Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Why Mormons are Leaving the Church


consiglieri

Recommended Posts

Church classroom, quorum meetings, etc. are not the proper venue for discussion of most of those matters. They do not edify. They do not invite the spirit. They are generally contentious. For the life of me I cannot understand why a Gospel Doctrine teacher would want to invite the spirit of contention into his classroom.

"The truth shall set you free." (John 8:32)

Link to comment

To me, this makes sense because I believe loss of faith to typically be a function of people losing sight of the intended end of faith (i.e. becoming like Christ) and/or their failing to correctly apply the principles of growth in faith (as per Alma 32)

Hi Wade,

I don't think that the proposition in the OP is demonstrably false. I do however think it is demonstrably incomplete.

As usual I agree with your diagnosis of the problem. Often times I think that those who are slipping away have never found the necessary conversion needed to live the life of Discipleship; or perhaps the once budding seed of faith now lies dormant. This conversion is what compels us all forward and upward-- reflecting a similar pattern in the presentation of the endowment in the Salt Lake Temple. To be sure, discipleship is to be lived in crescendo.(Maxwell I think) For those of us who " doubt not", the "sounding brass" of our critics seems tinny and hollow. However, there are those who naively begin to match the cadence of that awful brass band. For them, it is a time of critical importance, a mighty change of heart is often needed and the hand of fellowship is greatly desired. And yes, I think beneath the posturing there lies a desire and need for something greater. "And again I say unto you, concerning your confirmation meetings, that if there be any that are not of the church, that are earnestly seeking after the kingdom, ye shall not cast them out. " I know some will argue my interpretation of this scripture, but I err on the side of mercy to a fault.

I don't know what the solution is. I have idea's, but I doubt it's worth the caloric expenditure it would take to elaborate. My personal philosophy is that no matter how belligerent, condescending, or prideful someone is about any number of issues-- if there is but the slightest chance that his/her seed of faith can be transplanted to fertile ground, then I want to be a part of that miracle.

Your friend,

Sione

Link to comment

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.

Although I am not necessarily "bothered" by it, I can see why the stone in the hat might be a bit disconcerting for some.

When one has imagined that Joseph Smith was looking at the plates through something that resembled spectacles, and seeing the translation through the Urim and Thummim, then there does not seem to be any possible deceptive motive on Smith's part. Indeed, it is rather comforting to think that others might have seen Smith wearing the spectacles, even if those people did not ever see the plates. It is quite testimony-bolstering. If Smith had the spectacles, then it is highly likely that the plates existed. It is hard to imagine that Smith wore the spectacles and breastplate and yet did not have any plates to look at. After all, that's what spectacles are for--to look through them, to see things. It doesn't seem all that odd to ascribe some extra power to those spectacles so that they make the characters that you're actually looking at through the spectacles appear in a different language. The main thing is that Smith was still looking at the plates.

But when you hear about the hat, you wonder why in the heck Smith needed to have the plates at all--isn't that going to be the next question that logical people ask? I guess to explain the hat, you can say that Smith couldn't see into the stone unless it was dark. But some people will suspect that the hat kind of seems like a way of hiding the fact that the stone might not be showing anything to Smith at all. Nobody gets to see the stone--it's in the hat--and the plates weren't even around. It seems a lot fishier than the spectacles story, doesn't it? When you later find out that Smith had found that very stone while digging a well for some guy years earlier, you start to wonder why the Urim and Thummim were ever necessary--and wasn't it convenient that this very stone that Smith had dug up earlier could be used years later to translate plates (which were at times not even in the same room)?

When you hear about the face in the hat, you start to wonder which of the stories is true--the spectacles story, or the stone-in-the-hat story, or both of them. You were probably raised on the spectacles version. Again, you wonder why on Earth there would have been two different methods, and why Smith ever would have used the stone in the hat when he had those nifty spectacles available. You wonder why Moroni would have gone through all the trouble of burying the spectacles along with the plates if Smith was just going to use his seer stone to do the translation. I bet that most LDS people, when they hear the stone-in-the-hat version, dismiss it initially as anti-Mormon lies.

