Why Mormons are Leaving the Church

[selek]

First of all relax a little bit.

Lamanite, if I relax anymore I'll be somnolent.

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?

In point of fact, I do. I've been there and had just those discussions.

I thought not.

Apparently, you thought wrong.

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?

It depends largely upon how the question was phrased, upon prepared the teacher and the EQP were, upon the promptings of the Spirit and upon whether or not the questioner had a serious question or was simply throwing bombs in order to "up the entertainment value" of the class.

As I stated earlier, I've been there, and I've HAD those discussions.

Probably.

What a marvelous way of spelling "maybe".

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.

I wasn't accusing you, Lamanite- I was correcting your misapprehension.

Perhaps I should have said, "replacing the prepared curricula with the teacher's ego-driven rantings".

[Cold Steel]

Very few people are qualified to cover such things in class, and if there are anti-Mormon websites, there are also websites like this where they can come and discuss them.

The church classes are designed to teach the gospel to pretty much the lowest common denominator. It does the job admirably if also a bit mundanely. Keep in mind that many members of the church rely on fictional accounts of the church as their primary means of education. There are plenty of books and journals they can read if they want to, but most who leave the church just whine that the church kept all this information away from them, or hid it, even when it did no such thing. (They just weren't looking.)

There is a boatload of anti-Christian books out there as well, but you don't see the Baptists, Methodists, Catholics and others studying them or providing answers to their claims. The Gospel is to go into all the world as a witness, then the end will come (and it can't come too soon, as far as I'm concerned). The church is trying to emphasize the spiritual aspects of the Gospel, which is what the prophets have always taught. Never have they told us to become scholars in what the other side is saying and how to answer it. Thus, if people continue to go to church, read the scriptures and stay true to their commitments, they won't have any problems.

Although I know what the "other side" says, I don't go out looking for it -- and answers are usually easy to find. If people don't find the spiritual aspect of the Gospel, they most likely won't stay with it, regardless of what our critics say or don't say. (It's difficult to pay tithing if you don't have at least some conviction that it's true.)

Besides, what sort of things are you talking about discussing in church, anyway? Some examples??

[Lamanite]

Lamanite, if I relax anymore I'll be somnolent.

In point of fact, I do. I've been there and had just those discussions.

Apparently, you thought wrong.

It depends largely upon how the question was phrased, upon prepared the teacher and the EQP were, upon the promptings of the Spirit and upon whether or not the questioner had a serious question or was simply throwing bombs in order to "up the entertainment value" of the class.

As I stated earlier, I've been there, and I've HAD those discussions.

What a marvelous way of spelling "maybe".

I wasn't accusing you, Lamanite- I was correcting your misapprehension.

Perhaps I should have said, "replacing the prepared curricula with the teacher's ego-driven rantings".

I can't argue your experience. I can only say that mine has been different.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[selek]

I can't argue your experience. I can only say that mine has been different.

Actually, that's the drugs talking.

Your experiences were identical to mine, you were just too stoned to notice.

Seriously though, Lamanite, I can understand that your mileage may vary from mine.

I respect your opinion, even if it contradicts mine.

[jwhitlock]

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

It's not nonsense at all. A person who is a member of the Church MUST, at some point, take responsibility for his or her own spiritual nurturing. Selek is absolutely correct that such things can and are brought up in Church, and addressed, all the time. It's happened with many of us.

Those who are going to simply want to be constantly "nurtured" and bring up "difficult issues" without making the effort to progress on their own are eventually going to leave no matter what we can do. If they don't develop a solid testimony, they simply will not last no matter what we do.

The Church has a certain method for nurturing and caring for members who are developing testimonies. It does not involve - for good reason - giving a large amount of time to "issues" that people want to bring up. Most of the time should be spent in productive spiritual growth. Issues should be answered, and people should move on. If issues remain, they can be addressed out of Church with more knowledgeable members.

