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

[OMWO2]

This is my first post and I don't want to offend. I too am on my way out of the church mainly because of historical "issues" with the church. My feelings aren't that people need to be perfect or even prophets being perfect for that matter. My issue comes down to whether Joseph Smith was a scam artist who made up things as he went along or if he was a true prophet of god that actually had the vision. Based on some of historical evidence he comes across more as a scam artist (much like television evangelicists of today) This was history I was unaware of growing up as a member of the church. I only found out about this history though the internet. Now that I look back on my efforts in this church my belief system has been shaken.

I too faced your situation 2 years ago. Contrary to others beliefs, I had no desire to drink or smoke or participate in any "non-mormon" activity. I was happy and content as an LDS member. I held many leadership callings and was very active, as was my wife and 4 children. I cannot remember the exact moment when it struck me that I had "questions or concerns". At first I used only church approved research venues like lds.com. It was while preparing a gospel doctrine lesson that I google searched on temples. This lead me to "non-church" websites for the first time ever. I was scared because I had been taught to stay away from "anti" sites. I didn't even know how to define "anti" at first. I have found though that there is much "information" and "mis-information" about mormonism out there. I found no single "smoking gun", only enough unanswered questions or undefined answers to cause substantial doubt. After that it was a gut feel decision to remain a member or not. Being inactive was not an option for me since I am a 125% in or 125% out kind of person. I continued to live the word of wisdom and other aspects of the gospel for quite sometime. Ultimately I along with my wife and 4 children left the church. So I suppose by definition I left "over historical issues".

[ERMD]

I too faced your situation 2 years ago. Contrary to others beliefs, I had no desire to drink or smoke or participate in any "non-mormon" activity. I was happy and content as an LDS member. I held many leadership callings and was very active, as was my wife and 4 children. I cannot remember the exact moment when it struck me that I had "questions or concerns". At first I used only church approved research venues like lds.com. It was while preparing a gospel doctrine lesson that I google searched on temples. This lead me to "non-church" websites for the first time ever. I was scared because I had been taught to stay away from "anti" sites. I didn't even know how to define "anti" at first. I have found though that there is much "information" and "mis-information" about mormonism out there. I found no single "smoking gun", only enough unanswered questions or undefined answers to cause substantial doubt. After that it was a gut feel decision to remain a member or not. Being inactive was not an option for me since I am a 125% in or 125% out kind of person. I continued to live the word of wisdom and other aspects of the gospel for quite sometime. Ultimately I along with my wife and 4 children left the church. So I suppose by definition I left "over historical issues".

This post makes me sad.

I hope you find what you're looking for.

[juliann]

I think it is a paradigm to, for example, say that polyandry is a negative mark. I personally find it to be a positive possibility, as I expect to have two husbands in my lifetime, and I should not like to lose either of them (I know, in the polyandry, sealing was only to one man; but it is a step in the right direction of possibility for me to have the wish of my heart).

If one rules in polygyny because of BY, one must rule in polyandry because of JS. There really is no way to sidestep that without nullifying JS. Of course, I think it is all moot since it would be rather odd to pattern celestial marriage on a very limited state instituted mortal practice.

[juliann]

My feelings aren't that people need to be perfect or even prophets being perfect for that matter. My issue comes down to whether Joseph Smith was a scam artist who made up things as he went along or if he was a true prophet of god that actually had the vision.

You are one of very, very few who has seen through the smokescreen put up by angry critics and hit the nail on the head. I hope you will find the prophet in him, obviously, but if not you have faced the real issue head on and honestly and wont' have to continue rumaging though the dustbin of history to create reasons to move on.

[Free Agent]

I think everyone comes to their testimony in different ways and degrees. For some of us, the only way to really know if Joseph Smith was a prophet is to "rummage around in the dust bin of history". That is information we may need to help us in our decision and in the strength of our faith. I personally am in the process of leaving because of the historical issues. Earlier, a poster expressed sadness over someone leaving and wished them happiness. It is sad. The death of truth as I knew it has been very hard. I've come to the conclusion that as wonderful and lovely as the Church is, it isn't the true church. I don't believe there is any one true church, but I do still firmly believe in Christ and our Heavenly Father. I envision one day, and maybe I'm delusional, a Mormon church that keeps its focus on Christ and its wonderful programs, but starts to distance itself from being the only true church. And as a previous poster also said, I by no means intend to offend or insult anyone who is a firm believer. I respect that and wish the same respect be afforded to those of us who feel differently.