Later, you might find out that the church still has the stone, but you learn that the Angel Moroni had to take the Urim and Thummim (and the plates) back with him to wherever he returned (even though there are lots more plates still buried in a cave somewhere, or so you've heard). The stone story starts to seem more and more like the real story, and the spectacles story smells more and more fishy. You might ask why the Urim and Thummim couldn't have remained with Smith when the stone apparently did. You might theorize that the Urim and Thummim would have been a harder prop to fabricate and defend than is a mere rock.

Not to say that this proves that either version is true or false. I just wanted to explain that it isn't so far-fetched or unfathomable to think that someone exposed to the stone-in-hat story for the first time might be put off a bit.

Link to comment

I just wanted to explain that it isn't so far-fetched or unfathomable to think that someone exposed to the stone-in-hat story for the first time might be put off a bit.

For someone who has never heard about the stone in the hat stuff, I'm sure they will be "put off" to a greater or lesser degree. That's just being real about it. But a quick discussion about magic in the early 19th century should put things in context.

It's just a matter of education, IMO. It's how that education is provided that will create the great weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth by both parties.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Link to comment

I believe consig has a valid point. I have run on to this problem with others as well. I personally believe the problem is in believeing the doctrine, church and it's history is flawless. At times we tend to intentionally leave out some historical or doctrinal material in order to prove a point but in so doing we leave ourselves wide open to the flaw we create.

A lot of our problem is in the belief that we are a "perfect church". Some get so convinced that we have every truth and then find out later we were wrong on some issue and turn away from the church- upset that the perfect church they envisioned and realized was a thing of not.

When we do find valid arguments on some historical or doctrinal issue it is next to impossible to get a straight answer, especially if it involves the temple in any way.

We still have a lot of pr work to do not only within the church membership but outside as well. There is still some correlation issues along with mingling too much opinion within church published manuals and copyrighted works.

Link to comment

Newsflash: The doctrine is flawless.

And I would like a CFR from where it states the church or its history is flawless?

At times we tend to intentionally leave out some historical or doctrinal material in order to prove a point but in so doing we leave ourselves wide open to the flaw we create.

CFR please....

You seem hung up on the idea that somehow we all believe all that the church does is perfect. I have not seen that preached, indeed most of us know of the imperfections, the Doctrine and Covenants speak of the same. So your position is based on a false premise.

Now lets look at this...

When we do find valid arguments on some historical or doctrinal issue it is next to impossible to get a straight answer, especially if it involves the temple in any way.

Straight answer? Is that your way of saying "your answer?!?! Generally the answers which establish context are fairly straightforward without the normal guile of people who leave out key issues when they attack the church. But feel free to provide a substantive argument (by providing CFR's), it would be interesting to see the information.

Link to comment

What are your thoughts?

I think if the environment for open information is restricted, then the offer of accessible information in other arena's is a more attractive option. One situation gives the impression of suppression and all the questions that a person relates to intent. The other situation gives the impression of candor and I would think that intent of information is something easily discarded when information flows freely.

No one likes being told what they can't do, talk about, etc...

I don't mean to make it sound so cut and dried, there are more to social taboos than that.

Link to comment

I see the entire projection of repression as an unfounded red herring.

The other situation gives the impression of candor and I would think that intent of information is something easily discarded when information flows freely.
I disagree with the premise that open and free information allows for discarding intent. The reason I see the premise as false (or unworkable) is that information, even on the internet, is not free and accessible or certainly not easily accessible. There is a great deal of information that requires research, and careful research at that. Research often requires expertise and time, both of which by their nature impede the free flow of information. So intent becomes more important because it reflects one of two routes. In one with sincere intent, all information known is freely transmitted with the idea that information will return. The other route is one in which information knowingly impeded by a lack of research or expertise (or both), can be hidden or partially hidden in order to spin it one way.

