How Many People Are Currently Leaving The Church Over Historical Issues?

[SteveW]

BishopRic said

[Sleeper Cell]

Six: The Church does not remove the names of those who are not actively participating in Church meetings and activities. It has been my observation that less active members can go for years and never darken the door of an LDS Church...and still consider themselves Mormons. Some go through very long periods of disillusionment or distance from the Church and then return to the fold. At time, a spouse or parent can inhibit Church membership even though a person still has strong loyalty to the Church. Based on those sometimes common occurances, I think it is unwise for the Church to effectively excommunicate a member of the flock simply because they have not shown up for a while. For us, all of us are the Savior's lambs. We'll wait a lifetime on the chance that they will one day be ready to return to the fold.

Along those lines, I am not familiar with too many churches...if any...that proactively remove members for periods of inactivity. I seem to recall that the Jehovah's Witnesses are the only faith that may have some sort of membership discipline for inacitivity.

An old roommate told me that his mainline protestant church had removed his family from their membership rolls for non attendance. (This might have simply been local policy, rather than denomination policy.) When the family tried to arrange to hold their daughterâ??s wedding at the church, they were allegedly told that the facilities were available without charge, only if the bride or groom (or one of their immediate family members) were church members. Since they had not attended for the past 10 years, â?¦

My roommate was quite bitter about his familyâ??s membership being dropped, even ascribing his atheism, in large part, to the incident.

[Bsix]

I once had an experience as an Elder's Quorum President where I called on a completely inactive member of the Church who we had heard was recovering from surgery.

As we stood at the door, this fellow just verbally ripped us up one side and then down the other. It was a major league dressing down...and mostly raw hostility toward us for disturbing him.

The following Sunday I recommended to the Bishop that we consider having his name removed from the records. The Bishop gave me a wry smile and informed me that this fellow was actually a member, who while did not attend Church and was prone to outbursts, was still a faithful tithe payer.

I learned then that attendance...and even gruff exteriors...are not the measure of whether or not someone thinks of themselves as a Latter Day Saint.

Regards,

Six

[Thinking]

And you took your shot, and missed. The challenge was to find a "personal attack." Even if I had meant it as you pretended I did, it would still have been quite impersonal.

Pahoran,

Read my post once again.

Instead of a personal one-on-one attack, you take aim at some anonymous worshippers from an anonymous church.

I acknowledged that your attack was not personal.

So what did you mean by mugs in the pews? Even though I don't know exactly what you meant, I'm sure it wasn't complimentary to whatever imaginary beings are sitting in those imaginary pews.

[Skylla]

Some of you are about to be suspended or banned. Give the references called for and stop discussing other posters.

Skylla

[Skylla]

He does not need to do that to get threads closed. Take a look at my thread from yesterday, entitled, "How Do You Faithful Lds Justify Your Conduct On This Board . . ." It was closed simply for inquiring about whether LDS are acting inconsistently with their beliefs by bashing people so harshly on this board (I thought it was a fairly well-presented question/post). Indeed, read the moderator's comments. Simply inquiring about this is enought to get a thread closed. I expect that this thread will close down shortly.

Why don't you tell the whole story? You were informed that you can report it when board rules are violated. We haven't seen a single report from you and you whine about the conduct of certain board members. Poster behavior is not an acceptable topic here. You aren't going to tell our LDS posters how to react when insulted. You are suspended for two weeks and this is your last one. Next time you will be banned.

Skylla

[ruski_canuk]

Let me clarify what you are after Pahoran.

You want us to find another religion which holds the same doctrine for obtaining (non-physical) reassurance of their beliefs ? How close does it have to be ? Word for word copy from the LDS discussions using the same robust language ? Do they also have to have Moroni 10:3-5 as part of their scriptures as well to be considered to use the same approach ?

Btw, on a side note, I am curious about where exactly the doctrine is enshrined in LDS doctrine.

Finally, while I don't know the details of mms history, the suspension based on the quotation cited is absolutely ridiculous.

[BishopRic]

BishopRic said

First, to give a very brief background, I am a former LDS member, ... bishopric (and short time acting bishop), ...who left over historical issues about 10 years ago.

