Why Mormons Leave Their Faith.

[Pahoran]

Hi Valentinus,

If LDS leaders advocate that some people have left the Church because they were offended by individuals within the Church, I’m not sure I see how it can be disingenuous when one of those individuals admits to the very thing that LDS leaders have claimed.

Or am I missing something in your train of thought?

I'm not Val, but something seems out of whack when a person chooses to be offended by an individual they've never actually met. I mean, wasn't there anyone in their own ward for them to take offense with, that they had to scour the internet to find Dan Peterson?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Damien the Leper]

Your post #70 appears to vindicate my "cynicism."

Regards,

Pahoran

Maybe just a little.

[Damien the Leper]

Hi Valentinus,

If LDS leaders advocate that some people have left the Church because they were offended by individuals within the Church, I’m not sure I see how it can be disingenuous when one of those individuals admits to the very thing that LDS leaders have claimed.

Or am I missing something in your train of thought?

I liked Elder Bednar's talk from 2006 on not being offended. Being offended is a choice. The consequence is that power is handed over to the 'offender'. In other words, a double loss to the offended.

Most often, the GAs say things that I agree with but they don't necessarily inspire a positive emotional reaction. It's more like, "I smell what you're steppin' in".

When the GAs say things that I disagree with then I take it with a grain of salt and stew on it for a while. But I don't get mad. I remember the crap Pres. Packer got in Oct 2010 for his talk on morality. I think it was an old man's diatribe but I wasn't affected by it positively or negatively. Maybe I just smiled and nodded.

An example...Pahoran and I hardly ever see eye to eye on many issues. To him I might be a bleeding-heart liberal sissy (though I am a Log Cabin Republican) and some may think I view him as an ultra-conservative whackjob (not so much true as it is false). My point is that there is nothing that Pahoran can do or say, via his combative internet persona, that will make me consider leaving the church. Just not gonna happen.

[Mariner]

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

Pahoran,

The Church collects tithes and offerings from its members for its operations. Some of these titlhes and offerings are also invested in for-profit businesses, most of which are managed by the Church through Deseret Management Corporation, which is owned by the Church.

Don't get me wrong, the LDS Church has a great business model. It collects tithes and offerings in exchange for providing meeting houses and temples. It also benefits from hundreds of millions of dollars worth of free labor each year aimed at increasing its membership generated revenue stream.

"The LDS Church tempers its cash expenses through the use of volunteer labor. As of 1995, the LDS Church's human resources department estimated that the 96,484 volunteers (not including 50,000 full-time missionaries) serving at the time contributed services with an annual value of $360 million.

By the way, I did not indicate in my post that this was a bad thing. I am a principal shareholder and manager in business myself and can appreciate how the Church has been able to work the system. More power to them. The negative connotation was all yours.

Anyway, back to the issues at hand. In practice, the Church collects tithes and offerings from its members and invests a part of this income in businesses that it acquires or owns. The Church takes on risks in making these investments (with the money it has collected from members), just like any corporation, and has lately taken some big time hits with Beneficial Life and the City Creek Mall. Other LDS Church holdings that seem to be doing a bit better include Bonneville International Corporation, AgReserve, Hawaii Reserves, Inc. and Farmland Reserves.

Do Church tithes and offerings revenues cover expenses and provide for a profit margin? It is hard to know in the US because the Church has not disclosed its finances since 1959. However, in the UK in 2006, the LDS Church took in approximately 259 million Euros and reported expenses of 25 million Euros - posting a gross profit margin or more than 90%.

Now that is what I would call a business.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Mariner

[Pahoran]

Pahoran,

The Church collects tithes and offerings from its members for its operations.

That's because it is a church, not a business.

Snip the self-serving rationalisation.

Of course the Church pays its bills. That's why the members contribute. If it didn't pay its bills, it couldn't do its actual work, which is religious, not commercial in nature.

Yes, being a wise steward, it invests its surplus, so that it can continue to fund its actual work. Which, in case you missed it, is religious, not commercial in nature.

As I said: no honest critic of the Church, if such there be, calls it a "business." Self-serving rationalisations merely provide additional evidence of bad faith on the part of the critic who insists on calling it a "business."

Regards,

Pahoran

[robuchan]

I found this statement on the blog a interesting...

I find it to be disingenuous, as Selek would say, for someone to cite Daniel Peterson as a reason for leaving. That is just ridiculous!

