- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Looks like this thread got accidentally dropped. Fortunately,…I had an open window with the latest and was able to read each thread comment. I mentioned I strongly AGREED with the position of names being removed. Let me clarify and slightly soften that approach.
The concern I have is that I am aware of some people who actually DO want out,…but they don’t know how, short of legal action. I suppose that it is not as difficult to find out because getting out of the church is published on the internet in lots of places now. However, I think it is disingenuous to focus exclusively on reactivation when in reality many want no contact, and many of those wish they could just end it for good. I’ve seen “Do Not Contact” requests abused over and over,..and I mean abused.
I guess what I am saying is it would be nice to be a little less close lipped about having your name removed if that is something someone wants. Offering to have their name removed?…perhaps too far; letting someone know there actually is a process for having their name removed without offering?….perhaps more palatable.
And, one more comment as well…
Why can a non-active individual do all kinds of offensive things, including breaking the LOC and no action is taken. But if an active individual breaks the LOC, for example, action can and often is taken? Seems that the rules change if you are inactive. I see this as a sliding scale and dont’ think it is very fair.
Crap…I’m on a role here….
AND,…why can someone who is inactive and has actually gone and joined another church with full baptism and so forth in that church,…why are they left as a member of the LDS faith and their name not removed? I’ve seen that happen as well. Isn’t there a policy about joining another church being cause for action?
Quote:AND,…why can someone who is inactive and has actually gone and joined another church with full baptism and so forth in that church,…why are they left as a member of the LDS faith and their name not removed? I’ve seen that happen as well. Isn’t there a policy about joining another church being cause for action?
I think it is reason for the bishop to take action. The issue is that many don’t want to deal with it (I can’t blame them–really have a church court to discipline when there are so many other things to attend to?) I was a counselor to a bishop who mentioned a couple times when some disciplinary discussion came up, “I really need to initiate action on Sister Xxxxx [none of us had even ever met] because she’s living with a guy….but I really don’t want to.” And to my knowledge he never did.
Rob4Hope wrote:Looks like this thread got accidentally dropped. Fortunately,…I had an open window with the latest and was able to read each thread comment.
First of all, Rob…just so it is clear…it was an administrative error it was deleted…it was not moderated on purpose, and in fact, you were contacted by the mods to repost if you’d like because it was an honest mistake. Just making it clear we weren’t trying to silence this topic. Apologies for the mistake on our part, but thanks for reposting.
:angel: In fact…you may want to read other discussions we’ve openly had in the past about people leaving the church:
Quote:The concern I have is that I am aware of some people who actually DO want out,…but they don’t know how, short of legal action.
Can you clarify with examples or where you are getting this feeling it requires a legal action? I don’t doubt there are some people who feel this way, but there are lots of actions one can take, depending on the situation. I’m not sure where you are coming from exactly.
Quote:However, I think it is disingenuous to focus exclusively on reactivation when in reality many want no contact, and many of those wish they could just end it for good.
I don’t see it disingenuous to invite people to Christ, and reach out to reactivate. It’s all about how it is done, but I think if the leaders don’t try to do this, there will be many people who feel they don’t matter if no one comes knocking. So…leaders should knock, reach out, invite…lovingly while respecting the answer they get. And they should try to coordinate and communicate to other auxiliaries or after changes in leadership so good intentions don’t make someone feel they are being ganged up on. In most cases, I feel it is the inefficiency of the organization, not the intent, that causes people to feel abused. Still…the church is responsible for it, even if unintentional.
Quote:I guess what I am saying is it would be nice to be a little less close lipped about having your name removed if that is something someone wants. Offering to have their name removed?…perhaps too far; letting someone know there actually is a process for having their name removed without offering?….perhaps more palatable.
Not sure what your point is. I feel the bishops and church members are pretty close-lipped about name removal, and they actually do offer and ask people if that is what they want,and many times are told “No…I don’t want it removed, I just don’t want home teachers or missionaries checking on me right now.” Hence, the DNC list (which gets muffed up often, I agree). Anyway…I’m not sure where your generalizations are coming from or are supported by. Any personal examples to frame this for us?
Quote:Why can a non-active individual do all kinds of offensive things, including breaking the LOC and no action is taken. But if an active individual breaks the LOC, for example, action can and often is taken? Seems that the rules change if you are inactive. I see this as a sliding scale and dont’ think it is very fair.
