• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Mormon/Ex-Mormon Thread of 3 hour blocks and salvation flowcharts

CorvoSol

Member
Hey guys! I got a letter from GAF user peaceiscloser who is currently serving his mission!

He's been out about 4 months. I don't know if any of you were familiar with him, since he spent most of his time over in AnimeGAF instead. He sounds like he's doing well, got the new missionary shine going on, having a lot of good experiences and all.

He also sent me some weird pictures of stuff he found on his mission, among them, I thought that this was worth sharing for entertainment purposes:

4FlkASl.jpg

I'd forgotten that Missionaries invariably have terrible camera quality, but PC says "Here's one for the AWESOME FAN ART thread that I saw at a member's house."

Here's a picture of a small cat he sent me. I don't know why, so don't ask me:


But yeah, there you go. Update from a member of Mormon/Ex-Mormon GAF out in the trenches, haha.
 

ronito

Member
Hey guys! I got a letter from GAF user peaceiscloser who is currently serving his mission!

He's been out about 4 months. I don't know if any of you were familiar with him, since he spent most of his time over in AnimeGAF instead. He sounds like he's doing well, got the new missionary shine going on, having a lot of good experiences and all.

He also sent me some weird pictures of stuff he found on his mission, among them, I thought that this was worth sharing for entertainment purposes:



I'd forgotten that Missionaries invariably have terrible camera quality, but PC says "Here's one for the AWESOME FAN ART thread that I saw at a member's house."

Here's a picture of a small cat he sent me. I don't know why, so don't ask me:



But yeah, there you go. Update from a member of Mormon/Ex-Mormon GAF out in the trenches, haha.

Sonic is such a dick using that guy's head as an armrest.
 

ronito

Member
Women's conference this saturday!
If OW really wanted to make a point they should send men to try and attend the meeting. If they're let in, then win for them. If they're not, then it forces the church entrench itself deeper in the gender war thing.
 
D

Deleted member 1159

Unconfirmed Member
So the saga continues in my house:

Yesterday the bishop stopped by to talk to my wife. He said "hi (Thaedolus), we've met before several months ago..."

Turns out we had dinner at our neighbor's house in September. I forgot his name, but he was a nice guy. My wife was out, so he asked when he could return. I told him in about an hour and he said he'd come back then. I didn't think to engage him on the topic, assuming he'd want to speak to her about it.

I called my wife to tell her he was coming over, and she wasn't too happy about it. She also began the question possible ulterior motives of our neighbors inviting us to dinner with the bishop (something I'm not convinced about either way- the neighbors were clearly good family friends with his family).

Anyway, she came home and was nervous about it. I told her not to stress and that it will likely be brief. When I sent my resignation request in, I had like a two minute phone call with a bishop. No biggie.

Well, the man was persistent. When he returned we invited him in and sat down in our front room. He asked my wife why she wanted to resign. She explained that she hadn't been to church for almost twenty years, essentially right after she was baptized. She didn't believe in God or Mormonism at all. Then he turned to me and asked if I believed in God.

"No, I don't, but I respect people who do."

He went on to ask me what my relationship with God was, which I thought was weird right after I told him I don't believe in God. So I explained that I was a member, missionary, etc. and resigned a couple years ago. He didn't know any of that, which I guess confirms the church does stop following you when you go through with the resignation.

So he followed a somewhat predictable line of attack after that...he asked me how I felt when I was teaching as a missionary (verbatim the same question those missionaries asked me during one of our encounters). I told him I felt like I was being dishonest, because I was following Elder Oaks' counsel to find my testimony in bearing it...I didn't feel like that was being truthful and I felt hollow inside by saying things I didn't really believe.

He didn't seem to expect that, but then went on to affirm what Oaks said....right after I said it made me feel shitty inside. Weird. He then went on to compare my wife's troubles (his words) to that of his son's troubles with algebra: he never had a good foundational understanding of basic arithmetic, so when he got to algebra he was lost. Somewhat condescending thing to say (afterward my wife told me she was really annoyed by this).

He also brought up his wife's passing often, which I felt was really out of place. I understood what he was getting at, the gospel gave him comfort during that time of need, but he brought it in weird places that were just irrelevant. It felt manipulative. Then he asked if we would pray to know about the truth.

My wife was a champ. She told him three times (he was persistent) that no, she didn't believe in God and didn't see the point in praying about it. He asked her who she would go to in order to learn about her occupation...she said her peers or experts in the field...then he asked who she would go to in order to learn about god. Well, my wife isn't familiar with the Sunday school read-my-mind answer fishing that was going on and just said "probably not church."

