Good people, leaving the church

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Nope. In my very long time in the church I've known lots of people who've left, and not one of them left over history or doctrine. This is a fallacious argument because people were leaving the church long before we had the internet and all the anti sites so readily available. However, this makes a nice rationalization when people leave for other reasons. "Oh, look there are more than one version of the first vision. I was right in leaving the church. It must not be true. Now I can share my 'real' reason for leaving which is the history."

And as has been pointed out numerous times, many of us are familiar with the history, the real history which contains the big picture, and we have become stronger in our faith. Historical issues have little to do with the real reasons people go or stay. Furthermore anyone who claims to leave over a history they were ignorant of before just doesn't understand history or has lost the bigger picture and thrown out the proverbial baby with the bathwater. I find that very sad.

So it is your contention that not a single person has left the church over sincere concerns over history or doctrine? And those who falsely claim they did are just ignorant morons who didn't understand the "bigger picture? Is that correct?

[44Foxtrot]

Why don't you link to the talk itself instead of somebody's hostile and jaundiced blog about it? Are you afraid it might harm your case to actually have people read President Packer's words in context?

"Ministry of Truth" indeed!

Perhaps you are unaware of the major problems this BKP talk caused for the Church. As far as I know, it is not possible to link to the text of the Talk because the Church had it changed before it was published. There are a few sites that show and discuss these changes. However, since the discussion is definitely not faith promoting, and since I assume that there is a ban against linking to other message boards (as there should be), I did not try to link to these. Among the offensive passages that were removed was one wherein BKP stated that God would never make anyone "that way" (i.e., homosexual).

And as to the Ministry of Truth analogy, this was not the first time that the Church has made substantial changes in "as delivered" talks. In fact, in at least one case, the speaker was required to "re-tape" the address. If I am not mistaken, there is thread on the board now dealing specifically with another infamous case of this same kind of Ministry of Truth behavior (revision of Elder Poelman's 1884 Conference talk).

[Scott Lloyd]

Perhaps you are unaware of the major problems this BKP talk caused for the Church. As far as I know, it is not possible to link to the text of the Talk because the Church had it changed before it was published. There are a few sites that show and discuss these changes. However, since the discussion is definitely not faith promoting, and since I assume that there is a ban against linking to other message boards (as there should be), I did not try to link to these. Among the offensive passages that were removed was one wherein BKP stated that God would never make anyone "that way" (i.e., homosexual).

I'm aware of the dialogue about it. The changes were not substantial. I daresay the pressure groups don't like the talk as published any better than they did before. But at least a link to the talk itself -- rather than misdirecting a reader to a hostile blog -- allows the reading of it in context.

And I agree with ttribe: the talk has been badly misrepresented by the pressure groups.

And as to the Ministry of Truth analogy, this was not the first time that the Church has made substantial changes in "as delivered" talks. In fact, in at least one case, the speaker was required to "re-tape" the address. If I am not mistaken, there is thread on the board now dealing specifically with another infamous case of this same kind of Ministry of Truth behavior (revision of Elder Poelman's 1884 Conference talk).

I'm old enough to recall the incident very well. As I remember it, the decision to do the retaping was Elder Poelman's. CFR that he was "required" to do it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

A while back there was a poster who made a sustained effort to argue that a clinically depressed mother who murdered her children was carrying out the logical course of action for anyone who really believed the Church's teachings; an argument that was as false, as brazen, as hateful and as demagogical as the "Holy Child of La Guardia."

What's interesting about this revolting bit of demagoguery is that the cheap demagogue who perpetrated it claimed to have a Ph.D. in some scientific discipline or other; proving, if proof were needed, that higher education is no guarantee against the very lowest kind of bigotry.

Regards,

Pahoran

DrW= Foxtrot44

[Pahoran]

I find this expression offensive and disrespectful.

Just thought you should know.

But should he care?

Incidentally, I believe that condescending and trivialising expression was actually coined by a rather stupid TV show. What does that tell us about the sources of QB's attitudes towards the Church of Jesus Christ?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

DrW= Foxtrot44

Shhh -- I don't think Foxy's personal "Ministry of Truth" wants us to know that.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Shhh -- I don't think Foxy's personal "Ministry of Truth" wants us to know that.

Regards,

Pahoran

Lol. This sock puppet is just as good as Kevin Graham's various sock puppets.

[Scott Lloyd]

Lol. This sock puppet is just as good as Kevin Graham's various sock puppets.

For those of us trying to keep the sock puppets straight, can you fill us in on who DrW is?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

For those of us trying to keep the sock puppets straight, can you fill us in on who DrW is?

