People leave the church because of a "trust gap"

[SamIam]

23 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Thank goodness! I am grateful to live in this day and the opportunities my daughters have. I am grateful I was not raised when racists views were common and acceptable. I am grateful the church no longer encourages gay men to marry straight women because they have realized this approach fails and causes undue hardship on gay men, their ex-wives and their children. I'm not a Bible scholar but God has always had to work within the framework of societal norms and culture and sometimes that meant his chosen people had to wander around for 40 years waiting for ingrained, false, cultural habits to die off. From my understanding, the Priesthood ban would have been rescinded sooner if the Prophet and Apostles would have been able to all agree but they could not. Culture can be a hindrance for the development of a righteous people. 

I won't go into detail on my issues--I've hashed them out a bit here before and I am moving forward. I've seen some progress on women's issues in the church and I have no doubt, improvements will continue.

https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Dialogue_V35N01_157.pdf  

I had hoped you might engage the thought with a bit more analysis and less of a self-affirming "I can't possibly be misled" approach.  However, that you are moving forward and reconciling (I hope) to remain with the church is a positive direction that I wish you the best of success with.

[Tsuzuki]

25 minutes ago, SamIam said:

No, what I really want is for you to put your faith in Christ.  Fact of the matter is that if you consider upon LDS teachings your state is overall not different from my own.  If I do wrong, I repent.  If I do wrong again I continue to repent and I don't stop repenting and hope to conquer my tendencies to do wrong.  At any point in time an open door awaits you and if I knew where to go I would be the first in line to welcome you with an open embrace.  I hold no issues with you what so ever but understand what needs to be accomplished for the Lord to extend his hand in your direction. I can't change the clear directives of prophetic utterance on these matters.

I thought calls to repentance were against forum rules.

[SamIam]

Just now, Tsuzuki said:

I thought calls to repentance were against forum rules.

Perhaps subject to individual interpretation, this may be deemed such.  My intent is only to review standard process.  Based on how I worded it, if you see it as a call to repentance I certainly included myself in the requirement.

[bsjkki]

12 minutes ago, SamIam said:

"I can't possibly be misled" approach. 

I don't know where you get this?

[SamIam]

Just now, bsjkki said:

I don't know where you get this?

Only that your rejoicing didn't speak substantially to the reality of presentism and the fact that when it presents itself as an obvious criteria of the choices people make that alone should encourage a bit of self-introspection as to who is pulling our chain in the direction they think we should go..

[Tsuzuki]

3 minutes ago, SamIam said:

Perhaps subject to individual interpretation, this may be deemed such.  My intent is only to review standard process.  Based on how I worded it, if you see it as a call to repentance I certainly included myself in the requirement.

I think it's pretty obvious that he doesn't subscribe to your world view. That would be like me calling you to repentance for attempting to thwart his right to love as he will.

http://lib.oto-usa.org/libri/liber0077.html

[bsjkki]

6 minutes ago, SamIam said:

Only that your rejoicing didn't speak substantially to the reality of presentism and the fact that when it presents itself as an obvious criteria of the choices people make that alone should encourage a bit of self-introspection as to who is pulling our chain in the direction they think we should go..

I think you are making many assumptions based on my use of term women's issues.

[SamIam]

Just now, Tsuzuki said:

I think it's pretty obvious that he doesn't subscribe to your world view. That would be like me calling you to repentance for attempting to thwart his right to love as he will.

http://lib.oto-usa.org/libri/liber0077.html

I think you are pushing your envelope here, only I can speak to my intent though you appear to reject that I might know my intent.  Is your effort above a carefully veiled attempt to call me to repentance? Maybe, Maybe not. I don't know - and since I don't know, I won't try to accuse you of anything and put words in your mouth.  I think if you want to miss the value of what has been some better than usual discussion for straining at a gnat that is your choice but there is a forest out there of you will but step back a bit from this tree.   

[SamIam]

Just now, bsjkki said:

I think you are making many assumptions based on my use of term women's issues.