Ha! So he persisted in asking us to pray about it, and I, as politely and sensitively as I could without shitting on his story about his first wife, explained that we were very firm in our beliefs and didn't feel the need to do any praying over it. We wrapped it up at that and he explained that he would compose the letter for the first presidency and would return so my wife could approve it...again, kind of weird and unnecessary steps that I know others haven't had to do, including myself. But we just said ok.

Afterward we were both stressed by the whole thing. My wife was literally sweating and really annoyed at how many times she had to assert herself, over a 40 minute conversation. I was surprised by how emotional it made me. I know the bishop was only doing what he thought was right, but god what a uncomfortable thing to talk about to a virtual stranger. Between this and my encounters with the missionaries, I'm having weird resurgences of emotions I haven't felt in a long time, and I hate it.

We are moving out of Utah for at least a couple years this summer, so I'm hoping the change of locale will help me reclose the Mormon chapter of my life. Maybe we will stay gone for good...sigh
 

Doodis

Member
I met some girl who's on her mission right now, do you think she would say no if I asked her out?

Not sure if serious, but...

Yes, she would say no. Missionaries are to have zero relationships with the opposite sex while serving a mission. They're also not allowed to be anywhere without their companion. Sorry, your princess is in another castle.
 

ronitoswife

Neo Member
We are moving out of Utah for at least a couple years this summer, so I'm hoping the change of locale will help me reclose the Mormon chapter of my life. Maybe we will stay gone for good...sigh

Good luck with your move! It actually was the best thing for me. I moved the day after Ronito and I got married and although I was still a TBM at the time(or at least wanting to be one, thinking I had to be one) leaving the bubble was just what I needed to begin healing from all the crap I was going through at the time. I never planned on leaving the church but that is what happened and I know I wouldn't have been able to work through all the healing if I stayed in Utah. Despite the fact that I do miss my family and close friends and I miss my kids not growing up with their cousins, it's been the best medicine. And it's true, you may not come back. I moved so Ronito could stay close to his kids. At first it was supposed to be only for a couple years. But after a while, the changes I made and becoming my own person not what everyone expected me to be. I realized I could never go back. We can visit but I don't think I could ever live there again nor do I want to. It's better this way.

I hope everything works out for you both. :)
 

ronito

Member
Dude Thaed it seems you got an area from hell, even for being in the Mormon Corridor.
You know, you'd figure with the mormon exodus happening the bishop would be able to deal with it a little better than that. Missionaries I understand, but Bishops? Oh well, I mean at least he means well.
 
D

Deleted member 1159

Unconfirmed Member
But after a while, the changes I made and becoming my own person not what everyone expected me to be. I realized I could never go back. We can visit but I don't think I could ever live there again nor do I want to. It's better this way.

I hope everything works out for you both. :)

Thanks. I think it's kind of sad though, I like Utah. I love Moab, skiing, and honestly SLC proper is a pretty fun place. But I do need a break, and thankfully the wife's graduate program is pulling us away. She got into the U too, a very tough place to get accepted, but we think we are making the right choice.

Dude Thaed it seems you got an area from hell, even for being in the Mormon Corridor.
You know, you'd figure with the mormon exodus happening the bishop would be able to deal with it a little better than that. Missionaries I understand, but Bishops? Oh well, I mean at least he means well.

Goddamn Sandy, man. I think the farther you move from downtown SLC the more MoMo the areas get. I like our neighborhood in terms of the nice houses and businesses around and what have you, but it's swarming with missionaries and reactivation efforts. The first year or so we were here seemed largely uneventful, but after showing up on the radar or whatever I've started to lose my mind. I'm from the Bay Area originally, so maybe when we are done we will move back there. And maybe the A's will have a new stadium by then (ha!)
 

ronito

Member
Hey man, if you do let us know. We're in Sactown so we'll totally stop by for a visit.

Where are you going to move to in the meantime?
 
D

Deleted member 1159

Unconfirmed Member
I'll take you up on that, you can help me unload the U-Haul and I'll provide the funeral potatoes.

In the meantime we are gonna be in Phoenix. I've liked the place when I've been down during the winter, but I'm worried I might melt in the summer.
 

Anbec7

Member
This is... quite the interesting thread, I'm currently trying to read everything so sorry if I make questions that already got their answer...
I'm an Ex-Mormon I guess (From Mexico)

I started going there when I was 10 because my mother wanted a "free good environment with good kids for us (me and my sis)" and don't get me wrong the people are nice to each other and thanks to the people I did a lot of different things.

