Why Mormons are Leaving the Church

[David T]

I would like to see that. Do you have a reference?

It's in an institute manual: http://institute.lds.org/manuals/church-history-institute-student-manual/chft-36-40-36.asp

[Darth J]

So many years attending.

So little understanding as a result.

Well, you'd think that I wouldn't have been called as a missionary, then, since I don't understand anything. How could the signature machine Ezra Taft Benson have sent me a letter telling me the Lord had called me to serve in the Italy, Catania mission, to teach the gospel when the gift of discernment should have told him that I had so little understanding?

Or getting married in the temple. Between the stake president and the bishop, their combined gifts of discernment should have told them that I had so little understanding that I should not be married in the temple.

Or ordained to the priesthood. Or getting any calling ever.

[Lamanite]

Well, you'd think that I wouldn't have been called as a missionary, then, since I don't understand anything. How could the signature machine Ezra Taft Benson have sent me a letter telling me the Lord had called me to serve in the Italy, Catania mission, to teach the gospel when the gift of discernment should have told him that I had so little understanding?

Or getting married in the temple. Between the stake president and the bishop, their combined gifts of discernment should have told them that I had so little understanding that I should not be married in the temple.

Or ordained to the priesthood. Or getting any calling ever.

I'm glad they didn't listen to their gifts of discernment. It keeps/kept you within our circle of influence. Whether in our out of the Church I hope you at least remain friendly with us and us with you.

I hated it when I thought Mormons associated with me as a means to an end (baptism, reactivation, money). I like it when people want to be friends because they just want to be friends.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[jwhitlock]

Well, you'd think that I wouldn't have been called as a missionary, then, since I don't understand anything. How could the signature machine Ezra Taft Benson have sent me a letter telling me the Lord had called me to serve in the Italy, Catania mission, to teach the gospel when the gift of discernment should have told him that I had so little understanding?

Or getting married in the temple. Between the stake president and the bishop, their combined gifts of discernment should have told them that I had so little understanding that I should not be married in the temple.

Or ordained to the priesthood. Or getting any calling ever.

It's not really that difficult - despite the misdirection.

All we have to do is look at what you're writing currently. Here - I'll repeat it for you:

I was under the impression that this already was church policy.

So very, very little understanding.

[Darth J]

I would like to suggest that the problem Consiglieri has raised may be the firmly entrenched, and for all practical purposes institutionalized, ideas that:

--Mormonism is an all-or-nothing, zero sum game, that the people who consider themselves to be orthodox true believers are the true church within the true church;

--Anyone who disagrees with or questions in any way the opinions of TBM's is apostate, has an "agenda," is an enemy of the Church, doesn't really have a testimony, doesn't understand the gospel, and is trying to justify their sins;

--Any source material of any kind that does not lionize church leaders from Joseph Smith through today, does not present the sanitized, Hallmark Channel movie version of church history and doctrinal development is "anti-Mormon" and a priori a bunch of lies;

--The cookie-cutter Mormon culture that ferments in Utah and is exported to the rest of the world is inseparable from "faithfulness" and being a legitimate member of the Church;

--The Church itself picks and chooses which statements of its leaders, which things that have in fact been taught as doctrine, and which of its evolving policies it is going to stand by, but if you have not picked the exact same things to cling to as the people who consider themselves to be TBM's, then you are just a "cafeteria Mormon."

CFR: every single thread on this board, including but not limited to the comment that I have so little understanding because my lifetime experience in the Church without exception has been that Church history is taught according to what we wish had happened (and Boyd K. Packer explicitly said as much).

Maybe this is where we need to start the discussion about why people are leaving the Church--and going completely inactive is leaving the Church, regardless of "having you name removed."

I am always amused at how going on a mission, being a "good example," and home teaching and fellowshipping are supposed to have an impact on Church activity, but making anyone who doesn't agree with your version of Mormonism feel unwelcome doesn't. If it had a positive effect on faith and activity, then we helped. But if our attitudes and behavior had a negative effect, then it is just that person's fault and they chose to leave the Church on their own.

The constant self-righteousness, judgmental attitude, solipsism, and persecution complex have nothing to do with it, of course.

