- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Interesting. My experience has been that people requesting removal get caught up in the “one more try” cycle. Thanks for the info.
nibbler wrote:Interesting. My experience has been that people requesting removal get caught up in the “one more try” cycle.
Thanks for the info.
My experiences have been similar. I believe SOP in the US is that requests sent to church headquarters are generally sent back to the SP, unless there has been a recent change.I don’t know John Dehlin but I do know where he lives. Local leaders for him would tough. I don’t know exactly the circumstances or details he is referring to, but in this area there is a mentality to “fix them”. If you can’t be fixed then you are at danger of hurting others. I can totally see them being done with him. Especially if they have read or heard any of his stuff…in my opinion of course.
Yes, there is a local influence, absolutely. I don’t think it’s a matter of GAs not caring about or wanting disaffected members to stay in the Church at all as much as them simply not knowing what to do about members that don’t necessarily buy into the idea that the Church speaks for God in an authoritative way. Basically it seems like their interpretation of the parable about leaving the 99 and trying to bring back the one lost sheep is that the one needs to be almost exactly like the 99 in terms of testimony, paying tithing, obeying the WoW, wearing garments, etc. and if not there is supposedly no point because the sheep is still lost. So if you want to hang around it seems like your best bet is to simply keep quiet about any disagreements with the Church as much as possible because it will typically not be received well. Least of all would I expect Church leaders to make radical changes anytime soon based mostly on what a minority of bleeding-heart liberal activists would like to see as long as the majority of active members are sill relatively conservative and aren’t nearly as concerned about any pet causes like this. Where I think they could be miscalculating if these rumors are true is that even if disaffected members that actually care about historical/doctrinal issues are greatly outnumbered by active members that don’t pay attention to and/or care that much about these issues that doesn’t necessarily mean they will just go away quietly. In many cases it will strain family relationships and/or they will take as many of their family with them as possible. So not only will the overbearing pressure to conform not ever win over the hearts of members like this in many cases it will turn them specifically against the Church. Some members that would have put up with the Church for their own sake specifically wanted to get out mostly because they thought it would be bad for their children to indoctrinate them according to the current LDS traditions. I understand if they don’t want to make radical changes in doctrine but it seems like they could easily reduce the aggravation to less faithful members simply by shifting the emphasis as far as which existing doctrines they focus on the most and tweaking a few things like worthiness interviews, tithing settlement, callings and meetings, etc. to make them less dependent on unquestioning confidence in the Church going forward.
DA, fwiw, I think that is a terribly inaccurate description of how nearly all leaders view “the lost sheep”. “I don’t know how to reach this person,” is radically different than, “There is no point unless the person is almost exactly like me.” I agree with others that mot leaders want toe reach out and help, but they simply don’t know how to do so in a way that will succeed – and, sometimes, having their sincere efforts rebuffed over and over again beats the inclination to keep trying out of them.
nibbler wrote:
1) Even if only one out of 100 comes back I think that makes all that effort worth it, even if it doesn’t seem that way.
I don’t really believe this anymore. This is the way I see it. We have only a short period on this earth. We need to put our efforts where they are more likely to bear fruit. I think 3 out of 200 is an achievement, even if one fell away, but then, what would have been the impact if all that time had been invested in other areas where one could do greater good?
One thing is for sure — I will never visit inactives again unless they asked me over. As much as I would like to see positive changes in their lives, there are far too many other things I can be doing with my spare time to benefit humanity than investing time, gas, and mindspace away from family in a cold call reactivation program.
mackay11 wrote:
It is easy. You can write directly to the local church office in your country/region and they will remove your name within about 48 hours. They have to for data protection reasons in a lot of countries. My friend resigned and had his name removed immediately after he had written to the local church office.Mackay11, that sortof sounds familiar with what the Bishop told me. He said they had to get written permission but something also about it had to be done in person. I thought he said he had to speak to them to?
