Regrets over resigning?

[_Chap]

...

Sure, if the church is false, then there's no such thing as an illegitimate reason to leave. But if someone believes the church really is God's, and its teachings are really true, then is resignation over the new policy anything other than a form of protest? And if it's only a form of protest, is it really worth forfeiting godhood?

I would think that the issue under discussion is making some members say to themselves:

"That's the last straw. This is the church I was brought up in, and my family are all members. I have been told all my life that this was the only true church of Jesus Christ on earth. But maybe it's no more than just another attempt, partially flawed, by human beings to find a way to follow Jesus.

And now I am beginning to have serious doubts about whether I have to do a holistic true/false judgement about the whole institution. Maybe its teachings are partly true, partly false, and a lot in between. At the moment, I think the overall smell I am getting is rotten, and I think it's time I looked at some of the other ways of being Christian to see what I find there."

The key lies in rejecting the false dichotomy of "Either true or false. Either the church of Jesus Christ or the church of the devil." Why should the world be so simple?

[_Dr. Shades]

I devoted an entire thread to my argument that the LDS Church was in apostasy because of this policy.

Ahh, yes, I saw that.

But it confused the Hell out of me, because I thought you thought for a very long time that the LDS church was flat-out untrue from the very beginning. Therefore, the revelation that you think the LDS church started out as true and that you continued believing it to be true up until this policy was issued threw me for a huge loop.

It sort of contradicted everything I had read from you until now.

[_sock puppet]

...

Sure, if the church is false, then there's no such thing as an illegitimate reason to leave. But if someone believes the church really is God's, and its teachings are really true, then is resignation over the new policy anything other than a form of protest? And if it's only a form of protest, is it really worth forfeiting godhood?

I would think that the issue under discussion is making some members say to themselves:

"That's the last straw. This is the church I was brought up in, and my family are all members. I have been told all my life that this was the only true church of Jesus Christ on earth. But maybe it's no more than just another attempt, partially flawed, by human beings to find a way to follow Jesus.

And now I am beginning to have serious doubts about whether I have to do a holistic true/false judgement about the whole institution. Maybe its teachings are partly true, partly false, and a lot in between. At the moment, I think the overall smell I am getting is rotten, and I think it's time I looked at some of the other ways of being Christian to see what I find there."

The key lies in rejecting the false dichotomy of "Either true or false. Either the church of Jesus Christ or the church of the devil." Why should the world be so simple?

I'm not so sure that in the LDS context it is a false dichotomy. It is the very proposition that the LDS church makes. Hinckley noted that on more than one occasion. Either it is god's true church, and members need to, as Oaks says, follow its leaders even when they are wrong, or it's not. The LDS church itself has said, "all or nothing". It's true or it isn't. This new policy just ups the ante of that question. It essentially requires one to lend his or her support to institutional homophobia and discrimination.

But I agree that when one steps back away from just Mormonism (the faith of that fooled my fathers) and looks a Christianity more broadly, then yes there might be some parts of LDS teachings that yet resonate with the individual. But then that leads to the next question, why remain LDS at all? Just leave and go off and believe what you will without the LDS structure, either alone or in a group, maybe even in another church that better fits your own beliefs.

[_Chap]

...

The key lies in rejecting the false dichotomy of "Either true or false. Either the church of Jesus Christ or the church of the devil." Why should the world be so simple?

I'm not so sure that in the LDS context it is a false dichotomy. It is the very proposition that the LDS church makes. ...

Well, that's my point. It is an essential element in the membership retention strategy to keep members thinking in this simple, all or nothing way. They want to set up a situation like this in a member's stream of consciousness;

1. Hey, I think teaching X of the church looks pretty unlike anything that I can accept as something Jesus would want us to do.

2. Uh-oh. The church is true, like, all true. The only alternative is that it is all false.

3. So that issue about teaching X can't really be what I think it is, since otherwise all the church's teachings, like not raping and murdering babies or not selling drugs to schoolkids, would be false too. And that would be awful.

4. So I'd better put it on the shelf.

The minute the member starts to think that the CoJCoLDS is not either just true or just false, it all risks coming unravelled.

[_fetchface]

Well, that's my point. It is an essential element in the membership retention strategy to keep members thinking in this simple, all or nothing way. They want to set up a situation like this in a member's stream of consciousness;

1. Hey, I think teaching X of the church looks pretty unlike anything that I can accept as something Jesus would want us to do.