Consider the context of Joseph Smith getting into fights at church over doctine. This reflects a bellicose and implies a man who would willingly engage in force within even the halls of God in order to force physically force is position on others. Now consider that this information was presented as "fact". Research is not easily made with such a "fact", indeed the information could very well be impeded by the lack of time to do research, so intent has a great deal to do with whether or not the originator is trustworty, ie worthy of trust in his/her observations of supposed "fact". That trustworthiness entertains such aspects as ability to understand context and research, and intent to seek the truth freely and openly without spinning the implication prior to full knowledge. It turns out that Joseph Smith did fight, but not over doctrine, and certainly not in church, but in a family squabble with his younger brother in regard to having helped build his younger brothers home, he should be able to argue with his brother in it. A kind of silly domestic family squabble. It happens, especially in those days.

So we see that intent, does indeed play a vital role, and the idea of freely open information with no impediment is an illusion, even on the internet.

Link to comment

I have accross a number of Pentecostals who have been former Mormons. They do not get involved in any anti-Mormon org but are just happy with what the particular Pentecostal church might provide. For many Pentecostals there is a 2 hour service Sunday Mornings and a midweek homechurch meeting with prayer and leadship meetings accross the month.

Link to comment

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

Sorry to enter late been out of town.

Partly, but their leading astray due to other websites is mostly from the root cause of a LACK OF TESTIMONY!!!!!!!

Sorry for the shout. I had to get that off my chest.

Link to comment

I believe consig has a valid point. I have run on to this problem with others as well. I personally believe the problem is in believeing the doctrine, church and it's history is flawless. At times we tend to intentionally leave out some historical or doctrinal material in order to prove a point but in so doing we leave ourselves wide open to the flaw we create.

A lot of our problem is in the belief that we are a "perfect church". Some get so convinced that we have every truth and then find out later we were wrong on some issue and turn away from the church- upset that the perfect church they envisioned and realized was a thing of not.

When we do find valid arguments on some historical or doctrinal issue it is next to impossible to get a straight answer, especially if it involves the temple in any way.

We still have a lot of pr work to do not only within the church membership but outside as well. There is still some correlation issues along with mingling too much opinion within church published manuals and copyrighted works.

Utterly ridiculous. In fact this entire post reminds me, actually the OP as well, of this comment:
(History of the Church, 3:385; from a discourse given by Joseph Smith on July 2, 1839, in Montrose, Iowa; reported by Wilford Woodruff and Willard Richards)
Link to comment

Newsflash: The doctrine is flawless.

And here you prove Rob Osborne's point.

It is easy to say that the doctrine is flawless, because doctrine is by its very nature non-falsifiable; and yet it frequently runs into twin problems in the LDS context.

The first problem occurs when authoritative statements on doctrine in the LDS Church conflict. When that happens, it is obvious one or the other doctrine is "flawed." This has led to endless circular arguments about what constitutes doctrine to the point that it has become a meaningless statement within the LDS Church (i.e., there effectively is no official Church doctrine). Also a good deal of revisionist history takes place to lessen the tension in many cases, such as the ludicrous argument that Brigham Young never taught Adam is the God of this earth.

A second problem is that Church history is viewed by many Mormons on the same plane as, and inextricably linked to, Church doctrine. When problems arise from learning more about Church history, those problems necessarily impact one's view of Church doctrine, because the Church has gone to such lengths to interweave the two.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

P.S. To Lightbearer--neither Ron nor I have claimed to be righteous; nor have we condemned anybody else. Heck, I don't think we have even called anybody "utterly ridiculous" for a while.

Link to comment

But when you hear about the hat, you wonder why in the heck Smith needed to have the plates at all--isn't that going to be the next question that logical people ask?

