Why Mormons are Leaving the Church

[mercyngrace]

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?

RS,

If this is referencing the sc broadcast from 2 days ago, I was also in attendance. Elder Packer said to use the scriptures and the manuals rather than to go looking for outside materials. I don't recall him specifically mentioning the internet. Also, IIRC, he was discussing the new Gospel Principles manual and talking about using the scriptures as the basis for the lesson material. Not only did I not sense any fear - I felt that the concern was that members do not know the scriptures well enough. Just my take.

MnG

[BCSpace]

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.

I agree in principle. I think we can cut the "loss" rate from this angle with public discussion of these issues. However, I wouldn't say people are leaving the Church. They are simply falling into inactivity without having their names removed unfortunately. I also don't think antiMormonism plays very much of a role in people leaving the Church or becomming inactive either.

[rockslider]

RS,

If this is referencing the sc broadcast from 2 days ago, I was also in attendance. Elder Packer said to use the scriptures and the manuals rather than to go looking for outside materials. I don't recall him specifically mentioning the internet. Also, IIRC, he was discussing the new Gospel Principles manual and talking about using the scriptures as the basis for the lesson material. Not only did I not sense any fear - I felt that the concern was that members do not know the scriptures well enough. Just my take.

MnG

Then, I've misspoken and passed on bad second hand information --- i.e. what Liz heard.

btw,

Liz is reliable and I have no reason to disbelieve her, but of course the same goes for you.

[talisyn]

RS,

If this is referencing the sc broadcast from 2 days ago, I was also in attendance. Elder Packer said to use the scriptures and the manuals rather than to go looking for outside materials. I don't recall him specifically mentioning the internet. Also, IIRC, he was discussing the new Gospel Principles manual and talking about using the scriptures as the basis for the lesson material. Not only did I not sense any fear - I felt that the concern was that members do not know the scriptures well enough. Just my take.

MnG

Elder Packer's comments are timely indeed. I recently discovered I read the headlines of about 5 different various internet news sites, one site after the other, before I even read a single article. Since I am part lemming I doubt I am alone in getting into the habit of skimming instead of thinking.

Our gospel foundation is suppose to be strong enough to withstand the winds and storms of the lies of the adversary. It is our responsibility as Saints to make it so.

[mercyngrace]

Then, I've misspoken and passed on bad second hand information --- i.e. what Liz heard.

btw,

Liz is reliable and I have no reason to disbelieve her, but of course the same goes for you.

RS,

I appreciate that RS and I'm sure Liz does also. I wish I'd taken notes to be sure I heard it accurately but quite frankly his comments on this were unremarkable. In fact, his entire talk had the very mellow feel of grandfatherly counsel. He shared various stories aimed at the youth and used each to illustrate very basic points about being clean, being obedient to parents, etc.

MnG

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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

I submitt that the church will indeed implode on it's self. I was told this from a very reliable source.

To get to the point, I have never not felt that I could not openly discuss things at church. Nothing like a false premise.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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

Hahahaha, this made me laugh. I wonder, who else here gets it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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

Come on....

[John Larsen]

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.

No it's not. But your rebuttle as an ad hominem, as usual.

[Kevin Christensen]

FWIW, when I'm the teacher, I talk about everything relevant to the lesson topics. I've been a Sunday School Teacher, and Elder's quorum instructor, and for the past 10 years, High Priests instructor in two different states. And when I'm in class, listening to someone else, I can raise my hand, and/or provide useful information to those who are teaching. I'm happy to share my resources to those who ask for them.

But I've never yet seen the Beattitude that says "Blessed are they who sit like lumps, for they shall be spoon fed, and never disappointed by anyone, and never ever caught off guard by anything." There is one about "ask and ye shall receive, seek and ye shall find," and "seek out of the best books words of wisdom..."

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[John Larsen]

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.

People are kept willfully ignorant by teaching them to shun or otherwise avoid intellectual material that would remedy their ignorance. Thus their state of ignorance on the topic in question is maintained in a willful manner.

For example, I am willfully ignorant of the game World of Warcraft. I choose to not learn anything about it. My wife could "keep" me willfully ignorant by limiting my access, telling me their would be great consequences socially if I do, or otherwise controlling my access to the information or my desire to access the information. This is often referred to as gate keeping.

In the topic at hand, the very term "anti-Mormon" is a gate keeping activity for example. For most members, you merely need to label a work or its author as "anti-Mormon" and most member will not engage it on any level. So the leadership doesn't need to deal with the arguments or historical information in any particular work, they only need to make sure the concept of an "anti-Mormon" is alive understood and they have a way to apply it, preferably in a subtle way. There are other such mechanisms, but I think this illustrates the point.

[Ariarates]

First, I'd like to say I agree with the proposition in the OP. IMO it's not so much about what is being said on the internet as it is about the fact that what is said is so different from what is generally taught in church, as are the apologetics that must be employed to explain some of that stuff away. Regardless of who is right or wrong, conflicting information is always confusing.

I was also intrigued by this comment:

Boy you are sure bothered by this [the rock in a hat] 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.