Free Agent

[Daniel Peterson]

In a battle between the truth and the ego, the truth hasn't got a chance.

How true!

The funny thing is, I suspect that you imagine that principle to cut in only one direction.

[john doe]

I would like to know what is known about this because I don't trust Palmer, (the guy who was in CES for 35 years), about it being an outrageous number.

He usually only shows one side of the coin.

Without reading any of the answers to this thread, let me just put my guess out there, since I'm sure everone else will too. The number is 7. All others who leave, whether they admit it or not, have other issues, they just latch onto the 'history' excuse because it is convienient.

[Ihearya]

Probably quite a few. If I was not living in the times where things 'don't make sense' I would hesitate to leave the Church over things that I was never present to witness. However, the flip side of this is that I wasn't present when Joseph Smith was around and I still believe he was/is a true prophet.

Some people leave the Church but many can't leave it alone. I would never leave the Church over stuff I read on the Internet.

It's also possible that the Lord may be doing some house cleaning too, indirectly. We live in times where only those who really believe will stick around. Those staying in because of tradition or convenience may have to re-check their motives for being LDS.

I think there is an apostasy going on and it's starting with people offending others inside the wards. Many people leave the Church because of offenses, real or perceived. I also think that among us, there are few bad apples that will cause the faithful to question or abandon their faith altogether.

Perilous times.

[Pahoran]

I can't begin to know what the number is. But I do know that the number who really leave over historical issues is a very small subset of those who claim to leave over historical issues.

I find it rather striking that those who are the best-informed about LDS history are usually if not always faithful members. For anyone who feels that their faith has been shaken because of historical "gotchas," remember that they aren't the whole picture, they're just a few little warts. They neither explain nor illuminate what the Church really is or does.

And if you feel that the little handful of historical "gotchas" are really worth leaving the Church over, then maybe it might be worth enrolling in a good solid history program at a reputable college. Then you might learn just what a tiny, selective subset of the truth any "history" really is. If the entire history of the Church was to be written down, the resulting books could fill several large rooms, and only one or two volumes would be of any use to the anti-Mormons. The rest would mostly be "faith-promoting."

Regards,

Pahoran

[Noodle]

I wanted a better relationship with Christ and I found that it was through "loving my neighbor". Being a good person and having christ in my heart that made me closer to Christ. It wasn't doing all the tasks and following all the rules required of Mormons. I came to realize that the 2nd greatest commandment is what brings the happiness. Not the first law of the gospel "obedience". The LDS church is too legalistic there is a long long list of do's and don't's. Rules and obligations. When I figured this out it was my first step out the mormon door.

[Mighty Curelom]

For anyone who feels that their faith has been shaken because of historical "gotchas," remember that they aren't the whole picture, they're just a few little warts. They neither explain nor illuminate what the Church really is or does.

The most damaging historical issues can't be explained away as "a few little warts." Joseph's money digging and subsequent translation of the BoM with the same magic rock is more than a little wart. It's practically a give away. Another give away is the origin of the Book of Abraham. Even if we didn't have the papyri, the story strains credulity to the breaking point: some of Joseph's followers purchase a couple mummies from a traveling mummy show, along with a few papyri; one of the papyri just happens to be the Book of Abraham. Quite a coincidence, isn't it? In fact, if you don't play the trump card of "With God, anything is possible," such an amazing coincidence is as close to impossible as you can get. Even if you didn't know anything else about the LDS church, if you knew where the Book of Abraham came from you'd have enough information to know it's a fraud. And no additional information can change that; there's no "whole picture" interpretation that makes finding the Book of Abraham with a couple of mummies any more plausible.

[Thinking]

What comes first, the "historical issues", or the disenchantment with the Mormon lifestyle per se? Or just the plain inability, lack of desire, to live it?

This is not an easy lifestyle to live, it's very demanding, but as I understand it those who "remain" do so because they've had a witness, but even those who've had a witness sometimes find it very difficult.