Unfortunately, either in Church or outside of Church, I mostly find that people who are giving some serious credence to anti-Mormon literature tend to keep it to themselves. It doesn't matter how open the environment is with other members, they seem to just want to let it fester without telling anyone. By the time they start to bring up "issues", they've often made up their minds and given in to their doubts.

People drift into inactivity for a wide variety of reasons. I personally doubt that giving more airtime to "issues" in Church as a policy is going to make much, if any difference.

[Jeff K.]

I substitute in seminary from time to time, when I can. I find it a very rewarding experience, especially when my son is there. And like ERMD I open with a few moments when any quesiton can be asked, it is something I have noticed many seminary teachers do. Seminary is a very special place because you ahve young minds challenging the world before them, and many learning and maturing and challenging their own ideas, some accept on faith, and some even struggle on faith. It is, in one sense, where the rubber meets the road, speaking in gospel terms.

I have gotten tough questions, though not the "hat" one. Treasure digging has been tossed out there. It is one reason "Rough Stone Rolling" has been such an invaluable book to read because it helps provide context that eliminates much of the geuss work half truths seem to formulate.

It is indeed unfortunate when people think so little of their fellow saints they place the worst scenario out there.

[John Larsen]

I submit the following proposition for debate in this thread.

What are your thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I think that the critics definitely control the debate on the internet. Because of the strict control of information within the Church, most members are unaware of the critical issues, and often bumble into the debate unaware (check out youtube if you don't believe me.) Members are often in a position of denial of facts which are openly acknowledge by the more informed scholars and historians. I think most members understand Mormon doctrine, but they do not understand Mormon history and Mormon doctrinal history in particular because they are not exposed to it. This lends the upper hand to critics.

I think the chief problem, like Consig offers, is that many topics are simply not allowed to be talked about. Let us take something like Adam-God. Most members are unaware of the actual teachings. Those who are spend most of their time arguing about whether it was a Doctrine with a capital "D". It is clear that it was a doctrine (small "d") in that it was taught and believed. It is therefore a legitimate part of Mormon history. However, the drive that many feel to correlate history with current teaching rather than just acknowledge it as a historical fact--even if out of harmony with current teaching--puts one at a clear disadvantage. The critics can use these historical facts as a bludgeon and defenders must always contextualize, contextualize contextualize.

The defenders have been forced into a very defensive position. In the few places where defenders freely and openly engage the critics, such as this site, the debate must be highly controlled. Those who venture out of the homeland find themselves unable to deal with much of the basic information that they should have been introduced to long ago. Thus most Mormons are not able to successful put these old ideas in proper context because they have no idea what that context is. Their position is thus artificially weekend.

[John Larsen]

I substitute in seminary from time to time, when I can. I find it a very rewarding experience, especially when my son is there. And like ERMD I open with a few moments when any quesiton can be asked, it is something I have noticed many seminary teachers do. Seminary is a very special place because you ahve young minds challenging the world before them, and many learning and maturing and challenging their own ideas, some accept on faith, and some even struggle on faith. It is, in one sense, where the rubber meets the road, speaking in gospel terms.

I have gotten tough questions, though not the "hat" one. Treasure digging has been tossed out there. It is one reason "Rough Stone Rolling" has been such an invaluable book to read because it helps provide context that eliminates much of the geuss work half truths seem to formulate.

It is indeed unfortunate when people think so little of their fellow saints they place the worst scenario out there.

The problem is that most members raised on highly sanitized and correlated materials do not even know what questions to raise. Most members are kept willfully ignorant of the basic details of Mormon history. Trying to shift the blame by merely suggesting they are not asking the right questions is disingenuous.

[Judd]

If the leaders of the church were to finally listen to the voice of the Lord and use the church curriculum to educate about its members about controversial topics, who would decide which shade of anti is presented? Certainly it couldn't be the leaders of the church, because obviously they're so out of touch and have failed to realize that the best way to strengthen the members and foster faith in Christ is to do so through tackling dubious claims.

