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

[Gaia]

The Church does not give stats so its anyones guess. My guess is its probably not any greater than it has been in any other period. It might look bigger simply because the church is bigger. Its not really a concern for me anyways. The Church in the Book of Mormon has periods where it grows and shrinks. The Lord is going to weed out the weak links or tares. Perhaps a leaner, more faithful Church might be a goal.

GAIA:

Is it then your assumption that everyone who questions, is a "weak link" or "tare"???

I guess that really saddens me.

Y'know, many of those who have been excommunicated in recent years, were at one time some of the most loyal, hardest working, (and beloved !) leaders, teachers, authors, and authorities.....

(See for example, the infamous "September Six" --

www.lds-mormon.com/sepsix.shtml

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Six

www.postmormon.org/forum_vb/showthread.php?t=257

www.tungate.com/Grant_Palmer.htm

www.thelizlibrary.org/undelete/library/library012.html

www.pbs.org/mormons/themes/dissent.html

While i think it's true that there are *some* who question, dissent from, or leave the church over superficial, immature or foolish reasons, i think there are also many who do so because of profound spiritual and ethical issues; and i think it behooves the Members (and especially leaders) to try to understand and respect those issues and those people.

I think it's important -- even crucial -- to remember that all members (and leaders) have a God-given responsibility to MINISTER unto those people, not further alienate, marginalize, or condemn them.

Blessings --

~Gaia

[Gaia]

Whoever leaves over historical issues must be a firm believer in human perfection since history is made of living individuals who are now dead or alive and yet, very much imperfect.

GAIA:

With all due respect, i must disagree: I think most people can deal with "imperfections" just fine.

Rather, i think it's evidence of hiding or misrepresenting the truth regarding demonstrable historical facts that is often troubling, and for some, ultimately irreconciliable -- especially when compared with Church statements about the values of honesty and integrity.

Blessings --

~Gaia

[LifeOnaPlate]

www.tungate.com/Grant_Palmer.htm

While i think it's true that there are *some* who question, dissent from, or leave the church over superficial, immature or foolish reasons, i think there are also many who do so because of profound spiritual and ethical issues; and i think it behooves the Members (and especially leaders) to try to understand and respect those issues and those people.

I think it's important -- even crucial -- to remember that all members (and leaders) have a God-given responsibility to MINISTER unto those people, not further alienate, marginalize, or condemn them.

Blessings --

~Gaia

In some regards you are correct, however, allowing the wolves to camp out with the sheep isn't a good choice. I thought one of your sources on Palmer also contained some innaccurate info. For example:

"Margaret Toscano ([excommunicated]2000, for writing on feminist issues - but really for being Paul's wife)."

Active current members of the Church have written on feminist issues and weren't excommunicated. And you can't be excommunicated for being someone's wife.

Also: I am almost certain Grant Palmer has not been excommunicated. He was disfellowshipped.

[cartoon bluejay]

from what I understand it was a prestige thing, building huge families all linked to JS. I mean, partially. In some cases Joseph just felt that some women were his for eternity, while they belonged to someone else for mortality.

http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Proph...evarication.pdf

http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/insacred.htm

I looked up the Law of Adoption on fairlds.org and I've looked up other things on mormonthink.com I think we can all agree that each site has it's biases - so - let's take away that Helen Mar Kimball was 14 as a concern because in that day and age it wasn't so young for someone to get married or sealed platonically and let's take away the age discrepancy and focus on why Helen Mar Kimball was possibly coerced into the sealing. According to the information I gathered from mormonthink.com, JS first approached Heber Kimball with the desire to be sealed to Heber's wife Vilate - but it turned out to be a test and JS didn't take Vilate but then requested Helen Mar instead. At first Helen Mar refused and was angry at her father but she was only given 24 hrs to make a choice and she was promised salvation and exhaltation for her and her father's family and her kindred if she was sealed to Joseph. Who can pass that up? It sounds a lot like coercion, spiritual manipulation. And if it was a sealing to join families, why didn't Joseph just seal himself to Heber? Wouldn't that have the same affect?