Now feel free to tell me why this is just my ax to grind/projecting my faults on others/apostasy/bad attitude/etc. Don't forget to remind me that I don't really understand the Church even though I've been in it my entire life. Because I'm sure you have a much better explanation, that will absolve you from any and all blame, as to why there is a great discrepancy between how many members the Church claims to have and how many people consider themselves to be active, believing Mormons.

[John Larsen]

It's in an institute manual: http://institute.lds.org/manuals/church-history-institute-student-manual/chft-36-40-36.asp

I assume you are referring to this:

The Aftermath of the Smoot Hearings

Through the observations of Senator Smoot and other prominent Latter-day Saints in the East, the First Presidency learned that the general populace of the United States perceived Church leaders as trying to circumvent the law. They were accused of not being serious in their efforts to end plural marriage. On 6 April 1904, after deliberation and prayer and in response to these allegations, President Joseph F. Smith issued a statement that has become known as the

[Darth J]

I assume you are referring to this:

This passage should be redacted since it has been widely shown to be a misdirect. Although Taylor and Cowley were performing marriages after the manifesto, they weren't the only ones and they took the fall. The passage tries to make it sound like they were acting alone, and that wasn't the case.

Once could easily read in the passage that the Church was innocent and it was only these rouges who were the problem.

You mean, sort of like John D. Lee being the only person convicted of a crime after the Mountain Meadows Massacre?

P.S. Before anyone implies otherwise, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT BRIGHAM YOUNG WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MOUNTAIN MEADOWS MASSACRE.

[jwhitlock]

--Anyone who disagrees with or questions in any way the opinions of TBM's is apostate, has an "agenda," is an enemy of the Church, doesn't really have a testimony, doesn't understand the gospel, and is trying to justify their sins;

Why not also mention the malice that tinges the comments you make? That really makes it quite a bit different than just a simple "disagreement".

The constant self-righteousness, judgmental attitude, solipsism, and persecution complex have nothing to do with it, of course.

So, the malice-tinged comments you make about the Church aren't in any way self-righteous, judgmental, etc.?

My, my.

Now feel free to tell me why this is just my ax to grind/projecting my faults on others/apostasy/bad attitude/etc. Don't forget to remind me that I don't really understand the Church even though I've been in it my entire life. Because I'm sure you have a much better explanation, that will absolve you from any and all blame, as to why there is a great discrepancy between how many members the Church claims to have and how many people consider themselves to be active, believing Mormons

Perhaps, in your great, swelling words of condemnation, you forgot that your attitude can be determined by what you write here.

The rest of your post simply confirms a lack of real understanding of what the Church is all about. There's really no other way to view it.

[Darth J]

Why not also mention the malice that tinges the comments you make? That really makes it quite a bit different than just a simple "disagreement".

So, the malice-tinged comments you make about the Church aren't in any way self-righteous, judgmental, etc.?

My, my.

Perhaps, in your great, swelling words of condemnation, you forgot that your attitude can be determined by what you write here.

The rest of your post simply confirms a lack of real understanding of what the Church is all about. There's really no other way to view it.

Thank you for making any request for a CFR from me unnecessary.

[mnn727]

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?

There would be in my EQ -- of course we never have 100 men there, usually 25 to 30.

[selek]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

I've seen no evidence that Mormons are being driven from the Church in droves, shoals, herds, schools, packs, prides, or tribes.

I've yet to see any evidence that the Church's unwillingness to entertain and debate anti-Mormon dogma is in anyway harming the general membership of the Church, let alone driving people out.

I've seen a lot of anecdotes from affirmed apostates and apprentice sons of Perdition- but never any proof.

For that reason alone, I can only conclude Consig's premise is false.

He'd be just as apt to insist that the Church's unwillingness to discuss anti-Mormon dogma is the reason that the moon is made of green cheese.

Until it is demonstrated that the moon is, in fact made of cheese of any kind, the entire premise is little more than a conceited self-indulgence.

[David T]

I assume you are referring to this:

This passage should be redacted since it has been widely shown to be a misdirect. Although Taylor and Cowley were performing marriages after the manifesto, they weren't the only ones and they took the fall. The passage tries to make it sound like they were acting alone, and that wasn't the case.

Once could easily read in the passage that the Church was innocent and it was only these rouges who were the problem.