That was the risk and I thought I implied such in my opening remarks...good enough, my mistake.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, SamIam said:

I realize this is going to be too long for many.  However the scriptures have a wonderful story that illustrates a key element of what is causing people to leave the church.  For those few who may read this through I promise you, wait... wait... California Boy I am going to back off on that word "promise"  Let's just say that for those who love the scriptures it will be an enlightening read that will give pause for consideration.  I leave out a lot of detail just to make it as brief as possible.

The backdrop to the story of Uzzah is in essence your scriptural pattern. We all pretty much know the story of his reaching up to steady the ark and then taking a hit. However, how did he get there? Well the scriptures provide the backdrop to this scenario which is actually more important than the part we are most familiar with.

Twenty years before Uzzah makes his fatal mistake is the story line that sets the stage for his failure. I'll try to be brief and leave out as much of the scripture as possible for brevity's sake. To set it up I will provide a reminder of parts of the story. The essence is that the Philistines are danged excited that they have captured the Ark of the Covenant from Israel but it is a short lived excitement.

They observe that every where the ark is put in their land there is pestilence, suffering, and even death. So they decide to send the ARK back to Israel. This is the key verse:
 

The Philistines are symbolic of all those who know not God. The scriptures define their role and symbolic purpose of why God left them alive when Israel reclaimed their lands:
 

Thus absolutely true to scriptural form the Philistines have swooped in during a time of Israel’s wickedness and plague them now by embarrassing the heck out of them by capturing their national treasure - the ARK of the covenant. But this puppy is one hot potato and it has to go back to the Israelite's for all of the harm its presence is doing to the Philistines. So they prepare to move it.

They do not know there are God given rules for moving the ark. They do not know there is an place in the procession where the ark is supposed to be when it is transported. They do not know the ark is to be moved by men separated out of the House of Israel and dedicated to the service of the Lord. They know absolutely nothing about how to cover it in blue cloth when outside of the tabernacle.

However, God tolerates all this because they are ignorant. So in the sincerest effort and with respect, they do what they, ignorant of the Lords expectations, would consider the right thing and so as the verse above states they create a NEW cart. This new cart will be made of the best materials. They will send it will gifts of gold and fine tapestries and it shall be pulled by animals valued by the Philistines – milk producers. They will spare no effort to create something that to them would be considered quite wonderful and desirable.

And so they hitch up the kine (cows) to the NEW CART and send it on its way back to Israel...uncovered, led by cattle, sitting in a Cart. Well without all of the detail that is Chronicled in Samuel 6 the ark causes quite a stir when it comes back to the first community just over the border and the Israelite's there are not cut any slack for ignorance as they know better and many are stuck dead for even looking upon the Ark.

So they called the men of Kirjath-jearim, who removed the Ark to the Levite home of Abinadab where his son Eleazar was sanctified to the proper care of the Ark. Here it remained for 20 years during the final years of Saul’s reign in Israel.

Twenty years later we introduce Uzzah. The story of the Ark’s return 20 years earlier was a tale of great renown in Israel. Surely, the tale of the Philistines return of the Ark with offerings in a “new cart” of splendid construction and quality was a well-known tale of honor that was told amongst the Children of Israel. The power of the Lord was manifest in its miraculous return and a source of pride to the Israelites. Still it had been 20 years since the Ark had been recognized by the people as a whole as the sacred relic it was and time had dulled their recollection of the terms of honoring the Ark properly. However, the tale of the “new cart” was the freshest memory in recent history of the Ark transport and so became a focal point of this new effort to relocate the Ark to the royal city of David.

So, the people of God who should have known better allowed themselves to be swayed by the things they had observed of those who were not even the Children of the Lord. These people of worldly ways, and who knew absolutely nothing of how to properly handle the sacred things of God became the influencing agents in determining how to handle sacred things. Without even realizing it, the people have been placed exactly where the Lord said they would if they failed in obedience – and by very subtle means they shall now be proved by the examples set by the Godless and how they respond to those examples.

A key connecting piece is found in the description of David's efforts when he first starts moving the Ark:
 

 

To a Jewish Rabbi the repetition of terms is generally regarded as a key factor of scripture interpretation. This term here used in Second Samuel is precisely there to inform us of the connection between these two related narratives. We now connect the narrative of the Philistines and their creation of a "New Cart" to David and his creation of a "New Cart".