It just feels like something is being covered up about JS and polygamy - Why am I finding out this information from critics of the church? They have their documented sources and it looks like a cover up - I read that JS married Fanny Alger behind Emma's back and that's why Emma was so angry. It was hidden from Emma - that just screams that something isn't right. Okay - JS wasn't perfect but I'm sure lying to his wife about another marriage is beyond what's okay. Even if he didn't understand the temple sealings in the beginning. Which leads me to D&C 132:8 "Behold, mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion" It seems like the Lord would have made sure JS had the restoration of sealing ordinances in order before JS started practicing something very confusing - like the Law of Adoption. And why isn't that law around anymore? It's not marrying so why can't we use platonic sealings now? I know a lot of single women in the church and that might feel better if they could take care of the new & everlasting covenant right now instead of waiting til after they die.

[California]

(CartoonBlujay said)

I have never heard of the Law of Adoption -that I can remember. I left the church about a year ago. Thinking already stated the Law of Adoption - do you agree with what Thinking said? Is there another side of it that I need to understand?

Please don't take my question to you as a personal assault, it's not. I am just trying to understand why people leave the Church and still get involved with forums like these etc.. So, why is that in your case?

I guess from my point of view, I just don't understand why if you know you dont' want it and don't believe in it, and it seems to me, don't like it, what can you possibly gain from better understanding it?

[Pahoran]

But that doesn't answer my question - what is the point of a marriage with the intent of no sex. And why seal yourself to a 14 yr. old girl - why was it necessary? It wasn't something Helen Mar Kimball asked for - the prophet asked for her. I thought "sealing" a wife to a husband was a marriage - why if they're married are they asking a woman to enter a platonic marriage?

I'm not sure what Mary the mother of Jesus has to do with Helen Mar Kimball - the prophet didn't marry her to protect her because she was already pregnant - did he?

I think you'll find my Post no. 149 answers your questions. Did you not see it?

Regards,

Pahoran

[cartoon bluejay]

Please don't take my question to you as a personal assault, it's not. I am just trying to understand why people leave the Church and still get involved with forums like these etc.. So, why is that in your case?

I don't take it as a personal assault at all. Personally, I didn't leave the church for historical reasons and I didn't leave the church because I thought it wasn't true. I didn't leave too long ago. I'm BIC, baptized, mission, sealed in the temple, you know the drill... I don't think I'm allowed to discuss why I left the church so I won't but sin wasn't involved - why am I involved in this forum? Because I had no idea as a member of the church about JS having wives that were married to other men who were living or that he sealed himself to women without Emma's knowledge. I'm not so concerned about the ages of the girls because I know that was common. In church we talk a lot about BY having other wives but nothing is said about JS - we only talk about Emma. I think it's unfortunate. When you realize there's something that isn't being talked about like the Law of Adoption, which I had never even heard of - it starts to feel like a cover up. And why cover anything up? I'm sure lots of mistakes were made but why cover it up? Why tell people not to look into it and discuss it? It's really interesting to talk about. But I don't think I felt it was okay to discuss things in church. And I'm okay with focusing on the basics of the gospel but I don't think it should be treated like discussing other aspects is threatening to a testimony - many people need to delve into these things. If by discussing this topic here among true believers - I feel like I'm broadening my perspective and appreciation about it all. Yes, I'm bothered by some things - I want to discuss it - I want to educate myself - I want full disclosure - and I want the truth to speak for itself.

Does that help?

[California]

Does that help?

To a point. If you really can't discuss why you left, however, I guess I really won't know why you left. Which is fine, I can respect that. To be honest, it deepens the mystery, but it will do for now.

[cartoon bluejay]

I think you'll find my Post no. 149 answers your questions. Did you not see it?