I do think that the mention it was given is more than adequate considering the size of the book, and its purpose. The book intended to be an overview of Church History. It stated facts. By it's nature, size, and intent, it's silly to assume it's going to give all the facts on any subject. I actually think it's a wonderful, and significantly detailed, volume.

I don't think some people would be happy unless the Church put out entire Institute Manuals dedicated to teaching college-age students a year-long course of study on Polygamy in the Church. And even then there's be comments that it wasn't balanced enough, or that it wasn't taught as part of the Sunday Curriculum, so didn't really count. It's sort of silly.

[Jeff K.]

I would like to suggest that the problem Consiglieri has raised may be the firmly entrenched, and for all practical purposes institutionalized, ideas that:

I would suggest that your whole hearted support for Consig reflects poorly on his choices given your attitude. But lets look at what you have to say:

--Mormonism is an all-or-nothing, zero sum game, that the people who consider themselves to be orthodox true believers are the true church within the true church;

Do you believe God is only God in shades of grey and that, as an example, Gods commandments through his prophets are really just suggestions? Or is it a whole hearted all or nothing stance? I also suggest you learn a bit about math or more appropriately economics, a "zero sum game" is not the equivalent of "all or nothing".

--Anyone who disagrees with or questions in any way the opinions of TBM's is apostate, has an "agenda," is an enemy of the Church, doesn't really have a testimony, doesn't understand the gospel, and is trying to justify their sins;

No, there can be reasons why people bring up points, but they can also have weak reasons for them. A telling issue may very well be that those claiming one position tend to rebuke prophets and apostles because they don't like the "fit", ie the prophet doesn't match with what they want and they certainly will not humble themselves to consider the alternative. In other words they want to make it all about them and not about the goals of either the church and the Lord.

--Any source material of any kind that does not lionize church leaders from Joseph Smith through today, does not present the sanitized, Hallmark Channel movie version of church history and doctrinal development is "anti-Mormon" and a priori a bunch of lies;

This is really a somewhat ignorant statement since it is also patently untrue. I suggest you amplify your reading beyond the typical anti Mormon tracts and try reading "Rough Stone Rolling". It tood roughly four chapters before I could tell whether or not Joseph Smith would be put in anything other than a negative light. Relatively unvarnished but with the background of context. Most of the stuff you prattle before us has lacked context beyond your own opinion, noted and rejected for its lack of depth.

--The cookie-cutter Mormon culture that ferments in Utah and is exported to the rest of the world is inseparable from "faithfulness" and being a legitimate member of the Church;

Funny, we didn't celebrate pioneer day in Peru, or Argentine, or many other places. But don't let the facts get in the way of your diatribe.

--The Church itself picks and chooses which statements of its leaders, which things that have in fact been taught as doctrine, and which of its evolving policies it is going to stand by, but if you have not picked the exact same things to cling to as the people who consider themselves to be TBM's, then you are just a "cafeteria Mormon."

As opposed to your misleading and misled opinions? Chuckle....

CFR: every single thread on this board, including but not limited to the comment that I have so little understanding because my lifetime experience in the Church without exception has been that Church history is taught according to what we wish had happened (and Boyd K. Packer explicitly said as much).

Greater light, greater condemnation, your call little fella...

Maybe this is where we need to start the discussion about why people are leaving the Church--and going completely inactive is leaving the Church, regardless of "having you name removed."

People leave the church for a myriad of reasons. It doesn't seem to have hurt the growth of the church, either in stakes, or ward buildings or temples. After all you would not and could not build those if inactivity were predominant everywhere. So it appears to me to be another strawman over all, good for amusement, but really not much else.

I am always amused at how going on a mission, being a "good example," and home teaching and fellowshipping are supposed to have an impact on Church activity, but making anyone who doesn't agree with your version of Mormonism feel unwelcome doesn't. If it had a positive effect on faith and activity, then we helped. But if our attitudes and behavior had a negative effect, then it is just that person's fault and they chose to leave the Church on their own.

And we are amused by you.

