Why Mormons are Leaving the Church

[consiglieri]

I submit the following proposition for debate in this thread.

We lose many members to anti-Mormon websites simply because the information presented there can't be discussed openly and freely within a Church classroom or quorum.

What are your thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[jwhitlock]

In my opinion, such a claim is far too subjective to verify. How people respond to the question will most likely be based on their own anecdotal experience with people they know.

As has been noted elsewhere, virtually all of us doubt from time to time; the difference seems to be in how a person deals with those doubts. I would suspect that a person doesn't typically start doubting because of anti-Mormon literature; the doubts are already there, and a person has decided to embrace them at a certain level. Anti-Mormon stuff simply provides additional fodder, and eventually becomes a secondary rationalization for those doubts that were - for whatever purpose - already there.

[selek]

I think the premise is wildly invalid, deliberately misrepresentative of the Church and its people, and insulting to those of us who approach the Gospel and the teachings of the Church with an open mind.

And that's twice today one of your Opening Posts has displayed these characteristics.

I can and have broached anti-Mormon propaganda themes in class and have been approached in the same environs to discuss them.

The conversations have been frank, honest, and open-

-which contradicts your implications about stilted conversation, and dogmatic constraints.

Quite frankly, Consig, I grow weary at your incessant worrying over that tired old bone and your near pernicious put-downs and derision of your fellow Saints.

[ERMD]

I was recently released as an early-morning Seminary teacher. Every day before class, I would open the floor to any question. From time to time a classic anti-Mormon point would be brought up that one of the kids had been queried about at school, and we would discuss it. Most of it was soft-ball stuff, but they were made aware of many of the fallacies and tactics employed.

[Deborah]

I'm with jwhitlock. People who have a testimony based on true conversion by the spirit will put these things in proper perspective. I really think if the anti stuff is affecting them that much they were on their way out and would have found some other reason. After all why one earth would someone peruse those sites to begin with and why would they take the word of anti-Mormons over what they are taught at church just as a starting point.

[ERMD]

I'm with jwhitlock. People who have a testimony based on true conversion by the spirit will put these things in proper perspective. I really think if the anti stuff is affecting them that much they were on their way out and would have found some other reason. After all why one earth would someone peruse those sites to begin with and why would they take the word of anti-Mormons over what they are taught at church just as a starting point.

In my world, it was curious kids who were directed there by "friends" who were trying to "save" them.

[Deborah]

In my world, it was curious kids who were directed there by "friends" who were trying to "save" them.

True. When I was young we loved to get hold of the anti material and read what they were saying. But honestly we didn't take it seriously, but then all of us knew about polygamy, etc. Plus it doesn't seem to be the kids who are affected by this as much as some of the adults.

[jwhitlock]

In my world, it was curious kids who were directed there by "friends" who were trying to "save" them.

In reality, I find that the teens are quite a bit more susceptible to other things pulling them away from the Church, than anti-Mormon material. Interestingly enough, I think most of the kids recognize anti-Mormon tripe for what it is - better than many adults - especially when they are attending (and even sleeping through) seminary.

[ERMD]

True. When I was young we loved to get hold of the anti material and read what they were saying. But honestly we didn't take it seriously, but then all of us knew about polygamy, etc. Plus it doesn't seem to be the kids who are affected by this as much as some of the adults.

You're right. They generally weren't phased by it. They were mostly looking for a cogent rebuttal.

[lostindc]

Not to derail, because I believe Consig is on to something, but I am wondering how some of you former and current seminary teachers handle the head in the hat, reading a peepstone questions?

[ERayR]

Not to derail, because I believe Consig is on to something, but I am wondering how some of you former and current seminary teachers handle the head in the hat, reading a peepstone questions?

Boy you are sure bothered by this aren't you? Why?

To me it is a simple concentration technique. I just can't understand why your problem with it. I really can't.

[ERMD]

Not to derail, because I believe Consig is on to something, but I am wondering how some of you former and current seminary teachers handle the head in the hat, reading a peepstone questions?

Nothing to "handle". We talked about it. We can accept a Liahona, an axe floating, the dead being raised, a God who wants us to partake of his flesh and blood. How is a stone in a hat more fantastic than that?

[O-Brother]

I submit the following proposition for debate in this thread.

What are your thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

@Consiglieri

Never mind.

[lostindc]

Nothing to "handle". We talked about it. We can accept a Liahona, an axe floating, the dead being raised, a God who wants us to partake of his flesh and blood. How is a stone in a hat more fantastic than that?

Thanks for the reply, just curious, I know that I would not have understood why it was not taught in the first place. I am past it, just wondering how it is handled in seminary.

[oats]

Not to derail, because I believe Consig is on to something, but I am wondering how some of you former and current seminary teachers handle the head in the hat, reading a peepstone questions?

Tell them to look up the Urim and Thummim in the Bible Dictionary and tell them that it was at least one of the methods used to translate the Book of Mormon.

I've never seen anyone ask that question sincerely who wasn't satisfied. The rest wanted a bone to pick. That's pretty judgmental, but I find it hard to believe that any answer would satisfy their want.

[Senator]

I think the premise is wildly invalid, deliberately misrepresentative of the Church and its people, and insulting to those of us who approach the Gospel and the teachings of the Church with an open mind.

