimate gripes with a Church they grew up in (in some cases), that they once devoted themselves to, that they once considered a fundamental part of their life. I'd be looking inward at the Church, rather than outward to the former members themselves as to what caused their distress. Of course I can't do that, 'cause it's not my Church.

Seems, to me, that if a significant number of people left an organization that I was a part of with gripes and pain I'd want to understand where it originated. I wouldn't assume there was something flawed within each of these individuals -- I would look to the organization that I was still a part of to see what could be done to ensure that less people left hurt and lost all of their former faith.

[_Mister Scratch]

Certainly, leaving the Church can be a "biggy" for some people (though not all). But, as you may guess, that is beside my point. I wasn t' speaking to the gravity of leaving for some, but rather the seeming impossibility of no one getting hurt and leaving the Church regardless of whatever good the Church may do.

To take the point one step further, given that the overwhelming majority of Church members and former Church members do not feel a need to weep and wail against the Church on boards such as this, but many may be moved instead by gratitude and appreciation and respect for the Church (even when they may disagree with various Church beliefs and policies), may give some indication where the fault (for those looking to place blame--that would not be me) for the hurt may lay. So, for those inclined to finger-point, that may be a more logical starting point.

As for me, I am not so much interested in looking backwards and using history for purposes of judgementalism, but rather in looking forward to what good there may yetr be, and working towards that end. I can respect, though, if others choose differently.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Does the Church keep up with members that leave? I've seen it stated often that the "majority of Church members and former Church members do not feel a need to weep and wail against the Church" a few times. How do you know? Is there a way to know that for certain? Does the Church keep tabs on what former members do?

He doesn't know with any real certainty. Mostly his claims on this topic are hypothetical in nature. He once floated a now-infamous "Mr. D" theory which was beaten to a pulp and roundly discredited. All he's ever been able to offer up are two or three personal, anecdotal examples. On the other hand, the written accounts of "weeping and wailing," on the Web alone, are overwhelming.

Something about LDS makes a good amount of people sort of "weep and wail" for a bit when they leave, it appears to me. I think I'd be interested in finding out why that was so, rather than calling them weepers and wailers -- that sort of strikes me as not recognizing their legitimate gripes with a Church they grew up in (in some cases), that they once devoted themselves to, that they once considered a fundamental part of their life. I'd be looking inward at the Church, rather than outward to the former members themselves as to what caused their distress. Of course I can't do that, 'cause it's not my Church.

Seems, to me, that if a significant number of people left an organization that I was a part of with gripes and pain I'd want to understand where it originated. I wouldn't assume there was something flawed within each of these individuals -- I would look to the organization that I was still a part of to see what could be done to ensure that less people left hurt and lost all of their former faith.

That would involve having to accept some responsibility and culpability---something the Church is constitutionally incapable of doing.

[_wenglund]

There is a third and actual option beyond the pejoritive binary ones you suggested--that being, that I view thing differently from you, and that difference is causing you difficulty (not me).

Sorry Wade, all I hear in this post is the typical rationalizations any perpretator makes when they are caught. I don't see any benefit to going forward with this discussion if all you are going to do is deny the wrongdoings any reasonable person can see the church did in the past.

I guarantee you that with that approach, you will never get an exmo to listen to your attempts to "bridge the divide."

I fully get that. And, I understand how the same for some members is true in reverse (the view what ex-mo's say as akin to rationalizations of a perpetrator).

For those, such as yourself, on either side, who view themselves as victims and/or the other party as perpetrators, bridging the divide has little hope. The only hope for this kind of one-sided thinking is for one side to decide to see things the otherside's way and satisfactorily capitulates to the other sides demands for change and apology (e.g. a snowball's chance in hell). This way of thinking has long been the prevelent state of things, and one would think that one would get a clue that it doesn't work all that well.

So, you are right. For those, like yourself, who are of this mind, discussions such as this are relatively futile, and likewise, talk of accepting people for who they are and for what they believe, is only so much smoke that obscures the real relationship-limiting prejudices.

Thankfully, though, not all ex-mo's view the Church as analoguous to a "perpetrator", just as not all faithful members view former members as "perpetrators" (I don't). And, some on both sides are open to having their victim/perpetrator perceptions changed to a more functional and charitable point of view. It is these people that I have interest in and hope for.

But, I do appreciate your time. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Well Wade you and I will have to agree that we are widely apart on this and remain cordial. I just cannot get to where you are with this. It seems to me that an organization that demands total honesty from me ought to exemplify it. I think if I were like what you describe above in my business dealings and I used the same reasoning that you do for such dealings when explaining to my bishop why I withheld crucial information from people when closing a business transaction he would withhold my temple recommend.