Could "historical issues" push them to turn against Mormonism, when in fact it's a deep-seated desire to be "free"? Only askin'. They will argue 'till the cows come home that this is not the case, and to dismiss those who remain, despite the problems and "cog.diss", as "deluded".

It is also not an easy lifestyle to...

1) Sit outside the temple while everybody else in your TBM family attends a wedding.

2) Stand outside the circle during ordinations and blessings.

3) Tell your TBM spouse you don't believe the Church is true.

Here's another tricky question: How many are pretending to have a testimony because they are afraid of 1, 2, or 3?

[LifeOnaPlate]

It is also not an easy lifestyle to...

1) Sit outside the temple while everybody else in your TBM family attends a wedding.

2) Stand outside the circle during ordinations and blessings.

3) Tell your TBM spouse you don't believe the Church is true.

Here's another tricky question: How many are pretending to have a testimony because they are afraid of 1, 2, or 3?

Re: number 2, Why would you want to stand in an ordination circle if you believe it is hocus pocus?

[Neighbor]

They would also be making the most noise about leaving too. I think the more important stat is how many buildings the church is building every year or how many wards are made. The Church is obviously not going to spend the money to build wardhouse that go unoccupied. That is probably the better indicator of church membership levels and activity than X number of millions.

It should be remembered that LDS is not the only group experiencing "ex" members. Protestans, Catholics, and others have thousands and thousands that leave every year. I was reading a little while ago about how EV churchs are having a difficult time getting men to go to church. The activity rate among men in non-LDS churches is a concern to many in those groups. That is what I love about anti-LDS who are in other churches that bring up this issue. They make mention of LDS church activity rates and people leaving but then they don't look at their own flocks and what is happening to them.

But to be a similar matter, the theme is membership loss over what is perceived to be false official historical matters that a Church proclaims. I know of no Catholics who leave the Catholic Church due to their providing what is perceived as a false history to the membership and world. Do they say the Crusades or Inquisition didn't happen? or that the accounts are exagerated by "anti-Catholics" or "ex-Catholics"?

[LifeOnaPlate]

But to be a similar matter, the theme is membership loss over what is perceived to be false official historical matters that a Church proclaims. I know of no Catholics who leave the Catholic Church due to their providing what is perceived as a false history to the membership and world. Do they say the Crusades or Inquisition didn't happen? or that the accounts are exagerated by "anti-Catholics" or "ex-Catholics"?

Are you inferring the Catholic Church has been open about all its dealings, has never covered anything up, and has always been forthright in its historical accounts?

[OMWO2]

This post makes me sad.

I hope you find what you're looking for.

Why does my post make you sad? I am happy and content with my life. I simply cherish each and every moment I have with my wife, children and others.

[Kevin Christensen]

Mighty Curelom says:

Joseph's money digging and subsequent translation of the BoM with the same magic rock is more than a little wart. It's practically a give away.

Thomas Kuhn explains that anomaly appears against a background of expectation. That is, what makes an observation seem wrong is that we expected something different. This is a good example of why I always find it useful to both give things time and to re-examine my assumptions when I run across something troubling. Granted that it might not be what I expected, what should I have expected? And given that I was not born omniscient, should I not always grant at least the possibility that my expectations themselves might be in error? Several years ago, I wrote this on the topic:

The last thing one might expect Joseph Smith to have in common with some Eastern mystics might be an interest in seer stones and treasure seeking as a transitional stage in their spiritual development, but here it is. Craig Miller provided the following quote:

In yogic practices, the crystal plays a very important part. In South India there is a particular science called anajan, meaning not known. It consists of different methods of projecting the illuminating superphysical facility through a crystal... When the illuminating facility is directed towards a person or an object which is missing, it can be immediately known where that person or thing is. Thus, treasures which are buried underground, or objects which are very distant can be directly observed. [satyananda Paramahansa, Four Chapters on Freedom, quoted by Craig W. Miller in an intriguing letter, â??A Mystical Joseph Smith,â? in Sunstone 12/2 (March 1988): 4.]