It is amazing how building a community, interacting and helping each other, and showing love for members as not only a good example, but with the pure love of Christ, we help frame context, even when we disagree, knowing that it is done with caring. You on the other hand seem "amused" by such actions because you perhaps cannot conceive of people doing things like home teaching beyond the commandment of doing so. It reflects more on your stunted growth spiritually than it does members of the church who carry out those things. How you must despise those members who actually sacrifice their time and talents, how you must sneer at their sincerity. And yet, it must hurt you even more that they grasp something that seems remote and alien too you. More's the pity.

The constant self-righteousness, judgmental attitude, solipsism, and persecution complex have nothing to do with it, of course.

Now now, self hate and loathing, your judgmental attitude and your persecution complex (see next quote) have must to do with your post, but maybe with time you will overcome them.

Now feel free to tell me why this is just my ax to grind/projecting my faults on others/apostasy/bad attitude/etc. Don't forget to remind me that I don't really understand the Church even though I've been in it my entire life. Because I'm sure you have a much better explanation, that will absolve you from any and all blame, as to why there is a great discrepancy between how many members the Church claims to have and how many people consider themselves to be active, believing Mormons.

See above, talk about persecution complex.

[Darth J]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

I've seen no evidence that Mormons are being driven from the Church in droves, shoals, herds, schools, packs, prides, or tribes.

I've yet to see any evidence that the Church's unwillingness to entertain and debate anti-Mormon dogma is in anyway harming the general membership of the Church, let alone driving people out.

I've seen a lot of anecdotes from affirmed apostates and apprentice sons of Perdition- but never any proof.

For that reason alone, I can only conclude Consig's premise is false.

He'd be just as apt to insist that the Church's unwillingness to discuss anti-Mormon dogma is the reason that the moon is made of green cheese.

Until it is demonstrated that the moon is, in fact made of cheese of any kind, the entire premise is little more than a conceited self-indulgence.

Well, something must be doing it. Maybe you could tell everyone why the statistics discussed in this article are wrong and how you have better data:

http://cumorah.com/index.php?target=law_harvest&chapter_id=7

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism notes: "Attendance at sacrament meeting varies substantially. Canada, the South Pacific, and the United States average between 40 percent and 50 percent. Europe and Africa average about 35 percent. Asia and Latin America have weekly attendance rates of about 25 percent."

An Associated Press article observed: "While the church doesn't release statistics on church activity rates, some research suggests participation in the church is as low as 30 percent."

Christian researcher George Barna issued the dunning declaration: "Turnover in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints appears to be the highest of any church in the U.S."

The CUNY American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) queried the self-identified religious affiliation of a large cohort of U.S. citizens in 1990 and 2001. The study found that the LDS Church had one of the highest turnover rates of any U.S. faith. The CUNY authors observe: "Some groups such as Mormons ... appear to attract a large number of converts ('in-switchers'), but also nearly as large a number of apostates ('out-switchers')." Because of high turnover, the actual growth rate in the number of Americans identifying themselves as Latter-day Saints between 1990 and 2001 was found to be similar to the overall population growth rate, for a proportional net growth rate of close to zero.

In contrast, the ARIS survey reported that 1.33 million adults in the U.S. identify themselves as Jehovah's Witnesses, while the Jehovah's Witnesses claim only 980,000 U.S. members. An independent survey conducted by USA Today in March 2002 demonstrated similar findings, with the percentage of individuals identifying themselves as Latter-day Saints weighing in well below official membership percentages in almost every state.58 While nominally identifying oneself as a Latter-day Saint does not necessarily imply church activity, it would be difficult to claim that those on the rolls who do not identify themselves as Latter-day Saints are active or contributing members.

Study after study demonstrates a vast discrepancy between official LDS membership claims and participating or self-identified membership. I am not aware of a single large population-based, self-identified affiliation study or national census that has come anywhere close to demonstrating parity with church membership claims.

http://cumorah.com/index.php?target=law_harvest&chapter_id=8

[Darth J]

I would suggest that your whole hearted support for Consig reflects poorly on his choices given your attitude. But lets look at what you have to say:

Do you believe God is only God in shades of grey and that, as an example, Gods commandments through his prophets are really just suggestions? Or is it a whole hearted all or nothing stance? I also suggest you learn a bit about math or more appropriately economics, a "zero sum game" is not the equivalent of "all or nothing".

