Why Mormons are Leaving the Church

[Jeff K.]

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?

No, not even close Tarski. I do know scientologists, and some of what they call "clear", I think your narrative is not quite as you make it sound.

It isn't about feeling good about yourself, which is a somewhat limited aspect. Nor is it an excitement that reduces the mind to bliss. In fact I have found it to be a quiet happiness and satisfaction which doesn't impede my ability to think clearly. Which is a true happiness. The Scientologist I know has described a happiness that reflects a blindness to the things of the world, not a greater understanding. It is hard to expalin, but allow me to say that mental facilities remain intact.

Note as a former corporate officer in a marketing firm, I do know the "tricks of the trade" for weight loss and what not, but what I know and experience at church is entirely different.

So I would have to reject the ideal you present even if I cannot articulate it to your satisfaction.

[Jeff K.]

That's fine, but you're 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.

I want a CFR that maintains that our leaders state our history is flawless. Packard himself stated quite clearly is wasn't. So no, an argument cannot "be made" when in fact statements disagree with the "argument" or speculation made.

Now the Church's job is not necessarily to teach its "history" so much as tend to spirituality, but it does have a great deal of primary source material from people with various points of view. I believe most history is irrelevant to doctrine, anymore than a crazy man who is a stock broker is relevant to capitalism.

[Jeff K.]

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.

That is irrelevant to whether or not the church states its history if flawless. The statement has been made and yet the CFR has not been met. Show me where the church maintains its history is flawless. I have shown you were it has maintained the opposite.

[cinepro]

That is irrelevant to whether or not the church states its history if flawless. The statement has been made and yet the CFR has not been met. Show me where the church maintains its history is flawless. I have shown you were it has maintained the opposite.

I'm not sure what you're asking for. Do you mean you want a quote from a Church Historian saying "Our history is flawless"?

If so, I would agree that a Church representative has probably never actually said "Our history is flawless".

But it's an odd point to make; if someone approached you and expressed disappointment about some aspect of Church history, do you really say "Well, the Church never said our history was flawless!" and send them on their way?

The point is that the Church teaches the history as if it were flawless, leaving gaps in the history if there is something that might not be faith-promoting. So if you're saying the Church actually acknowledges and teaches these flaws alongside the faith-promoting parts of the history, I don't think so. Which seemed to be the subject of this thread.

[Jeff K.]

I'm not sure what you're asking for. Do you mean you want a quote from a Church Historian saying "Our history is flawless"?

Or indication that church history is a flawless and therefore a reflection that our church is true.

But it's an odd point to make; if someone approached you and expressed disappointment about some aspect of Church history, do you really say "Well, the Church never said our history was flawless!" and send them on their way?

Actually we do discuss that from time to time, and Boyd K Packer himself has reminded us of it, and yes, it is mentioned and known. So the very premise you make is incorrect, flawed, if you will. Most who have scratched the surface see that.

The point is that the Church teaches the history as if it were flawless, leaving gaps in the history if there is something that might not be faith-promoting. So if you're saying the Church actually acknowledges and teaches these flaws alongside the faith-promoting parts of the history, I don't think so. Which seemed to be the subject of this thread.

No, it doesn't. The church's focus is on doctrine, not history. It pulls information to support doctrinal points and develop methods of implementation. It does not teach history since that is not its goal or objective. It is however your objective, just as you delight in pointing out flaws (based on your blog), you fail to understand the basic concept is not one reviewing the history so much as the spiritual. Does the Book of Mormon reveal the flawed history of Alma beyond the points where spiritual points are reflected in his actions? So do you accuse the Book of Mormon of hiding its history because its focus is on the spiritual and not the historical?

The Bible perhaps?

I believe your line of questioning is more along the lines of a desire you have for the church to change its focus from doctrine to history (for whatever intention or motivation you may choose). But that isn't the church's mission. So the church says very little if anything regarding its history (though many members study it in depth), it retains the focus for spiritual development and leaves the interpretation of history (the most negative for you, as is the most positive for others) to run the academic gauntlet.

