Mormon Expression

[Anonymous]

Way and I commented about this on NOM, but wanted to discuss it here maybe.

This last podcast has really bothered me. I don’t want this to be a bash on john and zilpha, but I just don’t get the motivation for a mass resignation.

Why?

I see it doing nothing more than confirming to the critics that these middle way social media sites are bitter anti and just trying to destroy the church.

The commentary about comparing the church with the Nazises…really?

It will only make my life within the church more difficult.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

I know I risk drawing ire just commenting on this, especially since I haven’t listened to the podcast, but organizing a mass public exodus seems like nothing more than a publicity stunt. I’m not suggesting that’s what this is – I have no insight into John’s motives – I’m saying that’s what it will look like.

The church doesn’t conduct mass baptisms in public to show growth. If the church made such public demonstrations, this mass resignation would be a symmetrical response. Because the church quietly baptizes individuals in small, usually poorly attended ceremonies, this asymmetrical reaction risks looking like just another anti-LDS gathering and any point John seeks to make about growth measurements will be lost in the “show”.

In other words, I think you might be right, cwald.

And I hope it doesn’t make life harder for you or anyone else.

ETA: John has added to the thread at NOM and has explained that he is not sponsoring the event. He also points out that the event is about “taking away the stigma of resignation”.

On the blog for the Resign event this statement appears: We demand that the LDS Church no longer count us in its numbers and immediately remove our names from all Church records and databases. which is why I believed the event was tangentially about membership numbers and church statements about growth.

[Anonymous]

This concerns me as well. I would not want to be part of or associate with a mass exodus.

[Anonymous]

What podcast? Google Mormon Expressions.

I’m very disappointed, and cwald, you are correct, all it’s going to do is make our lives hell in the middle.

I’ve talked to John Dehlin about this as well: many in the DAMU feel there is no middle ground — no authentic way to stay LDS once you know the truth of mormon history, etc.

I disagree — mainly because my parents were NOMish their entire lives, did not live in Utah, and basically could take it or leave it — yet to the end of their lives (or nearly the end for my 93 year old dad), they stayed in, keeping close friends.

I’m pretty sad about this. I stayLDS because I want to.

[Anonymous]

I have said for a long time that when people who don’t fit a particular model leave the Church, all they do is reinforce that particular model. In a very real way, they become a self-fulfilling prophecy – and they weaken the chance to create Zion in the process.

I don’t want the piccolos left alone to play their unique melody at full volume. I don’t want the oboes and tubas and snare drums and bagpipes and kazoos to stop playing and leave the orchestra. I want them to stay and, eventually, balance the piccolos and create a truly beautiful orchestral sound.

A mass exodus is counterproductive, selfish, egotistical, confrontational, etc. It saddens me deeply.

[Anonymous]

I don’t support any movement or statement against my church or my religion. Trying to organize an apostasy and persuading others to leave the church to make a statement is sad and wrong and far from the loving teachings of my savior.

I listen to almost all M.E. podcasts on a regular basis. Thanks for the heads up, I’ll skip this one and perhaps exodus M.E. all together if that is the direction they’re going with future podcasts.

My testimony is the church is true and good, except the parts of it that are not. I love the church, it is where my family and I go, I love the people, I love most of the teachings, and it has been a huge resource for me in my life.

I’m staying. An organized exodus makes me sad and I’m against it. As wayfarer said, it probably won’t help perceptions of forums like ours.

[Anonymous]

Mormon Expression is so hit and miss. Some episodes are really good (Like the history of the Kirtland Temple was outstanding), and others are just rants. Sometimes you can tell the good or bad ones from the title, sometimes not. I haven’t listened to the episode yet, but I have downloaded it. The funny thing is that I’m currently transcribing the Richard Bushman 5 part interview from 2007 on Mormon Stories, and Bushman is very candid about disaffection. He thinks that the church should tell our history better so that people don’t feel betrayed. I’m sad to hear the Larsens are leaving and even sadder that they feel the need to have others join them in a mass exodus. It doesn’t have to be that way.