Me:

According to what I read on "The Daily Herald", harktheherald.com, you said that you were a member of a branch presidency and not a member of a bishopric.

Just thought you might want to clear this up.

Nope...wrong person. On that forum I go by "BishopRick," and I've always said I was in a bishopric and an acting bishop. For some reason, there are people who don't want to believe it, I guess.

[Garden Girl]

In regard to keeping members on the rolls when they are inactive (post #348)... thus appearing in our membership statistics... 1) as most of you know, I was inactive for just over 30 years. My mom always made sure my records followed me, which was okay with me because I had no anomosity, etc. I reactivated 12 years ago.

2) In my visiting teaching, I VT several "inactive" sisters, who for some reason allow their husbands to dictate to them that they cannot attend their LDS church . One sister in particular has confided in me her deep sorrow over this but desire to "keep the peace" with her husband.

3) A dear ladyfriend from my girlhood joined because of our family. She married a man who exercised control over her and wouldn't allow her to attend... as soon as he died, she went to Church with her son and d-i-l... he said when she walked into the chapel she started crying and couldn't stop for about 10 minutes... a year later she was endowed at 88 years old.

I could tell of several others whom I personally know just from my own ward who have reactivated after varying lengths of inactivity... but you get my point...

This is why we leave people's names on the membership rolls unless they request removal. Thousands have reactivated and continue to do so...

The Garden Girl

[battlefieldboy]

Some of you are about to be suspended or banned. Give the references called for and stop discussing other posters.

Skylla

Skylla wouldn't it be hard to cite the reference of people leaving the church over historical issues when some of the active members on this forum readily admit that the church doesn't release numbers of those leaving the church on a yearly basis let alone the reasons they may cite for leaving.

When I brought up my theory of using a sampling of people on this board to show the History of the Church has been cited by them as their catalyst for leaving could be a fairly large percentage of those who leave, I was told by regular posters they thought my opinion was wrong based on their experiences. That is fair and I accept their anecdotal experiences.

My General Question then mainly for those members of the LDS church is what reason for leaving the church makes you guys feel more comfortable. Do you want it to be that everyone leaves because they sin and are getting out the door before they are excommunicated? Because they don't want to be obedient to church principals? Obviously Using Church History as the reason upsets many of you.

BTW BSIX thank you for your answer to my post. I respect you a lot in that your explanations show your love and faith for your beliefs and church.

As for the LDS not purging their rolls I also understand their reasoning. Many do return and Many do not. I haven't requested my name be removed because it would only cause heartache and conflict in my immediate and extended family that is not worth doing emotionally, but I don't see myself returning. I don't pressure my wife or children not to go to church and they still attend faithfully. As they get older I will have to confront issues like missions and temple marriage, ultimately I will respect what they choose but I will expose them to my views when I feel they can handle it maturely and not override what they believe.

As for the Attacking I will state that I don't see personal attacks but the tone of some of the posts (both for and against) borders on disrespectful to that persons stated feelings or ideas. My reasons for coming to this sight is to ask the questions I could not ask during my active TBM days for fear of being labeled an unbeliever. I did have a Bishop that discouraged me from trying to research the past history of the chuch by saying that it didn't matter because it didn't affect my salvation, my feeling was the opposite which led to my conclusion right or wrong. That was my reality obviously some of you guys had a different one.

[BishopRic]

As for the Attacking I will state that I don't see personal attacks but the tone of some of the posts (both for and against) borders on disrespectful to that persons stated feelings or ideas. My reasons for coming to this sight is to ask the questions I could not ask during my active TBM days for fear of being labeled an unbeliever. I did have a Bishop that discouraged me from trying to research the past history of the chuch by saying that it didn't matter because it didn't affect my salvation, my feeling was the opposite which led to my conclusion right or wrong. That was my reality obviously some of you guys had a different one.

I could have written this! I am still on the records...at this point, just because I'm lazy. There are sample helpful letters to resign available, but I'm not interested in the confrontation that is inevitable after the bishop gets the letter. Just not worth it.

