Why Mormons Leave Their Faith.

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

Yes

and...ummm....you.

[Jaybear]

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]

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]

...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 February 1, 2012 by Sky

[Storm Rider]

I have.

Yes

and...ummm....you.

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

[Senator]

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

What would that matter here and now?

[Stargazer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Mark Beesley]

One time, I unintentionally sent Pahoran on the warpath by refering to LDS leaders at the "bretheren."

That was probably because "bretheren" is not a word.

[cinepro]

For those who might wonder who "The Brethren" are, here's how Orson Scott Card defines it:

Brethren, the

Even though the General Authorities are never addressed as Brother, they are collectively referred to as the Brethren. This term is often used to borrow authority without naming the source, as when someone calls you and says, “The Brethren have asked me to call you and urge you to go to the polls and vote for candidates who stand for truth, decency, and the American way. I happen to have a list here, so get your pen and paper ready.” Whenever someone tells you that the Brethren have asked him to do something, remember that this can mean he has an official calling from the First Presidency-or it can mean that he overheard a Seventy comment in an elevator, “Wouldn’t it be nice if someone would … ”

Edited February 1, 2012 by cinepro

[why me]

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.

If one looks at church history, one will see that apostates have always been nasty and they have caused much destruction. In fact, we can say that an apostate killed JS. And many more burned homes of their former friends among the mormons. Their is something about apostate mentality that seeks to destroy that which they once loved: the lds church.

[why me]

I think that we can say that the internet has hurt the lds church. One reason for this is the simple nature of the critic agrument and the lack of critical thinking skills among church members. But we also need to ask ourselves how people who have experienced many spiritual blessings can be so easily swayed. I think that the lds church needs to fight back about this and perhaps classes for members and more articles in the ensign will do the trick. I remember that the ensign from the 70's had great articles and many things were covered about the lds church that one does not see now.

Edited February 1, 2012 by why me

[Deborah]

I have observed another kind of apostate than those who leave over "historical" issues. Or perhaps you could say they do but for the opposite reasons. There is a large and growing apostate group here in Utah that believes the words of Brigham Young and other of the first prophets of the restoration, up to Wilford Woodruff, supersede the words of modern prophets. Wilford Woodruff was a fallen prophet because he ended polygamy. These people focus on the JOD as their scripture, and consider anything said there to be binding on the church today. One of their beliefs is that the church is fallen because we aren't being persecuted as we once were and BY said when the church isn't persecuted and becomes accepted it will be in Babylon and be fallen. Of course when you point out the many more subtle persecutions today as well as the fact that we have stricter laws that prevent people being driven from their homes by mobs, they say that we still are not persecuted and if we kept the practice of polygamy we would be and then we would still be the true church. Of course they overlook the revelation Pres. Woodruff had that led up to the stopping of polygamy and the fact the church would have dwindled and not been able to go out into the world. Oh, but then that is another reason the church is fallen because we should all be gathered in one place. When you point out that the church is too large to do that, they argue the church was never meant to be in every place until the millennium.

So yes there is a great apostasy happening but it's not necessarily because of people being disturbed by the historical discrepancies, as they see them, but people being so focused on the history they have lost sight of the bigger picture.

[why me]

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.

I find this to be true. I am not exactly an active member but when I come to church, people treat me well and no one rails against inactives or former members. In fact, just the opposite. Most would love to have them all come back to full bloom.

[why me]

So yes there is a great apostasy happening but it's not necessarily because of people being disturbed by the historical discrepancies, as they see them, but people being so focused on the history they have lost sight of the bigger picture.

When it comes to apostacy I think that we will see a great deal more of it. It is the sign of the times.

[Verum]

So yes there is a great apostasy happening but it's not necessarily because of people being disturbed by the historical discrepancies, as they see them, but people being so focused on the history they have lost sight of the bigger picture.

Would you agree with this statement?

"LDS doctrine as a whole is rooted inescapably in history. Its claims to divine authority and restored truth are entirely dependent on the narratives of the LDS origins. Without an uncompromising belief in Joseph Smith’s literal visitation by God and heavenly angels, verbally communicating and physically transmitting to him ancient records and priesthood keys, and without verifiable evidence of a continuing conduit linking Joseph’s successors to God—a God who personally directs the continuing work of the restoration—Mormonism would utterly lose its claim to be the unique institutional form of the one true gospel. "

Pg. 222. People of Paradox – Terryl Givens

I think this is why history is important and essentially is a huge part of the "big picture" . I will agree that some people lose faith though over "historical gossip" and character flaws instead of legitimate problems with historical narratives.

Edited February 1, 2012 by Verum

[sjdawg]

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.

Why is TBM demeaning?

[Deborah]

Would you agree with this statement?

Of course, but then I don't have a problem with the history, even for example multiple First Vision accounts.