Thanks for pointing that out - I'm trying to put myself in another time and another place. I know that judging circumstances from my own time and place is not fair to the people of the 1800's. Is there a record that you know of that states whether this was a marriage or a platonic sealing? I bet the church knows - people are asking - why not tell them. From the things I read it seemed like Helen Mar was coerced into the sealing just a bit by her father and with the promise of exhaltation. If it wasn't just joining two families - Vilate could have been sealed or even Heber (according to Law of Adoption) since Helen was pretty horrified by the idea of it to begin with. Which leads me to believe it wasn't just a sealing because why would Helen be so mad if she could be seal to the prophet but be married to someone else. It's just something to think about.

[cartoon bluejay]

To a point. If you really can't discuss why you left, however, I guess I really won't know why you left. Which is fine, I can respect that. To be honest, it deepens the mystery, but it will do for now.

It's not that I won't discuss it - I'm very willing to. I was just under the impression that exit stories were not allowed on this site - I'm just trying to be respectful of that.

[cartoon bluejay]

We've spent a lot of time on JS and his wives (especially Helen Mar Kimball) but there are more historical discrepancies. For instance, JS didn't translate the BoA - was this another error made by a man or did he have the gift of the prophets to be a translator? It puts into question the validity of the BoM as well. Also, the Kinderhook plates - that also puts into question JS ability to be an an actual prophet. Also, that there were 4 different versions of the first vision. DNA prooves that Lamanites were of Asian descent not Hebrew, not to mention many contradictions with science. There's more - maybe each separate thing doesn't have the power to sway anyone but when you add it all up - it's puts a big question mark on it all. I'd like to see the church put more into addressing these concerns and addressing the critics. But it appears, they like to excommunicate critics. Which I think it another mistake. There is nothing wrong with raising the questions. Don't chide people for raising questions. Increasing our intelligence means something. The church is the only true and living church - it can stand against questions and criticisms. I thank you all for doing your best to answer my questions and bringing up topics I had never heard of.

I've seen something going on that bothers me - this didn't happen to me too bad (very little really) nonetheless, it's not okay to accuse people of not belonging here because you know something they don't know. It's not okay to assume that people who have left the church is a way of sifting the wheat from the tares, or that we are less because we appear to have lost our faith. It's not okay to think we're possessed of the devil and have all been deceived. That's just not a good Christ-like attitude. It is okay to be open-minded and listen...

I appreciate the time you took with me - you have given me something to think about.

[Pahoran]

We've spent a lot of time on JS and his wives (especially Helen Mar Kimball) but there are more historical discrepancies. For instance, JS didn't translate the BoA - was this another error made by a man or did he have the gift of the prophets to be a translator?

Didn't he?

What exactly are you asserting here?

Are you saying that the English Book of Abraham text can't be derived from any of the JS Papyri we currently have by standard scholarly methods? If so, then that's no news; whoever said it could?

But what does that have to do with whether Joseph translated the BofA?

It puts into question the validity of the BoM as well.

Does it? How?

What is the relationship between the two things? If the BofA is supposed to be just an ordinary "scholarly" translation of an ordinary Egyptian document, then what does that have to do with the BofM, which is certainly no such thing? How could Joseph's success or failure at technical scholarship possibly have anything to do with his prophetic gifts?

But if the BofA is actually an inspired translation, which is an entirely different thing, then how do you propose to test it?

Also, the Kinderhook plates - that also puts into question JS ability to be an an actual prophet.

Do they really? How do they manage that?

Also, that there were 4 different versions of the first vision.

Actually there are eight, but what does that prove, apart from the fact that you can count?

DNA prooves that Lamanites were of Asian descent not Hebrew, not to mention many contradictions with science.

Actually DNA "prooves" no such thing. It doesn't even prove it. As Simon Southerton himself admitted, given what is known about Ancient American populations, detecting the genetic signature of an introduced group the size of the Lehi colony would be virtually impossible, even if we did know what Lehi's DNA would look like--which we don't.

There's more - maybe each separate thing doesn't have the power to sway anyone but when you add it all up - it's puts a big question mark on it all.

Yes, thank you for that laundry list. You are acquainted with all the standard anti-Mormon canards. So are we, BTW.

I'd like to see the church put more into addressing these concerns and addressing the critics.

Why?