The plates and their connection with the witnesses form a formidable obstacle for critics (half of them left the Church but even they forcefully affirmed and never denied their testimony; they of all people would have exposed the fraud from the rooftops if there were any chicanery involved, etc.). The actual plates were an important component of building momentum early on with other witnesses who were not among the 11 (i.e., the Knights, Emma, etc.).

Witness testimony about the plates is so solid, Dan Vogel finds it necessary to make his convoluted "tin plates" theory. There is simply no way around the witnesses; there were plates.

Link to comment

From my personal experience and observation (which is limited to 20 people or so), people generally disassociate with the church not for encountering anti-mormon evidence, but for lifestyle or social reasons (and letting their testimonies getting kind of lax).

Link to comment

And here you prove Rob Osborne's point.

It is easy to say that the doctrine is flawless, because doctrine is by its very nature non-falsifiable; and yet it frequently runs into twin problems in the LDS context.

The first problem occurs when authoritative statements on doctrine in the LDS Church conflict. When that happens, it is obvious one or the other doctrine is "flawed." This has led to endless circular arguments about what constitutes doctrine to the point that it has become a meaningless statement within the LDS Church (i.e., there effectively is no official Church doctrine). Also a good deal of revisionist history takes place to lessen the tension in many cases, such as the ludicrous argument that Brigham Young never taught Adam is the God of this earth.

Perhaps the problem is not with the doctrine but your flawed understanding of it?
A second problem is that Church history is viewed by many Mormons on the same plane as, and inextricably linked to, Church doctrine. When problems arise from learning more about Church history, those problems necessarily impact one's view of Church doctrine, because the Church has gone to such lengths to interweave the two.
Perhaps also the problem is the sources from which you view your conception of Church History, I mean just because someone wrote something against Joseph did not mean it was true, I mean if we uncovered a book written by Laman and Lemuel would that effect who you accepted the writing and teachings of Nephi?
P.S. To Lightbearer--neither Ron nor I have claimed to be righteous; nor have we condemned anybody else. Heck, I don't think we have even called anybody "utterly ridiculous" for a while.
Isn't a condescending disdain for the doctrine, history, and leadership of the Church while portraying yourselves as the lone champions of true in effect the same thing? Do you not condemn the Correlation Committee and accuse the leaders of the Church of dishonesty and misrepresentation? That is why I speak so strongly against your position you seem to have alined yourself with. So really I do not think I have been too harsh with you or Rob.
Link to comment

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 think you are implicitly wishing to inoculate members.

It will come as no surprise to here that I think the reason is simply that once the whole gamut of information about the church is put on the table in front of a naturally skeptical person who is also, for whatever reason, emotionally open to the possibility that the church isn't true, the church doesn't stand a chance.

For such a person, all the information on the FAIR website only adds to the problem.

Consig,

What if it isn't true after all for all the reasons we have been pointing out? Let it sink in and abandon the reliance on "powerful feelings and spooky experiences". There is a more sensible picture. Feeling are feelings and every 3 Nephite story out there has a simple explanation.

Link to comment

And here you prove Rob Osborne's point.

It is easy to say that the doctrine is flawless, because doctrine is by its very nature non-falsifiable; and yet it frequently runs into twin problems in the LDS context.

Chuckle, I guess some believe the doctrine of the church is not perfect, but flawed which of course would make it false.

The first problem occurs when authoritative statements on doctrine in the LDS Church conflict. When that happens, it is obvious one or the other doctrine is "flawed." This has led to endless circular arguments about what constitutes doctrine to the point that it has become a meaningless statement within the LDS Church (i.e., there effectively is no official Church doctrine). Also a good deal of revisionist history takes place to lessen the tension in many cases, such as the ludicrous argument that Brigham Young never taught Adam is the God of this earth.