My personal opinion, from experience, is JD is correct and accurate. Ps…. I’m glad he threw Urchtdorf a bone.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
I think JD is spot on. I have seen it happen and have heard it from local leaders. They tell the HT to go after the low hanging fruit. At leadership meetings the focus is get people back to church and to the temple. There isn’t much interest in having people at church unless they will pull their own weight. There certainly is a local problem with dealing with “free riders” who don’t fulfill callings, pay tithing and so forth. I can’t quite believe the institutional church doesn’t care about these individuals or these issues, although there are definitely gaps in understanding these issues and in knowing how to effectively help people. SilentDawning wrote:nibbler wrote:
1) Even if only one out of 100 comes back I think that makes all that effort worth it, even if it doesn’t seem that way.
I don’t really believe this anymore. This is the way I see it. We have only a short period on this earth. We need to put our efforts where they are more likely to bear fruit. I think 3 out of 200 is an achievement, even if one fell away, but then, what would have been the impact if all that time had been invested in other areas where one could do greater good?
One thing is for sure — I will never visit inactives again unless they asked me over. As much as I would like to see positive changes in their lives, there are far too many other things I can be doing with my spare time to benefit humanity than investing time, gas, and mindspace away from family in a cold call reactivation program.
That’s a good point.
If people ask for something that shows desire on their part and is evidence of a need. Most of the reclamation efforts I’ve been a part of have had to start off by instilling a desire where none exists. Essentially creating a problem for people and then attempting to solve it.
Old-Timer wrote:DA, fwiw,
I think that is a terribly inaccurate description of how nearly all leaders view “the lost sheep”. “I don’t know how to reach this person,” is radically different than, “There is no point unless the person is almost exactly like me.”…I agree with others that mot leaders want toe reach out and help, but they simply don’t know how to do so in a way that will succeed – and, sometimes, having their sincere efforts rebuffed over and over again beats the inclination to keep trying out of them. I guess I’ll believe that this description is inaccurate as soon as I hear Church leaders say that that it’s understandable and alright if you don’t believe some of what the Church teaches and you are still always welcome at church in that case, that if you drink coffee and beer and don’t want to stop you are still welcome at church, etc. Sometimes what they don’t say tells you all you need to know about their attitude and expectations even more than what they actually say and I just don’t hear them saying anything close to, “come as you are” without the added expectation that you should want and hope to be what they consider to be a good obedient Mormon. For example, when President Uchtdorf tried to address the idea of doubts and concerns about not currently living in accordance with the Church’s standards there was still the general idea that striving for truth and perfection even if never completely realized in this life would still lead members to closely align with the existing standards and doctrines. Well what if you are already satisfied with the answer that some of the existing doctrines are simply wrong; what then? I suppose the typical answer in that case would be that you should study the scriptures and pray harder until you get the “right” answer. It’s not mind-reading or putting words in their mouth unfairly to assume this is the way it is until further notice when these general ideas of what exactly is expected out of active members is right there in the missionary discussions, “Preach My Gospel”, worthiness interview questions, official lessons, etc.
I agree DA, there was an underlying message from Uchtdorf that by attending church we would eventually fall in line. church0333 wrote:I think JD is spot on. I have seen it happen and have heard it from local leaders. They tell the HT to go after the low hanging fruit. At leadership meetings the focus is get people back to church and to the temple. There isn’t much interest in having people at church unless they will pull their own weight.
I have made an observation that is similiar to what church 0333 said. I have noticed that there are cliques at church. Im assuming this is just not in my ward. the “low hanging fruit”…is it fair to generalize are also low income, single parents, divorcees, have health/mental health issues, and/or are minorities? There sure seems to be a divide between TBM mormons and “low hanging fruit”. 99% of the TBM mormons have very good jobs at one of two high paying employers in my area. None of their wives work. And they live in the best parts of town. The rest of us who struggle to make ends meet, some receive aid from the state, are single parents, suffer from repeat health and mental health issues, and could be part of a minority group…are not as active and struggle with callings, paying tithing, and dont attend the temple as much as true believers (we dont have transportation reliable enough to get there). Am i imagining this?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.