2. Uh-oh. The church is true, like, all true. The only alternative is that it is all false.

3. So that issue about teaching X can't really be what I think it is, since otherwise all the church's teachings, like not raping and murdering babies or not selling drugs to schoolkids, would be false too. And that would be awful.

4. So I'd better put it on the shelf.

The minute the member starts to think that the CoJCoLDS is not either just true or just false, it all risks coming unravelled.

Very astute point, Chap. I think it all broke down for me when I realized that what Joseph was doing was sexual predation, so the "that would be awful" in step 3 reversed itself. I felt that the idea that God would support what Joseph was doing was awful.

That and the fact that the church had a way of making me unhappy like nothing I had ever experienced in any other part or time of my life.

[_Ceeboo]

Regrets, in general, is an extremely interesting and rather complex topic for discussion.

Regrets about resigning from the LDS church, specifically, seems to be something that may - or may not - develop in the future - after resignation occurs.

in my opinion - This has very little to do with the LDS church - Rather, this has everything to do with community, relationships, family, and loved ones that once were bound with and by common LDS cement.

Just my take!

Cool thread topic - in my opinion.

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_sock puppet]

...

The key lies in rejecting the false dichotomy of "Either true or false. Either the church of Jesus Christ or the church of the devil." Why should the world be so simple?

I'm not so sure that in the LDS context it is a false dichotomy. It is the very proposition that the LDS church makes. ...

Well, that's my point. It is an essential element in the membership retention strategy to keep members thinking in this simple, all or nothing way. They want to set up a situation like this in a member's stream of consciousness;

1. Hey, I think teaching X of the church looks pretty unlike anything that I can accept as something Jesus would want us to do.

2. Uh-oh. The church is true, like, all true. The only alternative is that it is all false.

3. So that issue about teaching X can't really be what I think it is, since otherwise all the church's teachings, like not raping and murdering babies or not selling drugs to schoolkids, would be false too. And that would be awful.

4. So I'd better put it on the shelf.

The minute the member starts to think that the CoJCoLDS is not either just true or just false, it all risks coming unravelled.

I think that #3 hinges on a false thinking that is inculcated into LDS by the Brethren that it alone has a monopoly on teaching anything and everything in the LDS morals lexicon. If there is anything good in the world or mankind's behavior, it is an exclusively LDS teaching. Never mind that rape and murdering babies and not selling drugs to schoolkids are virtues that the vast majority of mankind holds, and has since before Mormonism was founded.

There are plenty of other outlets for these moral principles, not the least of which is the individual's own conscience as nurtured since birth by parents, teachers, experience with others, etc.

Perhaps a false dichotomy you are getting around to is that which posits that all that is good and virtuous is uniquely LDS and without the LDS church one would have no moral bearings, internally or externally.

Once the LDS Church is rejected, there is no residual need for it to supply any moral teachings. There are many other sources available. The question of morals is not pertinent to the dichotomy that Hinckley and the LDS truth claims posit: it's all true as the one and only god-directed organization on earth or it is a fraud. I for one found that dichotomy quite useful. It made it very easy to ****-can the whole kit and caboodle once I uncovered its fraudulent inducements, its whitewashed past that mythologized it and covered up JSJr's peccadilloes and lies.

[_Tobin]

Your thoughts?

Yes. That's pretty much what I've been driving my Mac truck at and over several times.

[_Tobin]

I devoted an entire thread to my argument that the LDS Church was in apostasy because of this policy.

Ahh, yes, I saw that.

But it confused the Hell out of me, because I thought you thought for a very long time that the LDS church was flat-out untrue from the very beginning. Therefore, the revelation that you think the LDS church started out as true and that you continued believing it to be true up until this policy was issued threw me for a huge loop.

It sort of contradicted everything I had read from you until now.

I really don't buy it either. I don't see a compelling case of why the LDS Church's claims were true before this policy was announced and false afterwards.

[_palerobber]

at the risk of going off topic (if that's possible in a post following Tobin), does anyone know what LDS spokesperson Eric Hawkins was referring to when he said this? ...

We don’t want to see anyone leave the church, especially people who have been struggling with any aspect of their life.

i read a fair amount about the recent wave of resignations and i didn't see word one about people struggling with some aspect of their life (apart from belonging to a crappy church), let alone a noteworthy trend. so what is spokesperson talking about?