Now lets see why does Consig think the doctrine of the church can be false. Perhaps because he misuses or confuses context. He quickly moves into the false context that suthoritative statements are the equivalent of doctrine. We know that is not true. There are a myriad of opinions held by apostles and prophets, and while their voices are "authoritative" in the sense we revere and respect them, they are not "authoritative" in the sense of changing or establishing doctrine. I know of almost no one here who believes that except anti Mormons who use it as a cudgel against the church. In fact there are no endless circular arguments regarding doctrine, there are arguments why the church's statements regarding doctrine are ignored but that mischaracterization (that you seem to make habitually) is incorrect and suffices quite well.

As to revisionist history, I have only seen one or two people engage in it. They tend to smart from that at times when it is pointed out to them :crazy: .

A

second problem is that Church history is viewed by many Mormons on the same plane as, and inextricably linked to, Church doctrine. When problems arise from learning more about Church history, those problems necessarily impact one's view of Church doctrine, because the Church has gone to such lengths to interweave the two.

You really need to start listening to the prophets and apostles Consig. :P Do you have a testimony of the church history? Is it shaken? The only problems I have seen arise from church history is the misinterpretation of some who use a pseudoauthoratative voice to mischaracterize moments in history and call it "problems arising from learning church history". I suggest you take the time to read "A Rough Stone Rolling", it would help show how learning of church history does not in itself mean there are problems with it, only that some saints singularly grasp and enjoy holding up their own little interpretations as an ensign to the anti Mormons, the dark light on a hill, or slightly hid in the bushel of obfuscation.

I submit that your own interpretation is what causes the consternation, not it appears any real issues with church history or its interweaving with doctrine.

P.S. To Lightbearer--neither Ron nor I have claimed to be righteous; nor have we condemned anybody else. Heck, I don't think we have even called anybody "utterly ridiculous" for a while.

I would suggest that you mistake the issue. It isn't a question of your righteousness so much as it is your self proclaimed "authority" to speak on the issue, even when proven wrong. ;)

Link to comment
I don't know what the solution is. I have idea's, but I doubt it's worth the caloric expenditure it would take to elaborate. My personal philosophy is that no matter how belligerent, condescending, or prideful someone is about any number of issues-- if there is but the slightest chance that his/her seed of faith can be transplanted to fertile ground, then I want to be a part of that miracle.

Your friend, Sione

This is one of the reasons that I have the deepest respect and admiration for you, Sione. You have one of the biggest and best hearts of most anyone I know, and your passionate intents are well directed. The wondering and lost sheep are greatly benefitted having a loving shepherd like you to help return them and keep them in the fold. And, were I to think that the proposition in the OP to really work (i.e. did more good than harm), I would be right behind you and nearly as passionate in surport thereof.

It is just that I have yet to see evidence that taking time away from lesson material that is demonstrably relevant to growth in faith, and devoting it instead to discussion of issues that aren't relevant to growth in faith, will somehow help to retain some members faith. In fact, as intimated in my previous post, I see evidence that discussing the irrelevancies will have little or no impact on loss of people's faith, and may even unintentionally speed it along. Perhaps you can help me to see otherwise. I am certainly open to seeing things differently.

To me, though, the key to retention and growth in faith isn't to periodically indulge the spiritual distractions during Sunday lessons (though forums like this are well suited for such purposes), but rather refocus the wondering mind-eyes back onto the ultimate object of our faith, even Jesus Christ, and our striving to become like him. In other words, the way to get people back into furtile soil isn't by indulging the weeds and rocks that threaten faith, but rather by offering them furtile soil to be replanted and nurtured therein. :P

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment

What if it isn't true after all for all the reasons we have been pointing out?

What if indeed.

A few of us passed that lonely crossroads a long time ago.

I realized that my brief and meaningless existence in the universe will be over soon enough.

Until then I shall continue to pop the placebo of hope.

:P

(I'm having a nihilistic day.)

Link to comment

I think if the environment for open information is restricted, then the offer of accessible information in other arena's is a more attractive option. One situation gives the impression of suppression and all the questions that a person relates to intent. The other situation gives the impression of candor and I would think that intent of information is something easily discarded when information flows freely.