In the remaining verses of 2 Samuel 6:4-7 it seems just a narrative of how they hit the road to carry the Ark down to David’s home in the City of David. However, if one was to look up all of the restrictions and rules governing the transporting of the ARK it actually turns out to be a list of offenses. And each of these offense takes place long before Uzzah becomes the capstone offense as he reaches up to steady the Ark. However, truth be told this whole process had been misinformed because they sought for their patterns the ways of a worldly people – the Philistines in how to conduct the affairs of the ARK. Here is a list of several things concerning the handling of the ARK:
 

1.) Exodus 25:12 references the rings on the sides at each corner.

2.) Exodus 25:13 references the staves of shittim wood

3.) Exodus 25:14 references that the staves were to be inserted into the rings and never
removed “that the ark may be borne with them.”

4.) Numbers 3:29-31identifies the Kohath line of the Levites as the only ones authorized
to handle Ark requirements.

5.) Numbers 4:5,15 Aaron and his sons must cover the Ark before the Sons of Kohath do
their part. They are not to touch any of the holy things or they will die.

6.) Numbers 4:15 Aaron and his sons were the only ones to ever actually see the ark
uncovered. When they were completed they were to tell the Sons of Kohath who were
to never see any of the things uncovered.

7.) Numbers 4 The Ark was to be covered at all times except when in the Tabernacle.

8.) Numbers 10:33, Joshua 3:6,14 The Ark was to always go before the people.

9.) Joshua 6:6 Unless the Shofar was to declare its arrival or the Army of the Lord was to
proceed it into battle.

10.) 1 Chronicles 15:12-15 Levites were required to be sanctified before they carried the Ark.

11.) 1 Chronicles 15: 16 The Levites were the designated musicians for events of moving the Ark.

I don’t know if this is an exhaustive list as it was some years ago that I did this little study but it seems like it was everything I could find.

The critical symbolism for us is that in our day, there are many “new carts” constructed to deliver the sacred in a more modern and societally acceptable fashion. This NEW CART is the symbolism for how the world repackages the things of God according to the understandings and standards of the world. It has to do with the children of God taking instruction from those who are unfamiliar with sacred observances who may present a broader less correct interpretation that is perfectly suitable from their level of understanding but which falls short of a spiritually correct understanding. The sacred roles of mothers and wives, of fathers and husbands have been taken from the scriptural pattern and sent back to the saints in new carts with different trappings and expectations. Marriage, perhaps the most sacred ordinance for a man and a woman is constantly being redefined and the “new cart” of SSM and its delivery seems to be gaining acceptance even amongst the members of the church. Without a deep appreciation of the sacred nature of the eternal union of a righteous man and women it is to be expected that the world will change things to suit their level of understandings.

In our efforts to justify behaviors or standards that oppose the churches standards as acceptable behaviors of righteousness are as Uzzah. For some we have been dulled to the proper definitions of correct standards as taught by the Lords servants and over time have borrowed from the Philistines of modern Babylon all sorts of constructs to justify the positive benefits of a much more liberal lifestyle. The freedom the world offers and the appearance of a healthier attitude towards liberal standards are the wheels of this NEW CART. We can be lulled by the promise of a better society which composes other aspects of the Cart and it is fine and it is fancy and it satisfies the ambitions of a Godless people who do not know that they are drifting ever further way from the God defined paths back to his presence because they are ignorant.

Well the story of UZZAH would not be complete with touching upon King David’s final observations and how they finally moved the ARK with no further incidence. This is found in 1 Chronicles:
 

 

Again we will note that this list aspect of the story actually addresses practically all of the offenses found in 2 Samuel 6:4-7 which I did not include for brevity's sake.

The key to all of this and the reason for the condemnation of Uzzah is clearly found in verse 13:

13 For because ye did it not at the first, the Lord our God made a breach upon us, for that we sought him not after the due order. (see D & C 107:84)

Uzzah was the end of a long line of abuses concerning moving the Ark.  It had become more than apparent that the Israelites who should have known these things had breeched law after law after law of what it is to handle the sacred things of God.  At some point it became obvious to the Lord that he was going to have to refocus their reverential attitudes and ultimate the final offense was Uzzah touching the Ark an act for which he was expressly forbidden. However, the Lord got David's attention.

