Why Mormons are Leaving the Church

[HiJolly]

[consiglieri]

I appreciate you sharing this with us and I would be interested to learn what it was that kept you in the Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks for your interest, Wade. I am happy to share.

This material really knocked me for a loop, so much so that I did not attend Church the following Sunday. My skipping Church only made me feel worse, but there was a fireside that night at the ward building, so I decided to attend that instead.

Some guy from out of our ward was giving the fireside in the Relief Society Room, and he brought along all these models he had made by hand relating to the Book of Mormon; such as a Jaredite barge, Liahona, etc.

Toward the end of his presentation while he was talking about the Book of Mormon, he stopped, looked around the room, and asked if there were any non-members present. Nobody raised their hand.

He then mentioned the claim that thousands of changes had been made to the Book of Mormon since its original publication, and clarified that these were almost entirely grammatical changes and spelling corrections. (Technically, I doubt he included the "almost.") This was a huge relief to me, and I saw the hand of God in it.

As to the Adam-God thing--I went to Church the following Sunday and accosted two missionaries who were greeting people at the door to the chapel and asked them point blank, "Do we believe that Adam is God?" They exchanged surprised looks, and said, "No!"

That was enough of an answer for me at the time, though after many years and a number of experiences, I came to understand that Brigham Young had taught some things in that regard.

I want to close this post by saying that I had been baptized by a good friend of mine from high school; we were still good friends at the time this happened, and I hung out with him frequently. But strange to say, I never once talked with him about these issues. I don't know exactly why in retrospect, but I felt betrayed in some sense.

I imagine that others in similar circumstances may have similar feelings about going to friends they have in the Church to ask questions about issues they encounter.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

I'd be interested in hearing how you would structure things if you were in charge.

With all the grousing that goes on about the Church not teaching "everything", it occurs to me that I've never heard anyone propose the "way it should be".

So - how would you have it done, specifically?

See B.H. Roberts 70's Course in Theology, for starters.

I mean, it has been done before.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[cinepro]

I'll tell you what though, polygamy is a good place to start - I think of all the issues in mormonism, it has the most casualties.

I suspect the issues with the Church and its polygamous past are compounded (no pun intended) by the FLDS.

Only after reading the articles on the history of Correlation over at BCC do I begin to understand how much the mid-20th century conflicts with the FLDS have shaped the thoughts of many in LDS leadership. I suspect their desire to downplay it (or even expunge it from the record) is driven by a wariness of giving any legitimacy to FLDS claims.

[zeezrom]

I'll tell you what though, polygamy is a good place to start - I think of all the issues in mormonism, it has the most casualties.

Amen!

Question is, what do you say about it?

Seems the safest thing is to say as little as possible. That is what keeps DW (and her sisters) going.

[consiglieri]

Amen!

Question is, what do you say about it?

I don't know that we have to say a lot about it, but the subject of polygamy should not be brought up without mentioning it was introduced and practiced by Joseph Smith.

We don't even necessarily have to try to justify it. Just talk about it. Make it so the first time a member hears about it is in Church. That way, you have taken a lot of the punch out of the issue, as well as not allowing members to think they have been deceived and misled.

Also, having the manuals allow members to read all of section 132 would be good.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[jwhitlock]

See B.H. Roberts 70's Course in Theology, for starters.

I mean, it has been done before.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Specifically, how would you structure the three hour block, and any other outside meetings, to accomplish what you think needs to be done?

[consiglieri]

Specifically, how would you structure the three hour block, and any other outside meetings, to accomplish what you think needs to be done?

Allow subjects to be delved into in depth is the main thing. Schedule people to come in from time to time who actually know what they are talking about.

Do not do it the way it is now, with 15-minutes on the subject of faith, for instance; and then a couple of months later, have somebody else give the same basic talk on faith for 15-minutes; and then a couple of months later do it again.

This applies to all the "subjects" assigned to speakers in sacrament meeting.

Who knows? Maybe high councilman Sunday could actually be anticipated instead of dreaded.

By the way, if you take a look at the 70's Course in Theology, it is quite specific.

Finally, the writing of Church teaching manuals should be assigned to somebody other than 100 chimpanzees locked in a room with typewriters.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Lamanite]

Deborah,

I love you, too. But you are not the first to suggest that three freaking hours every freaking Sunday is somehow not enough time to get beyond the basics at Church.

Is there any other Church that exacts as great a time commitment from its members?

I mean, three hours a week is how much you have to attend a standard college course; and that's just for one semester.

Imagine taking the same college course for your whole life and never learning anything new after your first year or two.

One of the way the Church ensures that nothing will be treated in depth is to first divide the 3-hours up into three different meetings at which the exact same lessons are taught, only in different venues; then to make sure that nobody speaks for more than 15-20 minutes in sacrament meeting.