No one likes being told what they can't do, talk about, etc...

I don't mean to make it sound so cut and dried, there are more to social taboos than that.

It helps me to draw a sharp distinction in my mind between "effective instruction" and "supression". While both are unavoidably restrictive in terms of what content is covered in the limited class time (i.e. what can and can't be done or talked about), and thus they are both somewhat closed in terms of what is being taught, the former is designed to enhance learning while the later is designed to prevent learning.

For example, people wishing to learn how to play the piano and become highly skilled as a pianist might resonably expect that their piano lessons would be restricted to learning the notes, reading music, and techniques for playing the notes on the piano, and not open to discussions of things like socialized medicine or the latest cell phone application or even the foibles of Mozart's personal life. Narrowing the focus of the lesson material to things that will best enable the student to learn to play the piano and become highly skilled therein, would contstitute "effective instruction", and not "supression".

Whereas, if people wish to learn about political philosophy in public school systems, and were the instructors to restrict the lesson material to only his or her favored political philosophy, then that may constitute "supression".

To me, while the Sunday lesson material for the LDS Church is obviously restrited and somewhat closed, it is so designed to provide "effective instruction", and not for the purpose of "supression".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment

This is one of the reasons that I have the deepest respect and admiration for you, Sione. You have one of the biggest and best hearts of most anyone I know, and your passionate intents are well directed. The wondering and lost sheep are greatly benefitted having a loving shepherd like you to help return them and keep them in the fold. And, were I to think that the proposition in the OP to really work (i.e. did more good than harm), I would be right behind you and nearly as passionate in surport thereof.

It is just that I have yet to see evidence that taking time away from lesson material that is demonstrably relevant to growth in faith, and devoting it instead to discussion of issues that aren't relevant to growth in faith, will somehow help to retain some members faith. In fact, as intimated in my previous post, I see evidence that discussing the irrelevancies will have little or no impact on loss of people's faith, and may even unintentionally speed it along. Perhaps you can help me to see otherwise. I am certainly open to seeing things differently.

To me, though, the key to retention and growth in faith isn't to periodically indulge the spiritual distractions during Sunday lessons (though forums like this are well suited for such purposes), but rather refocus the wondering mind-eyes back onto the ultimate object of our faith, even Jesus Christ, and our striving to become like him. In other words, the way to get people back into furtile soil isn't by indulging the weeds and rocks that threaten faith, but rather by offering them furtile soil to be replanted and nurtured therein. :P

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm not sure if you are available for extended discussion so I will keep it brief and specific. (This is very loosely based on my investigation of the Church ca. 1994-97)

  • A person read's the Book of Mormon and has several spiritual manifestations. In the aggregate the experiences lead him to declare "I believe."
  • Gets baptized and goes to church.
  • 6 months later a friend tells him about Joseph's many wives and that he lied to Emma about all of this.
  • He brings it up in Priesthood and the teacher said I don't know that much about it but I know Joseph was a prophet.
  • He is referred to the Bishop.
  • The Bishop is a convert from Wisconsin and didn't even know Joseph had polyandrous marriages.
  • The convert is told to pray about it and focus on those things which are essential.

What should he do now?

If I were going to throw out an idea, it would be to create a referral program. The referral could be to a knowledgeable individual who could assist in person or it could be electronic. As long as someone is caring and helping at a very personal level. I really like study groups too. I've been involved with a couple of study groups where we would read and discuss. It was very edifying. But both groups were brought up in Ward council. It was sad. And both times it was brought up before we even held our first meeting. lol

I agree that faith based subjects and activities should be a primary focus. I think the process of continually being born (Alma 5) is paramount. But I think it only fair to help these people reconcile some of their issues. Ultimately, a porcelain history is not as appealing as one with the blemishes of humanity.

Big UP!

Sione

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...