Why for example doesn't the church do a full expose of George P Lee? To what extent and why? Does this enhance the doctrine? No. So why bother. If you call that a cover up (as you indicate), when the information is freely available for you and others to use, then I would say your definition has little credibility, wouldn't you?

[zeezrom]

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.

...and don't forget this one!

Three, his dis-membership would bring him great pain and suffering.

[William Schryver]

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".

/snip/

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

I must confess that your "Exhibit A" makes your point quite powerfully.

I'm not sure who makes such decisions. If this kind of decision is made at "the highest levels," I admit I am mystified by it. I cannot conceive of the "wisdom" behind this particular decision.

In the first place, we're talking about the withholding of information that is not only widely (and, nowadays, almost instantaneously available, but also information that is almost ubiquitously known by anyone with even a casual knowledge of Mormonism. (Sure, I've heard the claims by some former members that they never knew Joseph Smith was a polygamist, and that the discovery of that information

[Lamanite]

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.

Both reasons are sufficient to keep him involved. But we don't need to marginalize his concerns. I think it would be great to nourish his developing testimony and address some of his historical concerns. Is there something wrong with discussing his issues?

Big UP!

Lamanite

[zeezrom]

the Church should shamelessly embrace and vigorously defend these

[Jeff K.]

I do not mind looking into historical concerns. But that isn't the job or focus of the church. I think actions by such noted historians as Bushman, do an excellent job of providing the context necessary. If the church spends all of its time or even a good portion on discussing history, it loses its focus and begins to peer too much to the past and not enough to where it needs to go. The rear view mirror in your car is for a glance, not an intense study, especially when you know what your goal is.

[consiglieri]

I agree because this is what makes up Mormonism.

And I think it is what also makes us human beings.

Let me give you a case-in-point, which happened to me shortly after joining the Church back in 1978. My brother, a devout Jehovah's Witness, being duly shocked that I would become a Mormon, brought home from the Kingdom Hall a pamphlet titled The Mormon File.

Among the many allegations were that the Book of Mormon had thousands of errors in it that had to be corrected, and that Brigham Young taught that Adam was our God.

I remember being extremely troubled over these "revelations" about Church history, which necessarily impact doctrine. The Book of Mormon had been presented to me as divinely inspired, and though the words "inerrant" were surely never spoken, that was the distinct impression with which I was left.

When the missionaries taught me about the Plan of Salvation, no room was left for the idea that Adam was God, or how one prophet of the Church could possibly have views so far out in left field from the current teachings.

These things rocked me to the core. It is hard to come up with words to describe the experience, though I expect many who read this will know exactly what I mean.

I did not want to "sin." I did not want to leave the Church, but I came awfully close.

This was way before the internet, and I suspect this type of experience is only increasing nowadays.

Should there be some way to help these people in a formal Church setting without leaving them to their own devices; to sink or swim on their own?

It seems sometimes that the Church just hopes people won't stumble on these things, and therefore doesn't bring them up beforehand (or afterhand for that matter).

I'm not sure what the best way to approach the situation is, but it is a real situation causing real pain and distress, and I feel sure there must be a better way to address it.

I also think there is value in just knowing there are Mormons who do know all of this stuff but are active nonetheless. But most Mormons in this situation think they are all alone, which only intensifies the distress.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Lamanite]

I do not mind looking into historical concerns. But that isn't the job or focus of the church. I think actions by such noted historians as Bushman, do an excellent job of providing the context necessary. If the church spends all of its time or even a good portion on discussing history, it loses its focus and begins to peer too much to the past and not enough to where it needs to go. The rear view mirror in your car is for a glance, not an intense study, especially when you know what your goal is.

There is much in the BoM and the Bible that deals with historical issues that are void of any eternal significance. Should we just have the correlation dept. redact both scriptural records to reflect only salvational truths?

Cinepro's recent blog post is damning and telling, it's also embarrassing.