Maybe you could try and envision President Monson at the next GC performing this concentration technique for all to see and then pronounce a revelation. Just picture it in your mind. Take your time, use your imagination, visualize it in real time.

Then tell me you don't understand why this would bother people, especially those who have never been taught this is church ever. FYI, stuff like this sometimes makes it to the Ensign but is often left out of the international edition. Half the members (the international ones) would probably have a heart attack.

[Doctor Steuss]

NOM

**Off Topic Warning**

Whenever I see this acronym, my mind imediately turns to...

[rockslider]

**Off Topic Warning**

Whenever I see this acronym, my mind imediately turns to...

Perfect, even has the concept of

[Lightbearer]

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

First let me say this, Anti-Mormon literature of any kind (website or book) is spiritual poison. It is pollution of the worse type, it a spiritual toxic waste. To allow free and open discussion of such things in a Church classroom or quorum would be like inviting the enemy right into your camp. We do not desire to have our classrooms or quorums to turn into a debate forum where the spirit of contention can be introduced and the spirit of the Lord is driven out. Why meet them on their own terms? We ought to let God fight our battles.

Generally Anti-Mormon poison is generally aimed at the new members or investigators who are new born babies in the Gospel. This Satan inspired poison attempts to shock or frighten or confuse it's victims into denying the spirit that they have felt with exposure to the Gospel. Of course the biggest targets is not the doctrines as much as the messengers credibility. That is why you notice that they generally do not examine the fruits of Mormonism, but try to sully the character to the prophets who teach the principles of the restored Gospel. They try to rewrite history as much as possible, try to characterize the Prophet Joseph as an evil and malignant power hungry demigogue who is either a vicious calculating deceiver or either an ignorant farm boy steeped in folk magic that was seduced by Satan into creating a genius cult capable of deceiving the very elect.

I came into contact with this Anti-Mormon scourge early in my life, in fact my father told me of how he was first attacked by this venomous devil inspired poison when he first joined. He was given several phamplets which attacked the restoration and pronounced the Book of Mormon as a fraud. My Dad was not that disturbed, but he was curious about this so-called "Spaulding Manuscript" and wanted to see it for himself. At that time there was no such thing as the internet (1951) so he did what he had read in the scriptures was the correct procedure for finding out the truth... he inquired of the Lord. For a while (about a month) he thought that he received no answer. But as a result of many things occurring he ended up moving his family to a small town in Ohio, called Oberlin. There he got a job at the GM plant in Cleveland and he got a tip from a work associate (not a church member as far as my father could tell) that the Spaulding manuscript was located at Oberlin College library. He accordingly looked it up and got a copy and compared it to the Book of Mormon. After this experience he never doubted the authenticity of the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. While in Ohio he was also nurtured by some Missionaries who later became life long friends. They helped my father and his family be strengthened in the Church and also took them to see the Kirtland Temple which was nearby. This experience became a treasured story from our family history and helped me in my faith as I grew up in the sacred restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.

As always occurs each of us must face our own challenges and tests of our faith. While this story was a great comfort and was faith promoting and personal, I was to fight my own dragons.

When I was in the 8th grade, my family had just been sealed in the Salt Lake Temple, it was one of the most wonderful experiences of my life and so as always anytime a great blessing is received great trials ultimately follow.

Because of the racial problems and forced busing in the south where I grew up, I had to attend a Baptist private school. It was a great trial to my faith because it was not just the normal struggle to learn secular learning, but it was a spiritual struggle as well. I had Anti-Mormon information bombarded on me from friends and classmates as well as teachers. Basically I slogged through it, I did not have "all the answers" but I did know one thing and that was the Church was true and although I did lean on borrowed light from my parents growing up, yet I had to find the answers myself. The next big salvo of Anti-Mormon literature came when I went on my Mission. In fact I and my companion met with a "professional Anti-Mormon" and we thought we could defeat them easily because I prided myself on a good working knowledge of the scriptures. We knew we were going into a debate and we were so cocky we also were sure we could clean his spiritual clock. It amazed us when we entered the room and the spirit of the Lord left us almost totally alone! Then we got our clocks cleaned although I gave a good try we were quickly backed up against the wall of faith. It was in this confrontation that I realized something very important, that it was not the spirit's job to contend against men of corrupt minds who had no desire to know the truth. After that experience I never again sought a "Bible bash" although frequently we would have one, but not seeking one, not at our instigation. Fast forward about 20 years, I and another RM were requested by our Bishop to visit a relative of his who was deep into Anti-Mormon literature etc... We made an appointment and my companion brought the book "The truth about the God Makers" (a very good Anti-Anti apologetic work). We had prayer before entering and we felt impressed to leave the apologetic book in the car and take only our scriptures and the discussion material. The fellow we were visiting wanted to show us the video "The God Makers". I told him that we were not afraid to watch it, but it would just be a waste of both of our time. Instead I asked if we could present the first discussion (at that time it was about the restoration) and he agreed. We had a very spiritual experience and as a result, his mind was disabused of the lies put forth by the adversary. So we in effect we neutralized the Anti-Mormon poison by just declaring the message and allowing the spirit to teach instead of our own learning or wisdom.