This may be true. However, not all members of the church approach the Gospel and teachings of the church with an open mind. In fact, there is possibly a significant number who are dogmatic and "territorial" when it comes to anything Mormon. I know, I have bump into them at times, and have seen others bump into them, as I or they pose an alternative response to a question, or simply offer a differing opinion.

It only takes one of those is a class setting to send the message to a questioning person that he or she would be better off to keep still.

[selek]

It only takes one of those is a class setting to send the message to a questioning person that he or she would be better off to keep still.

Actually, it only takes one counter-exxample to disprove the insinuations in the OP.

In having these discussions on these difficult (and often fruitless) topics, I have never once been silenced, oppressed, threatened, or even "leaned on" by my ecclesiastical leaders.

As you say, though, there are dogmatists amongst us.

They do not have any authority to try and squelch the topic.

I don't allow myself to be silenced by them, mostly on the presumption that "The only thing required for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing."

I am not afraid of contradiction- and less afraid of someone not belonging to the government trying to "silence" me.

A single "lit" torch can outshine a thousand that are not.

Even if the blowhards and bullies try to shout me down, folks know that I'm willing and able to discuss it.

Ready, of course, is a matter of interpretation and preparation...

[Senator]

Actually, it only takes one counter-exxample to disprove the insinuations in the OP.

In having these discussions on these difficult (and often fruitless) topics, I have never once been silenced, oppressed, threatened, or even "leaned on" by my ecclesiastical leaders.

As you say, though, there are dogmatists amongst us.

They do not have any authority to try and squelch the topic.

I don't allow myself to be silenced by them, mostly on the presumption that "The only thing required for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing."

I am not afraid of contradiction- and less afraid of someone not belonging to the government trying to "silence" me.

A single "lit" torch can outshine a thousand that are not.

Even if the blowhards and bullies try to shout me down, folks know that I'm willing and able to discuss it.

Ready, of course, is a matter of interpretation and preparation...

Actually it only disproves that the insinuation is absolute.

Not all people are like you.

[selek]

Not all people are like you.

For which fact the board moderators, my ex-wife, people-on-diets and many, many, many sci-fi roleplayers fall to their knees and thank their gods.

[rockslider]

If offical forums were to open within the church it would be an open door/sanction to NOM/Cafeteria Mormonism.

I don't think the church is quite ready to go there ... maybe some day

[Lamanite]

I think the premise is wildly invalid, deliberately misrepresentative of the Church and its people, and insulting to those of us who approach the Gospel and the teachings of the Church with an open mind.

And that's twice today one of your Opening Posts has displayed these characteristics.

I can and have broached anti-Mormon propaganda themes in class and have been approached in the same environs to discuss them.

The conversations have been frank, honest, and open-

-which contradicts your implications about stilted conversation, and dogmatic constraints.

Quite frankly, Consig, I grow weary at your incessant worrying over that tired old bone and your near pernicious put-downs and derision of your fellow Saints.

Selek and others:

How can we bring up anti-Mormon propaganda in a Sunday School class or quorum if the subject matter and associated source material can not be found within the Church approved manuals?

Apparently, doing anything outside the scope of the lesson is frowned upon by the Brethren.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Lamanite]

I'm with jwhitlock. People who have a testimony based on true conversion by the spirit will put these things in proper perspective. I really think if the anti stuff is affecting them that much they were on their way out and would have found some other reason. After all why one earth would someone peruse those sites to begin with and why would they take the word of anti-Mormons over what they are taught at church just as a starting point.

This is nonsense. There are many good Mormon's who have never had a rock solid testimony. They aren't really in or out but at some time they felt compelled to associate themselves with us. They need to be nurtured and cared for. And if they can't bring difficult issues up in a safe environment (Church), then what do we expect when then drift into inactivity?

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Lamanite]

I think Zeezrom would be a perfect example for why these things should be explored in depth within the walls of the Church. Perhaps he will share his story?

Big UP!

Lamanite

[selek]

Selek and others:

How can we bring up anti-Mormon propaganda in a Sunday School class or quorum if the subject matter and associated source material can not be found within the Church approved manuals?

Lamanite- I want you to look down at that stubby thing with five finger-like appendages at the end of your wrist.

Next time you have a question in class, try raising the %^*$! thing.

Apparently, doing anything outside the scope of the lesson is frowned upon by the Brethren.

No- "teaching personal speculation as doctrine", and "supplanting the prepared curricula with your own ego-driven rantings" is what is frowned upon.

[Lamanite]

Lamanite- I want you to look down at that stubby thing with five finger-like appendages at the end of your wrist.

Next time you have a question in class, try raising the %^*$! thing.

First of all relax a little bit.

Now be honest. Do you think if 100 men raised their hands in EQ this Sunday and asked about Joseph's polyandrous marriages there would be a frank and open discussion that ensues?

I thought not.

Do you think there would be an uncomfortable silence followed by encouragement to discuss it with the Bishop or some other Priesthood leader, and a quick change of subject?

Probably.

No- "teaching personal speculation as doctrine", and "supplanting the prepared curricula with your own ego-driven rantings" is what is frowned upon.

I don't know why you would ascribe those motives to me? Seriously, I can't see that I've done anything to make you think I'm motivated by anything other than love for the Church and love for its members.

Big UP!

Lamanite