56 replies to this topic

[Senator]

BCSpace, on 26 April 2012 - 01:36 PM, said:

Not until they remove their names from the record.  Until then, we are stuck with trying to visit them on a regular basis.  Not that I shirk from that duty........

Yeh, that unconditional lovin stuff is for the birds...

[why me]

Senator, on 26 April 2012 - 01:35 PM, said:

Would you say that is true of, say, Oliver Cowdery?

Oliver had a disappointment with Joseph. And he did return. Oliver also had experiences that he could not deny. These members are in a different ball park. They never had a testimony. And now if they are shunning mormons, it just shows that their friendships with the members were superficial. Oliver fought like heck before he left and defended himself.

[why me]

Xander, on 26 April 2012 - 01:31 PM, said:

According to Okrahomer, that's impossible. All the Mormons in the United States are self-avowed Mormons.

But more seriously, this is pretty much what happens when people are clued in on the things the Church should have told people in the beginning. Sorry, but it is the truth. I've seen it happen plenty of times and the Church and its membership know how important it is to keep new members close to their chest. It is why it is important for the Church to involve so much of a members life with Church activities throughout each week. If they're spending all their time with fellow believers, there is little chance for them to get a critical perspective of Mormonism.

Actually it doesn't show that at all. It would have showed that if they would have checked with church members about what they were told or get an interpretation from a church member. But they didn't do that. No one knows just why they left but to leave without checking with their lds friends, shows a problem with the new converts.

[why me]

Xander, on 26 April 2012 - 01:38 PM, said:

From what I've seen in apologetics, it does much more than that. It attempts to inoculate people from reason and truth.

I would bet a penny that these new converts did not check any apologetic site nor did they contact a mormon site for information about their problem. What this family did was just leave and forbid any contact with mormons. Why? It shows a much more deeper reason than reading about the priesthood ban or some other issue.

Edited by why me, 26 April 2012 - 01:45 PM.

[Mike Reed]

BCSpace, on 26 April 2012 - 01:36 PM, said:

Not until they remove their names from the record.  Until then, we are stuck with trying to visit them on a regular basis.  Not that I shirk from that duty........

Then what are do-not-contact lists for?

[Pahoran]

Xander, on 26 April 2012 - 01:31 PM, said:

According to Okrahomer, that's impossible. All the Mormons in the United States are self-avowed Mormons.

Call for references, please.  We all know that you'd like to count everyone who didn't attend last Sunday as an ex-Mormon, but that doesn't mean everyone who disagrees has an equally binary view.

Xander, on 26 April 2012 - 01:31 PM, said:

But more seriously, this is pretty much what happens when people are clued in on the things the Church should have told people in the beginning. Sorry, but it is the truth. I've seen it happen plenty of times and the Church and its membership know how important it is to keep new members close to their chest. It is why it is important for the Church to involve so much of a members life with Church activities throughout each week. If they're spending all their time with fellow believers, there is little chance for them to get a critical perspective of Mormonism.

You might take comfort in this silly notion that there is an "anti-Mormon" Church run by the Devil and that is has strange mystical powers over some of new members, but the more reasonable scenario here is that they were upset because they found out some things that the missionaries didn't tell them. The reason new members are more susceptible to such influences is because their conditioning process is still in its infancy.

Let's see if I understand the Kevin Graham perspective here.

The new members find out that there is more to the Church than can be covered in six one-hour lessons.  They react by shunning every Latter-day Saint they know and assuming that all of them are in on some kind of conspiracy.

And that's your idea of a "reasonable" response, is it?

Xander, on 26 April 2012 - 01:31 PM, said:

Mormons call it a victory for anti-Mormonism (your boogy-man), but everyone else calls it a victory for critical thought. You cannot complain that they didn't hear your side. They did. But they were only persuaded when given a fraction of the information they needed to make an informed decision. That's really what it boils down to.

And then, when given an even smaller fraction of information -- from a hostile source -- instead of going back to their LDS friends to find out if we have a response, they cut themselves off from the source of anything that might contradict their newly acquired hostility.

And this is your idea of "a victory for critical thought," is it?

And without having the first idea what "information" their sudden hostility is based upon, I notice.  If you subsequently found out that they were treating all Mormons like pariahs because they'd seen "The God Makers," would that still be "a victory for critical thought?"

Xander, on 26 April 2012 - 01:31 PM, said:

They're ignoring Mormons now for the same reasons ex-Amway/Quixtar/Herbal-Life members generally ignore those groups as well. It usually isn't personal, but when it is, it is usually because they felt like they were intentionally misled.

A "feeling" that the more conscienceless hate propagandists assiduously promote.

Senator, on 26 April 2012 - 01:28 PM, said:

Hey, at least they're not one of the "you can leave the church, but can't leave the church alone" types.

You mean -- like Graham?