Honestly, it seems astonishing to me that you and others can so easily apply such a low standard as well as twist and turn to arrive at the conclusion you do on this topic for the Church but you would never ever cut so much slack to people or other organizations in the other areas of your lives.

Thanks for patiently engaging me on these points. We will just have to respect each others points of view and I can do that.

If it ever happens (and I hope it doesn't), that a temple recommend interviewer expect you to disclose far more of your personal history than you think is warranted for determining your worthiness, and were the interviewer to, through other sources, discover undisclosed aspects of your history that he believes deems you unworthy, but you see it quite differently, and then proceeds to veiw you as less than honest (when you thought yourself completely honest) and lacking in full disclosure, and thinks that you have set a low standard for yourself in comparison to what you hold up to the Church, and that you are twisting and turning to arrive at your conclusion, then perhaps you may then better understand what I have been saying, and we won't be so far apart in how we see things.

To me, were such an interview to happen to you, I would think it misguided, just as I think the same is true in what you suggest for the Church. In truth, I am the one apply the same standard to both sides, whereas you are not. I say this not by way of blame, but respectfully as an offer of a differing point of view, with the hope that this feedback will be of some assistance to you, if nothing more than to enhancing your understanding of the way Church leaders reasonably think regarding this issue.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_BishopRic]

There is a third and actual option beyond the pejoritive binary ones you suggested--that being, that I view thing differently from you, and that difference is causing you difficulty (not me).

Sorry Wade, all I hear in this post is the typical rationalizations any perpretator makes when they are caught. I don't see any benefit to going forward with this discussion if all you are going to do is deny the wrongdoings any reasonable person can see the church did in the past.

I guarantee you that with that approach, you will never get an exmo to listen to your attempts to "bridge the divide."

I fully get that. And, I understand how the same for some members is true in reverse (the view what ex-mo's say as akin to rationalizations of a perpetrator).

For those, such as yourself, on either side, who view themselves as victims and/or the other party as perpetrators, bridging the divide has little hope. The only hope for this kind of one-sided thinking is for one side to decide to see things the otherside's way and satisfactorily capitulates to the other sides demands for change and apology (e.g. a snowball's chance in hell). This way of thinking has long been the prevelent state of things, and one would think that one would get a clue that it doesn't work all that well.

So, you are right. For those, like yourself, who are of this mind, discussions such as this are relatively futile, and likewise, talk of accepting people for who they are and for what they believe, is only so much smoke that obscures the real relationship-limiting prejudices.

Thankfully, though, not all ex-mo's view the Church as analoguous to a "perpetrator", just as not all faithful members view former members as "perpetrators" (I don't). And, some on both sides are open to having their victim/perpetrator perceptions changed to a more functional and charitable point of view. It is these people that I have interest in and hope for.

But, I do appreciate your time. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Again, and to no surprise, you missed the point. Do you notice a pattern of missing what we say Wade? I'll try one last time. We BOTH feel victimized in many ways, I'm sure. Nobody (that I know of) is denying that we believe differently about that.

But does that preclude attempts at being able to get along with the other. Perhaps the problem you are having is separating your beliefs with...YOU. YOU are not the church. Your beliefs are not what make YOU. Just like you can be a Lakers fan, and I a Jazz fan, and we can still be friends. It is when our loyalty for our "team" is such an obsession, that we can't see the other for who they really are?

PLEASE try to see this Wade. If you really want to help bridge the divide, we can have completely different beliefs about many things -- religion or anything else, but if we choose to focus on our commonalities, and see what is really good about the other, we all can love -- UNCONDITIONALLY. I believe that is possible, and in fact, believe that is what the word means.

If you can't see that, I pity your associates that don't believe exactly as you...and please don't attempt to come to any of these boards and claim to want to "bridge the gap," where it is clear you are a wolf in sheep's clothing and only want to re-convert us to YOUR way of thinking!

[_wenglund]

The poet John Lydgate once said: "You can please some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time."

Unfortunately, no matter how well intended, nor how caring, loving, and thoughtful the Church is in meeting its three-fold mission in Christ, there well always be those whose feelings will get hurt, and who may find themselves blaming and judging the Church on boards such as this. At least they will have good people like you to discuss things with--that is, until you may inadvertantly hurt their feelings as well.

Ha, I missed this part. I snipped too quickly.

