100 replies to this topic

[why me]

california boy, on 01 February 2012 - 12:41 AM, said:

I personally have no horse in this race.  Whether someone leaves or stays in the church is of no interest to me.  But I am curious about the reaction members give to information like this.  Does dismissing it make the problem of inactivity just disappear?  Or maybe there has always been those that join and leave.  It is just a part of religious organizations.

I wouldn't dismiss it. I think that it shows just how the internet is affecting members. Most of the first three issues listed in the two boxes show the internet influencing the understandings of members. The lds church needs to put out there their own interpretation of these issues. And the debate should be not as to whether the church hides its issue but whose interpretation is more correct.

[Storm Rider]

I see the hand of Satan move throughout the land.  Does he not play a part in this or is he just sitting in the corner enjoying the show?

[Senator]

Storm Rider, on 31 January 2012 - 11:57 PM, said:

One of the things that is significant is how many apostates cannot leave the Church alone.

Yes.

But I would be interested in data that could show just how many that leave actually do leave it alone. I suspect that group is a far larger majority. It's just the whole squeaky wheel thing. Maybe I'm wrong.

Quote

This kind of activity will always exist and it cannot be stopped.  Let them rail.  Our job is to preach the gospel, redeem the dead, and strengthen the saints.

....and rail against the apostates.

Edited by Senator, 01 February 2012 - 07:38 AM.

[sjdawg]

Sky, on 31 January 2012 - 03:04 PM, said:

If this happens, the Church will have a lot of under-utilized or empty temples on its hands all around the world.

It already does.  I know that the Edmonton temple for example is nearly always empty and I've heard that many of the other small style temples outside of utah are in the same boat.

[thesometimesaint]

Mariner:

Funny thing is there are more members outside the US than in and that number is growing.

Edited by thesometimesaint, 01 February 2012 - 07:50 AM.

[Sky]

Many apostates are nastier to us than we are to them, but that's just my perception.  We get demeaning labels like "TBM" and get accused of being "mindless sheeple."  If somebody was out working to destroy and mock something that you hold sacred, then you would probably be a little upset too.  But somehow, we have to learn to not respond in kind and be above that, because otherwise we would be no better than them.

[Storm Rider]

Senator, on 01 February 2012 - 07:36 AM, said:

Yes.  But I would be interested in data that could show just how many that leave actually do leave it alone. I suspect that group is a far larger majority. It's just the whole squeaky wheel thing. Maybe I'm wrong.
....and rail against the apostates.

I have never been in any form of leadership meeting where there was any railing against the those who have left the Church.  I have been in countless meetings where we discussed how we could serve those who were not interested in the Church, but still allowed visits.  Those who did not allow visits, we just discussed serving them in any way possible without visiting them.  So your proposal about railing against the apostates is based upon what....your personal experience?

[Sky]

sjdawg, on 01 February 2012 - 07:46 AM, said:

It already does.  I know that the Edmonton temple for example is nearly always empty and I've heard that many of the other small style temples outside of utah are in the same boat.

Kind of odd how the Church just keeps building them, isn't it?  There must be a need somewhere.

[Buckeye]

Storm Rider, on 01 February 2012 - 08:01 AM, said:

I have never been in any form of leadership meeting where there was any railing against the those who have left the Church.  I have been in countless meetings where we discussed how we could serve those who were not interested in the Church, but still allowed visits.  Those who did not allow visits, we just discussed serving them in any way possible without visiting them.  So your proposal about railing against the apostates is based upon what....your personal experience?

Ditto.  I've been in many leadership positions.  Never once heard someone rail against inactives or former members.  I'm just one data point, but that's my experience.

[Senator]

Storm Rider, on 01 February 2012 - 08:01 AM, said:

I have never been in any form of leadership meeting where there was any railing against the those who have left the Church.

I have.

Quote

  So your proposal about railing against the apostates is based upon what....your personal experience?

Yes

and...ummm....you.

[Jaybear]

Sky, on 01 February 2012 - 07:59 AM, said:

Many apostates are nastier to us than we are to them, but that's just my perception.  We get demeaning labels like "TBM" and get accused of being "mindless sheeple."  If somebody was out working to destroy and mock something that you hold sacred, then you would probably be a little upset too.  But somehow, we have to learn to not respond in kind and be above that, because otherwise we would be no better than them.

...and that would be bad because ...  ?

[Jaybear]

Buckeye, on 01 February 2012 - 08:06 AM, said:

Ditto.  I've been in many leadership positions.  Never once heard someone rail against inactives or former members.  I'm just one data point, but that's my experience.

Perhaps you are simply not attuned to what apostates would consider insulting comments.  
For example, I had no idea the term "tbm" was considered demeaning, as Sky stated.
One time, I unintentionally sent Pahoran on the warpath by refering to LDS leaders at the "bretheren."

[Sky]

Jaybear, on 01 February 2012 - 08:17 AM, said:

...and that would be bad because ...  ?