For these reasons I believe it would be a serious mistake to allow Anti-Mormon messages to have a voice in our meetings.

As for people leaving as a result of this material, it will happen anyway, all that we need to do is trust the Lord and keep His spirit in our hearts so that we may withstand the "fiery darts of the adversary." Indeed we should follow Paul's counsel:

(Ephesians 6:11-18) "Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;"

[Wiki Wonka]

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?

When those questions arise in class, I give the following quotes from the Ensign:

"David Whitmer wrote: ' Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine.'"

[thesometimesaint]

It is always the mormons that leave the Church. The Saints stay in.

[cinepro]

OK, I hate to be the one to point out the obvious, but is this quote from Wiki Wonka's list really saying what I think it is saying?

Those who brought the charges were apparently concerned that Joseph might bilk his employer, Josiah Stowell, out of some money. Mr. Stowell

[Jeff K.]

But I've never yet seen the Beattitude that says "Blessed are they who sit like lumps, for they shall be spoon fed, and never disappointed by anyone, and never ever caught off guard by anything." There is one about "ask and ye shall receive, seek and ye shall find," and "seek out of the best books words of wisdom..."

The statement was ironic considering the beatitudes were basic doctrine that the pharisees and sadducees dismissed in order to promulgate their own versions of the gospel. I could just see people saying how boring it is and how everyone listening intently were "lumps".

You may ask, you may received, but only if you have the patience to implement. Apparently the prophet and apostles feel we as a church have not yet achieved the patience or level or implementation to demand mysteries and debates.

[jwhitlock]

No it's not. But your rebuttle as an ad hominem, as usual.

Those of us who actually attend Church and interact with the membership know that yours is a misrepresentation. As usual.

Face it, John. You know that anyone can make any kind of ridiculous accusation. You're good at it. But you're dealing with people here who know better. Your characterization is, simply, false. You can probably get better play over on the dark side where they deal with faux realities like the one you're describing; I don't know why you waste your time here blowing out this kind of stuff.

[John Larsen]

Those of us who actually attend Church and interact with the membership know that yours is a misrepresentation. As usual.

Face it, John. You know that anyone can make any kind of ridiculous accusation. You're good at it. But you're dealing with people here who know better. Your characterization is, simply, false. You can probably get better play over on the dark side where they deal with faux realities like the one you're describing; I don't know why you waste your time here blowing out this kind of stuff.

Why don't you offer something substantive rather than just run around in circles kicking up dust?

[jwhitlock]

People are kept willfully ignorant by teaching them to shun or otherwise avoid intellectual material that would remedy their ignorance. Thus their state of ignorance on the topic in question is maintained in a willful manner.

For example, I am willfully ignorant of the game World of Warcraft. I choose to not learn anything about it. My wife could "keep" me willfully ignorant by limiting my access, telling me their would be great consequences socially if I do, or otherwise controlling my access to the information or my desire to access the information. This is often referred to as gate keeping.

In the topic at hand, the very term "anti-Mormon" is a gate keeping activity for example. For most members, you merely need to label a work or its author as "anti-Mormon" and most member will not engage it on any level. So the leadership doesn't need to deal with the arguments or historical information in any particular work, they only need to make sure the concept of an "anti-Mormon" is alive understood and they have a way to apply it, preferably in a subtle way. There are other such mechanisms, but I think this illustrates the point.

Nice try, but still nothing more than spin.

"Kept" - restrained without choice.

"Willfully" - done with choice.

Seems like you wanted to both brand the Church as a control organization and simultaneously denigrate the members as ignoramuses who choose to be so. Yet you can't "keep" a person who has a "choice", as you try so hard to spin it in your comment here. It's simply a contradiction in terms, and something that you, in your rush to misrepresent us, phrased improperly.

Of course, the overall point is that you really have no clue as to what the organization and social interactions of the Church and its members are all about, so you let your imagination run unrestrained. You're still wrong in what you posted, and this phrase was an example of the contradictory hype that those who misrepresent us often resort to.

[jwhitlock]

Why don't you offer something substantive rather than just run around in circles kicking up dust?

If you had posted something substantive - other than a lame misrepresentation of what goes on in the Church - in the first place, maybe you'd have a discussion.

As it is, I only real obligation I feel I have is to point out how you've misrepresented us. When you can post something realistic, then maybe you'll have some credibility in the discussion. In the meantime, as I noted, it's simply absurd of you to think that you can tell us, who are active in the Church, what really goes on there.

Get real.

[rockslider]

Any TBM associating Satan and/or anti-mormon to any given thoughts/material has effectively put a scarlet letter on the topic ... is that really in doubt here?

[John Larsen]

If you had posted something substantive - other than a lame misrepresentation of what goes on in the Church - in the first place, maybe you'd have a discussion.

As it is, I only real obligation I feel I have is to point out how you've misrepresented us. When you can post something realistic, then maybe you'll have some credibility in the discussion. In the meantime, as I noted, it's simply absurd of you to think that you can tell us, who are active in the Church, what really goes on there.

Get real.

I am a part of us.