So I ask, if the church were to begin to take issue with anti in their time-constrained curriculum, what will be addressed and who will decide it? Controversial history that is unknown? Responses to Sunstone articles? Breaking apart Ed Decker publications? Confronting some more general anti-Christian literature? Atheistic literature? Emma Smith? Latter-day prophets political opinions? Who decides these issues? Obviously not everyone is "leaving" the church because of a face in a hat. Some are leaving because of more atheistic belief independent of the restoration. How is that tackled? Or should the church specifically focus only on a specific person's hobbies that they deem of the upmost importance?

[jwhitlock]

The problem is that most members raised on highly sanitized and correlated materials do not even know what questions to raise. Most members are kept willfully ignorant of the basic details of Mormon history. Trying to shift the blame by merely suggesting they are not asking the right questions is disingenuous.

Well, if this is the kind of misunderstanding our enemies have about us, then we're in pretty good shape.

Your observation is wrong, as usual, John. Amazing what people have to resort to in order to marginalize us in their minds.

[Jeff K.]

think that the critics definitely control the debate on the internet. Because of the strict control of information within the Church, most members are unaware of the critical issues, and often bumble into the debate unaware (check out youtube if you don't believe me.) Members are often in a position of denial of facts which are openly acknowledge by the more informed scholars and historians. I think most members understand Mormon doctrine, but they do not understand Mormon history and Mormon doctrinal history in particular because they are not exposed to it. This lends the upper hand to critics.

The problem is that most members raised on highly sanitized and correlated materials do not even know what questions to raise. Most members are kept willfully ignorant of the basic details of Mormon history. Trying to shift the blame by merely suggesting they are not asking the right questions is disingenuous.

My practical experience both inside and outside this nation and with wards internationally reflect something totally different. There might be isolated cases that see to fit your scenario, but by and large it appears to me to be wishful thinking on your part.

[jwhitlock]

Most members are kept willfully ignorant...

Maybe someone can explain to me how people can be "kept willfully ignorant". This is possibly one of the most subtly confusing and contradictory phrases that I've seen in a long time.

[rockslider]

Liz, from Satans board, recently mentioned that BKP spoke at their last/recent state conference (via teleconference) and instructed teachers to stick with the manual and to specifically avoid internet material as/for supplemental material.

It seems there is/should be a wealth of information on FAIR and MI that would be able to be used exclusively as source material for "courses/classes" like this.

Why does the church fear it?

[selek]

If the leaders of the church were to finally listen to the voice of the Lord

That's a loaded statement, if ever there was one. There's a tremendous lot of assumption packed into it- enough to threaten the seams.

Was this intended as an innuendo, or a rhetorical device?

and use the church curriculum to educate about its members about controversial topics, who would decide which shade of anti is presented? Certainly it couldn't be the leaders of the church, because obviously they're so out of touch and have failed to realize that the best way to strengthen the members and foster faith in Christ is to do so through tackling dubious claims.

My sarcasm detector is beeping....

So I ask, if the church were to begin to take issue with anti in their time-constrained curriculum, what will be addressed and who will decide it? Controversial history that is unknown? Responses to Sunstone articles? Breaking apart Ed Decker publications? Confronting some more general anti-Christian literature? Atheistic literature? Emma Smith? Latter-day prophets political opinions? Who decides these issues? Obviously not everyone is "leaving" the church because of a face in a hat. Some are leaving because of more atheistic belief independent of the restoration. How is that tackled? Or should the church specifically focus only on a specific person's hobbies that they deem of the upmost importance?

[selek]

Why does the church fear it?

CFR.

Where is your proof that the Church fears this information?

[Jeff K.]

Liz, from Satans board, recently mentioned that BKP spoke at their last/recent state conference (via teleconference) and instructed teachers to stick with the manual and to specifically avoid internet material as/for supplemental material.

It seems there is/should be a wealth of information on FAIR and MI that would be able to be used exclusively as source material for "courses/classes" like this.

Why does the church fear it?