The World has absolutely no idea of what the “due order” is and many of the saints, dulled in their recollections, find themselves climbing on the "new carts" of Babylon. Sometimes they are walking beside, pushing the cart, or simply and laughing and dancing enjoying the reduced restraints of the uninformed as they travel in the parade of life. Some find that the restraints of of a religious culture reduces their ability to be open and free and at one with one another so they also rejoice with the revelers.

However, I do hope that it is plain to see how tragic that anyone should forget and fail to seek for God “after the due order.”

 

Nice retelling of that story.  I taught the Old Testament for Seminary 4 years.  I love the stories in the Old Testament.  And I guess you are trying to make the leap that the "New Cart" is somehow gay marriage.  Quite the leap.  And how do you rectify Antonin Scalia who wrote the minority opinion opposing gay marriage suddenly and unexpectedly being struck down and dying of a heart attack less than a year after his minority opinion?  Was God displeased with him?  Or did he just die.  Since you are making the leap that the "New Cart" is gay marriage and people have displeased God, I am more than willing to make the leap that Justice Scalia is symbolic of Uzzah and God was displease with his actions opposing gay marriage.  

The point is, obviously your opinion of what God wants us to do is no more valid that my opinion of what God thinks of someone opposing gay marriage.  No one has the right to dictate the choices someone else makes in this life.  No one knows the will of God.  No one speaks for him.  Neither you or I.  And it is extremely offensive when someone tries to claim that he knows the will of God and what choices I should make in this life.  You may have an opinion, but you do not know God's opinion on gay marriage.  And you do not know God's opinion on the choices I have made in this life.  In the end, it is only His opinion that matters.

[california boy]

21 minutes ago, SamIam said:

I think you are pushing your envelope here, only I can speak to my intent

Says the guy that is going around telling other people what choices they should have made and how they should have lived their lives under the assumption that he knows the will of God.  Unbelievable.

[Stargazer]

On 4/19/2017 at 10:13 PM, clarkgoble said:

Part of the problem is that often people conflate being deceitful with being trustworthy as the opposite of being fallible. Reminds me of a good friend who in Haiti felt prompted to pronounce a total healing on a person they were blessing. That evening the person died. This was a huge trial of faith and combined with a few other things really led to a big struggle for him. But should we say he was't trustworthy? Or just that he was fallible like the rest of us.

I'm coming at this late, so this might already have been mentioned, but there's a D&C passage covering this.

DC 42:44

44 And the elders of the church, two or more, shall be called, and shall pray for and lay their hands upon them in my name; 
and if they die they shall die unto me, and if they live they shall live unto me.

Apparently, a blessing for recovery, even if it isn't actualized, has saving power.  So I don't see a problem, although I can see how some would say otherwise.

When my wife was given six months to live when her cancer had gotten to that point, she requested a blessing of me and I gave one.  I blessed her to be healed.  She was not.  I'm quite sure she had the faith to be healed, but knew that the call was to go home.  And so it was.  And no faith crisis. 

Did your friend feel that the Lord had betrayed him by not honoring the blessing he felt he had been impressed to give?

Edited April 21, 2017 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

On 4/19/2017 at 10:13 PM, SamIam said:

So why with such a legacy of reference and validated commentary is it perceived that the most absurd possibility is that folks might be leaving the church because they are deceived by an entity plotting their destruction.  Why will we prefer to consider upon more "rational" causes contemporary to our age?  Why does a newspaper have more clout as to the causes of why people are leaving the LDS church than a document that clearly predicts such with the explanations of why?  Why are leaders who simply echo the very same warnings and concerns as those of an earlier age disregarded as out of touch or worse intentional deceivers?  There should be an honest and sincere effort to discern the remarkable "coincidence" that we are where scripture said we would be, living in the times amazingly known before we arrived here.  I would want to know how this could be - it is no coincidence.

Because, generally speaking, those perceiving it as an absurdity are among those who have left, who no longer believe in God, let alone Satan.  And for those who still believe in God, then of course it is He who has led them out of a false church.  They are deceived, and possibly the strongest part of the deception is that they cannot see the actual deception.