Name calling and rudeness does nothing to promote civil discussion or convince anybody on either side.  It all comes back to the golden rule.

The way certain people use the "TBM" label implies that we are mindless followers of the Brethren and not capable of thinking for ourselves.  It is not intended to be a compliment.

Edited by Sky, 01 February 2012 - 08:37 AM.

[Storm Rider]

Senator, on 01 February 2012 - 08:11 AM, said:

I have.
Yes

and...ummm....you.

So in your vaunted experience, exactly what was said that was railing against apostates?

[Senator]

Storm Rider, on 01 February 2012 - 08:37 AM, said:

So in your vaunted experience, exactly what was said that was railing against apostates?

What would that matter here and now?

[Stargazer]

sjdawg, on 01 February 2012 - 07:46 AM, said:

It already does.  I know that the Edmonton temple for example is nearly always empty and I've heard that many of the other small style temples outside of utah are in the same boat.

You shouldn't assume that a local lessening of attendance is indicative of a church-wide trend.  Small temples were made as small temples for the very reason that the areas they served were not chock-full of members, but the Church wanted to make the blessings of the temple available that didn't require an out-of-proportion expenditure of funds.

The wife and I visited the Seattle temple a couple of weeks ago on a Saturday morning, and the parking lot was full to overflowing, patrons were everywhere inside, and it's as busy as it ever was.  This is despite the fact that 35 years after it was built there are now other temples in its former temple district.  People in Spokane, WA and Portland, OR, for example, have their own temples and no longer need to drive to Seattle.  But this hasn't slowed the Seattle temple down at all.  If anything it is busier than ever.

I'd like for the church to have a bigger problem dealing with growth than it actually has, but I don't see it as stagnating at all.

But it isn't necessary for it to grow in order for it to be nevertheless true.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Meridian-day Saints largely apostatized, but that didn't make Jesus not the Son of God.

[wenglund]

why me, on 31 January 2012 - 02:00 PM, said:

The question is, however, what can be done about it?

When men turn from God to men as the primary source for their spiritual assessments and judgements I am not sure much can be done by us men other than to remind them of where their spiritual faith ought to rest.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

why me, on 31 January 2012 - 02:00 PM, said:

The question is, however, what can be done about it?

The Lord and the Church have mechanisms for those who stumble for lack of truth, who know not where to find the truth, and/or who have seared their conscience. They almost always involve the faithful reaching out on a one-on-one basis with a resulting spiritual effect. But ultimately each person makes his own decision on how he reacts to information and experience.

I think those that leave or avoid the Church strictly on the basis of their reaction to historical claims haven’t obtained or maintained a personal spiritual witness sufficient to compete with what they can conclude on their own. The same process occurs with more than just history. This is why the Church encourages our light to shine in whatever walk of life, vocational and avocational pursuits, school of thought, internet activity, or any other endeavor that suits us.

[Pahoran]

Mariner, on 31 January 2012 - 08:46 PM, said:

Since the OP asked what could be done about folks leaving the Church during what we have  just learned from Elder Marlin K Jensen is the greatest apostasy since Kirkland, I would have thought that the opinions of those who have gone through the apostasy experience would be a perfectly appropriate and valuable input.

Please note that I have edited my comment above to include a number of boards that have Mormon neutral moderation policies and where members, non-members, and apostates go to discuss all issues Mormon in a reasonably uncontrolled environment.

Also, I might add, that if my post above rated a response from you, then it was probably not a waste of bandwidth. Surely you would agree.

My response was simply to highlight the fact that no honest discussion of the Church of Jesus Christ calls it a "business."  That label is applied exclusively, and only, by deliberate purveyors of falsehood.

It rated a response because even the most transparent lies need to be corrected.

Regards,
Pahoran

[Duncan]

Stargazer, on 01 February 2012 - 09:28 AM, said:

You shouldn't assume that a local lessening of attendance is indicative of a church-wide trend.  Small temples were made as small temples for the very reason that the areas they served were not chock-full of members, but the Church wanted to make the blessings of the temple available that didn't require an out-of-proportion expenditure of funds.

The wife and I visited the Seattle temple a couple of weeks ago on a Saturday morning, and the parking lot was full to overflowing, patrons were everywhere inside, and it's as busy as it ever was.  This is despite the fact that 35 years after it was built there are now other temples in its former temple district.  People in Spokane, WA and Portland, OR, for example, have their own temples and no longer need to drive to Seattle.  But this hasn't slowed the Seattle temple down at all.  If anything it is busier than ever.

I'd like for the church to have a bigger problem dealing with growth than it actually has, but I don't see it as stagnating at all.

But it isn't necessary for it to grow in order for it to be nevertheless true.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Meridian-day Saints largely apostatized, but that didn't make Jesus not the Son of God.

very, very true. The Edmonton Temple has a district of six stakes, Regina has three and when the the Winnipeg Temple built in God's other home is built then Regina will have two and Winnipeg will have one stake in the district-possibly the I. Falls, Ontario district folks may come over or attend the Minnesota Temple