While this is a different topic…I’d just quickly reply that I think the church is not in the business of going around looking to discipline or excommunicate. It is used as a tool when it is problematic to the church (church PR or image being hurt, or someone else is directly being hurt). A person not attending, not wanting a temple recommend, and not wanting a calling doesn’t need to have action taken on them to satisfy the active members. But should a person want to come back to church and hold callings…they are welcome but will need to repent. That makes sense to me. Your question makes it sound like we enjoy witch hunts. That isn’t my experience with the busy church leaders who have their hands full.
Does that mean they won’t? No…not if it is brought up and it is a problem (depending on the leader). But there is no value to going out to an inactive member and telling them they should be disciplined for drinking tea. I’ve never heard of that happening. Nor should it.
Joining another church can be grounds for apostasy. If a bishop knew about it, they could wonder if records should be removed and could contact the person to tell them the process. I’ve seen bishops send letters.
I have a good example…but lost it because my session timed out and didn’t get back in time to save it. Will post on this later Heber.
Ugh…I hate when that happens, Rob. Sometimes when my messages get long (which never happens…oops) I copy all text before hitting submit…in case it times out. That’s one trick…keep it in the computer’s clipboard to paste back if needed. That’s my Tip Of the Day!!
:geek: Donations are welcome.Anyway…will look forward to your response.
As I said in the other thread, I want all removals to be iniated by the individual – and if the individual wants it badly enough, it isn’t hard to do. Most who might simply don’t care enough to do it, especially since they no longer attach any importance to their names being on or off the records. If they don’t care enough to change it, I absolutely don’t care enough to force the issue – or to get my knickers in a twist over it. For me, seriously, it is no big deal. I always try to err on the side of honoring agency and being charitable – and not seeking actively to kick people out merely for non-attendance is both, imo.
Otoh, I favor strongly having a central “unknown location” file held in SLC for people who can’t be located, largely for reporting and efficiency reasons. If everyone knows they aren’t living in a ward or branch, they shouldn’t be on the records of that ward or branch – but I also understand completely the potential for abuse of a system like that by leaders who might use it to job the system and appear to be doing a great job with regard to activity. Neither option is ideal, but I like the unknown location option because the vast majority of Bishops I know are good men who would not abuse it dishonestly.
There are so many issues in the church that are not black and white, and I think this is one of those. It’s hard to say whether a bishop should or should not ask people if they want their names removed, when we don’t know the specifics of each member’s/bishop’s/ward’s circumstances. Bishops are trusted with stewardship over a ward, and we need to remember that this is their calling, not their profession. They are all amateur’s, just like the rest of us, so they do the best they know how to do. If one bishop believes all inactives should be left alone, I’m okay with that. If another bishop feels like he should approach certain members to ask them if they would like to be removed, I’m okay with that too. Especially, if there’s a stake president who is harping on them about attendance numbers, and they’ve done what they can to help semi-actives. Bishops are all going to have their own style. We’ve talked about leadership roulette in many different aspects. And that leadership roulette can be good or bad. Maybe a good middle ground would be for a bishop to send out letters to those people, explaining that there is a method for having records removed, if they don’t want to be affiliated with the church. That way, if they really wanted to be removed, this would let them know that there’s a way to get that taken care of, without actually putting the pen in their hand and saying, “Sign here.” Those who truly wanted to be removed would then have to make some kind of effort to make it happen. And those who don’t care one way or another, would simply toss the letter and do nothing. Heber13 wrote:Ugh…I hate when that happens, Rob. Sometimes when my messages get long (which never happens…oops) I copy all text before hitting submit…in case it times out. That’s one trick…keep it in the computer’s clipboard to paste back if needed.
That’s my Tip Of the Day!!
:geek: Donations are welcome.Anyway…will look forward to your response.
Hi Heber…. Yep….sometimes I copy it and capture and other times,…blink..I loose it. I also hate that when it happens.
My example is of a personal friend. This person left the church when about 13, and she is over 50 now, so you can see the history. She was forced by her family to remain active while living in the house, or she was to be thrown out. She of course stayed active, and during those years built up a boat-load of resentment and anger. But, for her, it was a hostage situation. Good or bad, right or wrong, that is what happened.
Years later she joined another church and is a devout follower. She occasionally gets visits from people who want her to come back, and especially from missionaries. She resents the visits because she has asked the church (as in years earlier) to please leave her alone. She believes the LDS faith is a cult, run by a bunch of old misogynistic dirty white men who want to have their wives, keep women subservient and docile so they can be controlled, and so forth. Now whether that is accurate or not is not my point–that is her perception, and she is sick and tired of people trying to force their opinions down her throat.