Person 1: Why did you leave the church?

Person 2: I didn't like Daniel Peterson's 'combative' online personality.

Are you freakin' kidding me?

DP's personality didn't do me any harm, but his logic did. I went to LDS apologetics to answer the tough questions and their explanations were what put me over the edge.

[why me]

I'm not sure I follow. My understanding is the term means True Believing Mormon or True Blue Mormon. Seems like an accurate way to describe someone fully engaged in the LDS Church. Just like I don't really have an issue being call an apostate (a person who forsakes his religion, cause, party, etc. ). If you use the dictionary definition that is a pretty accurate way to describe me.

(the term anti-mormon on the other hand....)

They use TBM in a derrogatory way. They certainly do not mean it as a compliment. Bacically, it means a morgbot to the critic. Now it can be used in a more kind fashion. But when used by critcs they have a different connotation than someone who is faitful and active in the lds church.

[zomg]

Hey, Storm Rider I didn't see your response to my post. If you did so, I missed it

The information is not worthless.

This survey wasn't done for former mormons to pass it around and compare answers. It was done to gather information to show the LDS church how it can make improvements to prevent further membership losses. While that may not seem like a big deal to you I find it interesting how many people are responding to this survey with such animosity.

You should also know that many former mormons try to leave the church alone yet the LDS church does not leave THEM alone. This is done by family members, ward members, etc love bombing when it is not needed.

Also, I should note, that I am very happy with the choices I have made. Why must you assume all those who have different beliefs than yourself are miserable?

Edit to add - Why is "TBM" degrading yet "apostate" isn't?

Edited February 2, 2012 by zomg

[Calm]

Edit to add - Why is "TBM" degrading yet "apostate" isn't?

Depends on the context.

[Storm Rider]

Hey, Storm Rider I didn't see your response to my post. If you did so, I missed it

Edit to add - Why is "TBM" degrading yet "apostate" isn't?

Sorry, I did not see your post. First, the Church is not its members. When an individual member, family member, ward member does something (your use of love bombing tells me something of your attitude; when does love become "love bombing"? I look forward to your response) it is not the Church doing it. There is an easy solution for you to prevent any further home teachers, visiting teachers, bishop, elder's quorum president, etc. from visiting you. Ask for your name to be removed form the records of the Church. It is far too easy when there is turnover in positions for an individual that has requested not to be contacted to be contacted. And if this love bombing is just too much for you to bear, remove your bloody name and be done with it. This is too easy to correct rather than place yourself in such an incredibly uncomfortable position.

Your statement of the Church not leaving you alone is a bit of a red-herring when it is so easy to stop the Church. However, apostates (just read the definition; look under "A" in the dictionary) as a group seem to have a rather high percentage who cannot stop talking about the Church. Why talk about it; leave it behind and have fun in whatever spiritual journey you wan to undertake. This is your journey and no one else's. Your family and friends may care about your choice, but God and the Church just want you to be happy. If you think God is leading you else where, go there and go quickly and don't look back.

If you are happy with your choices, then great. I just wish others would be as happy as you and have left the church behind them.

[why me]

Edit to add - Why is "TBM" degrading yet "apostate" isn't?

TBM is not degrading unless it is used so by the person using it. Apostate has a dictionary definition that fits the useage. TBM is a use of words that are not particularly defined in a dictionary but the usage is defined by the critics as a person who is in the morg and is an active believing member.

[orsonsplatt]

People simply hate to be labeled, whether it's a band being called "punk" or Joseph Smith's early followers being called "Mormons." Labels are necessarily stereotypes when affixed to a group. Convenient for the users and irritating to the unique snowflakes in the group. What's offensive is not the term per se but the way it's used - right? What people who object are really saying is, Your lack of faith and rejection of my belief system disturbs me. Or in other words, Your lack of respect for the sacred is profane. That has to be it, because the terms TBM and Mopologist are not derogatory in denotation. One is simply an initialism to describe a Mormon who accepts doctrine literally, and the other is a conjunction of "Mormon" and "apologist." Any objection to use of the terms should be properly directed at an allegedly derogatory implication and not the term itself.

