[cwald]

university wrote:

As much as the PR department says they’re trying to get the word out about the essays, they’re simply not. There’s no incentive to bring this knowledge to the faithful TBM’s. It’s not faith-promoting and could hurt the testimonies of devout members. The essays are there to cover the bases of the few struggling Mormons on the fringe and to finally have an answer—be it minimal—to the critics so that the Church can act like it has nothing to hide. Also, if more members become conscious of these issues in the future, the Church can act like they always were open about it and didn’t sweep things under the rug. I suspect in 30 years they’ll be saying they always talked about these things openly. But I don’t believe the church intends to pull these essays into the consciousness of members until it feels forced to. The essays are meant to appease and will stay marginalized until there is enough push for the Church to have to rely on them. Right now, there isn’t enough push.

That might change in the next 25 years. I’ve noticed YA wards are more curious about these things, as they are more internet savvy and don’t have as many years investing their lives into the Church, but even then, I don’t want to overestimate that tendency amongst Mormons. Even if YA wards are more open, there still is a line which people won’t cross. However, I’m not too dismayed at this news. It’s the sign of growing pains. If there’s going to be any progress on these issues, they’re going to happen. It’s just going to be a very, very slow process.

[cwald]

The problem I see with this is it feels like we are all to often willing to justify actions of the church leadership, and to sacrifice individuals to protect the corporation and the masses… the 99.

Is the church changing and evolving? Yes. Are they evolving fast enough to save the “one?” I don’t think so.

Perhaps this is a perfect example of the concept where the church needs to leave the 99 and go after the 1?

I understand there is going to be some pain, but why not just do the right thing and let the consequences follow?

[cwald]

Old-Timer wrote:

…

This site is no utopia, and everyone here knows it….

Fixed. Edited.

See you in six months.

[cwald]

Really great comments SD, as usual.

Quote:

Silentdawning wrote: I think there is a definite place for criticism.

1. There are times when you get REALLY BAD leaders, and it can affect people’s health, self-esteem, inner peace, and activity. In those times, it helps to have a support group who can help you cope, and this often means sharing leaders’ misbehavior.

Oh, you mean kind of like after General Conference?

Okay girls. I’ll take my trollish, apostate bad attitude back to some other board like NOM or MDB and leave you to your mission statement.

Thanks to those of you who were patient and tolerant of my “trolling” and for letting me vent a little after another emotionally and spiritual draining General Conference. Sorry to disrupt your stayLDS (community) like i did. I have become much better at keeping my thoughts contained to support forums, rather than discussing these issues with family and at church or social media. …that just never ends well IMO, especially for me in the past, to be honest.

Visit later. I’ll be back….maybe as late as GC Oct 2015.

Out.

[cwald]

One Flew Over the Cookoo Nest

Fast Times at Ridgemont High

Ferris Bueller’s Day Off

Fiddler on the Roof

Alien/Aliens

[cwald]

Interesting comments.

Let me ask a question. At the risk of violating Godwin’s Law, is there ever a time it is okay to “criticize” the organization or the leaders of an organization? Example, is it okay to criticize ISIS and it’s leaders? Is it okay to criticizes Warren Jeffs and the Fundamentalists churches? Is it only the LDS church that gets this “get our of jail free” card that we cannot criticize it’s organization or it’s leaders? Is this a case that members of the organization give up the right to criticize their own leaders, and the only way it can ever be done is if it comes from an outside source?

Here is how I see it. Having gone through the primary system and understanding forgiveness and repentance as taught and practiced by the LDS faith, I think what DHO said is repulsive. absolutely repulsive.

Quote:

We do not seek apologizes. Nor do we give them.

I understand that some of you are perfectly okay with this comment. Fine. But humor me. Lets just assume this is an egregious statement, we all agree, or most of us agree. This is, whether it is a church policy or a personal opinion, hurtful and quite possibly damaging comment to the masses. I see this as a responsibility to members to speak up to prevent more damage from happening, not as just and attack on the church because im bitter. How does someone like me go about voicing that concern? How do the members act to make sure this does not become a part of the culture?

I’m asking in regards to church membership, this and a few other threads, as well as the entire StayLDS website.

Can I speak. Or do I need to just shut up and sit in the corner.

[cwald]

I understand the “volunteer” comment. I am and have always been much more lenient when it comes to local leaders than the people at LDS, inc. which of course is where this thread originated. …DHO is NOT a church volunteer. He is making a lot of money in his current position.

[cwald]

Thanks Ann for the comments.

