Concerns About People Falling From The Faith

[jskains]

There are two things I am concerned with and don't know how the Church or its members should approach it.

1. I am concerned that many of the Ex-Mormon stories are faked or recycled to create the illusion of volume. I say this because there are a lot of flaky details that bother me.

a. Many Ex-Mormon stories start off with some unique reason that "started" them down the road (and I can list plenty that really do start with hurt feelings because either God or a member didn't treat them right. Then they fall into this "then I started reading the history, and I found out I was fooled".

b. I have also seen questionable details. One I read said that in a lesson, someone said that the most perfect man on Earth was Joseph Smith and everyone should follow in his example (never heard that) or some other Anti-Mormon sounding material

2. I am also concerned that many LDS that just come across historical materials that are controversial imagine themselves to have come across some hidden secret that no other LDS has ever seen. I worry that the power of knowing there are LDS out there who have seen the same things they did and actually came closer to the Church is being lost.

Should the LDS Church better address these challenges? Should we as members? Or is this a lost cause, and we should close our eyes and ride it out to the second coming? (Flaw being that we are commanded to Proclaim the Gospel, so waiting it out seems a bit wrong).

[CV75]

Should the LDS Church better address these challenges? Should we as members? Or is this a lost cause, and we should close our eyes and ride it out to the second coming? (Flaw being that we are commanded to Proclaim the Gospel, so waiting it out seems a bit wrong).

I think each case has to be handled separately by family member, home teacher, priesthood leader, quorum, missionaries, etc. Of course these are also the ones said to be doing the offending, so hopefully the offended is doing his part to regain the spirit of fellowship, testimony, closeness to the Spirit, etc.

The Church can only rely on the restored keys and revelation in addressing anything that affects humanity. History is something that happens to and is interpreted by everybody with or without these benefits, and not everybody is receptive to them. I see history just like any other challenge, trial or tribulation we might face and can choose how we handle it (with or without the doctrines, covenants and ordinances the Church extends to us).

Take illness for example: we can use faith, experience, testimony, priesthood blessings or self-reliance, to get through it. The Church provides these, but not a ward physician and a pharmacy except through whatever resources the members may offer of their own ability and volition. The humanitarian aid the Church provides in medical matters is for the most extreme need and is also limited by what the members contribute. I think the historical counterpart of this is prioritized as a less immediate need, but outside the ward and stake resources may be reflected in the Church's publications of papers.

[John Larsen]

I think that as long as members assume that concerns or problems with individuals faith and membership are based on lies and untruths, the Church will never be able to address the root causes.

[Deborah]

...the Church will never be able to address the root causes.

Which are?

[John Larsen]

Which are?

Well I haven't done the research either. I have my theories, but what do I know?

I know enough people who have left the Church to know that jskains is up in the night, though.

Every corporation should be concerned if they are losing customers. If any corporation's theories on customer loss has to do with deep character flaws on the part of the departed...well that company is going to have huge problems.

[california boy]

When dogma becomes more important to the church than the simple message of Christ of charity, love, compassion carrying for others, bearing each others burdens, then division begins. When judging others and worrying about what members of the church are going to make it into the Celestial Kingdom, is when division, hurt feelings and perceived ostracization occur. It happened during the time of Christ with the Pharisees when the law became more important than those following the Jewish religion. It is a message that Christ pointed out countless times in His teachings. Christ focused on very little dogma in his message.

He told us not to worry what workers in the field would get their pay at the end of the day. Leave the judgement up to God. The Pharisees tried to discredit Christ during his lifetime as well, but the example of Christ and how He treated others testified of a different Christ, and people flocked to Him. How many times does Christ have to say, "A new commandment I give unto you, love one another as I have loved you."

When church leaders speak of repentance, we all look around the room to see who the speaker is talking about For example, living the word of wisdom in our own minds tells us we are good followers of Christ, but some how doing our home teaching is the most difficult part of living the gospel. How is visiting others, carrying for their needs and providing a message of hope the most difficult thing many members do each month? Which act is closest to the message of Christ. Yet when we see someone breaking the WoW, what runs through our minds. Perhaps it is easier to follow dogma then it is living the gospel of Christ.

This is not just a Mormon church problem, it seems to be a Christian church problem. This whole flare up of Mormons being Christians is just another example of worrying more about dogma than about the message of Christ. Do they really think Christ cares how people define Him? In my opinion it is why a lot of people brought up in various religions are now turning away from ALL organized religion.

Many people have chosen to walk away from all organized religion. They still seek to follow Christ and focus their religion on just the simple message of Christ. They have stripped away the dogma from their lives. For THEM it brings more peace to their souls to work in shelters, or soup kitchens each week rather than attending sacrament meeting every week. The question is, should the church be worried about these "lost" souls that are no longer active in the church?