But I always knew (maybe because I was never a fan of church or god) that something was a little bit odd by the way they would always refer to us the children, specially the boys to go on a mission, every time in a kind of manipulative way....

I always said No and had a lot, a lot of talks with several members in the church along the years I was active, to this days I think most of them are not happy when I see them.

My old sis is currently an active member along with her husband, it was thanks to her husband that we knew the church, they were pretty straight forward mormons a little bit of extreme but thanks to the years they are now more "open".

I went back and forth between my 17-20 years received the "priesthood" and everything but while I respect all the people there I don't want to go back, there are many ideas that I don't agree and even my mother noticed that.

They are good people like all religions but maybe not for me!

What got me curious though is something that I don't know if someone of the olders members can answer, I guess brother-in-law (My Sis husband) due to some mistake during his mission he can't until today enter the temple and do the whole "eternal family" thing, why is that?

Also if someone could PM the Temple ceremony, I'm just curious about it why some people freaked out.

Again, just like in all religions and people in all the world there good people and there are another quite... extreme.

Thanks, sorry if I make any mistakes since I'm still english training LOL
 
What got me curious though is something that I don't know if someone of the olders members can answer, I guess brother-in-law (My Sis husband) due to some mistake during his mission he can't until today enter the temple and do the whole "eternal family" thing, why is that?

Also if someone could PM the Temple ceremony, I'm just curious about it why some people freaked out.

Did your Bother in Law meet your sister on his mission? Not being able to go to the temple for a set period of time is usually due to some form of "transgression" maybe he had sex out of wedlock?

The temple video is pretty easy to find on youtube, just search Mormon Temple Video
 

ronito

Member
For me the temple thing was very eye opening because it just sorta came out of nowhere and keep in mind I had read "The Holy Temple" and had taken 2 temple prep classes. The whole time up until that time I was tired of defending the church saying, "It's not a cult. It's not a cult." And I also was very proud of our lack of "vain repetition" I remember when they had us start doing the oath of the priesthood every beginning of our priesthood meetings I complained to the bishop about it.

But then I got to the temple and was like "My god we ARE a cult!" and the repetition stuff I hated. I studied to try to get more comfortable with it but the more I study the more I found that we were really just masons all along.
 
Wait, what? Really? Was that an official BYU survey, or just something put out by a professor/student/class/whatever?

Either way, that's pretty amazing. Poe's Law in action, since I honestly can't tell if that's parody or insanity. Haha.
 

ronito

Member
This was in the trib today

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57862203-78/missionaries-church-converts-lds.html.csp
The stats are staggering.

In the year and a half since the LDS Church lowered the minimum age for full-time missionary service, the Utah-based faith has seen its proselytizing force swell from 58,500 to more than 83,000. That’s a 42 percent leap.
The number of convert baptisms last year grew to 282,945, up from 272,330 in 2012. That’s an increase of — less than 4 percent.


How can that be? Why would a surge of 25,000 additional eager and earnest suit- and dress-wearing, scripture-packing, pamphlet-peddling young "elders" and "sisters" not translate into a similarly dramatic jump in the number of Mormons on membership rolls?

The main problem, says independent researcher Matt Martinich, who closely watches LDS growth patterns and statistics, is that the new missionaries were largely assigned to areas such as the United States and Latin America, where Mormons are well-established and the "market" for the religion may be saturated.

"Most of the surplus in missionary manpower was allocated to less-productive areas, where the church has more developed infrastructure that could accommodate such a sudden, massive increase in missionaries serving," says Martinich, who lives in Colorado Springs. "In U.S. missions outside of the Intermountain West, every congregation had a companionship [pair of missionaries]. It was hard to keep even one busy. Now they have two or three [pairs]."

It is understandable why The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints placed the new missionaries in these areas, he says. Opening new countries or regions can be difficult and time-consuming, especially in terms of getting visas, guaranteeing safety, overcoming health concerns and assessing political stability.

The LDS Church eventually added 58 missions (there are now 405 around the world) after the missionary ages fell to 18, down from 19, for young men, and to 19, down from 21, for young women. But most of those nations had already seen a Mormon missionary presence of some kind.

Playing it safe, Martinich maintains, is "counterproductive in terms of baptizing new members."

The Mormon missionary system is built on a "centers of strength" strategy.