If Elder Jensen was involved in this I will be heart broken.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Lamanite]

Should there be some way to help these people in a formal Church setting without leaving them to their own devices; to sink or swim on their own?

Without a doubt, YES!!!

I've given a possible solution. Develop a Church referral system that is heavy on education and fellowship. Encouraging faithful questioning (Uchtdorf) and faithful scholarship. Hell, more often that not it could be an easy referral to the FAIR Wiki, but I think the institutional Church needs to get involved.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Mortal Man]

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

[Jeff K.]

There is much in the BoM and the Bible that deals with historical issues that are void of any eternal significance. Should we just have the correlation dept. redact both scriptural records to reflect only salvational truths?

Cinepro's recent blog post is damning and telling, it's also embarrassing.

If Elder Jensen was involved in this I will be heart broken.

Big UP!

Lamanite

I disagree, there is not much in the Book of Mormon or the Bible that is historical when you look at the years or millenia they encompass. And we know that both the Book of Mormon and the Bible were heavily redacted, the Book of Mormon by prophets whose focus was other than history, the Bible by prophets as well, and unfortunately some who were not prophets.

So should we be embarrassed by the Book of Mormon and the Bible or simply understand what the focus is, and it isn't the history of the peoples so much as the spirituality.

[Jeff K.]

As to Cinepro's blog post. It is an interpretation which Cinepro wants to spin his way. It has nothing to do with doctrine, but much to do with his "suspicions". Frankly I don't put much faith in agenda driven suspicions.

[Lamanite]

I disagree, there is not much in the Book of Mormon or the Bible that is historical when you look at the years or millenia they encompass. And we know that both the Book of Mormon and the Bible were heavily redacted, the Book of Mormon by prophets whose focus was other than history, the Bible by prophets as well, and unfortunately some who were not prophets.

So should we be embarrassed by the Book of Mormon and the Bible or simply understand what the focus is, and it isn't the history of the peoples so much as the spirituality.

Sometimes it's like having a conversation with a little kid who keeps saying "I know you are but what am I???"

I know we've had meaningful discussions in the past; I just don't know why we can't vibe now?

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Jeff K.]

And I think it is what also makes us human beings.

Let me give you a case-in-point, which happened to me shortly after joining the Church back in 1978. My brother, a devout Jehovah's Witness, being duly shocked that I would become a Mormon, brought home from the Kingdom Hall a pamphlet titled The Mormon File.

Among the many allegations were that the Book of Mormon had thousands of errors in it that had to be corrected, and that Brigham Young taught that Adam was our God.

I remember being extremely troubled over these "revelations" about Church history, which necessarily impact doctrine. The Book of Mormon had been presented to me as divinely inspired, and though the words "inerrant" were surely never spoken, that was the distinct impression with which I was left.

When the missionaries taught me about the Plan of Salvation, no room was left for the idea that Adam was God, or how one prophet of the Church could possibly have views so far out in left field from the current teachings.

These things rocked me to the core. It is hard to come up with words to describe the experience, though I expect many who read this will know exactly what I mean.

I did not want to "sin." I did not want to leave the Church, but I came awfully close.

This was way before the internet, and I suspect this type of experience is only increasing nowadays.

Should there be some way to help these people in a formal Church setting without leaving them to their own devices; to sink or swim on their own?

It seems sometimes that the Church just hopes people won't stumble on these things, and therefore doesn't bring them up beforehand (or afterhand for that matter).

I'm not sure what the best way to approach the situation is, but it is a real situation causing real pain and distress, and I feel sure there must be a better way to address it.

I also think there is value in just knowing there are Mormons who do know all of this stuff but are active nonetheless. But most Mormons in this situation think they are all alone, which only intensifies the distress.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Now why do I consider Consig questionable in his judgement? Well, he takes questionable moments in church history, tends to get his facts wrong, and then with those erroneous facts places the worst possible light on them. The post illustrates Consig's position perfectly.

I

also think there is value in just knowing there are Mormons who do know all of this stuff but are active nonetheless. But most Mormons in this situation think they are all alone, which only intensifies the distress.