No, there can be reasons why people bring up points, but they can also have weak reasons for them. A telling issue may very well be that those claiming one position tend to rebuke prophets and apostles because they don't like the "fit", ie the prophet doesn't match with what they want and they certainly will not humble themselves to consider the alternative. In other words they want to make it all about them and not about the goals of either the church and the Lord.

This is really a somewhat ignorant statement since it is also patently untrue. I suggest you amplify your reading beyond the typical anti Mormon tracts and try reading "Rough Stone Rolling". It tood roughly four chapters before I could tell whether or not Joseph Smith would be put in anything other than a negative light. Relatively unvarnished but with the background of context. Most of the stuff you prattle before us has lacked context beyond your own opinion, noted and rejected for its lack of depth.

Funny, we didn't celebrate pioneer day in Peru, or Argentine, or many other places. But don't let the facts get in the way of your diatribe.

As opposed to your misleading and misled opinions? Chuckle....

Greater light, greater condemnation, your call little fella...

People leave the church for a myriad of reasons. It doesn't seem to have hurt the growth of the church, either in stakes, or ward buildings or temples. After all you would not and could not build those if inactivity were predominant everywhere. So it appears to me to be another strawman over all, good for amusement, but really not much else.

And we are amused by you.

It is amazing how building a community, interacting and helping each other, and showing love for members as not only a good example, but with the pure love of Christ, we help frame context, even when we disagree, knowing that it is done with caring. You on the other hand seem "amused" by such actions because you perhaps cannot conceive of people doing things like home teaching beyond the commandment of doing so. It reflects more on your stunted growth spiritually than it does members of the church who carry out those things. How you must despise those members who actually sacrifice their time and talents, how you must sneer at their sincerity. And yet, it must hurt you even more that they grasp something that seems remote and alien too you. More's the pity.

Now now, self hate and loathing, your judgmental attitude and your persecution complex (see next quote) have must to do with your post, but maybe with time you will overcome them.

See above, talk about persecution complex.

Once again, a CFR to me at this point would be superfluous.

And our stake DID celebrate Pioneer Day in New Jersey and in California, BTW.

[jwhitlock]

Thank you for making any request for a CFR from me unnecessary.

And thank you for demonstrating that you have no understanding of the significant difference between just disagreeing, and attacking the Church and its members with malice.

It's very clear that you are engaging in the latter, which makes all of your whining about not being tolerated a moot point.

[selek]

Study after study demonstrates a vast discrepancy between official LDS membership claims and participating or self-identified membership. I am not aware of a single large population-based, self-identified affiliation study or national census that has come anywhere close to demonstrating parity with church membership claims.

I love your tendency to flee posthaste to a false dichotomy as though it were some sort of cover for your flapping backside.

There is a difference between "inactivity"- which can have a great many causes and meanings- and "leaving the Church" which has but one implied meaning.

Perhaps you'd care to lump in marital separations, business travel, nights spent on the couch, or at the mother-in-law's as "finalized legal divorces" to exaggerate those numbers as well?

[jwhitlock]

I still find it fascinating that there are those who demand that their voices attacking the Church be respected as just "disagreeing". Inevitably, after they are called on what they are really doing, they resort to denigrating faithful members of the Church as being intolerant, and then proceed to misrepresent those members with accusations pulled straight from anti-Mormon material. That's been demonstrated amply here.

At some point you simply need to identify such people for what they are. I think Paul does that well in Acts 20:29-30, 1 Timothy 1:6-7, 1 Timothy 4:1-2 and 2 Timothy 3:5.

[Jeff K.]

Once again, a CFR to me at this point would be superfluous.

And our stake DID celebrate Pioneer Day in New Jersey and in California, BTW.

Your stake in New Jersey and California, wow, Americana exported. You have a limited idea of geography.

San Bernardino for instance was settled by Mormons, San Diego had an early Mormon community, Orange County CA has a marker where the Mormon battalion passed through. Wow, and they celebrated it in CA. Amazing, why would that be I wonder?

And of course New Jersey was never really a colony of any sort..... or was it? But really, the true influx from Jersey and pioneer heritage (so to speak) was movement west of Mormons from New Jersey casinos to Las Vegas, a story from the Rocky Mountain News. So who are they to deny the pioneer heritage that still beats in their little hearts today?

