Why Mormons are Leaving the Church

[Hamba Tuhan]

Now be honest. Do you think if 100 men raised their hands in EQ this Sunday and asked about Joseph's polyandrous marriages there would be a frank and open discussion that ensues?

Honest? I haven't been to EQ in over a year, and then I only attended for two months or so whilst waiting for there to be another active priest to teach. But our EQ president is my housemate, and I've known him for almost seven years. For the first three of those years, he was an off-and-on investigator of the Church, and I was his go-to guy for all of his thorny questions. He and I spent dozens of hours then discussing early Mormon polygamy, and we've continued those discussions on occasion since his baptism, including just last week. I'm rather certain that if a single person raised his hand in EQ meeting this Sunday and 'asked about Joseph's polyandrous marriages,' a frank and open discussion would ensue. But he probably wouldn't allow it to dominate the entire class time, either, since it might be meeting the needs of a single elder instead of the needs of the collective quorum, in which case he'd probably invited the bloke 'round for tea, give me a heads up to be there if possible, and we'd all have an interesting time discussing it just like he and I used to do after Institute classes.

[jwhitlock]

What was my specific attack on the Church and its members in general, by the way? As opposed to an attack on a specific segment of cultural Mormonism?

Oh, please. You really think that you can act all innocent just because you think enough posts have gone by since you stated:

I was under the impression that this already was church policy.

in response to:

...I would recommend adopting a strict policy of disengagement and just go back to pretending things happened the way we wish they had.

I should have known that the next step would be "I never attacked the Church."

Right.

Need more? Then go on back to your anti-Mormon rant in post #280 where you proceed to denigrate faithful members of the Church - because they take exception to the kinds of attacks people like you make against their religion.

Now we have minimal understanding coupled with feigned innocence. Oh, the drama of it all...

[Darth J]

Changing the subject now? So, instead of cheap shots and hyped inaccuracies about what the Church and its faithful members are all about, you're now resorting to quoting from the SL Tribune as a reliable source concerning the Church?

Your understanding is indeed limited.

No. My whole point is the element within the Church who have decided that they get to define what being a "faithful" member means.

Don't worry, all these statistics that don't coincide with the Church's official numbers have been concocted by enemies of the Church.

And suggesting that many members leave the Church, whether officially or de facto, because they have been offended by the judgmental attitudes of other members is just my hyped inaccuracy.

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=c362aeca0ea6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

Your efforts to activate some families may require a long period of patient service, for

[John Larsen]

I do think that the mention it was given is more than adequate considering the size of the book, and its purpose. The book intended to be an overview of Church History. It stated facts. By it's nature, size, and intent, it's silly to assume it's going to give all the facts on any subject. I actually think it's a wonderful, and significantly detailed, volume.

I don't think some people would be happy unless the Church put out entire Institute Manuals dedicated to teaching college-age students a year-long course of study on Polygamy in the Church. And even then there's be comments that it wasn't balanced enough, or that it wasn't taught as part of the Sunday Curriculum, so didn't really count. It's sort of silly.

It doesn't take any more room to state the truth than it does to dissemble.

[Darth J]

Oh, please. You really think that you can act all innocent just because you think enough posts have gone by since you stated:

in response to:

I should have known that the next step would be "I never attacked the Church."

Right.

Need more? Then go on back to your anti-Mormon rant in post #280 where you proceed to denigrate faithful members of the Church - because they take exception to the kinds of attacks people like you make against their religion.

Now we have minimal understanding coupled with feigned innocence. Oh, the drama of it all...

Again, this demonstrates the problem. I didn't attack the Church. Nor did I attack its members in general. I attacked you. I do not claim innocence for that.

[jwhitlock]

No. My whole point is the element within the Church who have decided that they get to define what being a "faithful" member means.

Well, someone who had no common sense might agree with your point.

The rest of us would understand that someone who actively attacks the Church isn't a faithful member of that Church.

So guess what? As long as you actively attack the Church and its members, I'm not going to be particularly concerned about "offending" you.

[jwhitlock]

Again, this demonstrates the problem. I didn't attack the Church. Nor did I attack its members in general. I attacked you. I do not claim innocence for that.

The problem is that you think you can take cheap shots at the Church, and then claim you did nothing of the sort.

Your posts are right there for all to see. It takes real chutzpah to try to claim otherwise. You amply demonstrate what you really are.