[Storm Rider]

People simply hate to be labeled, whether it's a band being called "punk" or Joseph Smith's early followers being called "Mormons." Labels are necessarily stereotypes when affixed to a group. Convenient for the users and irritating to the unique snowflakes in the group. What's offensive is not the term per se but the way it's used - right? What people who object are really saying is, Your lack of faith and rejection of my belief system disturbs me. Or in other words, Your lack of respect for the sacred is profane. That has to be it, because the terms TBM and Mopologist are not derogatory in denotation. One is simply an initialism to describe a Mormon who accepts doctrine literally, and the other is a conjunction of "Mormon" and "apologist." Any objection to use of the terms should be properly directed at an allegedly derogatory implication and not the term itself.

There are quite a number of words in the English language that were created to be denigrate and deride. It does not seem like a charitable group of well-wishers got together one day and said, what shall we call a LDS who believes in his religion, "Oh, I know, let us call him a TBM; after all, LDS is just too difficult to remember". Then another said, "Come to think of it, let's use mopologist, because it is so much more uplifting than just an LDS apologist".

Me thinks you strain too much to have us swallow that concoction.

[sjdawg]

There are quite a number of words in the English language that were created to be denigrate and deride. It does not seem like a charitable group of well-wishers got together one day and said, what shall we call a LDS who believes in his religion, "Oh, I know, let us call him a TBM; after all, LDS is just too difficult to remember". Then another said, "Come to think of it, let's use mopologist, because it is so much more uplifting than just an LDS apologist".

Me thinks you strain too much to have us swallow that concoction.

Choose Not to Be Offended

When we believe or say we have been offended, we usually mean we feel insulted, mistreated, snubbed, or disrespected. And certainly clumsy, embarrassing, unprincipled, and mean-spirited things do occur in our interactions with other people that would allow us to take offense. However, it ultimately is impossible for another person to offend you or to offend me. Indeed, believing that another person offended us is fundamentally false. To be offended is a choice we make; it is not a condition inflicted or imposed upon us by someone or something else.

David A. Bednar, 2006

[Storm Rider]

Choose Not to Be Offended

When we believe or say we have been offended, we usually mean we feel insulted, mistreated, snubbed, or disrespected. And certainly clumsy, embarrassing, unprincipled, and mean-spirited things do occur in our interactions with other people that would allow us to take offense. However, it ultimately is impossible for another person to offend you or to offend me. Indeed, believing that another person offended us is fundamentally false. To be offended is a choice we make; it is not a condition inflicted or imposed upon us by someone or something else.

David A. Bednar, 2006

I don't disagree with that position at all. But, please let's us not call a spade a heart. Those that seek to use the language we have been discussing do so for one reason: to belittle, to deride, and to demean. If you are asking if I care, no. I don't frequent sites that use the language in this context. I am careful with the language I use. There are some wonderful critics and I appreciate them; however, there are a lot of anti-Mormons and I would not give you a plug nickel for their drivel.

[sjdawg]

I don't disagree with that position at all. But, please let's us not call a spade a heart. Those that seek to use the language we have been discussing do so for one reason: to belittle, to deride, and to demean. If you are asking if I care, no. I don't frequent sites that use the language in this context. I am careful with the language I use. There are some wonderful critics and I appreciate them; however, there are a lot of anti-Mormons and I would not give you a plug nickel for their drivel.

I disagree that they mean to offend. (at least most don't mean to offend in my experience). There is simply nothing derogatory in saying true believing mormon. Seems like a fair descriptor. It isn't an anti-mormon sentiment.

[orsonsplatt]

There are quite a number of words in the English language that were created to be denigrate and deride. It does not seem like a charitable group of well-wishers got together one day and said, what shall we call a LDS who believes in his religion, "Oh, I know, let us call him a TBM; after all, LDS is just too difficult to remember". Then another said, "Come to think of it, let's use mopologist, because it is so much more uplifting than just an LDS apologist".

Me thinks you strain too much to have us swallow that concoction.

I don't know the intention of the first person to use these particular terms, or of those who popularized them in some circles. But I'm not aware of any evidence they were intended as anything other than shorthand in casual internet conversations. Do you?

If someone says, "TBMs are morons," shouldn't the objection be against the term "moron" rather than "TBM"? Shouldn't the objection always be against the substance of the statement rather than its dress? The negative implication, not the word choice? If someone says, "hippies are dirty," isn't a rejoinder about dirtiness more germane than one about the word "hippie"?