I'm surprised some have implied that the church encourages studying of all sources of church history, pro and con. That has never been my experience, nor of anybody I have talked to. The standard answer was "don't read 'such and such' book -- it is written by an anti-Mormon who has an agenda of tearing down the church." That answer is quite humorous to me today...as if an active Mormon doesn't have a biased agenda?!

[LifeOnaPlate]

I'm surprised some have implied that the church encourages studying of all sources of church history, pro and con. That has never been my experience, nor of anybody I have talked to. The standard answer was "don't read 'such and such' book -- it is written by an anti-Mormon who has an agenda of tearing down the church." That answer is quite humorous to me today...as if an active Mormon doesn't have a biased agenda?!

There are definite sources I would discourage people from looking into, such as Ed Decker's Godmakers. I have also heard people- usually another missionary, or some regular members of the Church- discourage reading "anti" literature. It depends on what the literature is. You speak of standard answers, etc. Can you give an example of a prophet or apostle saying we should never read anything "con" dealing with the Church? If not, why did you accept such a notion without further inquiry? You were inquisitive to search out the dirtiest parts of Church history, it seems, but not inquisitive enough to know you are free to look into whatever you want? I don't understand. This accusation is often levelled against generalities "people told me," "my leader told me," and I feel is aimed at suggesting the Church has something terrible to hide, and is afraid people will find out the truth so they scare members into blindly obeying. I'm sorry, but while there may be individual members who advance what you have suggested, still, it is not a doctrine of the Church.

[BishopRic]

There are definite sources I would discourage people from looking into, such as Ed Decker's Godmakers.

Agreed. Although, if it were my agenda to "sell" the church, I would encourage an investigator to see Decker's stuff. It comes across so hate-filled, it would backfire!

I have also heard people- usually another missionary, or some regular members of the Church- discourage reading "anti" literature.

yes...no doubt most "regular" members, including bishops and stake presidents did just that in my case.

It depends on what the literature is. You speak of standard answers, etc. Can you give an example of a prophet or apostle saying we should never read anything "con" dealing with the Church?

No.

If not, why did you accept such a notion without further inquiry? You were inquisitive to search out the dirtiest parts of Church history, it seems, but not inquisitive enough to know you are free to look into whatever you want?

Didn't say that. I actually studied much material on both sides...that whole "agency" thing!

I don't understand. This accusation is often levelled against generalities "people told me," "my leader told me," and I feel is aimed at suggesting the Church has something terrible to hide, and is afraid people will find out the truth so they scare members into blindly obeying.

Yes, that about sums it up.

I'm sorry, but while there may be individual members who advance what you have suggested, still, it is not a doctrine of the Church.

Nope, just common in the culture, and my experience.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Yes, that about sums it up.

Yes, it does sum up a rather vague, incorrect argument.

Nope, just common in the culture, and my experience.

The Church isn't a cultural experiment. There is a lot more to religion than what you hear in the culture of that religion, though it plays a role. None of what we have said here has much bearing on the Truth claims of the Church.

[BishopRic]

Yes, it does sum up a rather vague, incorrect argument.

The Church isn't a cultural experiment. There is a lot more to religion than what you hear in the culture of that religion, though it plays a role. None of what we have said here has much bearing on the Truth claims of the Church.

In your opinion.

[LifeOnaPlate]

In your opinion.

Can you demonstrate how it effects the Truth claims of the Church?

[HiJolly]

Oh say, what is truth? 'Tis the fairest gem!

I think it's inappropriate to judge the spiritual confirmations of faith of people with different theories of knowledge.

...Nevertheless, many faithful Catholics have sincere, significant spiritual experiences that they believe are God's way of telling them "hey, you're on the right track!"

<snip> I feel like I'm having a tough time making my point. Maybe it's this:

They may no[t] have asked: "is my church the only true one?", but that doesn't mean that they don't believe that God has told them such.

I agree with your point. The more I interact with people of other faiths, the more it becomes clear that most of them are sincere, and are receiving God's guidance. How they interpret that guidance, how WE interpret that guidance, is where the rubber meets the road.

Hold to love in all judgement, or be damned.

HiJolly

[ruski_canuk]

Can you demonstrate how it effects the Truth claims of the Church?