[Lamanite]

Honest? I haven't been to EQ in over a year, and then I only attended for two months or so whilst waiting for there to be another active priest to teach. But our EQ president is my housemate, and I've known him for almost seven years. For the first three of those years, he was an off-and-on investigator of the Church, and I was his go-to guy for all of his thorny questions. He and I spent dozens of hours then discussing early Mormon polygamy, and we've continued those discussions on occasion since his baptism, including just last week. I'm rather certain that if a single person raised his hand in EQ meeting this Sunday and 'asked about Joseph's polyandrous marriages,' a frank and open discussion would ensue. But he probably wouldn't allow it to dominate the entire class time, either, since it might be meeting the needs of a single elder instead of the needs of the collective quorum, in which case he'd probably invited the bloke 'round for tea, give me a heads up to be there if possible, and we'd all have an interesting time discussing it just like he and I used to do after Institute classes.

I like that. Validate his questions in class. Then move on with the lesson. Then fellowship and educate each other. Sounds simple to me.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Hamba Tuhan]

I like that. Validate his questions in class. Then move on with the lesson. Then fellowship and educate each other. Sounds simple to me.

I actually think it really is that simple.

On this point somewhat, I really enjoyed reading this morning some quotes from Pres Packer which rongo posted on this thread:

'We now have ourselves in a corner. For instance, we have reason to be seriously concerned about the lack of reverence in the Church . . . However, I dare not press for the correction of that issue because we do not seem to be able to solve a problem without designing a program [to address it] . . . .'

'Can you see that when we overemphasize programs . . . we are in danger of losing the inspiration, the resourcefulness, that which should characterize Latter-day Saints? Then the very principle of individual revelation is in jeopardy, and we drift from a fundamental gospel principle . . . .'

To me, we go to church to fire each other up for the real work of the Chruch, which is almost always in our homes or in the homes of others. As Marlin K Jensen once taught me in a regional priesthood leadership meeting, nobody was ever saved in a sacrament meeting; rather, we go to sacrament meeting in order to renew our covenants and our testimonies so that we'll be better able to go take salvation to the people who need it. Yet somehow we always want the intentionally minimal programmes of the Church--including classes and lessons--to do the work of personal ministry for us.

[Somebodyz]

--The cookie-cutter Mormon culture that ferments in Utah and is exported to the rest of the world is inseparable from "faithfulness" and being a legitimate member of the Church;

And our stake DID celebrate Pioneer Day in New Jersey and in California, BTW.

NJ and California are not the "the world".

Have you visited wards outside of the States? Have you seen this 'cookie cutter Mormon' around the world?

warning borg attack..protect the collective...borg attack. OOPS sorry, my over sensitive feelings of being a persecuted people took over.

[Deborah]

I would really love to see an official brief history of the church written by church scholars which covers the basics and gives references for those who want to study more. Understand that critics still wouldn't be happy with it because the church will only publish that which has been confirmed or corroborated by other sources and can be shown to be verified. Therefore some of the more colorful issues would be left out because they can't be substantiated; a qualification critics are not careful about.

[Senator]

Therefore some of the more colorful issues would be left out because they can't be substantiated

Such as?

Just curious.

[Deborah]

Such as?

A lot of the issues with Joseph's plural marriages for example. We really don't know a lot of the details about this but there have been a lot of assumptions.

[Senator]

A lot of the issues with Joseph's plural marriages for example. We really don't know a lot of the details about this but there have been a lot of assumptions.

By issues, do you mean such as, if whether or not Joseph consummated certain Marriages?

[gmormon]

You do whine, and the breath and depth of your experience .... "Jersey". Yeah, that is a great cross section of a church right there.

Don't you mean wine ? Afterall we are talking about Sonoma and Napa.

[cinepro]

Understand that critics still wouldn't be happy with it because the church will only publish that which has been confirmed or corroborated by other sources and can be shown to be verified.

Wait...I thought you were LDS. Which Church are you talking about?

[Deborah]

Wait...I thought you were LDS. Which Church are you talking about?

Funny, ha, ha.

[wenglund]

Yet somehow we always want the intentionally minimal programmes of the Church--including classes and lessons--to do the work of personal ministry for us.

I believe this to be an amazingly powerful and useful insight for us all to consider.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-