Sure, I will need to find some of his posts. He claimed to have a PhD in psychology I believe. He also put forth a certain theory to disrpove the BoM because he owned a sail boat () and was familiar with ocean currents. He had some very similar dogmatic response that Foxtrot uses with regards to science and religion.

Here is a classic diatrabe.

[Pahoran]

Deborah,

From what you know about The Church of Scientology, could you ever imagine why people might want to leave that Church?

Have you ever thought about the many similarities between Mormonism and Scientology?

There are, of course, "many similiarities" between Mormonism and the Lion's Club; between Scientology and scientism; between physicists and alchemists; between an elite sports team and Jim Jones' group.

Confronted with the "many similarities" that exist between any two groups of people, thoughtful people look at the similarities to discover what, if any, significance they might have. Cheap demagogues attempt to circumvent this process and substititue it with "damnation by association."

Regards,

Pahoran

[Deborah]

So it is your contention that not a single person has left the church over sincere concerns over history or doctrine? And those who falsely claim they did are just ignorant morons who didn't understand the "bigger picture? Is that correct?

What I said is that of all the people I have known who left, and it was a lot, it was not over history or doctrine. That has never even come up. I have known people who've left simply because they stopped believing, but they've usually stopped believing in God as well. History wasn't the issue in coming to this decision.

"Ignorant morons" is your term. However, I do believe that those who claim to leave over the history have not seen all the records or seen it in the big picture. This is very sad because the more we are learning the more the truth claims of Joseph Smith are supported.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

<br>What I said is that of all the people <i>I have known </i>who left, and it was a lot, it was not over history or doctrine. That has never even come up. I have known people who've left simply because they stopped believing, but they've usually stopped believing in God as well. History wasn't the issue in coming to this decision.<br><br>"Ignorant morons" is your term. However, I do believe that those who claim to leave over the history have not seen all the records or seen it in the big picture. This is very sad because the more we are learning the more the truth claims of Joseph Smith are supported.<br>

<br><br>I guess I don't know how to continue this discussion, quite honestly. I believe the things Joseph Smith taught, but I don't believe the things attributed to his name after his death. So I can't much argue against his (Joseph Smith's) "truth claims" as disaffected non-believers do. My main disagreement is with post-Joseph Smith Utah Mormonism. <div><br></div><div>I'll just watch now.

</div>

[Deborah]

My main disagreement is with post-Joseph Smith Utah Mormonism. <div><br></div><div>I'll just watch now.

That's fine to disagree and I don't think of you as being one of those who attacks the church. I just wonder though what issues you have post JS, but I think a lot of people had issues with BY, though I admired him greatly. He wasn't the most tactful or careful of speakers but he was loyal to Joseph when others betrayed him and he was a marvelous organizer and was able to hold the saints together through a very difficult time.

[Palerider]

edit: This comment was in further response to BOML's query about seeing members who leave as sinners. Kids interrupted and it looks like the moment has passed but I'll leave it up anyway in case someone finds it useful

Hopefully this won't sound like it's coming from too far out in left field but I wanted to add it because I personally think it's relevant.

My 12 year old goes to the internet to research every product purchase. This kid is unbelievably responsible with money. The other day he came to me and said "Mom, why is it that people seem less likely to give good reviews of a good product?" I responded that I didn't know but had also noted this behavior in real life. People will talk all day about the mechanic that cheated them, the quack doctor who misdiagnosed, or the new gadget that failed to live up to it's promos. They will stand outside of a used car lot with a poster warning about the dealer selling 'lemons' but how many people have you seen parking their cars in front of a car lot with a sign that says "These guys do you right"?

I think it is just human nature to talk about those investments we've made that, for whatever reason, failed to meet our expectations. The level of our response is usually comparable to the level of our investment/commitment. If the drug store overcharges me by a dollar, I'll shrug it off. If they overcharge me by $10, I'm driving right back and I'll make sure I know the name of the employee who screwed up so I can warn my friends to check their receipts carefully. You get the point.

Anyway, I guess the reason I feel sympathy with people who leave the church regardless of the reason is that I understand what it feels like to make a huge investment and feel shortchanged after the fact. Whether I misread and misunderstood the product specs or whether there was a bait and switch matters little in the end. What matters is how I feel. And the best response, IMO, any of us can have to someone so disillusioned, is to listen with Christ like love and patience. Most of the time, people just need to be heard. And in my experience, the harder we try to convince people that they were at fault, the more entrenched and defensive they become. In which case, we've done more harm than good.

fwiw,

MnG

Excellent observation MnG.