Are you familiar with something called the "threefold mission of the Church?" The "critics" are never anywhere near as well-acquainted with the Scriptures as they are with their own little pet criticisms, but it happens that the mission of the Church was given to us by revelation in the very first generation. Please explain what, if anything, "addressing the critics" has to do with what God has commanded us to do.

But it appears, they like to excommunicate critics. Which I think it another mistake. There is nothing wrong with raising the questions. Don't chide people for raising questions.

Actually I think it's another canard. I have yet to see a single credible case of anyone being actually excommunicated for merely "raising questions."

Regards,

Pahoran

[Free Agent]

(CartoonBlujay said)

Please don't take my question to you as a personal assault, it's not. I am just trying to understand why people leave the Church and still get involved with forums like these etc.. So, why is that in your case?

I guess from my point of view, I just don't understand why if you know you dont' want it and don't believe in it, and it seems to me, don't like it, what can you possibly gain from better understanding it?

California,

I can't speak for CartoonBlujay, but I can speak for myself being in a similar situation. My level of activity has decreased significantly because of historical issues, and not so much the finding out about them, although initially unsettling, it is as Cartoon said earlier that to some of us it feels like a cover-up, or omitting historical elements that aren't faith promoting. As far as why we just can't shut the door and be done with it, for me, I am mourning the death of the religion I knew, loved and devoted myself to completely from the time I was 19 until 43. I am realizing there is a whole subset of members who have known these historical issues and find a way to have a strong testimony despite that, but because for 20 plus years I built my testimony on the sanitized, faith promoting version, and I didn't delve further (I didn't know I needed to), then the position I find myself in now is that I need to go from Point A (previous testimony) to Point B (new, stronger testimony based on volumes of new information). It seems that many posters here want to just shove us out the door and not really try to feel out genuine pain at the predicament in which we find ourselves, and frankly, although it doesn't bother me, it is a disturbing trend I see.

Hope that helps.

Free Agent

[cartoon bluejay]

What exactly are you asserting here?

I'm not asserting anything. I was going over other issues that we haven't discussed - things that are concerning people and start their questioning of the church.

I really was appreciative of the conversation I was having with others on this site. So - your need to point out my misunderstandings and spelling errors is really telling of what kind of person you are. I've come here to get a balanced understanding because I admit right now I'm receiving information from sites that are critical of the church. I'm really not in the game of being critical of the church. I want to understand points that I never knew about while I was a member. It's a little mind blowing. That may or may not be your concern at this point... I spelled the word "prove" wrong - I must not be credible. I thought there were 4 different accounts of the first vision, you're saying there was 8 - I must not be credible. I left the church - I must be anti-mormon. You better shoot me down.

I'm not here to debate - I'm here to gain knowledge. So - if you have something you want to inform me of - please do so. You mentioned the "threefold mission of the church" - I think perfecting the saints is part of that. Do I not count anymore? I don't get to try and perfect my understanding - I'm not allowed my mistakes without being mocked by someone who has no idea what my intentions are.

Way to go Paharon! -

[e=mc2]

Cartoon BLuejay:

and I want the truth to speak for itself.

Which is impossible. It is always filtered through living, breathing, blood filled human brains, limited, weak, and liable to err......... there is no such thing as "The Truth," only interpretations of it.

[urroner]

Cartoon BLuejay:

Which is impossible. It is always filtered through living, breathing, blood filled human brains, limited, weak, and liable to err......... there is no such thing as "The Truth," only interpretations of it.

Everybody wants the text, but they just don't take the time to understand the context.

[Hammer]

If I was still sure that there is even a God, then I'd agree with you completely. However, since I can't be so sure, I'm more inclined to say that the path is different for everyone.

If it were necessary for EVERYONE to be sure of any fact, for that fact to be a fact-- there would be no facts.

The path is different for everyone because everyone chooses for themselves. But God does have His path as everyone else seems to have in your scenario. Or is He the only one to whom you don't allow a path-- just because you are not sure He exists?

[Pahoran]

I'm not asserting anything.