I realize that this will appear to be a circular argument to some, but I have a son who has paranoid personality disorder.  He believes that many people are out to "get" him in some way or other.  And over time the list of enemies grows.  Even evidence to the contrary is interpreted to confirm his delusion.  For him there is no way out, apparently.  It's entirely circular.  Even attempting to convince him that he is wrong confirms his conviction. 

[Stargazer]

Nevermind

Edited April 21, 2017 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

17 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Like I said in another post, people are getting so tired of the same thing over and over. I remember my oldest daughter saying years ago when she was in high school that she's heard the same lesson over and over. I never saw the problem at that time, thinking that it's all about reiterating things. 

The church needs to do some work on those lesson manuals definitely, like I posted elsewhere also, my husband teaches primary and the lesson manual wasn't current with Joseph's translation methods. 

Yeah, but I've heard complaints about endless sacrament meeting talks about the WoW for example (from my kids), when in fact the WoW only came up in talks a couple of times per year.  Thing is, I was paying attention, and many times they were not, and then suddenly it was "The Word of Wisdom AGAIN!?!?". 

I'm not saying that you're wrong about the manuals needing more variety and updating, but even if the lesson itself has different text and offers different examples and cases, there are those who will not be pleased to have that subject covered again -- every darned year, for pity's sake!  Perhaps not your oldest daughter.  She might have been more perceptive.

[Stargazer]

17 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I also find it interesting that members of this board...when given the reason for leaving the church by the very people who are leaving the church...don't believe their reasons and instead offer up their own reasons for why these people are leaving the church.  Why not just accept what the people who are actually leaving are claiming is their reason for leaving?

Out of 7 children I have attempted to help raise in the Gospel, none of them is an active member as adults.  Absolutely none of them became inactive because of these historical difficulties.  In fact, only one of them ever found out about these uncomfortable topics (head in hat, teenaged brides of Joseph Smith, etc), and he only did so many years after leaving the church.  He left the Church to follow his wife's faith, and he apparently needed to have a club with which to beat me, concerning his leaving the Church.  He certainly didn't leave for that reason.  All of the others left because of the pull of the world: smoking; drinking; premarital sex; dislike going to church; and so on.

I realize that this is my personal story, and others will be different, but all my kids left the Church because of the pull of the world.  Darned few of the children of other members I have know who have left, whose reasons I have known about, have left over historical challenges.  Actually none of them.

This is why I think that most people who go inactive are just unconvinced of the Gospel, or have never had, or have lost interest in it.  And I've seen a number of these come back after many years of inactivity -- for various reasons.  Part of the problem in reactivating these folks is that they are largely apathetic with respect to the Church, and have better things to do and concern themselves with.

[why me]

10 hours ago, california boy said:

I am surprised you can't really understand why church history is so closely tied to the Mormon church and not any protestant faiths.  Have you really not thought about this before?  The claims of Mormonism is directly tied to it's history.  That is why.  

Can someone be a faithful Mormon that doesn't believe Joseph Smith is a Prophet of God? 

Can someone be a faithful Mormon and not believe the Book of Mormon is a record of God's dealings with the people in the new world? 

Can someone be a faithful Mormon and not believe in the Book of Abraham? 

These are key historical issues that when not believed, the claims of Mormonism are not to be believed.  There is nothing comparable in any protestant religion that makes these kinds of claims based on historical record.  A

Hope that helps.

Can someone believe in Lutheranism and not believe in Martin Luther? Can one be a presbytarian and not believe in Knox? Or a methodist and not believe in Wesley? Maybe not.

Can one be a chritian and not believe in the new testament? Or in the old teatament? Or a protestant and believe in catholicism? Or a muslim and not believe in the quran? Nor believe in the Mohammed story?

All religious faiths are tied to history. Can one be a protestant and believe that the protestant reformation did not happen? However it is only the mormons that must look to their history and believe in it or not. Right?

Edited April 21, 2017 by why me

[why me]

11 hours ago, JulieM said:

What is in the historical background?  (I see nothing there stating that Joseph practiced polygamy). Maybe I missed it and I'll look again. But, from what I saw, it's just a history of the revelation explained.

And, there's not "much" in the lesson about "Emma and her lying" as you stated earlier.

You've completely misrepresented this manual and what it contains from what I saw (from the link you provided).