Wade, I came to these boards to help my family and specifically my step-son and his father have a better relationship. I enjoy a lot of these people that are both practicing LDS and ex-Mos. I'm not trying to steer anyone to a faith, or a lifestyle, or to anything AT ALL. That is the Church's mission, no? So, if I hurt someone's feelings they can probably wake up tomorrow and not feel as though they've had their world heaved upside down, question their entire life, question what once made sense to them as it turns into doubt, feel they were misled, etc... etc... I'm pretty sure the person that I offended could just tell me what was up and I could retort back -- or we could make up. No biggie. Leaving the Church is a biggie, Wade. I'm fairly certain you do recognize that -- or else you wouldn't be on here.

Certainly, leaving the Church can be a "biggy" for some people (though not all). But, as you may guess, that is beside my point. I wasn t' speaking to the gravity of leaving for some, but rather the seeming impossibility of no one getting hurt and leaving the Church regardless of whatever good the Church may do.

To take the point one step further, given that the overwhelming majority of Church members and former Church members do not feel a need to weep and wail against the Church on boards such as this, but many may be moved instead by gratitude and appreciation and respect for the Church (even when they may disagree with various Church beliefs and policies), may give some indication where the fault (for those looking to place blame--that would not be me) for the hurt may lay. So, for those inclined to finger-point, that may be a more logical starting point.

As for me, I am not so much interested in looking backwards and using history for purposes of judgementalism, but rather in looking forward to what good there may yetr be, and working towards that end. I can respect, though, if others choose differently.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Does the Church keep up with members that leave? I've seen it stated often that the "majority of Church members and former Church members do not feel a need to weep and wail against the Church [on boards such as this]" a few times. How do you know? Is there a way to know that for certain? Does the Church keep tabs on what former members do?

One doesn't need to keep tabs much on what former members do to inductively come to the conclusion that I did. One need only have a reasonable sense for the number of people that comprise the set of all members and former members, and contrast that number with a reasonable sense for the number of members and former members who "weep and wail" against the Church on message boards such as this. Given that the current membership of the Church is around 12 million, then for my statement to be correct, there would, at the very least, need to be less than 6 million members and former member weeping and wailing against the Church on boards such as this. Feel free to cull the total number of Mormon related discussion boards and see if the combined total participant lists come anywhere near 6 million. Then, if you still need to, do a rough sampling of the partisipants to see what proportion are members and former members, and of that set, what proportion weep and wail against the Church. I think you will then find that my assessment (quantitatively) was quite reasonable.

Something about LDS makes a good amount of people sort of "weep and wail" for a bit when they leave, it appears to me. I think I'd be interested in finding out why that was so, rather than calling them weepers and wailers -- that sort of strikes me as not recognizing their legitimate gripes with a Church they grew up in (in some cases), that they once devoted themselves to, that they once considered a fundamental part of their life. I'd be looking inward at the Church, rather than outward to the former members themselves as to what caused their distress. Of course I can't do that, 'cause it's not my Church.

So, were a company to establish a complaint department (or a weeping and wailing department), and were to refer as "complaintants" (or weepers and wailers) the clients who utilized that department, then according to your "reasoning" above, this is tantimount to "not recognizing their legitimate gripes" with the company?

I am sorry, but that doesn't make sense to me. The descriptor one may use to describe a given behavior, in no way may rationally be interpreted as indicitive of the legitimacy/non-legitimacy of the message being conveyed by the behavior. It only speaks to how the behavior is being perceived. People may well have legitimate gripes, and convey those gripes via weeping and wailing. Their choice of conveyence, and my use of the weeping and wailing descriptor in reference to the conveyence, doesn't de-legitimize the complaint being conveyed. It merely speaks to my perception that the means of conveyence is overly dramatic and likely to be ineffectual.

Now, you may reasonably disagree as to whether the criticism of the Church on boards like this may reasonably be described as weeping and wailing. And, I can respect that. But, that is quite apart from your jumping to the irration conclusion that my use of that descriptor deligitimize what they have to say.

Seems, to me, that if a significant number of people left an organization that I was a part of with gripes and pain I'd want to understand where it originated. I wouldn't assume there was something flawed within each of these individuals -- I would look to the organization that I was still a part of to see what could be done to ensure that less people left hurt and lost all of their former faith.

That sounds somewhat reasonable. However, its wise to look at those with gripes and pain in the context of the entire relevant population. If the gripes and complaints are confined to a relative few people in comparison with the entire population, it may be reasonable to hypothesize that the gripes and complaints are a function of individual dynamics rather than institutional or group dynamics.