It affects it because members generally (yes, in my limited experience) are getting their advice about the veracity of the church, and how to determine it's veracity, from the church itself. I'm not speaking of new converts - the approach for them is probably different. However, it is the church which teaches those brought up in it how they can know it is true. They are defining the correct methodology to be taken (prayer and fasting, testimony sharing, etc) and the response to expect (spiritual witness). Once the alleged "skeptic" has already accepted the methodology (and if you get them at a young enough age, they will take the methodology as an axiom) then the conversion is essentially over - especially if they "desire" to believe to fit in, to gain hope, etc. Once they have some experiences, the lifetime conditioning kicks in an roots them into the belief. Part of that conditioning is also the teaching that a spiritual witness is the most important way to get truth, much more powerful than any lowly physical evidence. Hence, physical evidence (history is part of this) is no longer important and, for many in the church, the history isn't really important because they "already know."

[Sleeper Cell]

My General Question then mainly for those members of the LDS church is what reason for leaving the church makes you guys feel more comfortable. Do you want it to be that everyone leaves because they sin and are getting out the door before they are excommunicated? Because they don't want to be obedient to church principals? Obviously Using Church History as the reason upsets many of you.

Without question, I would prefer believing that a person has left the Church because of problems with Church History, rather than because they have fallen into serious sin. Besides the obvious fact that it is better for an ex-Mormon to continue to live an otherwise exemplary life, than to live a sinful one, I simply feel more comfortable discussing Church History than someoneâ??s sins. Unfortunately, some do proclaim that they left because of Church History, simply because it sounds more principled than the actual reason.

I do not think that â??using Church History as the reason,â? per se, "upsets" many of the apologists on this board. What seems to "upset" most of them is using what they perceive to be poor analysis, unreliable sources, made up history, etc.

[ruski_canuk]

It affects it because members generally (yes, in my limited experience) are getting their advice about the veracity of the church, and how to determine it's veracity, from the church itself. I'm not speaking of new converts - the approach for them is probably different. However, it is the church which teaches those brought up in it how they can know it is true. They are defining the correct methodology to be taken (prayer and fasting, testimony sharing, etc) and the response to expect (spiritual witness). Once the alleged "skeptic" has already accepted the methodology (and if you get them at a young enough age, they will take the methodology as an axiom) then the conversion is essentially over - especially if they "desire" to believe to fit in, to gain hope, etc. Once they have some experiences, the lifetime conditioning kicks in an roots them into the belief. Part of that conditioning is also the teaching that a spiritual witness is the most important way to get truth, much more powerful than any lowly physical evidence. Hence, physical evidence (history is part of this) is no longer important and, for many in the church, the history isn't really important because they "already know."

It's like using the prosecuting lawyer's desired methodology for deciding whether or not the accused is innocent.

[BishopRic]

Can you demonstrate how it effects the Truth claims of the Church?

The ultimate claim to "truth" in Mormonism is based on a feeling. "Read this book and pray...if you are 'sincere,' you will get an answer that it is true." How does this answer come? A feeling.

So what does the feeling feel like?

As a missionary, we used to say in the middle of a heart-felt discussion with investigators, "what you are feeling now is a confirmation that what we are saying is true. Joseph was a prophet, the church is true, etc."

How many other times in LDS culture do you hear "the spirit was strong...?" It's all about that feeling. And the church culture, from day one, "educates" the members how to recognize and interpret the feeling.

Problem is, I believe the feeling is felt -- exactly the same feeling -- in many other ways...some that would conflict with LDS teaching. I believe the link between "if you feel this, it means this claim of history is true...or that this book is "true," is faulty. It's not unique to Mormonism...throughout history, millions of people have been killed in the name of God...the perps "feeling" that directly or indirectly, God has told them or their leader to do the killing. I believe that Joseph was just clever enough to use the same strategy to sell his product.

So the general culture of the church is very responsible for claims of truth. How else would so many people "understand" that the church is true?