[mercyngrace]

Ahhh, some fresh air.

FWIW mercy, I always feel better after reading your posts.

(smooths hair) My work here is done

Excellent observation MnG.

Thank the 12 year old. It's tough raising kids who are smarter than you. But it's also very enlightening.

[cinepro]

Nope, never thought about it and don't care. And I assure you if you think there are similarities you really don't know Mormonism or Scientology. I would like to know what those similarities are.

Hmmm...both churches were founded by charismatic individuals who also produced books now revered by their followers. Both churches present extremely idealized views of their founders to the public. Both churches have levels of knowledge that are kept from the public and only shared with members after certain commitments of time and money are met.

Both churches benefited from the presence of highly charismatic and capable leaders to take the reigns upon the deaths of their founders. Both churches have experienced much success in growth, but both churches also self-report membership numbers that are significantly greater than estimates reached by outside observers. And both churches have been the target of hit pieces by the mainstream media and apostate detractors almost since the day they were founded, but both caravans move on.

[Skylla]

I too, and my brother, are not among the "eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die", crowd. I have not "left" the Church per se. I no longer believe any of the exclusivity claims of the Church - including some perceived/asserted exclusive "priesthood authority". And yes, for me as well, the departing from belief is caused by the historical evidence, nothing to do with wanting to "get away" with anything by no longer being a Mormon. I still live as a Mormon ought to live, because I believe the lifestyle is one inspired by good, common sense. The dogmatic observances, like wearing garmies "night and day", or attending the temple, doing family history, etc. and etc., I do not bother myself to think about. But the real stuff: the healthy living standards, the balance of a Sabbath day in every seven days, the fasting, prayer, tithes and offerings, the church worship on Sunday with neighbors, etc and etc., THAT I do take seriously....

Questing Beast: Please avoid nicknames for things LDS members consider sacred.

Skylla

[Pahoran]

Perhaps you should have a look at BKP's recent conference talk.

Perhaps you should.

However, you can't do so at Foxy's link, which is merely a high-pitched whine about the talk. However, you can both read and listen to President Packer's actual talk here.

That would be the one that had to be revised by the Church because of BKP's blatantly false statements regarding the etiology of homosexuality.

Speaking of blatantly false statements: as I said, you can both read it and listen to it. I have done so, and have carefully compared what I heard with what I read. The written version, which is obviously President Packer's own, differs from his spoken delivery only in a small number of places. In one place, President Packer is quoting scripture, and clearly skips a whole line, which is fortunately preserved in his original written text. There are other places where he also skips a few words. In a couple of places, he makes impromptu additions, as all speakers do. But he says nothing at all about any "etiology," except to deny that God has afflicted anyone with "inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural." He does not mention the word "homosexuality" or any of its cognates in that talk. Methinks that Foxy and his little friends are having a Proverbs 28:1 moment.

These statements were considered by many (me included) to be irrational. And because of this, they were excised by the Church.

Let's test that accusation, shall we?

Here is the relevant excerpt from President Packer's talk:

Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn temptations toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Remember, God is our Heavenly Father.

Now here is how he delivered it:

Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, He is our Father.

What is the Church supposed to have "excised?" How is the original written version substantially different than the delivered version? Without the nine-word insertion, does the written original give immoralists any more aid and comfort?

No. It does not.

The fact is that Foxy has not a shred of evidence that anything has been "excised." The published version of the talk is as strongly in favour of morality and repentance as the spoken one.

Think Ministry of Truth.

That's what I think of whenever I see Foxy's spin doctoring.

Regards,

Pahoran

[44Foxtrot]

However, you can't do so at Foxy's link, which is merely a high-pitched whine about the talk. However, you can both read and listen to President Packer's actual talk here.

Pahoran,

Thanks for the link to the orignal talk. Can you really tell us that you believe the statement below is appropriate coming from an Apostle of the Lord in a public address? I personally find either version of BKP's statement in his Conference talk to be uninformed and offensive. And the original below is clearly the more offensive of the two.

Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, He is our Father.

With this kind of homophobic, "God would not make someone gay" speech, BKP seems to be aligning the LDS Church with the likes of Westboro Baptist and Pastor Fred Phelps.

It is an especially egregious statement given that the fact that BKP is just plain wrong. The overwhelming weight of scientific evidence, including a large population study on twins reported in 2008, supports the view that etiology of homosexuality is genetically and environmentally based. In the vast majority of cases, certainly including those of the gay Mormon men who have taken their own lives because of the Church's position on this issue, homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice.