For example, let's say you baked a cake and took it to a gathering of female friends, and you gave a piece to each, and after they each had eaten, many gushed over how wonderful it tasted and how beautiful it had looked, but a couple said different things about what was wrong with this, or what was wrong with that, then would it be unreasonable for you to conclude that the complaints were not so much a function of the intrinsic quality of your cake, but rather a function of differing individual tastes and disposition (by disposition I mean that there may have been some of your female friends who weren't all that excited about the taste or look of your cake, but they aren't the type of people disposed to complaining about such things, and may have been politely silent or complimentary out of gratitude for the effort you put into the cake.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

Something about LDS makes a good amount of people sort of "weep and wail" for a bit when they leave, it appears to me. I think I'd be interested in finding out why that was so, rather than calling them weepers and wailers -- that sort of strikes me as not recognizing their legitimate gripes with a Church they grew up in (in some cases), that they once devoted themselves to, that they once considered a fundamental part of their life. I'd be looking inward at the Church, rather than outward to the former members themselves as to what caused their distress. Of course I can't do that, 'cause it's not my Church.

I can tell you exactly why this happens. LDS are taught that "apostates" leave the church due to sin, wanting to sin, laziness, pride, hurt feelings, or some other demeaning and belittling "reason". LDS are taught this over and over and over and over and over.

After being told this all their lives, exmormons found themselves no longer able to believe the claims of the LDS church, often due to discovering the "real" church history (versus the white washed church history presented at church). Due to their own experience with the indoctrination about "apostates", the now exbeliever knows good and well that TBMs will now view him/her with suspicion and sometimes outright fear and anger. The exbeliever knows that these believers are thinking exactly what they've been taught to think - the apostate left due to sin, or some other base or evil characteristic.

So the "apostate" now wants to justify his or her loss of faith. The apostate wants TBMs to understand that he/she did NOT leave due to sin, or blahblahblah. To justify his/her loss of faith, the apostate delves into the unpleasant facts and history that resulted in the loss of faith. The apostate is trying to explain what he/she perceives as legitimate reasons for loss of faith.

The TBM hears this as a malicious attack on the church, and responds with defensiveness, anger, and reciprocal attacks.

The cycle is established. The cycle will never, never end unless and until the LDS church stops indoctrinating its members about "why apostates lose faith".

You can see this indoctrination all the time on these boards. Just go read some of Will Schryver's nonsense. Or read the vast majority of TBMs on MAD. With minor exceptions, they say things like "all the apostates I know personally DID leave due to sin, even if they denied it!!" with the clear implication being that all apostates leave due to sin or some other base trait and just lie about it.

Wade will never admit the truth of my words. But they are very true.

[_BishopRic]

Something about LDS makes a good amount of people sort of "weep and wail" for a bit when they leave, it appears to me. I think I'd be interested in finding out why that was so, rather than calling them weepers and wailers -- that sort of strikes me as not recognizing their legitimate gripes with a Church they grew up in (in some cases), that they once devoted themselves to, that they once considered a fundamental part of their life. I'd be looking inward at the Church, rather than outward to the former members themselves as to what caused their distress. Of course I can't do that, 'cause it's not my Church.

I can tell you exactly why this happens. LDS are taught that "apostates" leave the church due to sin, wanting to sin, laziness, pride, hurt feelings, or some other demeaning and belittling "reason". LDS are taught this over and over and over and over and over.

After being told this all their lives, exmormons found themselves no longer able to believe the claims of the LDS church, often due to discovering the "real" church history (versus the white washed church history presented at church). Due to their own experience with the indoctrination about "apostates", the now exbeliever knows good and well that TBMs will now view him/her with suspicion and sometimes outright fear and anger. The exbeliever knows that these believers are thinking exactly what they've been taught to think - the apostate left due to sin, or some other base or evil characteristic.

So the "apostate" now wants to justify his or her loss of faith. The apostate wants TBMs to understand that he/she did NOT leave due to sin, or blahblahblah. To justify his/her loss of faith, the apostate delves into the unpleasant facts and history that resulted in the loss of faith. The apostate is trying to explain what he/she perceives as legitimate reasons for loss of faith.

The TBM hears this as a malicious attack on the church, and responds with defensiveness, anger, and reciprocal attacks.

The cycle is established. The cycle will never, never end unless and until the LDS church stops indoctrinating its members about "why apostates lose faith".

You can see this indoctrination all the time on these boards. Just go read some of Will Schryver's nonsense. Or read the vast majority of TBMs on MAD. With minor exceptions, they say things like "all the apostates I know personally DID leave due to sin, even if they denied it!!" with the clear implication being that all apostates leave due to sin or some other base trait and just lie about it.

Wade will never admit the truth of my words. But they are very true.

Amen, and AMEN!