If the Church doesn't have this planned, I am at a loss to conceive a more effective way of teaching the basics eternally. Wait a second. I suppose I could have a central authority write manuals for use in class and then dictate to the teachers that they must not stray from the manual. That might be more effective.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

To keep things real.... We spent 28 minutes talking about the sweet sixteen before we started our lesson last week. And prior to the basketball discussion we talked about "getting to know you" spotlight and the scout service project in the general priesthood announcements.

I could have given a great talk on any number of historical topics that would have been both informative and edifying.

I actually talked to EQP and the Bishop about this. I'm sure we'll still talk about BYU and Kansas or some other such nonsense this sunday

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Deborah]

He then mentioned the claim that thousands of changes had been made to the Book of Mormon since its original publication, and clarified that these were almost entirely grammatical changes and spelling corrections. (Technically, I doubt he included the "almost.") This was a huge relief to me, and I saw the hand of God in it.

Even though circumstances different I had a hand of God experience in accepting polygamy. That is why I think if we are prayerful and faithful all our questions will eventually be answered.

[zeezrom]

I don't know that we have to say a lot about it, but the subject of polygamy should not be brought up without mentioning it was introduced and practiced by Joseph Smith.

It's really tough. Some women don't even like the word polygamy to be brought up. I've seen women say they don't want to talk about it when I've overheard it brought up by someone else. It kind of puts a dark spell on the room.

Maybe you bring it up to the youth. That way, they have a chance to "grow into it."

hmmmm. I'm starting to sound like a cult leader.

[Mortal Man]

I only had a small handful of people that I could talk to. It can be very isolating as a new convert.

It's very isolating for lifelong members as well.

[wenglund]

The Church also hid its history (both the HoC by JS and the Comprehensive History by BHR) from me in, of all places, my parents livingroom library, and this along with the Journal of Discourses and the World Book Encyclopedia, where these seemingly foreboding works were sure not to be openned by a scholastically disinclined lad like myself.

It wasn't until several years after my mission that I began reading through the HoC, and to my amazement, the only "horrific truths" I discovered were the appauling level of persecution the early saints were subjected to, at times at the hand of former members.

Instead of finding my faith shaken by all that I read (including about the Carthage guns and Joseph's plural sealings, etc.), my faith was actually strengthened--and this, in part, because I am a bit of a strange duck, but also because of the depth of awe and gratitude I was moved to feel for the amazing strength of testimony of the early saints in the face of unimaginable challenges. Reading about their exempliary lives helped me to realize what things in life really matter and to also see in what respect the gospel of Christ is really true and the way it is intended to benefit people's lives.

For me, then, the Church's history wasn't a stumbling block. Rather, the necessary tests of my faith (needed for my faith to grow) have come by other ways, most recently while having to personally witness my aged mother suffering through, among other things, several weeks of sustained agonizing pain caused by internal bleeding (some day I will recount the entire medical nightmare). But there, too, I found my faith strengthened rather than shattered. Again, that may be because I am weird.

I am not sure things would have turned out much differently for me were I to have posed during Sunday classes some of the faith-testing questions that came to mind during the lengthy ordeal. In fact, being nuorished by the faith-enhancing lesson material was what I needed most. But, that may just be me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jwhitlock]

Allow subjects to be delved into in depth is the main thing. Schedule people to come in from time to time who actually know what they are talking about.

Do not do it the way it is now, with 15-minutes on the subject of faith, for instance; and then a couple of months later, have somebody else give the same basic talk on faith for 15-minutes; and then a couple of months later do it again.

This applies to all the "subjects" assigned to speakers in sacrament meeting.

Who knows? Maybe high councilman Sunday could actually be anticipated instead of dreaded.

By the way, if you take a look at the 70's Course in Theology, it is quite specific.

Finally, the writing of Church teaching manuals should be assigned to somebody other than 100 chimpanzees locked in a room with typewriters.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

How would you balance the teaching of basics, along with Church administrative training, and in depth review of subjects during the three hour block? And how would you determine who should attend what course? Also, how would it be determined who "really knows what they are talking about"?

[wenglund]

Thanks for your interest, Wade. I am happy to share.

This material really knocked me for a loop, so much so that I did not attend Church the following Sunday. My skipping Church only made me feel worse, but there was a fireside that night at the ward building, so I decided to attend that instead.

Some guy from out of our ward was giving the fireside in the Relief Society Room, and he brought along all these models he had made by hand relating to the Book of Mormon; such as a Jaredite barge, Liahona, etc.

Toward the end of his presentation while he was talking about the Book of Mormon, he stopped, looked around the room, and asked if there were any non-members present. Nobody raised their hand.

He then mentioned the claim that thousands of changes had been made to the Book of Mormon since its original publication, and clarified that these were almost entirely grammatical changes and spelling corrections. (Technically, I doubt he included the "almost.") This was a huge relief to me, and I saw the hand of God in it.