This kind of comparison provides a positive context for Joseph Smithâ??s involvement with seer stones and money digging (cf. Joseph Smith â?? History 1:56), making the experience a vital preparation, rather than somehow tainting his mission.

http://www.meridianmagazine.com/articles/060103prayer.html

It seems to me that such arguments illustrate the insight and importance in Joseph Smith's concerns about creeds (which establish rigid expecations by definition) and the tendency of the saints to fly to pieces like glass whenever they run across something that runs contrary to their traditions

And it seems to me that the expansion of mind that Alma 32 describes cannot occur without periodic re-evaluation and adjustment of expectations.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Hammer]

I would like to know what is known about this because I don't trust Palmer, (the guy who was in CES for 35 years), about it being an outrageous number.

He usually only shows one side of the coin.

If there are massive amounts then the day has finally arrived where prophecy will be fulfilled.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Mighty Curelom says:

Thomas Kuhn explains that anomaly appears against a background of expectation. That is, what makes an observation seem wrong is that we expected something different. This is a good example of why I always find it useful to both give things time and to re-examine my assumptions when I run across something troubling. Granted that it might not be what I expected, what should I have expected? And given that I was not born omniscient, should I not always grant at least the possibility that my expectations themselves might be in error? Several years ago, I wrote this on the topic:

http://www.meridianmagazine.com/articles/060103prayer.html

It seems to me that such arguments illustrate the insight and importance in Joseph Smith's concerns about creeds (which establish rigid expecations by definition) and the tendency of the saints to fly to pieces like glass whenever they run across something that runs contrary to their traditions

And it seems to me that the expansion of mind that Alma 32 describes cannot occur without periodic re-evaluation and adjustment of expectations.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Well said, and I dig the glass reference.

[Oracle]

Mighty Curelom says:

Thomas Kuhn explains that anomaly appears against a background of expectation. That is, what makes an observation seem wrong is that we expected something different. This is a good example of why I always find it useful to both give things time and to re-examine my assumptions when I run across something troubling. Granted that it might not be what I expected, what should I have expected? And given that I was not born omniscient, should I not always grant at least the possibility that my expectations themselves might be in error? Several years ago, I wrote this on the topic:

http://www.meridianmagazine.com/articles/060103prayer.html

It seems to me that such arguments illustrate the insight and importance in Joseph Smith's concerns about creeds (which establish rigid expecations by definition) and the tendency of the saints to fly to pieces like glass whenever they run across something that runs contrary to their traditions

And it seems to me that the expansion of mind that Alma 32 describes cannot occur without periodic re-evaluation and adjustment of expectations.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

If the expectation has been wrongly "perceived" and stones are the pathway to enlightenment from God, then why has the church not continued with the practice of using them?

[Hammer]

If the expectation has been wrongly "perceived" and stones are the pathway to enlightenment from God, then why has the church not continued with the practice of using them?

Do you know for a fact that they are not used today?

[Oracle]

Not sure why you are adding smiley faces. In my world, the person who discovers something is wrong and chooses to put space between himself and the wrongness has much more integrity than the person who discovers something is wrong and says "oh well, it doesn't really matter anyway" and continues on doing the same old thing he is doing.

[Hammer]

Not sure why you are adding smiley faces. In my world, the person who discovers something is wrong and chooses to put space between himself and the wrongness has much more integrity than the person who discovers something is wrong and says "oh well, it doesn't really matter anyway" and continues on doing the same old thing he is doing.

Unless that person has gain his understanding from the Lord, and not from man.

[juliann]

In my world, the person who discovers something is wrong and chooses to put space between himself and the wrongness has much more integrity than the person who discovers something is wrong and says "oh well, it doesn't really matter anyway" and continues on doing the same old thing he is doing.

Then we agree on something. Awesome!

[Kevin Christensen]

If the expectation has been wrongly "perceived" and stones are the pathway to enlightenment from God, then why has the church not continued with the practice of using them?

D. Michael Quinn does have a useful discussion of that in Early Mormonism and the Magical World View. Such a tool/teaching aid fit Joseph's world. In ours, I don't think it would.

And for that matter, I also like Joseph Smith's discussion that while it may have been appropriate for Noah to build an ark, we're in a different situation. Likewise, however enlightening it was for Abraham to offer up Issac, that is not standard operating procedure. However important blood sacrifice of animals used to be, it wouldn't work as well now. However important it once was to gather in Missouri or Nauvoo, or Salt Lake, the time for such policies and training has passed. It doesn't mean such things were not useful and inspired at the time.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA