Why Mormons are Leaving the Church

[SilverKnight]

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

Evidently my latest bout with depression and nihilism isn't ironclad.

If Lamanite can come in with this and sunder it with his mighty heart.

Thanks brother.

I shall get three extra reps on heavy military today because of this alone.

Big UP!

[Lamanite]

Evidently my latest bout with depression and nihilism isn't ironclad.

If Lamanite can come in with this and sunder it with his mighty heart.

Thanks brother.

I shall get three extra reps on heavy military today because of this alone.

Big UP!

It's compliments like yours that seem to be a supportive Olive tree in my own personal Gethsemane's.

Big UP!

Lamanite

edit to ask: Are you referring to military press? If so, nothing beats the blue's like a good shoulder and chest beat down!

[wenglund]

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.

For the most part, I agree with you, particularly in the case of those whose supposed natural skepticism is mostly mono-directional (i.e. they are predominatley skeptical of others and not of themselves) and who are less emotionally open to the possibility that they, themselves, may be wrong in how they may be considering/assessing the Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Lamanite]

For the most part, I agree with you

Absolutely fantastic! I'm not trying to ride Wade's train to Zion, but his honesty is fantastic.

Lol!

Great Wade- Big UP!

Sione

[Thunderfire]

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, I DO NOT believe any "anti" site lures away anyone. If it happens, the individual was already wanting to leave and saw that site as mere justification for what they already desired.

But, I do believe we are in a day when people can listen to a positive message offered by some that couldn't have been done in the past WITHOUT physically attending a different church. There is an amazing thing happening on the internet. It is easy to find some who are preaching a restoration message, claiming it is coming to them by angels and prophets. I've listen to some of them as was amazed thinking: Wow, that is the counsel in this Book of Mormon passage or that Doctrine and Covenants verse. Some of these preachers say, "We do not understand what all this means! We only know this is what God is sharing with us."

So no, I do not believe any "anti" site has a positive effect. But there are preachers out there preaching a message which is really good, (in some ways our "lost message" of end times gathering, continuing revelation, even the "finer points of doctrine") which we always had and now they are preaching. Here is something else, this was prophecied to happen by Jesus in the Book of Mormon to be a great sign we should seek! (Not that people would leave the church-unless you accept the verse of the time of great shaking which would being in the church D&C sec 112 lds)

Anyway, just some things to ponder and add to this discussion!

[wenglund]

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?

The best thing he could do is ask himself what, if anything, this question has to do with him becoming like Christ and fulfilling the fourfold mission of the Church. When he realizes that it is essentially irrelevant to the intended end of his LDS faith journey, and is but a distraction from achieving that end, hopely he will then rationally pay it little or no mind and re-orient his thoughts and energies on the things of faith that really matter.

But, for those members who are somewhat oblivious or resistant to what I propose above, I think your idea of referring them to places like FAIR and here may be of some help. I just don't think it effectual to take much time away from Sabbath lessons to address irrelevancies to growth in faith.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jaybear]

For the most part, I agree with you, particularly in the case of those whose supposed natural skepticism is mostly mono-directional (i.e. they are predominatley skeptical of others and not of themselves) and who are less emotionally open to the possibility that they, themselves, may be wrong in how they may be considering/assessing the Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

This is a thread about members of the LDS faith, ie those who were raised to believe in its truth claims, who leave the church upon encountering information that challenges their faith.

These "apostates", can hardly be described as less emotionally open to the possibility that they are wrong.

[Jeff K.]

This is a thread about members of the LDS faith, ie those who were raised to believe in its truth claims, who leave the church upon encountering information that challenges their faith.

These "apostates", can hardly be described as less emotionally open to the possibility that they are wrong.

I did not see the proviso that only those who were members all their lives should be counted. However the church itself teachees that we are not supposed to simply accept, but that we must also question and come to our own conversion. Born to the convenant or not is irrelevant to the process of conversion.

[zeezrom]

I submit the following proposition for debate in this thread.

What are your thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Hi.

Do you think we could change your quote to:

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

[Jeff K.]

Thunderfire:

I am not opposed to positive messages that have a greater impact and "lure" or "convince" people that their way is better. However in my experience I have not really seen a website which focuses on a postitive message that creates a distinctive direction for people away from the LDS church. Is there an example you could show us?

[Tarski]

For the most part, I agree with you, particularly in the case of those whose supposed natural skepticism is mostly mono-directional (i.e. they are predominatley skeptical of others and not of themselves) and who are less emotionally open to the possibility that they, themselves, may be wrong in how they may be considering/assessing the Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

If one has a lifetime of positively assessing the church and then given the new information and some life experience comes to be skeptical, then I don't see how you can say that such a person is "less emotionally open to the possibility that they, themselves, may be wrong in how they may be considering/assessing the Church."

In fact, that is exactly what such a person has done (become open to the possibility that they, themselves, may be wrong about the church)!!

[Lamanite]

Hi.

Do you think we could change your quote to:

Man I was hoping you would show up for this thread.

I'm sincerely interested in your thoughts and solutions.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Lamanite]

The best thing he could do is ask himself what, if anything, this question has to do with him becoming like Christ and fulfilling the fourfold mission of the Church. When he realizes that it is essentially irrelevant to the intended end of his LDS faith journey, and is but a distraction from achieving that end, hopely he will then rationally pay it little or no mind and re-orient his thoughts and energies on the things of faith that really matter.

But, for those members who are somewhat oblivious or resistant to what I propose above, I think your idea of referring them to places like FAIR and here may be of some help. I just don't think it effectual to take much time away from Sabbath lessons to address irrelevancies to growth in faith.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So let's take Sabbath lessons out of the equation and reserve them for those things which will invite the Spirit and facilitate a deepening discipleship.

What now?

I think our new convert is dedicated and believing, but there is a dissonance that exits within him between what he was taught, what he was not taught, and how he feels.

My hope is that in his attempt to reconcile these dissonant factors- the institutional Church is not absent. I think we can help in the process. At least I know I would like to help our new convert.

Big UP!

Sione

[Jeff K.]

If one has a lifetime of positively assessing the church and then given the new information and some life experience comes to be skeptical, then I don't see how you can say that such a person is "less emotionally open to the possibility that they, themselves, may be wrong in how they may be considering/assessing the Church."

In fact, that is exactly what such a person has done (become open to the possibility that they, themselves, may be wrong about the church)!!

I suppose the question might fall to the idea of critical thinking and engagement as to the details provided. Now some may say that faith and critical thought cannot co-exist, but I would disagree in the sense that there is an understanding of the validation process involved. As Latter-Day Saints we prove this day our faith through our own actions, and we hold true to the blessings we have received because of our faith. And example is how time and again a blessing was received for actions based on faith. I doubt there are many (if any) who have never recieved a blessing based on faith. It is an individualist judgement and not easily experienced. However back to critical thinking, it is important to evaluate the reasons behind the facts, the motivations of the speaker and so on, in order to have a comprehensive view. This in part requires an acknowledgement that the speaker could be right on the facts but wrong with the context, or perhaps is using the wrong facts to esstablish a context which of course could also be wrong. It may also be that the speaker is right, and is able to overcome ebjections based on both facts and context.

[Jaybear]

So let's take Sabbath lessons out of the equation and reserve them for those things which will invite the Spirit and facilitate a deepening discipleship.

What now?

I think our new convert is dedicated and believing, but there is a dissonance that exits within him between what he was taught, what he was not taught, and how he feels.

My hope is that in his attempt to reconcile these dissonant factors- the institutional Church is not absent. I think we can help in the process. At least I know I would like to help our new convert.

Big UP!

Sione

I would tell the new convert that are two good reason for remaining Mormon.

One, he believes its true; or

Two, his membership brings him joy and satisfaction.

Only he can answer those questions.

[zeezrom]

Man I was hoping you would show up for this thread.

I'm sincerely interested in your thoughts and solutions.

Seriously?

I'm not sure I'm qualified to answer this question. I certainly have not left the church so I have no personal experience to draw from.

I could answer "why mormons question the doctrine" as seen from my perspective.

I could also answer "why mormons don't leave the church after losing their belief in certain things" as seen from my perspective.

[wenglund]

These "apostates", can hardly be described as less emotionally open to the possibility that they are wrong.

You may have a point were I to have made such an unqualified claim. I didn't, and so you don't.

Thanks anyway, -Wade Englund-

[Thunderfire]

Thunderfire:

I am not opposed to positive messages that have a greater impact and "lure" or "convince" people that their way is better. However in my experience I have not really seen a website which focuses on a postitive message that creates a distinctive direction for people away from the LDS church. Is there an example you could show us?

Hello Jeff,

Let me begin by saying this: I do not "listen" or support any group that thinks it's better than the others. Recently I was reminded of a passage in Isaiah (28:8 ) which speaks of "all the tables are covered with vomit and there is not a spot without filth." Meaning, we all have problems and no church is truly pure and without blemish (yes, some are better off than others, but all still have some filth-per this verse). So as soon as someone begins to preach "against" someone or is "anti" in anyway, I know there is more filth there than with those who preach a positive message of redemption, prophecy/revelation, and gathering.

These sites below have nothing to do with the "Restoration Movement". Yet I have listened to some of them thinking, "Wow, they are preaching our message!" They readily admit to not understanding what they are teaching, only that it is coming through angels and the spirit of revelation. Again, for me this is the sign Jesus tells us to seek to know that the great end times work of gathering has commenced. Any way, here are a few sites in no particular order:

http://www.morningstarministries.org/

http://www.elijahlist.com/

http://gloryofzion.org/index.htm

http://www.whitedoveministries.org/

http://www.ihop.org/

http://www.god.tv/homepage?region=46

BUT please remember...I AM NOT endorsing them, I am endorsing the message they are giving! Do they have some "holes" in the message? You bet! Many of these holes are filled by the Book of Mormon which they do not have. Anyway, just wanted to offer this for discussion sake

[wenglund]

If one has a lifetime of positively assessing the church and then given the new information and some life experience comes to be skeptical, then I don't see how you can say that such a person is "less emotionally open to the possibility that they, themselves, may be wrong in how they may be considering/assessing the Church."

In fact, that is exactly what such a person has done (become open to the possibility that they, themselves, may be wrong about the church)!!

No one can rationally interpret my comments as making the argument you suggest above. All I am reasonably suggesting is that the less inclined a mind is to self-skepticism, the more closed it is and the less likely it will be open to external forces for change (be that change from believing to unbelief, or change back from unbelief to belief).

Besides, that a mind may have once have been open to change from belief to unbelief, does not mean that it is still open to change (in reverse or otherwise). In fact, it is not uncommon for a change from belief to unbelief to cause a heightening of skepticism of belief, and decreased skepticism of self, to the point of rendering one's mind less open to changing back to belief.

But, this is really all besides the point of the thread, and so I will leave correcting your's and jaybears misunderstand at that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cinepro]

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

Could you provide some examples of "flaws" in Church history? Meaning, what things should be mentioned in a history of the Church that includes "flaws"?

Perhaps we can look at the situation narratively?

- Jill is told by a friend that Joseph Smith was a polygamist, and was even married to girls as young as 14 years old (and was married to a second wife before he even received the "sealing power"). When Jill explains polygamy was mostly for widows, her friend even claims Joseph married women who had living husbands! Jill realizes that anti-mormon sources are unreliable, so she decides she wants to learn the truth about Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy from Church published sources found on the Church website. What does she find?

- While studying the Pearl of Great Price, Sam is intrigued by Joseph Smith's ability to translate Egyptian papyri. He's especially interested in whether or not the papyri still exist, and whether others who can translate Egyptian have corroborated Joseph's translation. He searches the Church website. What does he find?

- Jason, a recent black convert to the Church, is ridiculed by his other black friends for joining a "racist" Church. His friends say that LDS leaders used to teach that blacks were "cursed", and that they were "less faithful before they came to Earth compared to white people". Jason knows about the priesthood ban and is glad he can get the priesthood, but he's not sure if the teachings about the "curse" were true (and the curse finally expired in 1978), or if LDS leaders were mistaken. He wants to find out the history of this subject, and decides the Church website is the best place to start. What does he learn, and does it include the "flaws"?

[Tarski]

As Latter-Day Saints we prove this day our faith through our own actions, and we hold true to the blessings we have received because of our faith. And example is how time and again a blessing was received for actions based on faith. I doubt there are many (if any) who have never recieved a blessing based on faith. It is an individualist judgement and not easily experienced.

And similar statements are made by Scientologists, Jehova's Witnesses, and also by members of various dubious cult-like organizations.

"Try it and see" is the universal admonition in this business. The idea that if it makes you feel better or makes you healthier, happier, richer or whatever, then the whole package must be objectively true (Kolob, angels and all) is a primary misdirection. Note that such organizations are often also keen on schooling you on what "real happiness" is--and people seem to want to be told this too! --they thereby stack the deck.

"if it weren't right, then why does it make me feel so good?"

Is that compelling?

How about this one?

"Drink this blessed health elixir and follow the sacred laws of exercise and diet and you will soon lose unwanted weight." "Then you will know by your own experience the power of the elixir!"

See the problem?

[Deborah]

I would tell the new convert that are two good reason for remaining Mormon.

One, he believes its true; or

Two, his membership brings him joy and satisfaction.

Only he can answer those questions.

Or both.

[Jeff K.]

Could you provide some examples of "flaws" in Church history? Meaning, what things should be mentioned in a history of the Church that includes "flaws"?

I don't see flaws as being part of Sunday School if that is your answer. I do see Joseph Smiths financial failures as a flaw in those times, or a flaw in Joseph Smith's dealings on business at the time. But contextually understand the depression that swept the country too. It is a flaw in church history, not a flaw in doctrine. Boyd K Packar spoke of the distinction between church history and doctrine.

I trust this distinction helps.

[Deborah]

If one has a lifetime of positively assessing the church and then given the new information and some life experience comes to be skeptical, then I don't see how you can say that such a person is "less emotionally open to the possibility that they, themselves, may be wrong in how they may be considering/assessing the Church."

In fact, that is exactly what such a person has done (become open to the possibility that they, themselves, may be wrong about the church)!!

But on the other hand the information they have could be wrong or incomplete, as many of us have stated time and again, especially given the new documentation that is going on. What they have to ask themselves is whether they are willing to throw out all the good because they hear or read something that unsettles them. As many of us have testified we've all had those moments and it's working beyond those and getting factual information in context rather than the sound bites from anti-Mo sites that puts everything in proper perspective.

I know many converts who when confronted with such info don't get upset because their conversion was so strong that they realize there is something they are not knowing or understanding and they are perfectly content to put such information on hold. That was certainly my situation. I couldn't reconcile my powerful conversion along with the words of the BOM and D&C and the testimony of his character by those who knew Joseph Smith best with the all the hate-filled accusations. I chose to give priority to the former and in so doing had all my questions answered to my satisfaction and have grown stronger in my testimony.

[cinepro]

I don't see flaws as being part of Sunday School if that is your answer. I do see Joseph Smiths financial failures as a flaw in those times, or a flaw in Joseph Smith's dealings on business at the time. But contextually understand the depression that swept the country too. It is a flaw in church history, not a flaw in doctrine. Boyd K Packar spoke of the distinction between church history and doctrine.

I trust this distinction helps.

That's fine, but your statement was a CFR that "the Church or its history is flawless".

I think an argument can be made that the Church presents its history to its members as essentially "flawless", and someone whose primary source of info comes from Church publications will feel like they know a lot about LDS Church history, but will have huge gaps when it comes to "flaws".

But in order for the conversation to have any meaning, you need to specify what a "flaw" is. And since the Kirtland Banking situation is irrelevant to "doctrine", it might be helpful to pick some areas of history that have flaws that are relevant to Church members.

Or, to make it much easier, instead of asking someone to show you what the Church doesn't teach (i.e. "missing flaws"), why don't you show how Church publications include "flaws" and don't duck the hard issues.

(Here's exhibit "A" for hiding information from Church members.)