Victory For Antimormonism

[Pahoran]

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.

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?

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?"

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.

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

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]

They never had a testimony.

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

[why me]

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]

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]

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]

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 April 26, 2012 by Senator

[Pahoran]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[why me]

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.

That is what I thought. They now also have a new church and new friends. I still say that they didn't have a testimony...sad...but I think that the members will survive.

[Senator]

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.

Ok, so there was some contact with the saints before they left. Just wonderin.

[epiginosko]

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.

I agree with you to a point. I agree that the Church should address more openly some of the historical issues which cause members to stumble when learning about them. Issues like polygamy, Joseph's peep stone, the multiple versions of the first vision, the revisions of the Book of Mormon, etc. These issues caused me to stumble big-time. It was a real struggle to maintain belief in the Church...and this is coming from someone who served in a Bishopric and was VERY active. It is called the "dark night of the soul" and that is exactly what it feels like. It would be nice to get the Church's perspective on these issues as a counter-balance to what our critics say. I don't think increasing activities is going to solve it. This can happen to anyone with access to Google. All it takes is innocently searching a term while preparing for a Sunday School lesson and getting onto a website which opens Pandora's box. I would like to see the Church address these things.

However, I understand the sensitivity. You don't want to expose otherwise faithful members to these things unnecessarily and cause them to stumble. Likewise, our mission is to bring people to Christ. To help them make sacred covenants. To enrich their lives by teaching them the principles of the Gospel. To bind families together and bring joy into their lives. Getting into the historical controversies does not enrich these areas and, in fact, may even offend the Spirit.

[Okrahomer]

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

oh....never mind. I haven't the energy to match the acid...

[Mike Reed]

That's not actually what he said.

Sure it is. He 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."

Plain English, Pahoran. Now... this may not be what he meant, but this is what he said.

This is the second time in two days where I have seen you read something into someone's post that simply was not there.

Snore...

This is the second time in two days that you've denied that plain english says what it says. Now again... this may have been mistated.... fine... but you you have no rational basis for accusing me of reading things into other people's posts. At least... not with regard to the two posts in question.

But there's the rub, right? Rationality. You should try it sometime. Seriously. It will make you wise. It's very desirable and delicious to the taste.

In both cases, the effect of the misreading was to make the target look bad,

Nonsense. I didn't misread the remark at all. If anything, BCspace misspoke.

and the targets were posters with whom you are on less than friendly terms. Might some kind of pattern be emerging here?

Regards,

Pahoran

Preach on, Pahoran. Preach on!!

The irony, the hypocrisy! Too funny...

For the record... I wouldn't say I am on "less than friendly terms" with BCspace. He and I have had our disagreements over the years, but I kind of like the guy. As for such patters seen in my exchanges with you, on the other hand... you might be on to something.

Edited April 27, 2012 by Mike Reed

[altersteve]

It happened again. Some anti-Mormon got to a newly baptized family in our ward. They were active and their son was in my Scout troop. Suddenly they won't allow their children contact with Mormons at all.

Clever strategy that: "Leave and don't contact anyone from the LDS church again." What are they afraid of we might strain some of the poison from the well?

I'm always very sad to hear things like this. I hope they return someday.

[Law22]

The reason new members are more susceptible to such influences is because their conditioning process is still in its infancy.

I am wary of any church that requires a "conditioning process."

[bluebell]

I am wary of any church that requires a "conditioning process."

Xander is a critic (to put it mildly) of the LDS church. He phrased the statement precisely as he did hoping to cause wariness.

[Law22]

Xander is a critic (to put it mildly) of the LDS church. He phrased the statement precisely as he did hoping to cause wariness.

Read the post again. You're right. And maybe a little angry too. Please do not rope me into either category.

Sort of begs the question tho: does a successful conversion to Mormonism require a "conditioning process?"

[rodheadlee]

Read the post again. You're right. And maybe a little angry too. Please do not rope me into either category.

Sort of begs the question tho: does a successful conversion to Mormonism require a "conditioning process?"

No it requires obtaining a strong testimony.