It starts in a population center, usually a big city, with a single congregation, staffed by the standard all-volunteer clergy and then grows as new members are added until it becomes large enough — usually at about 200 members — to be split in two.

It can take years to create a stable and thriving Mormon presence, explains Martinich, who co-wrote the encyclopedic "Reaching the Nations: International Church Growth Almanac: 2014."

The policy almost ensures slow growth — but growth nonetheless. Unlike many denominations, the 15 million-member LDS Church is still adding throngs of members (and faster than most).

David Stewart, a Las Vegas physician and Martinich’s co-author on the two-volume atlas, points to general societal trends as contributing to the slumping ranks in many religions and the moderating growth rates in Mormonism.

"More and more U.S. students arriving at college age identify themselves as agnostics or atheists than ever before, and church attendance across many faiths in the West has been stagnant or declining for some time now," Stewart writes in an email. "People are more skeptical in the Internet age and convert baptisms are more difficult to come by. We are seeing similar religious trends in the U.S. to what was going on in Europe 30 or 40 years ago."

In fact, the LDS Church tallied 281,312 convert baptisms in 2011 with help from 55,410 full-time missionaries. That’s barely 1,600 more converts than last year, when there were nearly 28,000 more missionaries. As it stands, the ratio of converts to Mormon missionaries has slipped from 5-to-1 in 2010 to less than 3.5-to-1 last year.

LDS officials note "many factors contribute to church growth."

"While more missionaries generally result in more converts," says church spokeswoman Jessica Moody, "in 2013, the number of missionaries increased steadily throughout the year and drawing conclusions between missionaries and baptisms based on year-end figures is problematic."

Stewart and Martinich say the number of members helping missionaries find potential converts has not kept pace with the influx of new proselytizers.

"That is the key ingredient," Martinich says, "to improving the efficiency and productivity of missionary work."

The two researchers were at a conference recently in Los Angeles, where an LDS mission president has instructed his missionaries not to "tract" (go door to door) or contact potential converts on their own, but to rely exclusively on member "referrals."

Missionary-minded members also are seen as vital players in helping converts stick in their newfound faith. LDS leaders have conceded that retention remains a problem and have invested considerable resources in trying to remedy it.

Even so, Stewart says, "if missionaries are not engaged in independent finding efforts but are reduced to being little more than ‘cheerleaders for members,’ ... large increases in the missionary complement are unlikely to appreciably increase convert baptisms."

LDS leaders have been experimenting with new missionary approaches.

In several U.S. cities, including San Jose, Denver and Dallas, these young men and women now spend at least two hours a day involved in humanitarian service, rather than the traditional "tracting." Their efforts tend to build good will with the community and may, in the long run, translate to more converts.

In parts of Africa, LDS officials have begun to break with the "centers of strength" policy by creating "member groups," made up of a single member or a missionary companionship, meeting somewhat informally before there are enough members for a "branch."

These groups typically turn into branches, which are smaller congregations than LDS wards, more quickly than traditional models, Martinich says.

Ultimately, though, the goal of Mormon missionary work may be as much about converting the proselytizer as converting the proselyte.

"A mission is seen as a pivotal experience," Stewart says, "in solidifying commitment to the church among missionaries themselves."

And it works. Stewart says there is a strong correlation between missionary service and ongoing church activity, compared to young Mormons who do not serve missions.

So the most important number of conversions per proselytizer may be one: the person the missionary sees in the mirror every day.
As they say in the end, I agree that lowering the age probably had way more to do with converting the missionaries and trying to keep the youth far more than gaining new converts.
 
I was in one of those areas that had just been hammered by missionaries for the past 20 or so years. People were getting *really* sick of a new pair of missionaries knocking on their doors every 4 months or so. Sending more missionaries was obviously not the answer, at least there.

The idea that it's more to improve retention of that age range of missionaries makes sense. I wonder whether it will actually work, long term. It'll probably take 10 or so years to be able to really tell if there's a consistent upward trend in retention of RM's and if the number of 18-19 year old's going on missions stays steady or goes down again.
 

Furyous

Member
I'm back!

On a lighter note, how was conference?

Any major takeaways?

What's this I hear about people leaving the church?
I've been out of the church for the past month dealing with sickness and feel weird stepping back in full-time. I'll do it but have to get used to it.
 

ronito

Member
well...this could be interesting:

http://www.collegetimes.tv/mormon-church-destroys-salt-lake-tribune/

In its most recent media-related conspiracy, the Mormon (LDS) Church is being investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice over allegations they are paying off the hedge-fund-owned Salt Lake Tribune newspaper to slowly ‘kill’ itself, in a shady deal to cede the Utah market to the Mormon-controlled publication Deseret News.