Now, lest that seem like an overstatement, she was told by some missionaries that she would go to hell for her beliefs. It went over very badly, and again, another peg in he board of why she doesn’t want to be associated with the LDS faith. The approach of inviting her to Christ?…she has never seen that happen, or at least the invitation to come to Christ she has received always leads with doctrine first and love second. The love is conditional on whether she accepts the doctrine. This is a problem for her–because (as she has pointed out to me) her church now teaches love. The Mormon church teaches, in her opinion, that the doctrine always comes first, and love is contingent on that. LDS love is conditional.
Because she was a smoker, LDS people shunned her. Because she drinks socially, LDS people shunned her. Because she doesn’t believe in God the same way, she is always a candidate for “conversion” or a “missionary project”. She is way past tired of that.
She is also illiterate in large measure with the internet and procedure to have her name removed,..and her name is still on the records. She is afraid to create a letter and send it in without having legal counsel, because she is convinced that sending such a letter will bring down a hoard of Mormon’s who will try to convert her, try to talk her out of the decision, try to “reactivate” her, and so forth. Her desire now is to simply be left alone.
She has done multiple things, multiple times, to warrant excommunication. The church doesn’t take action about that because in the quest to save her soul, they are going to leave her name on the records, only approach her when they want to try again to convert her, and in other situations avoid her. (this is my opinion,…right or wrong, this is how I feel).
This woman?…she is a living example. She is a dear friend.
Now,…Heber and others…you all may see this situation differently, because you see inviting to Christ as a good thing. But, how someone is invited to Christ is just as important as the message. And, I am sorry to say, this person has received the message most of her life with a sledge hammer. It is true, for example, that unless we come to Christ, we will be damned…right? And if we are damned,…we go to hell, at least for a time..right? So, it is not false to be told that unless someone joins the Mormon church, they will go to hell. The Book of Mormon sais that unless we are baptised and follow Christ, we go to hell (in so many words)…right? Well, in many ways that message has been shoved down her throat. First by her parents and her young woman leaders, then by home teachers and bishops, then by the patriarch (in her opinion with her blessing that she was made to have in hopes it would turn her around),..now by missionaries and those who visit her off and on to “reclaim” her.
She wants to be loved FIRST, FOREMOST, and FOREVER. She doesn’t want anything to do with the LDS faith at all. Nothing. She sees it as a bunch of liars and self righteous cultists.
Sad, hunh. Very sad.
Anyway, she is not opposed to having her name removed. She wants to be left alone and be out. She is afraid, like I said above, of a mass hoard descending on her, which prevents her from taking action. If she were offered to sign a document, have her name removed, and have it over with, with assurance that a hoard would not descend on her, this would perhaps actually be a positive step. She doesn’t believe it is possible. LDS people, in her opinion, are intrinsic liars. Mormon people know what is best, in their opinion, for everyone, and try to impose that belief on them. In the name of God and for God’s sake, LDS people justify forcing issues (in her opinion).
Quote:The love is conditional on whether she accepts the doctrine. This is a problem for her–because (as she has pointed out to me) her church now teaches love. The Mormon church teaches, in her opinion, that the doctrine always comes first, and love is contingent on that. LDS love is conditional.
I wouldn’t say the church TEACHES that love is conditional. In fact, the majority of people would argue that love is in fact unconditional at its best. However, there have been some talks that indicate that love, or at least, blessings, have certain strings attached. But the church’s policies definitely scream conditional love. In my experience, so have most leaders when they see you are not following the party line on things, or ask to be released from your calling. Talk is one thing — policy is reality.
Rob4Hope wrote:you see inviting to Christ as a good thing.
Yes, I do. Teachings of the gospel are about love, not about fear or pressure.
There is a good talk from years ago that is a good read for you when you have time. It is inviting people the way way I think you are saying it should be done, because, yes…how is as important, if not moreso, than what is said.
One part reads:
Quote:Those that stray need a friend—but they need one who knows the Shepherd. Seldom do people cease coming to Church because of doctrine; they are waiting for a show of genuine love and friendly fellowship to heal their hurts or doubts.
It sounds like your dear friend has many hurts and doubts. My heart goes out to her.
Rob4Hope wrote:It is true, for example, that unless we come to Christ, we will be damned…right? And if we are damned,…we go to hell, at least for a time..right? So, it is not false to be told that unless someone joins the Mormon church, they will go to hell. The Book of Mormon sais that unless we are baptised and follow Christ, we go to hell (in so many words)…right? Well, in many ways that message has been shoved down her throat.
I actually don’t understand damnation and hell, so it isn’t something I would care to talk about with her. She just needs a friend. Something good to be part of. She can find that in our church if she wants. The church isn’t about shoving doctrine down people’s throats, although many people feel that way.