For purposes of clear communication, and to the benefit of all parties, I think it's

Truly, many terms have been created to denigrate and deride. Like "Mormon," "hippie," "punk," "queer," and "nerd." Each adopted by its intended targets and worn with pride. How would the Sons of Helaman feel about a Saint's objection to being called a "True Believ[er]"? What would Brigham Young, the Lion of the Lord say? How about Elder McConkie? He would say, don't be ashamed of your faith.

If one is a true believer it's awfully small to object to the term TBM. And if one defends the faith it is awfully small to object to a term that means "Mormon apologist."

[orsonsplatt]

I don't know the intention of the first person to use these particular terms, or of those who popularized them in some circles. But I'm not aware of any evidence they were intended as anything other than shorthand in casual internet conversations. Do you?

If someone says, "TBMs are morons," shouldn't the objection be against the term "moron" rather than "TBM"? Shouldn't the objection always be against the substance of the statement rather than its dress? The negative implication, not the word choice? If someone says, "hippies are dirty," isn't a rejoinder about dirtiness more germane than one about the word "hippie"?

For purposes of clear communication, and to the benefit of all parties, I think it's

Truly, many terms have been created to denigrate and deride. Like "Mormon," "hippie," "punk," "queer," and "nerd." Each adopted by its intended targets and worn with pride. How would the Sons of Helaman feel about a Saint's objection to being called a "True Believ[er]"? What would Brigham Young, the Lion of the Lord say? How about Elder McConkie? He would say, don't be ashamed of your faith.

If one is a true believer it's awfully small to object to the term TBM. And if one defends the faith it is awfully small to object to a term that means "Mormon apologist."

Oops, sorry for the incomplete paragraph. I'll leave it as I think the idea comes through.

[Hestia]

There. Fixed it for you.

Per board guidelines this is a No-no: Altering members quotes on the board

[Scottholley]

So we have a self-selected group of apostates advertising a survey where apostates like them hang out showing that most apostates are like them. Wow.

For an encore they should go announce a survey on UFO forums and prove that over 90% of Americans believe we are being regularly visited by extraterrestrials.

My name is Scott and I am an active, temple recommend holding Latter-day Saint. I worked with other active members to field, analyze and present the survey results you are referring to. Cheers! PS - I don't believe in aliens.

[Scottholley]

To a large extent this type of information has about as much worth as three boys agreeing that their families hate them and then stating that all families hate little boys. The information is worthless.

One of the things that is significant is how many apostates cannot leave the Church alone. They must rail at it, demean it, work to destroy it, and deride all it stands for. They sit in the big house surrounded by darkness. Why should I be concerned about what they say about me, my family, my community, or my church? They reek of unhappiness because they kick against the Spirit that has born witness to them of a truth they cannot now accept. They have abandonned their God and demand to have the same sense of peace they had.

The history of the Church has always been there for people to read if they chose to do so. Some really just focus on what the Church does for them today and the history does not concern them. Others learn a very twisted idea of history from the slanted propaganda we find on websites today that have no interest in revealing history but in destroying the Church, the cult, the heresy they see as Mormonism.

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.

Half of the survey respondents have note left the church, and are therefore not apostates. The pain that they are experiencing is real - strained relationships, harmed emotional well-being, and costs to their employment. I'm glad that most active members I've talked to have displayed more charity toward these 3,086 souls than that which you seem to display hear. Cheers!

[Scottholley]

Half of the survey respondents have note left the church, and are therefore not apostates. The pain that they are experiencing is real - strained relationships, harmed emotional well-being, and costs to their employment. I'm glad that most active members I've talked to have displayed more charity toward these 3,086 souls than that which you seem to display hear. Cheers!

Santa vaca I had some typos there!

[Calm]

Santa vaca I had some typos there!

You will be able to edit your posts and start new threads when you reach 25 posts, I believe. Editing is not allowed prior to that to allow mods to keep track of potential board violations by new posters who are trolls, etc. (I am assuming this as I don't remember mods explaining why the limit.)

[The Nehor]

My name is Scott and I am an active, temple recommend holding Latter-day Saint. I worked with other active members to field, analyze and present the survey results you are referring to. Cheers! PS - I don't believe in aliens.

Fair enough. Okay. Some members and some apostates collected self-selected survey data from apostates who hang out on certain boards.

PS - The truth is out there (cue X-Files music)

[Duncan]

So, what is this survey supposed to do or how is it useful for anything?