According to a detailed report by the Columbia Journalism Review last week:

The deal, an amendment struck last fall to a longstanding Joint Operating Agreement, would give the News 70 percent of the print revenues generated by the two papers, in return for the payment, the amount of which is undisclosed. The onetime payment, critics claim, would benefit the New York parent, Digital First Media, owned by the hedge fund Alden Global Capital, while choking off revenue needed to sustain the Tribune‘s newsroom.

The Tribune, run by New York-based Digital First Media, has been owned by hedge-fund Alden Global Capital since being acquired in 2010 after emerging from bankruptcy.

“The hedge fund guys get what they want, which is a big pile of cash,” says Jim Dabakis, a Utah state senator who this week started an online petition asking the Justice Department to reverse the deal. “And the Deseret News gets what it wants, its generations-long dream [fulfilled] to extinguish the other voice in the community. And they get a monopoly from now on.”

Joan O’Brien, an ex-Tribune reporter who now teaches has taught media law and runs a local group opposed to the amended JOA, wrote a detailed letter to the Justice Department saying the pact will cripple the Tribune, “drastically intensifying the media monopoly power of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Northern Utah.”

Jim Dabakis, an openly-gay state senator from Salt Lake City – and an ex-Mormon who left the church several years ago – is responsible for creating the SaveTheTribune.com online petition last week opposing the deal, which may have increased scrutiny of the situation by the Justice Department. Because the agreement is already in effect, the only way it could be revised would be with direct federal anti-trust involvement.

The Tribune itself reported on the Justice investigation earlier this month, recalling an interesting court filing discovered by O’Brien:

She said the DOJ attorney sought background on documents referring to what one News official in a court filing called “an ingenious plan’’ more than 15 years ago to alter the Tribune-News operating partnership to make it easier for the News to acquire The Tribune without drawing opposition from federal regulators. According to an Oct. 15, 2001, court deposition by L. Glen Snarr, then-chairman of Deseret News Publishing Co., the plan involved the News buying additional shares of the newspapers’ revenue split and greater management control of joint operations. The strategy was developed, Snarr testified at the time, because the Federal Communications Commission appeared likely to challenge the News’ purchase of The Tribune, given the LDS Church’s existing ownership of other Utah broadcast and print outlets.

Of course, if the Tribune files for bankruptcy again, or is simply shut down by its current hedge-fund owner, it would serve the goals of the LDS Church quite nicely while conveniently avoiding any anti-trust legal concerns.

In response to the growing discussion last week, the Deseret News posted a ‘Letter to readers: Deseret News provides clarification on new joint operating agreement‘ in an apparent effort to assuage concerns among Utahans regarding a Mormon-dominated market, while taking a swipe at Tribune instability, declaring: “It is the responsibility of news organizations to innovate and adapt to the evolving media landscape.”

The situation is of special interest to CollegeTimes, due to our previous accusations that the Salt Lake Tribune regularly offers abnormally favorable coverage of Neumont University, a for-profit (and regionally-unaccredited) career institute with strong investor connections to the Mormon (LDS) Church in Utah. Neumont, who tried unsuccessfully to sue CollegeTimes in 2012 for hosting negative student reviews of the controversial school, moved into the former Tribune office building in Salt Lake City in late 2013, which CollegeTimes suggested may have also contributed in part to the secretive relationship between the school and the financially unstable publication.

The history of the Salt Lake Tribune is notoriously absurd. Founded in 1870 as the Mormon Tribune, the newspaper has since gone through dozens of ownership changes and content strategies. In 1873, it was bought by 3 Kansas businessmen who turned the Tribune into an anti-Mormon rag. In 1901 it was secretly purchased by U.S. Senator Thomas Kearns, who was trying to win favor from Utah Mormons who had elected him to power. The Tribune has held a Joint Operating Agreement with the Deseret News since the 1950′s, despite endless back-and-forth editorial positions regarding the LDS Church.

Crappy reporting, but if the allegations are true that might be illegal.
 

ronitoswife

Neo Member
Thanks. I think it's kind of sad though, I like Utah. I love Moab, skiing, and honestly SLC proper is a pretty fun place. But I do need a break, and thankfully the wife's graduate program is pulling us away. She got into the U too, a very tough place to get accepted, but we think we are making the right choice.