Well actually you did. You asserted:

For instance, JS didn't translate the BoA

That's an assertion. I want to know what you mean by that. Is that a terribly unfair question?

I was going over other issues that we haven't discussed - things that are concerning people and start their questioning of the church.

So you did. Notice that your manner of doing so--presenting an entire laundry list of "issues"--is not the way things are done here. Notice, please, that the board guidelines call for one topic per thread. The proper approach is to start a new thread with the first question, get it discussed to some level of satisfaction, and then start a new thread with the next question, etc.

Notice, please, the charity and restraint with which I responded to you.

I really was appreciative of the conversation I was having with others on this site.

I'm glad to hear it.

So - your need to point out my misunderstandings and spelling errors is really telling of what kind of person you are.

Is it?

Okay.

I've come here to get a balanced understanding because I admit right now I'm receiving information from sites that are critical of the church. I'm really not in the game of being critical of the church. I want to understand points that I never knew about while I was a member. It's a little mind blowing. That may or may not be your concern at this point... I spelled the word "prove" wrong - I must not be credible. I thought there were 4 different accounts of the first vision, you're saying there was 8 - I must not be credible. I left the church - I must be anti-mormon. You better shoot me down.

I have no recollection of raising the issue of your credibility. I asked some didactic questions intended to stimulate thought and invite you to revisit some of your assumptions. Believe me when I say that I have not tried to shoot you down. When I do, you will certainly know it. But if you don't want to take my word for it, I suggest you check out this post if you want to see my Fliegerabwehrkanone in action.

I'm not here to debate - I'm here to gain knowledge. So - if you have something you want to inform me of - please do so. You mentioned the "threefold mission of the church" - I think perfecting the saints is part of that. Do I not count anymore? I don't get to try and perfect my understanding - I'm not allowed my mistakes without being mocked by someone who has no idea what my intentions are.

Way to go Paharon! -

For better or for worse, this is a debate forum. I'm sorry you feel mocked, but I fail to see where I have mocked you. My post was not about you; it was a response to what you wrote. Keeping in mind that your real name is probably not "Cartoon Bluejay"--your parents couldn't possibly have hated you enough to call you that--please realise that, in the last analysis, nothing anyone writes here is really about you. But nobody is going to coddle you either. If you can manage to be a little bit thick-skinned, you could learn a lot from hanging around here.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Thinking]

Do you understand the scientific workings regarding transfiguration? How about the exact explanation of mode of travel of Angels?

I don't, I choose to do what I can about finding these things out, and leave them on the backburner until I have the resources to do so. I don't think this is wrong.

Of course there are many things that we don't understand, I'm merely pointing out the principle of trust in things that we don't understand, and yet have a testimony of.

Do you really believe that the scientific explanation of the transfiguration or angels' travel are in the same ballpark as the doctrine taught and practiced by any prophet? While we're at it, let's demand a detailed explanation of the creation of the universe. How did God put all that molten material under the earth's crust? Perhaps it's the same way cream is put into doughnuts.

The two examples you mentioned have nothing to do with which church is true so they are "outliers." A prophet's teachings and practices are relevent and don't belong on the back burner.

[urroner]

While we're at it, let's demand a detailed explanation of the creation of the universe. How did God put all that molten material under the earth's crust? Perhaps it's the same way cream is put into doughnuts.

It's a simple matter of denser materials sinking and the lighter material rising. Also, the closer to the sun the planet is, the larger the ratio of heavy material to lighter material due to the solar wind.

[Spartan_Warrior]

If it were necessary for EVERYONE to be sure of any fact, for that fact to be a fact-- there would be no facts.

The path is different for everyone because everyone chooses for themselves. But God does have His path as everyone else seems to have in your scenario. Or is He the only one to whom you don't allow a path-- just because you are not sure He exists?

It could be the fact that I've been awake for close to 40 hours, but I don't really get what you're saying.