Regards,
Pahoran

[phaedrus ut]

Isn't this situation the rule rather than the exception?  Here is a quote from cumorah.com on the subject

Quote

Sociologist Armand Mauss stated that "75 percent of foreign [LDS] converts are not attending church within a year of conversion. In the United States, 50 percent of the converts fail to attend after a year."^[This postbaptismal attrition is heavily front-loaded. Elder Dallin H. Oaks noted that "among those converts who fall away, attrition is sharpest in the two months after baptism," and missionaries report being told in the MTC that up to 80 percent of inactivity occurs within two months of baptism. In some parts of Latin America, 30 to 40 percent of new converts do not even return to church after baptism to be confirmed.

Phaedrus

[Senator]

why me, on 26 April 2012 - 01:40 PM, said:

They never had a testimony.

You don't know that. The best you can do is surmise.

[why me]

Mike Reed, on 26 April 2012 - 01:44 PM, said:

Then what are do-not-contact lists for?

Are they are on that list? If so, there should be no contact and hopefully they will have their names removed.

[why me]

phaedrus ut, on 26 April 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:

Isn't this situation the rule rather than the exception?  Here is a quote from cumorah.com on the subject



Phaedrus

This is a different problem. If missionaries are pressuring people for baptism because the mission presidents are all about numbers, then this will happen. In many cases, people are still getting the discussions after baptism. People are being  baptized too soon. And this is a huge mistake that the church is making.

[Mike Reed]

why me, on 26 April 2012 - 01:47 PM, said:

Are they are on that list? If so, there should be no contact and hopefully they will have their names removed.

I don't know.  But according to BCspace's remark, it wouldn't matter to him.

[Senator]

KevinG, on 26 April 2012 - 12:06 PM, said:

I was reasonably close the the family through Scouting.  I did not get to hear the offending topic, it may have been a collection of topics.  It was at the hands of local clergy (I won't identify the religion because that is not the topic)  There was no communication or explanation to the Saints - just a sudden shunning.  (and yes that is the proper use of the word).

I'm kind of curious..

If there was no communication to the Saints; how did you ascertain that:

a)   it had to do with anti-mormonism
b)   it was at the hands of local clergy

Edited by Senator, 26 April 2012 - 02:29 PM.

[Pahoran]

Mike Reed, on 26 April 2012 - 01:50 PM, said:

I don't know.  But according to BCspace's remark, it wouldn't matter to him.

That's not actually what he said.  I assume that he simply didn't have DNC lists in mind, but that he would (of course) honour such a request.

This is the second time in two days where I have seen you read something into someone's post that simply was not there.  In both cases, the effect of the misreading was to make the target look bad, and the targets were posters with whom you are on less than friendly terms.  Might some kind of pattern be emerging here?

Regards,
Pahoran

[why me]

Senator, on 26 April 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:

You don't know that. The best you can do is surmise.

People with testimonies have a struggle before they leave. They just don't go cold turkey and leave. They also try to find answers from church authorities or they are not bothered by antimormon information. Something out of the ordinary happened with this family.

[why me]

Senator, on 26 April 2012 - 02:05 PM, said:

I'm kind of curious..

If there was no communication to the Saints; how did you accertain that:

a)   it had to do with anti-mormonism
b)   it was at the hands of local clergy

I found this interesting too. My guess would be that he heard a rumor but the contact with the family was limited and they began to shun the members. No answering messages or no return of phone calls etc.

[Senator]

why me, on 26 April 2012 - 02:11 PM, said:

People with testimonies have a struggle before they leave. They just don't go cold turkey and leave. They also try to find answers from church authorities or they are not bothered by antimormon information. Something out of the ordinary happened with this family.

Suuurmmiiiise

[Doug the Hutt]

Doesn't this thread prove that the Church can't leave alone those who wish to leave and be left alone? (patent pending!!).

And since they're gone we even have a few getting in the last jab:

1. they were offended (read: prideful just like Thomas B. I-can't-believe-it's-not-butter! Marsh)
2. they didn't really have testimonies (read: they fibbed when they were asked whether they beleive in the Restoration so you can't trust why they say)

That's how it sounded to me, though I admit I'm hearing echoes of the last 30 years from other people on the same subject, so my apologies if the offended/testimony-less statements were intended on coming out differently.

[rpn]

So I hope you scouted out other scout troops the boy could be in and sent him a note encouraging him to continue scouting in one of them, and offering to transfer records and such.   And I hope you plan on sending them a note of encouragement from time to time.   Not because of the church.  Not reported to anyone at church.  Just because you cared about them as people.

[why me]

Doug the Hutt, on 26 April 2012 - 02:34 PM, said:

That's how it sounded to me, though I admit I'm hearing echoes of the last 30 years from other people on the same subject, so my apologies if the offended/testimony-less statements were intended on coming out differently.

I think that this thread sounds like people who are attempting to guess what happened to this family. My guess: they didn't have a strong testimony because they did not contact anyone and they seemed to leave without any feelings for the people they left behind. What is your guess?

[KevinG]

Oh brother.  I didn't really expect the anti-Mormon local brotherhood chapter 666 to be cheering on this thread.  I should not be surprised.  Ignore is better than a response to idiocy however.

For the legitimate comment.question, the family reported they found some disturbing things at the hands of their clergy before moving on and cutting off contact.