That goes into the Twisted Thinking post I wrote…on how people process things and overgeneralize things, and twist things because of how they feel.
If she is not open to it and has other things in life, great for her and I wish her well.
If she never wants another person from the ward, and she wants her name removed, she can write a letter.
But if local people keep trying to visit…it isn’t to shove things down her throat or try to save her from hell. It’s to invite her to find love in the church that she has not felt before.
Her feelings are valid.
But your comments are not valid about it being disingenuous to focus on reactivation when in reality many want no contact and DNC lists are abused.
Christ commanded us to go forth and teach and invite others to come to Him. The church isn’t perfect, but they are trying to invite. It won’t always be received that way, and most people need to be loved before taught.
I think that is what ward councils try to do.
If your really are her friend, and you know she wants her name removed, I think you should explain to her how easy the process can be.
Heber13 wrote:
But if local people keep trying to visit…it isn’t to shove things down her throat or try to save her from hell. It’s to invite her to find love in the church that she has not felt before.
Heber,…you actually are kindof making my point (and I say that respectfully). You have presupposed a purpose for the visit to “invite her to find love in the church…”. Why not simply visit her, leave the church out of it, and show that love? The problem in her life is church members have always led with being from the church. How about someone being a human, a neighbor, a caring soul, and willing to offer friendship without wearing the “mantle” of the church?
(And, I do recognize your statement below about love coming first, which I comment on).
Heber13 wrote:
Her feelings are valid.
Very much so.
Heber13 wrote:
But your comments are not valid about it being disingenuous to focus on reactivation when in reality many want no contact and DNC lists are abused.
I still disagree, but for a specific reason. I know many LDS people feel great concern with sharing the gospel. They are afraid of rejection,…and I marvel at this because, IMHO, they often have the cart before the hoarse. If, for example, LDS people get out there and share the gospel without first having a relationship with those they they try to share the message with, they could possibly come across as pushy or not genuine. If they first develop a genuine relationship founded on love and friendship (and it is REAL, not feigned, and doesn’t require a common religious belief system), then sharing the gospel becomes fluid and easier. For example (hypothetical): “Hey Brad, my church is teaching this type of thing…. What does your faith believe about that?”
Viola,…all of the sudden, a smooth and unpushy approach.
The only reason most people visit my friend is to reactivate her. Where is the love in that? It is always conditional and with a purpose OTHER than just pure love.
Heber13 wrote:
Christ commanded us to go forth and teach and invite others to come to Him. The church isn’t perfect, but they are trying to invite. It won’t always be received that way,and most people need to be loved before taught.
I agree 150% with this part. There should be another scripture: “If thou doest not love, thou shalt not invite.” And Heber,…this is the ONLY place where I get myself all uptight here. The DNC lists are intended, at least as far as my friend is concerned, to limit out people who want to lead with religion and not with love. Sometimes love doesn’t bring about a conversion or a reactivation. How disappointing that love sometimes only results in a friendship. (I feel this from several LDS people. They talk about so and so, how the work isn’t progressing with them coming back to church, and they discount that they [the LDS person] have made a really good friend. Is love only valid if someone joins the church? You would sometimes think so from conversations I have heard…)
Heber13 wrote:
If your really are her friend, and you know she wants her name removed, I think you should explain to her how easy the process can be.
That is the best way if this is to happen at all. I am focusing on just kindness and being safe. My friendship with her has nothing to do with religion. We don’t talk church much. It comes up when another visit happens, blows up, and she becomes frustrated why they won’t leave her alone.
I agree with you about the part that people need to just visit her and treat her like a nice person and friend. Leave the church out of it if that is what it takes. No strings attached. Just be friends, even if she never steps foot in the church again. It is important to acknowledge that almost all people who try to reach to others do so out of a real love – or, at least, a desire to love and bless. Implementation gets all kinds of wonky and even twisted, because people are all kinds of wonky and their thinking often is twisted, but the motivation usually is sincere concern, at least, and often the best love that is possible for those people.
Some people are just not in a place to receive loving gestures from where they are at the time. Others are clueless at times how a loving gesture at the wrong time can be offensive or annoying. As clueless as I am on many of my posts sometimes. Heber13 wrote:As clueless as I am on many of my posts sometimes.
Are you kidding?
You are freaking brilliant. You and others on this site are not only polite and kind, you are all brilliant. I’m utterly intimidated to post here many times!
Don’t you ever hold back Heber….ever. You all make me think harder than I have in a long time.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.