I'm from the Bay Area originally, so maybe when we are done we will move back there. And maybe the A's will have a new stadium by then (ha!)

It is sad! I completely understand that. There are really great places in Utah, I agree. I love the mountains and Zion's national park will always be one of my favorite places. I really want to bring my kids there at some point. Part of my family history is down in Zion's, that place has always been important to me. But sometimes you really do have to take a break. Congrat's and good luck to your wife! That is no easy feat!

Who knows? Maybe the A's will get their stadium before the King's! :D
 

ronito

Member
So in the past two weeks I've seen the missionaries several times. I have an 11 year old who was never baptized. I always let the missionaries in and offer them food and water since I appreciate what they're doing is hard. But these guys come in and just ask my 11 year old if he wants to be baptized. No discussions. No asking us if it's ok for them to be having that conversation with him or anything just "Hey you wanna be baptized?"

I mean it's his decision (I wont tell him yes or no either way) in the end but still sorta taken aback. My son remembers what church was like and really has no real desire he just keeps telling them that he'll "think about it".

Just sorta weird I'm not entirely comfortable with it.
 
So in the past two weeks I've seen the missionaries several times. I have an 11 year old who was never baptized. I always let the missionaries in and offer them food and water since I appreciate what they're doing is hard. But these guys come in and just ask my 11 year old if he wants to be baptized. No discussions. No asking us if it's ok for them to be having that conversation with him or anything just "Hey you wanna be baptized?"

I mean it's his decision (I wont tell him yes or no either way) in the end but still sorta taken aback. My son remembers what church was like and really has no real desire he just keeps telling them that he'll "think about it".

Just sorta weird I'm not entirely comfortable with it.

There was a huge push for baptismal invites when I was out, back in 2008-2010. I'm guessing it's similar now. Invites were a "key indicator" and had to be reported on a weekly or daily basis...not getting enough "invites" on your weekly number would often result in some sort of reprimand, since you were supposed to be inviting pretty much everyone, and at every lesson.

Still, I would have never asked an 11 year old to be baptized without getting permission from his/her parent's first...but I also hated the policy in the first place and had awful "invite numbers", so there's that.
 

ronito

Member
I was just coming to post this. Dehlin is HUGE news, much bigger than the ordain women lady. He's been on the church's side since the beginning and always talking about the "Middle-way" of doubting but staying anyway. The church excommunicating him will prove what people like me have said all along, that once you start doubting you can't stay because even if you want to stay the church doesn't want you there.
 

Yoritomo

Member
My daughter wants to be baptized because her cousin was baptized.

I talk to the bishop next week so that I might be the one to baptize her. I will be honest. What he says will determine our next step.

I know I should just get out, but it's innocuous to an 8 year old what is happening right now. For all my floundering and blasphemy this news still wounded me to the core. I'm trying to be slow and open with family so they understand me and my narrative. I am very close to both in-laws and my own parents. Good news is my wife is truly my partner and friend.

This will be an interesting week.
 
I was just coming to post this. Dehlin is HUGE news, much bigger than the ordain women lady. He's been on the church's side since the beginning and always talking about the "Middle-way" of doubting but staying anyway. The church excommunicating him will prove what people like me have said all along, that once you start doubting you can't stay because even if you want to stay the church doesn't want you there.

Yeah, exactly. Dehlin and Mormon Stories have helped a LOT of people stay in the church trying for that "middle way". If anything, Dehlin has managed to help people stay in the church that would have otherwise left, all the while actually being honest about church history/doctrine. I think it would be fair to say there are more people still in the church today because of Dehlin then there would be without him.

Now the church has just given a big fat middle finger to all of that. There's going to be a LOT of those people that Mormon Stories have helped stay in the church realizing that the church doesn't want them now, like you said.

I do think that Kate Kelly could end up being a big deal too, though. Ordain Women got a lot of media attention over the past few months. And now The New York Times is breaking that the church not only ignored them, but is planning to kick out its founder. All because Ordain Women have essentially just asked the leaders of the church to, you know, ask God if they can have the priesthood. But they won't even sit down and talk to them about it directly. I think the media will be more likely to latch onto Kate's story than John's, although John's will likely cause more waves WITHIN the church itself.

Another thing is that John has pretty much flat out said several times that he doesn't believe in the church (even if he likes some aspect of it, and tried to stay for various reasons), or at least the majority of its claims. Kate still believes, but she's getting kicked to the curb for having the nerve to request that the church stop treating women as second class citizens. (Sort of like D. Michael Quinn, who still believes, even all these years after his excommunication.)