I refer you to Bushman, whose works I used to correct you as you make unfounded and factually erroneous statements.

[Jeff K.]

Sometimes it's like having a conversation with a little kid who keeps saying "I know you are but what am I???"

I know we've had meaningful discussions in the past; I just don't know why we can't vibe now?

Big UP!

Lamanite

Beyond bringing up the fact that the Book of Mormon and Bible have been similarly redacted, I have no idea what you are talking about.

[Lamanite]

Beyond bringing up the fact that the Book of Mormon and Bible have been similarly redacted, I have no idea what you are talking about.

I'm sorry, my mistake

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Jeff K.]

I'm sorry, my mistake

Big UP!

Lamanite

No big deal really. But I was wondering what you felt in regard to the redacted Book of Mormon (or you can call it condenced) and the time long time period which makes some vague historical references?

[cinepro]

As to Cinepro's blog post. It is an interpretation which Cinepro wants to spin his way. It has nothing to do with doctrine, but much to do with his "suspicions". Frankly I don't put much faith in agenda driven suspicions.

Who said it had anything to do with "doctrine"? Or "suspicions"?

I don't suspect anything. The website consistently displays different (and less) information for each polygamous Prophet. That isn't a "suspicion"; it's just the way it is. And what is the "spin"? If you have any theory that even makes sense as to why the polygamous Prophets would have their information presented differently so as to not disclose their polgyamous practices, while monogamous and serial-polygamous prophets have each of their wives noted, I would be interested to hear it (and I will even ammend it as a possibility at the end of the blog post for fairness' sake).

My blog post is about one thing: whether or not the Church is honest and up front about the polygamous practices of its early leaders.

The only reason there is a blog post is because of the obvious inconsistency on the Church website. Had they just omitted any reference to any Prophet having been married, or just put each Prophet's first wife (regardless of how many they had), then there wouldn't be a story.

We sometimes hear how surprised some LDS are when they learn of Joseph Smith's polygamous practices. Frankly, after seeing how the Church deals with the issue, I'm surprised anybody that bases their study on Church publications even knows about it.

[Avatar4321]

Because Mormons are the ones who can leave?

[Mudcat]

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

Well, based on observation, I would disagree. I am not a member nor ever was and you are a member. edit add - So we would both have to discount ourselves from first hand experience of the motivations of a person who leaves the CoJCoLDS. However I have seen a number of threads over the time I have been here from ex-LDS who seemed to believe there was some sort of repression.

I disagree with the premise that open and free information allows for discarding intent.

Certainly you are within your rights to disagree. And on a completely logical basis I would agree with you.

By that I mean, it is not like the CoJCoLDS withholds the JD and other sources from it's membership.

But if a person were to find one of the often proof texted statements from such a source and then corroborate it. It would leave some with the connotation of suppression of information in some form.

To give you a more direct point, I remember a conversation I had with my BIL who is LDS. The topic of JS martyrdom came up and my BIL got very angry with me about mentioning the firearm JS used. He called me a liar and so forth... later he apologized for it when he discovered JS did fire into the mob with a gun. However, the point I see is that he was raised and taught that JS died in a different manner, which wasn't actually the case.

Despite any logical rigor you would put to things, I have come to realize that most people make decisions based upon emotion and later build a logical construct to defend such decisions.

Impressions make a big difference.

[Deborah]

To give you a more direct point, I remember a conversation I had with my BIL who is LDS. The topic of JS martyrdom came up and my BIL got very angry with me about mentioning the firearm JS used.

Mudcat, I question whether someone "never" knew or just "forgot" they knew. I don't think I ever remember the gun not being mentioned. Truthfully I think a lot of people go to classes and either aren't really listening or just aren't interested enough at the time to let something they hear sink in.

Despite any logical rigor you would put to things, I have come to realize that most people make decisions based upon emotion and later build a logical construct to defend such decisions.

With this we are in agreement. But the reason for this is that the decisions we make color the way we interpret evidence. That is why I and several others have always said belief is a choice.