DarkJedi wrote:

You have been here much longer than I have cwald. Nevertheless, as far as I can see this site has never been about criticism of church leaders themselves. I think I regularly see respectful criticism of church policy and almost all of us have some policies and traditions we’d like to see changed. I also think the leadership has made it pretty clear that a way for those in our situation to end up in a disciplinary council is to criticize church leaders (and/or pull people away from the church, attempt to gain a following, and continue to teach things we have been asked to not teach). Sometimes that does mean we have to take a seat in the back (where I prefer to sit anyway) and keep our mouths shut – even here. The anonymity afforded here does not give us license to do or say things that are otherwise taboo – it is our mission to help people who desire to do so stay in the church. We need to be a place where people who are struggling with their doubts and questions feel safe and where they don’t feel like we’re anti-Mormon – and we certainly are NOT anti-Mormon.

Before I found this place, quite by accident I might add, the closest I came was the NOM site. No offense intended, I know you participate there (as do I), but the negativity there is not what we want here – I didn’t start going there until after my transition because of that negativity. This is a more positive place, for more positive people. I think we’re all in agreement that we’d like it to stay that way – and criticism of individual leaders tends to not be positive.

I understand that DJ.

Let me ask you a question. How do we distinguish between “policy” and “people?” Example. It seems in our church, that if one is critical of the church or it’s policies, the institution will simply say that is just one person’s opinion and the leaders aren’t perfect. As we seen this week on StayLDS, if I criticize the person or the opinion of one person, than I get chastised and because it’s a church policy and institution mistake…not the mistake of say, DHO.

Do you understand what I am saying? It feels like the church wants to have their cake and eat it too. I mean really, how does a member go about trying to fix problems in OUR church, if they are unable to address the issues because the church itself will either go to the “the leaders are just human and make mistakes” one day. And the next day they say we cannot be critical of the church leaders who yesterday they told me it’s not the church’s fault…it’s just the leader being human and making mistakes?

I don’t understand how any kind of change can occur when this kind of thinking is so engrained in our culture.

[cwald]

On Own Now wrote:

mom3 wrote:

Two important things didn’t happen at GC –

#1 – The Proclamation on the Family – WAS NOT canonized as scripture. :clap:

#2 – The entire conference was not focused on The Proclamation or Family Home Evening. :clap:

In these two things I rejoice.

Well, mom3, I’m not sure I totally agree with your #2. It seemed like the “General Conference – Traditional Family Edition” to me. …

Yeah.

I was pleased that Joseph Smith was not a focus point. AND there was no mention of the 14 F’s of the Prophet. Ha! General Conference of Oct 2010! Those were some fun days on StayLDS. Talk about a cwald meltdown.

[cwald]

Cool idea.

[cwald]

Ann wrote:

cwald wrote:

I’m not satisfied with “baby steps” any longer. The church simply need to do the right thing and let the consequences follow.

I think we need more people who feel this way to calmly and sincerely suggest – in public, even if only on the internet – that we can do better. Carter:

Yeah. The problem is, is this simply is not tolerated in our church. Hell, I’m not even sure it is tolerated on this stayLDS board.

Any type of criticism of the church or it’s leaders is just not tolerated. Yes, I understand there may be those few select politician types who can mince and dice their words and get away with it. Good for them. Ray’s brother-in-law may be a good example. I hope there are enough of them to actually do something and make a difference—-IN MY LIFETIME.

I can tell you it did not work out well for me. Someone like myself who just cannot stomach flowery, feel good, mixed and coded messages at the expense of real progress and discussion…it just seems hopeless really. The church simply does not tolerate criticism of the corporation or it’s leaders.

I think my participation on this board, and the church, is a good example. I’m a long time member. I tried. I tried to make it work. Spoke my mind. Got called a wolf in sheep clothing just for participating here. Been told long enough I’m an apostate that I finally believe it and just accept it. Now, after I have been branded or branded myself, no matter what I say to church members, I’m going to be viewed as the apostate who is bitter and has nothing to contribute because I’m just out to make the church look bad. It doesn’t matter if what I said is true…or simply quoting the prophets word for word, per batim.

I think this site is kind of the same…if I say anything that is critical of the church or the church leaders like DHO…”troll.” It’s been an interesting stayLDS week for me to be honest. Kind of eye opening, about any kind of possible honest and genuine return or interaction with the church. Sure, I could go and sit on the back row and not say anything, but I’m not the person who can do that. I mean, If I can’t even find my place and welcome here on a site which is populated by liberal, middle way mormons, than what chance really is there of any kind of church activity? -sigh-. I guess for that I thank this site again. It has been valuable to me over the years, and continues to be so in maybe a different manner.

[cwald]

Peace.

[cwald]

I’m not satisfied with “baby steps” any longer. The church simply need to do the right thing and let the consequences follow.

[cwald]

Rather than worry about what makes the stream flow, simply become the water.

Peace.

[cwald]

Thanks Roy.

I guess i am wrong and I APOLOGIZE and will take back my comment that the church has apologized for MMM. I am sorry for mistake.

I think you have summed up very well what I have been trying to express only to get moderated. So thank you for chiming in.

[Author]

Posts