Another interesting thing with John's story is that he was actually asked to resign, or else he would be brought in for the court. I don't think I've ever heard of someone actually being asked to resign. "Just GTFO" seems to be the message:

The letter, dated Friday and received Monday, was written by Bryan King, Dehlin’s stake president. Dehlin said he and King have never met, and King has never contacted him before. The letter invited Dehlin to resign from membership. If he chose not to resign by June 18, the stake president would conduct a disciplinary council, the letter stated.

My daughter wants to be baptized because her cousin was baptized.

I talk to the bishop next week so that I might be the one to baptize her. I will be honest. What he says will determine our next step.

I know I should just get out, but it's innocuous to an 8 year old what is happening right now. For all my floundering and blasphemy this news still wounded me to the core. I'm trying to be slow and open with family so they understand me and my narrative. I am very close to both in-laws and my own parents. Good news is my wife is truly my partner and friend.

This will be an interesting week.

Best of luck, that sounds like a really tough situation.

EDIT: Church Responds to Church Discipline Questions

SALT LAKE CITY —
The Church issued the following statement today in response to questions from the news media regarding Church discipline:

"The Church is a family made up of millions of individuals with diverse backgrounds and opinions. There is room for questions and we welcome sincere conversations. We hope those seeking answers will find them and happiness through the gospel of Jesus Christ.

"Sometimes members’ actions contradict Church doctrine and lead others astray. While uncommon, some members in effect choose to take themselves out of the Church by actively teaching and publicly attempting to change doctrine to comply with their personal beliefs. This saddens leaders and fellow members. In these rare cases, local leaders have the responsibility to clarify false teachings and prevent other members from being misled. Decisions are made by local leaders and not directed or coordinated by Church headquarters.

"Actions to address a person’s membership and standing in their congregation are convened after lengthy periods of counseling and encouragement to reconsider behavior. Ultimately, the door is always open for people to return to the Church."

picard-facepalm2.jpg
 

ronito

Member
My daughter wants to be baptized because her cousin was baptized.

I talk to the bishop next week so that I might be the one to baptize her. I will be honest. What he says will determine our next step.

I know I should just get out, but it's innocuous to an 8 year old what is happening right now. For all my floundering and blasphemy this news still wounded me to the core. I'm trying to be slow and open with family so they understand me and my narrative. I am very close to both in-laws and my own parents. Good news is my wife is truly my partner and friend.

This will be an interesting week.
Dude, it's gotta be tough. Like I said a few weeks ago the missionaries came over asking my son if he wanted to be baptized. Really, it's his choice, but honestly it can difficult to give them the space, really looking back at it I resent all the time and energy I spent keeping pointless rules and I worry that he'd fall into that same trap. But you gotta give them their "free agency"
 

Yoritomo

Member
Whoops just to clarify I'm wounded about the John Dehlin and Kate Kelley "courts of love"

My daughter wanting to get baptized is understandable from a girl who wants to fit in with family and doesn't wound me at all. I'll always support her with my love, my shelf broke because of my fears for her as she enters the young women's program, which is still 3 years away.
 

Doodis

Member
Yesterday's news came as a shock to me. Dehlin's podcasts have been a lifesaver for me over the last year as I finally looked into the facts and began to transition out of the LDS faith (ronito, you have yourself to blame for posting the Hans Mattsson article last summer - that finally got my ball rolling).

Anyway, it's just sad that the church is pushing John away after he's given the last ten years of his life to finding a way for members to reconcile the difficult issues and still maintain their LDS identity.
 

ronito

Member
Whoops just to clarify I'm wounded about the John Dehlin and Kate Kelley "courts of love"

My daughter wanting to get baptized is understandable from a girl who wants to fit in with family and doesn't wound me at all. I'll always support her with my love, my shelf broke because of my fears for her as she enters the young women's program, which is still 3 years away.

oh well, I still sympathize.

Personally I think it'll be worse for the church than it will be for them. Right now after Utchdorf's whole spiel about embrace the doubter and all that you'd expect this to not be the case. But this flies in the face of it. And honestly I think everyone knows someone with big doubts about the church but struggles to stay in, in many cases it's a spouse and now they're going to feel threatened.

I mean look at /r/latterdaysaints it's the most mormony of mormon sites and here's some quotes:

"This news, if true, makes me question everything. It feels that if my beliefs are different from the "official" set of beliefs then I must change or I will be kicked out. If John gets exed, I will probably walk away too"

"This news makes me sad, and it makes me wonder whether there's room in the church for people like me."