[Anonymous]

mormonheretic wrote:

Mormon Expression is so hit and miss. Some episodes are really good (Like the history of the Kirtland Temple was outstanding), and others are just rants. ….

I really miss the “good ol days” of ME with all the banter between George, Tom, Glen and Mike Tannahill.

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

mormonheretic wrote:

Mormon Expression is so hit and miss. Some episodes are really good (Like the history of the Kirtland Temple was outstanding), and others are just rants. ….

I really miss the “good ol days” of ME with all the banter between George, Tom, Glen and Mike Tannahill.

+1

[Anonymous]

I should preface my comments by stating that I know next to nothing about ME, the people involved, or their history. I read the flyer/announcement, but did not listen to the podcast. The flyer seemed straightforward and respectful enough, and there is obviously concern that the event be a positive one.

So why is this such a bad thing? Can people not decide at some point that it is better for them to simply leave the church? And for those who may have wanted to make such a change, is it such a bad thing that they might be able to do it with the knowledge and encouragement that there are other people who, for whatever reason, have come to the same conclusion? Or should they simply fret about it in private, in the same way that I did about my concerns before I found this site? I don’t understand the reasoning that those with divergent opinions should stay for the sake of being the “leaven” in the organization that they no longer care to be a part of. How is this an affront to the church itself or to anyone who decides to stay, or never considered leaving? If the only permitted answer to the question “should I stay LDS” is “yes”, then why do we even bother discussing it? And if it’s okay for me to leave, why do I have to do it in private?

I would think that if anyone would be tolerant of these kinds of attitudes and opinions, it would be the people here.

[Anonymous]

Doug,

I don’t think it’s leaving that’s the issue so much as using the opportunity as a public statement and comparing the church to Hitler’s regime and those who stay to Nazi sympathizers.

The introduction to the event is advertised in this way:

Quote:

Have you had enough? Are you ready to come out into the light?

When your courage is ready to match your intellectual integrity, it’s time to take a stand.

Come stand with us and feel the light of freedom.

Consider what is being said here. Those who do not “take a stand” by resigning are not courageous or they lack intellectual integrity. The “light” is out of the church, in other words, there is no light in the church.

This is the kind of black and white thinking that John would mock if it were coming from a believer.

I’m all for accepting an individual’s right to choose his or her own path. I don’t begrudge John’s right to publicize his exit. What I find offensive is his condescension toward those who have chosen an alternate path. John is using the same bullying language in this flyer that self-proclaimed TBMs do on pro-LDS sites when they fancy themselves defenders of the church by chasing “apostates” from the fold.

Both his comments on the podcast and his wording on the flyer are fundamentally disrespectful and every bit as dogmatic as those he opposes.

[Anonymous]

Doug, you make a great point. Are we saying you have to agree with STAYLDS or not discuss it?

I don’t think that is what I’m saying.

I am saying there is a difference between having doubts and different opinions in the church that should be allowed to be discussed in the church, and formal apostasy and protests specifically against the church which can’t be allowed IN the church.

To me, it is crossing the line. I give anyone else the right to do that, and leave the church and find support doing it. I have no problem with others finding that path for themselves. I have no problem people leaving the church and staying to chat with us online about uplifting ways to live life and support each other doing it, even if the church isn’t true to them. I think StayLDS.com can accommodate those who want to discuss Mormon topics in positive ways, from all viewpoints.

But I don’t agree with attacking the church or its leaders, and i dont support apostasy or anti-Mormon groups. I feel that is my right to have that opinion, even while I remind myself not to turn opposition into any kind of dislike or hatred for the other person or group. There are other websites that people can find to talk that way about the church, but that doesn’t meet the mission of our site.

I think what cwald (correct me if im wrong) is saying is the ME podcasts started with a little balanced approach if discussing topics with both believing members and non-believing members, with the premise it should be open and we should be able to honestly discuss things.

But the Larsen’s have changed over time, which is understood, and now are just against the church suggesting there is no middle way Mormonism that can work, and actually call others idiots who think they can stay. That does not fit with our mission either.

So the tone has changed, they are less accepting of my views, and I have no problem with them choosing to do what they want, but I don’t agree or support their approach. That’s ok. I’m sure there will be others that appreciate what they are doing and will be at their rally. More power to them.

But I put Mormon Expressions in the anti- Mormon camp now, and will find other podcasts to follow. I still highly recommend their earlier podcasts, as they really have some great information, and a good dose of humor to go with it. It just isn’t that way anymore. They dont try to keep a balance, and have become more vocally attacking. All im saying is, it has changed.

Does that clarify what I am saying? I’m ok with discussing resignation from the church. For some people, it is the right thing for them, and i would support someone who made that decision if they felt it was best for them to find peace. But I’m against actively recruiting for it, or calling people stupid who try to stay in the church. It’s just not right or mature.

Others on this board may think differently. I’m not suggesting there is only one view allowed or StayLDS can’t handle it. I’m just one voice here, and my voice is I don’t support their demeaning approach, but allow everyone to choose according to the dictates of their conscience. But we do have rules on this site, and moderate to keep our forum on track with the mission.

[Anonymous]

I’ve just taken time to listen to the podcast. Actually, just finishing it up. I agree with Heber13, they are not open to those who believe with staying in the church and working it out. And there is a lot of anger dripping out of them. It worries me that some will be swept up in the moment with them and then regret those resignations. That is something that, for most people, deserves a lot of thought/meditation/prayer and shouldn’t be rushed. Just because its “time for us to move on” doesn’t mean it is time for everyone else and this is definitely encouraging others to jump on this with them.

The church is “totally corrupt” in their eyes. I feel sorry for them. When you can’t see the good and compare a large group of people to following along like those in the Nazi regime, I don’t see balanced people.

I have never visited that particular website before. Does anyone know what has thrown them over the edge like this?

[Anonymous]

I am reminded a bit of a fairly colorful catholic priest in Bill Maher’s Religulous (see this video snippet). He clearly understands a lot of the insanity of traditional catholic or religious doctrine, yet maintains a healthy sense of humor. In an otherwise relentless film against religion, this part really demonstrated to me that people can be part of a religion, even a priest in it, and yet recognize the humanity of their church. It’s refreshing to hear.

The ME broadcasts had the sense of humor, and in so doing, made some of the insanity tolerable; but i think there was a progressively negative trend, now culminating in a fairly bitter exit. Even that might be excusable, but the onslaught of insults to those who stay was way over the top. Here is a transcript of a really offensive statement in the latest podcast:

John Larsen wrote:

“It’s sort of like, I don’t know, like the Nazi Party, or something. There are plenty of good people who benefit quite a bit. I hate to go to the Nazi example, but it’s a great one. People come to me all the time, their chief argument against me is they say, ‘The Church does me and my family good’ Go watch a documentary about the SS. They lived wonderful lives. They had great schools. Their kids were raised really well. That Germany prospered underneath Nazi rule. And there’s been all sorts of social movements that have built themselves on the backs of other people, on slavery or whatever, going and bombing, um, you know, Eurasia or whatever. You can make for a better life. But just because you individually benefit from a system that’s grinding people up does not morally justify it, and frankly it makes you sound like an asshole. Because you can’t just go and say ‘Well it’s good for me,’ you know. Everybody at the top of every pyramid scheme, it’s good for them. Every Ponzi scheme works out for some people. And that’s no moral argument for the justification of the Church. And it’s moral bankruptcy to be part of an organization that grinds people up socially, that psychologically sends them into a tailspin.”

to me, this is disrespectful and contemptable. I’m shining the light of day on it because it demonstrates a dangerous place in the DAMU — those who are as stridently against the church as those who are stridently for it.

Why can’t we get away from ‘all or nothing’ dualistic thinking?

[Anonymous]

Wayfarer – did you mean John Larsen rather than John Dehlin in the quote attribution?

[Author]

Posts