Basically, I don't deny the possibility that a god or higher intelligence may exist. The existence of a god can never be proven or disproven. I have become very spiritual since my departure from religion, perhaps more so that I ever was as a church-goer. I feel more in touch with things taking an evening stroll on an autumn evening along the Red Cedar river than I ever did reading the scriptures of ANY religion. I feel more of a spiritual uplift kickstepping out into a stadium of screaming sports fans than I ever did sitting in a church on a Sunday morning. To each person, the path to spiritual "enlightenment" is different. Mine comes from my normal activities rather than a man-made institution.

[Thinking]

I feel more of a spiritual uplift kickstepping out into a stadium of screaming sports fans than I ever did sitting in a church on a Sunday morning.

Kirk Gibson's HR in the 1988 World Series was a spiritual experience.

[Noodle]

You can't be Christlike in "your own way". You can THINK about Christ in your own way, and interpret Him and what His church should be like, or that lack thereof in your own way, but ultimately, we're here on HIS terms, not ours.

Matt. 7: 14

Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Eph. 4: 5

One Lord, one faith, one baptism

James 1:5

If any of ye lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally

So, either James or Christ or both were lying when they said things like the above, and the below, which looks to me like there is one absolute truth.

26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Not sure how the above applies. Love thy neighbor and love God I can agree with. I can also agree that there is one God, and one faith and one baptism, I can agree with all the above, but still I don't understand why the things I mention above are christ like and others aren't. You did not answer the question.

[Abulafia]

I've been hovering over this thread for a while, wondering whether I could contribute anything.

I have no idea how many people leave the church over historical issues, either historically or currently.

I'm one of the ones who actually made a list of reasons to go and reasons to stay. I should get it out sometime, because I did actually keep it in my scriptures.

I went for many reasons, and in that way I agree with Calmoriah, I think, who said that the reasons people leave are complex.

But I can tell you that I really don't get Davis Bitton's article about not having a testimony of history. I read it a while ago, and I pretty much disagreed with him completely.

The church is so tied to history that I don't think one can untangle it in any meaningful way. Either Joseph Smith saw God or he didn't. Either the Book of Mormon is a record of a historical people or it isn't. Either Peter, James and John, and John the Baptist came to restore priesthood authority or they didn't. That's history, and led to the formation of a religion based around supposed historical events. I need to believe that in some degree to function productively in the LDS church, and if I don't believe it I'm in trouble.

All those who seem to think that people couldn't possibly list history as their reason for leaving (and I did, as well as certain theological issues) amongst all the other reasons (and I had more than just that).

Are you really saying that the historical claims of the church are so obviously true that they are beyond question? No one could possibly leave over historical issues, either because they are unquestionably true, or because a testimony shouldn't be tied up with them anyway....sigh..in that way you would agree with Amantha then, who on his thread about it coming down to the warm and fuzzies, was saying the same thing. If you have a testimony there is no need for apologetics.

What a mind bind....

Mary

[The Dude]

"DNA prooves that Lamanites were of Asian descent not Hebrew not to mention many contradictions with science."

Hi CartoonBJ, what did you mean by "many contradictions with science?"

For DNA, I think it comes down to the assumption that Lamanites are Native Americans. Many mormons have assumed this means they [book of Mormon people] contributed significantly to the gene pool, or even that they were the principal or only source of Native American stock. For people who believe that*, what you said about proof is right.

You have to recognize there are also those (like Pahoran -- they're in the majority here) who think "Lamanite" is no more meaningful a term than "gentile". It's a spiritual label coined by their founding prophet and they don't expect it to correlate with any feature science can measure.

When they name your tribe in a patriarchal blessing, do they mean it as something that would show up in your DNA or your blood? No, I don't think so. They have a concept called "adoption" which says you can get a spiritual tribe assignment that has nothing to do with who your relatives were. Obviously that concept separates it from DNA inheritance. With the concept of adoption they (Pahoran et al) basically say that all the Maya and pre-Inca civilizations, plus whoever was farming the Amazon and grooming the forests of North America, all get to be adopted into the category of Lamanite. Maybe the Polynesians are counted here as well. The reason for this belief is because Joseph Smith taught it and leaders since him have affirmed it.

*Like Joseph Smith and many LDS leaders since then.