"This is most unfortunate. This will likely be more problematic for the church and its image than the "September 6" were. "

"You know, I'm an active but disbelieving member. I'm trying to make it work for the sake of family.

And when I hear quotes like, "Come join with us, there's a place for you," followed by this kind of BS, what I actually hear is, "Come join with us, but keep your mouth shut."

Way to extend the hand of fellowship, brethren."

I mean if you have the people on that site worried about what the church is doing you got issues.
 
D

Deleted member 1159

Unconfirmed Member
The collateral damage from this sounds like it's beyond anything the leadership would have thought, or even what I would have thought. I posted a link to the NYT article on my Facebook feed along with some choice words...I had comments from recommend holding members voicing their dissatisfaction, and even had a closet unbeliever "come out" to me privately last night. She and her husband were both trying to find a middle ground way, and this was a catalyst for them. She said they don't know what to do or who to talk to, etc. They want to do dinner with us and talk about how I handled it.

I mean, I saw this coming miles away, but I didn't expect this big of a reaction from those who call themselves faithful. I feel bad for all the people who are feeling hurt by this, apparently there are many more than I ever would have thought.
 
Kate's parents had their temple recommends taken away, simply for supporting their daughter. Apparently they are devoted members. Her father attends the temple weekly.

I have a feeling more and more people who support Mormon Stories and Ordain Women are going to start getting targeted. Temple recommends getting denied, disfellowships, excommunications for the larger cases. The "June Purge" as people are starting to call it.
 
RYcNPGu.jpg


On a sidenote, during the SLTrib interview yesterday John mentioned that he's met with Holland a few times. Apparently Holland told him that it's fine for him to harbor doubts, but "don't go buying a printing press".

...
.....
.......

Well, they can excommunicate John, but that sure isn't going to be burning down his printing press.
 

Fathead

Member
Not surprised at the Ordain Women lady. She was flat out asked not to make a scene and did anyway. Even if it was fairly respectable.


Dehlin is fairly surprising. But I am to the point where none of this stuff shocks me anymore. And I am convinced that the statement from the church is "technically accurate", but certainly someone in Salt Lake knew about this.


I have to say I like the church more away from the mormon corridor though.
 
Not surprised at the Ordain Women lady. She was flat out asked not to make a scene and did anyway. Even if it was fairly respectable.

Should "making a scene" be grounds for excommunication, though? All Ordain Women has asked is that the 15 ask God if women can be ordained to the priesthood. They were respectful but firm with their position. If Monson or whoever had come out and said "alright, we asked God, and he said no" then I'm pretty much sure they would have backed off nearly entirely. Kate is a fully believing Mormon who has merely tried to bring attention to gender inequality in the church, and to open up a discussion with church leaders about this.

Their sincerity has been met with contempt from the church, culminating in the threatened ex-ing of Kate. The church has shown that they don't even want to have a dialogue about this legitimate concern. What if, rather then threatening her with excommunication, one of the 15 sat down with Kate for an hour and discussed Ordain Women's concerns? Even if the answer was ultimately "no", the willingness to talk to them about it would be likely be very heartening to OW. (And no, Oaks' talk in the last priesthood session doesn't count.)


I personally still think John's is less surprising. He's been public about his doubts for years, at times expressing doubt over nearly every piece of Mormon doctrine. He's also put out some *really* controversial podcasts that have discussed pretty much everything that church leaders have been trying to ignore or hide for the past 100 years.

But yeah, it's just going to backfire, as a LOT of those questioning members who have stayed in the church largely because of John's efforts are going to realize they aren't exactly welcome anymore. (Not to mention all the media attention this is getting.)
 

Yoritomo

Member
7. Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

I wouldn't qualify for a temple recommend anyway, my sister-in-law and her husband are gonna have a rough time with this. She's a pretty staunch OW supporter, but completely faithful in every other way.
 
7. Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

I wouldn't qualify for a temple recommend anyway, my sister-in-law and her husband are gonna have a rough time with this. She's a pretty staunch OW supporter, but completely faithful in every other way.

I could see how that might apply to Mormon Stories, but I just don't get it with Ordain Women. I don't see anything that they've done that has gone against church teachings.

Interestingly, this quote by Joseph Smith has been floating around:

"I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine."

-- Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 5:340

By the way:

OGLt5cS.jpg
 
Top Bottom