First, it tells that the revelation was written because Emma did not believe in plural marriage and how hyrum and others convnnced joseph that a revelation was needed for emma. It then goes into detail why Joseph inquired about plural marriage because if its use in the old testment. It also states that emma was commanded to accept all the women that would be given to her husband. She was not a happy camper. And then there is a quotation from Woodward that emma handed over several women to be married to her husband. What more should be said? It is up to the teacher to fill in the details. It cetianly does not hide that fact that emma was not happy.

Edited April 21, 2017 by why me

[Stargazer]

16 hours ago, SteveO said:

Every journey IS different, but you guys swing all the way to the other side and seem to make a point that everyone who has left, has done so for legitimate, rational, studied out reasons...it's simply not so.  I still maintain that people are led away from making mistakes that drive away the spirit.

I do take a number of posters here though at their word, that they left for their stated reasons--although I sometimes do wonder if we get the entire story.  But I don't believe they represent the majority of those who leave.

The no-longer-believing ones here are special cases -- if they hadn't fallen away because of perceived and unsolved problems of one sort or another in the Church, then they wouldn't be posting here because they wouldn't even care enough to bother posting on a Church-related message board.  This place is NOT a scientifically-selected sample.  It has a terrific selection bias -- on both sides.  It's the ones who don't post here that are in the majority, and I'd be surprised if the majority of inactive LDS are inactive because they don't have much interest in religion in general, not because they got a nasty surprise at some point that couldn't be resolved.  Heck, I know some members in my old ward who have strong testimonies of the Gospel and the Church, and aside from church attendance they are loyal and believing members, but who stay home because some bishop or other member offended them.  My own brother was one of those, and stayed away for a decade and a half until his atheist, dry-Mormon wife told him he needed to reactivate!

[why me]

11 hours ago, cinepro said:

Does your manual mention Fanny Alger or Helen Mar Kimball?  Or the Lawrence sisters?  Or Zina Huntington? 

Because when it comes to Joseph's polygamy, mentioning the woman Joseph was actually legally and publicly married to isn't the problem.

It mentions that emma gave serveral women to be married to her husband. Who were these several women? Should we give them names? Does it matter? I supose if I were the teacher I could mention a few. But what then? I would tell the class to read Bushman's book for more information. However the church is not hiding that Joseph was a polygamist. So, how could members not know if it is in the manual? The manual does mention the year 1831 when Joseph learned of polygamy. Maybe I can mention fanny and how her parents were proud to have her sealed to the prophet to their dying days. And her brother too.

From the manual published in 1981 and republished in 2001, I believe::

President Wilford Woodruff, who was closely

associated with the Prophet Joseph Smith, said:

“Emma Smith, the widow of the Prophet, is said to

have maintained to her dying moments that her

husband had nothing to do with the patriarchal order

of marriage, but that it was Brigham Young that got

that up. I bear record before God, angels and men

that Joseph Smith received that revelation, and I

bear record that Emma Smith gave her husband in

marriage to several women while he was living, some

of whom are to-day living in this city, and some may

be present in this congregation, and who, if called

upon, would confirm my words. But lo and behold,

we hear of publication after publication now-a-days,

declaring that Joseph Smith had nothing to do with

these things. Joseph Smith himself organized every

endowment in our Church and revealed the same to

the Church, and he lived to receive every key of the

Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods from the hands

of the men who held them while in the flesh, and

who hold

 

I would then inform the class that not one woman who was married to jpseph ever claimed that he did it for lust or mistreated them. And all had no regrets about being sealed to him and that many formed the funeral procession and walked behind emma to mourn the prophet.

Edited April 21, 2017 by why me

[Stargazer]

16 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

If you are looking for a mate. Go to a dating service. They are cheaper.

If you are looking for a friend. Get a dog. They'll like you no matter what.

If you want lots of money. Spend every waking hour in getting it.

It you are looking for sinless mortals. You are looking in the wrong place.

But if you are looking for a bunch of people trying to become more like the God they love. We're some of the better ones.

 

I can vouch for that!!!  

[Stargazer]

16 hours ago, Tacenda said:

It's extremely difficult to find a place that we once had in the church Jeanne, totally understand. I feel invisible as well since not attending for several weeks now. But felt invisible even with activity, I feel I'm on some sort of radar to avoid people like me. (Calm, disregard my comment here, I know what you're thinking, that I need to assert myself. Maybe I do). 