Never seen anyone whine so much about a celebration that isn't even a national holiday. You must be impossible to live with on Martin Luther King Day.

[Darth J]

And thank you for demonstrating that you have no understanding of the significant difference between just disagreeing, and attacking the Church and its members with malice.

It's very clear that you are engaging in the latter, which makes all of your whining about not being tolerated a moot point.

I know. It's just me. The actual activity rate in the United States being somewhere around 30% to 50% of the members the Church claims to have is just me whining.

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_2890645

The ARIS survey concluded that the Mormon Church was baptizing converts about as fast as it was losing members. That ratio was also confirmed by the study last year by Hadaway and Marler, who were given access to "proprietary" data by the church. One graph from that study (see chart) shows that from 1999 to 2004 conversions roughly equaled "defections and apostasy." As a result, more than three quarters of Mormon growth in the U.S. was due to the high Mormon birthrate, which outpaces the rate of deaths.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_17_124/ai_n20525201/

Mormon Church Growth

Roger Loomis

Presented at

The Association for the Sociology of Religion

August 15-17, 2002

Chicago, IL

........

This paper will discuss the nature of exponential growth and the prerequisites that the church must meet to sustain it. It will examine the evidence available for how well the church is meeting those prerequisites and will take a closer look at the church

[Darth J]

I love your tendency to flee posthaste to a false dichotomy as though it were some sort of cover for your flapping backside.

There is a difference between "inactivity"- which can have a great many causes and meanings- and "leaving the Church" which has but one implied meaning.

Perhaps you'd care to lump in marital separations, business travel, nights spent on the couch, or at the mother-in-law's as "finalized legal divorces" to exaggerate those numbers as well?

You're right. The Church counting people who have not been to Church in years and do not consider themselves to be Mormon at all, even though their name is still on a record somewhere, is pure intellectual honesty.

[Darth J]

Your stake in New Jersey and California, wow, Americana exported. You have a limited idea of geography.

San Bernardino for instance was settled by Mormons, San Diego had an early Mormon community, Orange County CA has a marker where the Mormon battalion passed through. Wow, and they celebrated it in CA. Amazing, why would that be I wonder?

And of course New Jersey was never really a colony of any sort..... or was it? But really, the true influx from Jersey and pioneer heritage (so to speak) was movement west of Mormons from New Jersey casinos to Las Vegas, a story from the Rocky Mountain News. So who are they to deny the pioneer heritage that still beats in their little hearts today?

Never seen anyone whine so much about a celebration that isn't even a national holiday. You must be impossible to live with on Martin Luther King Day.

Yes, and let's not forgot the Church's role in colonizing Sonoma and Napa counties.........

And I didn't whine. You brought up Pioneer Day not being acknowledged by members in South America to contradict my statement about Utah Mormon culture being exported.

[Darth J]

I still find it fascinating that there are those who demand that their voices attacking the Church be respected as just "disagreeing". Inevitably, after they are called on what they are really doing, they resort to denigrating faithful members of the Church as being intolerant, and then proceed to misrepresent those members with accusations pulled straight from anti-Mormon material. That's been demonstrated amply here.

At some point you simply need to identify such people for what they are. I think Paul does that well in Acts 20:29-30, 1 Timothy 1:6-7, 1 Timothy 4:1-2 and 2 Timothy 3:5.

What was my specific attack on the Church and its members in general, by the way? As opposed to an attack on a specific segment of cultural Mormonism?

[jwhitlock]

I know. It's just me. The actual activity rate in the United States being somewhere around 30% to 50% of the members the Church claims to have is just me whining.

Changing the subject now? So, instead of cheap shots and hyped inaccuracies about what the Church and its faithful members are all about, you're now resorting to quoting from the SL Tribune as a reliable source concerning the Church?

Your understanding is indeed limited.

[Jeff K.]

Yes, and let's not forgot the Church's role in colonizing Sonoma and Napa counties.........

And I didn't whine. You brought up Pioneer Day not being acknowledged by members in South America to contradict my statement about Utah Mormon culture being exported.

You do whine, and the breath and depth of your experience .... "Jersey". Yeah, that is a great cross section of a church right there.