Church attitudes towards gays and its treatment of gays (think Evergreen) are held by advocates to be directly responsible for the early demise of dozens of gay Mormon men. The problem in Utah has become obvious to the point that it has been mentioned in the Deseret News. IMHO, the Mormon Church should admit its error, apologize to the families and loved ones of the gay men who have been their casualties, and declare a change in policy and doctrine, just as they did in the case of Blacks and the Priesthood.

[Libs]

edit: This comment was in further response to BOML's query about seeing members who leave as sinners. Kids interrupted and it looks like the moment has passed but I'll leave it up anyway in case someone finds it useful

Hopefully this won't sound like it's coming from too far out in left field but I wanted to add it because I personally think it's relevant.

My 12 year old goes to the internet to research every product purchase. This kid is unbelievably responsible with money. The other day he came to me and said "Mom, why is it that people seem less likely to give good reviews of a good product?" I responded that I didn't know but had also noted this behavior in real life. People will talk all day about the mechanic that cheated them, the quack doctor who misdiagnosed, or the new gadget that failed to live up to it's promos. They will stand outside of a used car lot with a poster warning about the dealer selling 'lemons' but how many people have you seen parking their cars in front of a car lot with a sign that says "These guys do you right"?

I think it is just human nature to talk about those investments we've made that, for whatever reason, failed to meet our expectations. The level of our response is usually comparable to the level of our investment/commitment. If the drug store overcharges me by a dollar, I'll shrug it off. If they overcharge me by $10, I'm driving right back and I'll make sure I know the name of the employee who screwed up so I can warn my friends to check their receipts carefully. You get the point.

Anyway, I guess the reason I feel sympathy with people who leave the church regardless of the reason is that I understand what it feels like to make a huge investment and feel shortchanged after the fact. Whether I misread and misunderstood the product specs or whether there was a bait and switch matters little in the end. What matters is how I feel. And the best response, IMO, any of us can have to someone so disillusioned, is to listen with Christ like love and patience. Most of the time, people just need to be heard. And in my experience, the harder we try to convince people that they were at fault, the more entrenched and defensive they become. In which case, we've done more harm than good.

fwiw,

MnG

I really appreciated these words, Mercy n Grace. Thank you for posting that.

[TAO]

Pahoran,

Thanks for the link to the orignal talk. Can you really tell us that you believe the statement below is appropriate coming from an Apostle of the Lord in a public address? I personally find either version of BKP's statement in his Conference talk to be uninformed and offensive. And the original below is clearly the more offensive of the two.

You need to reread the bit again. He is talking about Heavenly Father not making the temptation overcomable. HF certainly gives us our weaknesses, and certainly allows us to be tempted, but he also ensures that we will be able to overcome it. Thus why, the 'not so, he is our Heavenly Father'.

With this kind of homophobic, "God would not make someone gay" speech, BKP seems to be aligning the LDS Church with the likes of Westboro Baptist and Pastor Fred Phelps.

Again, the not so was referring to the 'impossible to overcome', not the 'inborn tendencies'. 'Inborn tendencies' towards homosexual feelings exist all right - but they are very overcomable - they just take a lot of effort oftentimes.

It is an especially egregious statement given that the fact that BKP is just plain wrong. The overwhelming weight of scientific evidence, including a large population study on twins reported in 2008, supports the view that etiology of homosexuality is genetically and environmentally based. In the vast majority of cases, certainly including those of the gay Mormon men who have taken their own lives because of the Church's position on this issue, homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice.

Again, you misread the statement. He wasn't denying genetics. He was saying that it is always possible to overcome it.

Church attitudes towards gays and its treatment of gays (think Evergreen) are held by advocates to be directly responsible for the early demise of dozens of gay Mormon men. The problem in Utah has become obvious to the point that it has been mentioned in the Deseret News. IMHO, the Mormon Church should admit its error, apologize to the families and loved ones of the gay men who have been their casualties, and declare a change in policy and doctrine, just as they did in the case of Blacks and the Priesthood.

Foxtrot, I remember there was a link once posted to the Christians who also had an early demise because of baiting and hate statements by members of the pro-homosexuality community. Am I to blame the entire community for it? No. There are good people out there in the community, and I'm not even going to blame the leaders of the pro-homosexuality community. We all have our own choices about our lives, and it is incorrect to blame either set of suicides on the leader's talk. I'm sure if you went and talked to BKP yourself about this, you would find he is a very kind individual, and that people have taken his statement in the wrong direction.