Not mixing chaff with wheat does not mean we fear the chaff, only that the chaff does not serve a purpose mixed with the wheat.

[Duncan]

I think that the critics definitely control the debate on the internet. Because of the strict control of information within the Church, most members are unaware of the critical issues, and often bumble into the debate unaware (check out youtube if you don't believe me.) Members are often in a position of denial of facts which are openly acknowledge by the more informed scholars and historians. I think most members understand Mormon doctrine, but they do not understand Mormon history and Mormon doctrinal history in particular because they are not exposed to it. This lends the upper hand to critics.

I think the chief problem, like Consig offers, is that many topics are simply not allowed to be talked about. Let us take something like Adam-God. Most members are unaware of the actual teachings. Those who are spend most of their time arguing about whether it was a Doctrine with a capital "D". It is clear that it was a doctrine (small "d") in that it was taught and believed. It is therefore a legitimate part of Mormon history. However, the drive that many feel to correlate history with current teaching rather than just acknowledge it as a historical fact--even if out of harmony with current teaching--puts one at a clear disadvantage. The critics can use these historical facts as a bludgeon and defenders must always contextualize, contextualize contextualize.

The defenders have been forced into a very defensive position. In the few places where defenders freely and openly engage the critics, such as this site, the debate must be highly controlled. Those who venture out of the homeland find themselves unable to deal with much of the basic information that they should have been introduced to long ago. Thus most Mormons are not able to successful put these old ideas in proper context because they have no idea what that context is. Their position is thus artificially weekend.

I would agree with that and I think the brethren are trying to get us to know our religion and get past the opinions of others to what do we think and what d we know. I used to be the sunday school pres. in a ward and had to get up every sunday and give a spiritual thought and the ward was stoic about it. I tried good stuf, bad stuff, heck I even cussed once and still got blank faces! Another view is that of social and doctrinal conversion. Some people just go because they have friends there and nothing is upsetting or whatever and whatnot so they wouldn't delve into the issues and find out something that would cause them to lose friends-I am probably wrong but thats how I see it sonetines!

[rockslider]

CFR.

Where is your proof that the Church fears this information?

I just gave it, BKP - Liz's recent stake conference

[rockslider]

Not mixing chaff with wheat does not mean we fear the chaff, only that the chaff does not serve a purpose mixed with the wheat.

So Fair/MI material obtained from the web is chaff?

[selek]

I just gave it, BKP - Liz's recent stake conference

Which doesn't state anywhere, in any time, or in any place that the Church fears the information.

An admonition not to use material is not an admission of fear.

Really.

You're going to have to do a lot better than that.

[jwhitlock]

An admonition not to use material is not an admission of fear.

One hopes that such things would be self-evident.

Yet critics of the Church continue to delight in drawing unfounded conclusions based on stuff like this.

[Jeff K.]

So Fair/MI material obtained from the web is chaff?

When compared to doctrine and its implementation, yes, it is a pale shadow.

[rockslider]

Which doesn't state anywhere, in any time, or in any place that the Church fears the information.

An admonition not to use material is not an admission of fear.

Really.

You're going to have to do a lot better than that.

So would you classify this as an admonition of warning? If not, want is the purpose of the admonition?

[selek]

So would you classify this as an admonition of warning? If not, want is the purpose of the admonition?

I would classify it as an instruction.

If I tell my daughter not to use powerdered garlic in her spaghetti, does that mean I'm "afraid" of garlic?

Does that presumed fear of garlic somehow prove that I'm secretly a vampire?

That's precisely the sort of "logic" of which anti-Mormon critics are largely guilty. Nibley waxed poetical about it on more than one occasion.

Please.....you've gone beyond "ludicrous" to "plaid" on this one.

[rockslider]

I would classify it as an instruction.

If I tell my daughter not to use powerdered garlic in her spaghetti, does that mean I'm "afraid" of table salt?

Please.....you've gone beyond "ludicrous" to "plaid" on this one.

whatever