As to the Adam-God thing--I went to Church the following Sunday and accosted two missionaries who were greeting people at the door to the chapel and asked them point blank, "Do we believe that Adam is God?" They exchanged surprised looks, and said, "No!"

That was enough of an answer for me at the time, though after many years and a number of experiences, I came to understand that Brigham Young had taught some things in that regard.

I want to close this post by saying that I had been baptized by a good friend of mine from high school; we were still good friends at the time this happened, and I hung out with him frequently. But strange to say, I never once talked with him about these issues. I don't know exactly why in retrospect, but I felt betrayed in some sense.

I imagine that others in similar circumstances may have similar feelings about going to friends they have in the Church to ask questions about issues they encounter.

All the Best! --Consiglieri

I appreciate you sharing this with us, and it helps me to better understand your point of view.

To be honest, though, I somewhat expected you to say, not unlike Sione, that while your testimony had been shaken upon learning certain historical things, the reason you remained in the Church was because you could not deny the witness of the Spirit you had received upon conversion. Had you said this, it would have supported my point. Evidently, that wasn't the case with you, and that is okay. Your experience turned out to be no less inspiring, and inadvertantly an affirming witness to me that God works with each of us in different ways (ways that are best suited to our individual needs and learning styles), and so it is important for us to be open to the prompting of the Spirit even, if needs be, in deviating somewhat from the formal lesson material to quail a troubled member's historical concerns if so prompted.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Deborah]

How would you balance the teaching of basics, along with Church administrative training, and in depth review of subjects during the three hour block? And how would you determine who should attend what course? Also, how would it be determined who "really knows what they are talking about"?

This really is the issue in a lay ministry where people of all levels of knowledge and education are called to positions. It would totally change the face of the church if we went to who is expert and who isn't and furthermore there are some areas in the world where no experts will be available.

[jwhitlock]

This really is the issue in a lay ministry where people of all levels of knowledge and education are called to positions. It would totally change the face of the church if we went to who is expert and who isn't and furthermore there are some areas in the world where no experts will be available.

Is it fair to say that what some people really want is the Church to have a paid, professional ministry?

[rodheadlee]

Deb,

I find it amazing that you knew about Joseph shooting a gun from the beginning.

Oh, come on dude, I was baptised as a convert in 1982 and I had never even heard of the internet yet and I knew Joesph Smith had a gun. I find it incredible that so many people didn't know about that or polygamy. Maybe it's a Utah thing with so many people BIC.

[zeezrom]

Oh, come on dude, I was baptised as a convert in 1982 and I had never even heard of the internet yet and I knew Joesph Smith had a gun. I find it incredible that so many people didn't know about that or polygamy. Maybe it's a Utah thing with so many people BIC.

Hold on. People know about polygamy.

It is the fact that JS married other men's wives etc, etc, etc, etc, that we did not know about.

[ttribe]

I find it amazing that you knew about Joseph shooting a gun from the beginning.

Seriously!? It's in The History of the Church, by B.H. Roberts; circa 1930.

More recently it was here: Monson Link

[consiglieri]

How would you balance the teaching of basics, along with Church administrative training, and in depth review of subjects during the three hour block? And how would you determine who should attend what course? Also, how would it be determined who "really knows what they are talking about"?

Easy. Keep the gospel essentials class and have people go there until they "graduate" or as long as they want to attend thereafter.

Church administrative training, though largely a waste of time, should be kept as it is separate from the 3-hour block.

As to your final question, I suppose the Bishop's gift of discernment should be good for something.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[LifeOnaPlate]

I suspect the issues with the Church and its polygamous past are compounded (no pun intended) by the FLDS.

Only after reading the articles on the history of Correlation over at BCC do I begin to understand how much the mid-20th century conflicts with the FLDS have shaped the thoughts of many in LDS leadership. I suspect their desire to downplay it (or even expunge it from the record) is driven by a wariness of giving any legitimacy to FLDS claims.

I wish you would have believed me a year or so ago when I mentioned that as a crucial cause. Then again, I provided virtually no substantive evidence to back it up.

[consiglieri]

Is it fair to say that what some people really want is the Church to have a paid, professional ministry?

I'd settle for competent.

To be faithful is good, but to be faithful and competent is better.

Who said that?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[jwhitlock]

I'd settle for competent.

How does your bishop feel about that?

[LifeOnaPlate]

I don't know that we have to say a lot about it, but the subject of polygamy should not be brought up without mentioning it was introduced and practiced by Joseph Smith.

We don't even necessarily have to try to justify it. Just talk about it. Make it so the first time a member hears about it is in Church. That way, you have taken a lot of the punch out of the issue, as well as not allowing members to think they have been deceived and misled.

Also, having the manuals allow members to read all of section 132 would be good.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

A while ago I made some effort to put together what the manuals have to say on the subject, something constructive to do, maybe help out in the future:

http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/2008/08/plural-marriage-as-discussed-in-church.html