If you wish to see the Church's position on homosexuality, please read God Loveth His Children, which is written for those who struggle with this very difficult to overcome trial. This is truly how the Lord looks at it, and his servants have shown such. Truly, it's the media that blew it out of proportions, not the church. I wish they hadn't done that, it has made many people's lives much more chaotic. But I suppose, sometimes a bit of hecticness is needed to come to a good ending.

BTW Mayupayan, sorry for getting off topic, this is just one of my pet peeves =P. I apologize.

Bleh... perhaps I shouldn't have gone on such a rant... feel bad now =/.

[california boy]

Perhaps you should.

However, you can't do so at Foxy's link, which is merely a high-pitched whine about the talk. However, you can both read and listen to President Packer's actual talk here.

Speaking of blatantly false statements: as I said, you can both read it and listen to it. I have done so, and have carefully compared what I heard with what I read. The written version, which is obviously President Packer's own, differs from his spoken delivery only in a small number of places. In one place, President Packer is quoting scripture, and clearly skips a whole line, which is fortunately preserved in his original written text. There are other places where he also skips a few words. In a couple of places, he makes impromptu additions, as all speakers do. But he says nothing at all about any "etiology," except to deny that God has afflicted anyone with "inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural." He does not mention the word "homosexuality" or any of its cognates in that talk. Methinks that Foxy and his little friends are having a Proverbs 28:1 moment.

Let's test that accusation, shall we?

Here is the relevant excerpt from President Packer's talk:

Now here is how he delivered it:

What is the Church supposed to have "excised?" How is the original written version substantially different than the delivered version? Without the nine-word insertion, does the written original give immoralists any more aid and comfort?

No. It does not.

The fact is that Foxy has not a shred of evidence that anything has been "excised." The published version of the talk is as strongly in favour of morality and repentance as the spoken one.

That's what I think of whenever I see Foxy's spin doctoring.

Regards,

Pahoran

I don't think the Mormon church is bigoted. And I completely understand their attitudes towards gays. But I was a member for a number of years as are many commenting on this board. I know the churches teachings and the reasons for their positions on gay rights.

The problem the church is having is that the church is preceived as being bigoted, racist and intolerant due to their pre 1978 teachings on blacks and the priesthood. Just when that attitude towards the church was somewhat fading, the church comes out as the leading force for passing prop 8. As a result, those that don't know much about the church or its teachings, once again see their actions as bigoted homphobic, noninclusive and intolerant. It is in this context that BKP speech which before prop 8 would probably have been ignored became a media event. Hence the very slanted reporting in the blog. Of course Mormons don't think his remarks are offensive. They agree with BKP teachings.

If you think the "public opinion" of the church has not been changed as a result of prop 8, you are sadly mistaken. Is all you have to do is read in the papers on almost a weekly basis. The church is firmly linked to being anti gay. bigoted and homophobic. Remember about half of the country supports equality for gays and view those that oppose it as just being bigoted and homophobic.

[Bernard Gui]

The "I'm a Mormon" ads, many of which featured mainly untypical Mormons (including motorcycle enthusiast and a professional photographer who had published images of nudes), have apparently not helped the situation much either, although it may be too early to really gauge the effects of this campaign.

I have a number of Mormon friends who are motorcycle enthusiasts, and even some who enjoy a friendly paintball shoot-em-up.

And I know a number of LDS artists who actually (gasp) paint nudes! Oh, the shame. I can hardly bear it.

Bernard

[Bill Hamblin]

Hmmm...both churches were founded by charismatic individuals who also produced books now revered by their followers. Both churches present extremely idealized views of their founders to the public. Both churches have levels of knowledge that are kept from the public and only shared with members after certain commitments of time and money are met.

Both churches benefited from the presence of highly charismatic and capable leaders to take the reigns upon the deaths of their founders. Both churches have experienced much success in growth, but both churches also self-report membership numbers that are significantly greater than estimates reached by outside observers. And both churches have been the target of hit pieces by the mainstream media and apostate detractors almost since the day they were founded, but both caravans move on.

I suppose this is in distinction to all the religions founded by really boring people that were strongly disliked by their followers.

[GP31]

I find this expression offensive and disrespectful.

Just thought you should know.

Choose Not to Be Offended

When we believe or say we have been offended, we usually mean we feel insulted, mistreated, snubbed, or disrespected. And certainly clumsy, embarrassing, unprincipled, and mean-spirited things do occur in our interactions with other people that would allow us to take offense. However, it ultimately is impossible for another person to offend you or to offend me. Indeed, believing that another person offended us is fundamentally false. To be offended is a choice we make; it is not a condition inflicted or imposed upon us by someone or something else.

David A. Bednar, 2006

Just thought you should know