I wonder how those that are TBM and aren't actively attending feel, if they feel the same. Or is it just those that don't believe any longer that members leave alone? 

My single divorced brother-in-law has found a singles group that probably saved his life, and helped him feel less alone. They hike nearly every weekend and love it. 

Meet-up groups online help people get together, with similar likes etc. www.meetup.com 

Like Rev, I do remember more social things in the church that are no longer available any longer. Maybe with the church's size? There were days of women's sports, I'm not talking about young women, all ages, that played volley ball, softball etc. That is gone, along with men's softball. The men still have their basketball. But haven't seen anything for the women, just young women and I believe it's just volley ball and basketball, but could be wrong. 

I don't see many social gatherings either, maybe it's just my ward or I'm not hearing about anything. 

I'm "enjoying" my current isolation from church, being in the position that I am no longer on the radar of my ward of over 30 years, even though I'm physically within its boundaries, and out of the physical boundaries of my new ward.  In explanation, my new ward is in England, but I'm in the US waiting for my UK "green card" (they don't call it that, tho) to be approved so I can go back indefinitely.  So my current ward knows I'm "away" and my wife attends church without me, and my old ward is happy to see me show up occasionally, but doesn't "officially" know that I am here.  So if I don't attend church one week (last Sunday I was in my brother's ward in the Portland, OR, area), I don't get a call from my home teacher asking if I'm OK.  By the time I get back to the UK they might have forgotten me!

I'm in Limbo, and it's fine, actually.  My church attendance seems to be here at MDDB mostly, at the moment.  Actually getting a lot out of what you all are posting here!  Win-win!  

I do have to say that when I suddenly started showing up in my old ward, the bishop's second counselor asked me if I wanted a calling while I was waiting to go back to the UK I got quite tickled about that.  I told him "Sure!"  He was just joking however.  I'm pretty sure.

Edited April 21, 2017 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

16 hours ago, stemelbow said:

It's odd, my wife and I notice the most engaged members in our ward have been those who are most prone to feel justified in condemning others for whatever reason they've figured it seems.  They seem most happy when they get together to condemn others either in the ward, or who have left Church who have children who they feel are problems.  Its tough. 

We find ourselves really just wanting to be on the outside of that circle because of that, but then being on the outside we not only feel unwelcome in many circumstances but also find ourselves as the focus of much of the chatter that gives social fulfillment.  In a sense I'm happy to take one for the team, if that's how it continues to play out, though.  But the problem of course is that this social aspect you mention, seems to be the cancer that is the problem.  it'd be bad in my mind to get people into the Church or get people back to Church only to have them feel all the more justified in looking down upon others.  We're certainly not the only ones skirting around on the outside, though.  So there's that. 

I'd hate to be in your ward.  Sounds like Backbite City.  As far as I can tell, I was never in a ward like that.  

Edited April 21, 2017 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

15 hours ago, William Jones said:

Is it too tough to admit that maybe people leave for legitimate reasons?

Yep!  

Because they didn't!  

Leaving the true church cannot possibly be legitimate.  Of course, if you don't believe the church is true, then I guess one might think that one's reasons are legitimate.  But the earth isn't flat because one believes that it is.  The earth is what it is.  The church is Christ's church and it is true.  Even if every member leaves it, thinking that they have legitimate reasons to do so, they're still wrong.

[Stargazer]

16 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Whatever the case, God is supposed to be about saving mankind, even if they are all but whiners in your view.  If the Church is so necessary for salvation as some seem to indicate, then one wonders why God is unable to make it adapt for more people.  Perhaps He knows the church is less necessary and leaves us with the cultural tradition of Church because, well, some people do well with it, but other than that, He's not so into making Church work for people because He knows the Church isn't really going to help anyone to salvation.  He will. 

God is not just supposed to be about saving mankind, he IS about saving mankind. But he cannot save where man refuses the gift.  And whining about how horrible we have it in these days, after others gave their lives and suffered horribly for the truth, mostly without whining about their lot, is still whining.  

I'm getting impatient.  Sorry.