It affects it because members generally (yes, in my limited experience) are getting their advice about the veracity of the church, and how to determine it's veracity, from the church itself. I'm not speaking of new converts - the approach for them is probably different. However, it is the church which teaches those brought up in it how they can know it is true. They are defining the correct methodology to be taken (prayer and fasting, testimony sharing, etc) and the response to expect (spiritual witness). Once the alleged "skeptic" has already accepted the methodology (and if you get them at a young enough age, they will take the methodology as an axiom) then the conversion is essentially over - especially if they "desire" to believe to fit in, to gain hope, etc. Once they have some experiences, the lifetime conditioning kicks in an roots them into the belief. Part of that conditioning is also the teaching that a spiritual witness is the most important way to get truth, much more powerful than any lowly physical evidence. Hence, physical evidence (history is part of this) is no longer important and, for many in the church, the history isn't really important because they "already know."

Jinx!

[charity]

Without question, I would prefer believing that a person has left the Church because of problems with Church History, rather than because they have fallen into serious sin. Besides the obvious fact that it is better for an ex-Mormon to continue to live an otherwise exemplary life, than to live a sinful one, I simply feel more comfortable discussing Church History than someoneâ??s sins. Unfortunately, some do proclaim that they left because of Church History, simply because it sounds more principled than the actual reason.

I do not think that â??using Church History as the reason,â? per se, upsets many of the apologists on this board. What seems to upset most of them is using what they perceive to be poor analysis, unreliable sources, made up history, etc.

I wouldn't use the word "upset." It is the intellectual honesty that bugs me. To say that it is an issue of Church history (or DNA, or whatever else) when it really is something else. For instance, a highly publicized (by the ex-communant himself) excommunication which he claimed was because he was saying DNA proved the Book of Mormon wrong and that an adulterous affair had nothing to do with it.

[T-Shirt]

Let me clarify what you are after Pahoran.

You want us to find another religion which holds the same doctrine for obtaining (non-physical) reassurance of their beliefs ? How close does it have to be ? Word for word copy from the LDS discussions using the same robust language ? Do they also have to have Moroni 10:3-5 as part of their scriptures as well to be considered to use the same approach ?

Btw, on a side note, I am curious about where exactly the doctrine is enshrined in LDS doctrine.

Is this really that hard to grasp? First, it is you critics that are making the comparison, not us. We are simply pointing out that the comparison is not a valid one. To illustrate, here is an example of a valid comparison:

Mormon: "I felt the Spirit so strongly in Sacrament meeting today"

Catholic: "Today's Mass was a very spiritual experience."

Evangelical: "At worship service, I felt overcome by the Spirit."

These would be valid comparisons, and I have no argument with these people's experiences. I do not view the Mormon's experience as, in any way, superior to the other's.

Here is an example of an invalid comparison:

Mormon: "The Church recommended that I study it's doctrine and then pray to ask God if their church is true. I did so and had a powerful confirmation that it is, indeed, true."

Catholic: "While praying the Rosary, I felt the love of God in a powerful way."

Evangelical: "While singing with uplifted arms, I felt the Holy Spirit throughout my body."

While these are all examples of spiritual experiences, and none is superior to the others, they are not equal in comparison.

The LDS Church specifically asks people to obtain a witness of the Spirit as to whether or not it is Christ's true church. Unless you can show an example of any other Church that encourages the same type of thing, your comparisons are not valid.

I don't know how to be any more plain and if confusion persists, I can only deduce that either I am not very good at expressing my thoughts, or many of you are being intentionally, obtuse.

Best regards,

T-Shirt

[Oracle]

I wouldn't use the word "upset." It is the intellectual honesty that bugs me. To say that it is an issue of Church history (or DNA, or whatever else) when it really is something else. For instance, a highly publicized (by the ex-communant himself) excommunication which he claimed was because he was saying DNA proved the Book of Mormon wrong and that an adulterous affair had nothing to do with it.

In your opinion, does the affair negate the science? If so, why do you not reject Joseph Smith because of his affairs?

[LifeOnaPlate]

In your opinion, does the affair negate the science? If so, why do you not reject Joseph Smith because of his affairs?

Not really, but conversely, the "science" doesn't negate the claims of the Book of Mormon, either.

Oh, and Joseph Smith's affairs?