[BCSpace]

Should the LDS Church better address these challenges? Should we as members? Or is this a lost cause, and we should close our eyes and ride it out to the second coming? (Flaw being that we are commanded to Proclaim the Gospel, so waiting it out seems a bit wrong).

I definitely disagree with post #6 above. Focusing on Christ is no problem, but the Church is stronger when the doctrine is bolder and there is no misunderstanding as there is now, that the doctrines are somehow changing when they're not. I think what's happening now is akin to when we presented ourselves as "we are christians just like you". Conversions dropped until we went back. So likewise when we soften our stance to appear more compassionate, we actually become falsely compassionate to the point that no one actually learns anything or changes their behavior to become more Christ-like and believing. The wicked among us become more emboldened, not pacified. John Dehlin and his following is a prime example.

[Glenn101]

People have always been leaving the Church of Jesus Christ from the very beginning (see John, chapter 6). The reasons are many and varied, but always boil down to a loss or lack of faith.

Glenn

[Mariner]

The reasons are many and varied, but always boil down to a loss or lack of faith.

Glenn

Reminds me of the NTSB finding in many aircraft accident reports that the fatal crash was the result of a failure to maintain sufficient altitude.

[Heather_ME]

There are two things I am concerned with and don't know how the Church or its members should approach it.

1. I am concerned that many of the Ex-Mormon stories are faked or recycled to create the illusion of volume. I say this because there are a lot of flaky details that bother me.

Or, as someone in another forum has pointed out, a lot of the reasons for leaving are similar (or the same) because many people see the same problems with the church. When I'm reading customer reviews on Amazon and see that a lot of people have the same complaint about the product I'm inspecting, I don't assume some sort of conspiracy by product-haters to create volume. I assume all of those people had the same problem with the product.

Where are these Ex-Mormon stories you are reading? Are they anonymous? Or, are the people sharing them out in the open? If they're out in the open, why don't you approach them with your concerns?

a. Many Ex-Mormon stories start off with some unique reason that "started" them down the road (and I can list plenty that really do start with hurt feelings because either God or a member didn't treat them right. Then they fall into this "then I started reading the history, and I found out I was fooled".

I also know people who were offended and/or had their feelings hurt. Some of those are reasonable and some of them are petty. I also know people for whom being offended was one of many reasons for leaving. But, honestly, why is being offended a bad reason? Nobody would look down on someone who left a political rally after hearing something that offended / bothered them. Most people would say that standing up against something that they find offensive is to show character. It's only within the boundaries of the church that "being offended" has somehow become a character flaw. I think the church has done a good job of demonizing "being offended" when sometimes it's justified.

b. I have also seen questionable details. One I read said that in a lesson, someone said that the most perfect man on Earth was Joseph Smith and everyone should follow in his example (never heard that) or some other Anti-Mormon sounding material

Isn't this a bit of a low blow? Haven't we all been in discussions with large groups of people and someone throws out a bit of a ridiculous thought? Do we then discount everything everyone else is said because one person said something dumb? It's always easy to dismiss an entire group of people because the minority fringe says outlandish things. But that doesn't undermine those being dismissed. It undermines the person doing the dismissing. Jskains, I'm not saying this as an attack, I mean it respectfully and I'm only positing it for you to consider: aren't you doing the same thing you accuse the Ex-Mormon world of doing? Cherry picking outlandish and ridiculous statements, that are by no means core to the situation, to justify your position?

2. I am also concerned that many LDS that just come across historical materials that are controversial imagine themselves to have come across some hidden secret that no other LDS has ever seen. I worry that the power of knowing there are LDS out there who have seen the same things they did and actually came closer to the Church is being lost.

Here's the thing about most Ex-Mormons: they used to BE Mormons. They attended Seminary and Institute. They were active and held callings. They went through the temple. They know what the church teaches. They know what they were taught as members and what they find out when they start investigating the church on their own. It's not that Ex-Mormons believe they've stumbled upon hidden secrets. It's that their own experience with the church and their experience with their friends and family members has taught them that, by in large, most members of the church are very under informed about church history and historical church teachings.

I also know people who know the nitty gritty of church history and who remain faithful members of the church. There are also plenty of well-known examples. This goes back to what I wrote initially in this post. Many people leave for the same reasons because they see the same problems and church history falls into that purview. That doesn't mean that leaving the church after studying church history is a foregone conclusion.

Also, if you're worried that this message is being lost, why not advocate for it? Start a blog or a podcast or something to promote the message. Speak up at church. Become an advocate.

[Libs]

I've read a lot of ex-Mormon stories, as well, and I am a former Mormon, myself. I think the reasons for leaving are varied and often multiple, but in the end (in my case), I have come to the realization that it was just, in many ways, a very poor fit for me, as a form of worship. I read the Book of Mormon and thought I had a testimony (and believe I DID have a testimony of some of the truths in there, to which I still hold), but the very conservative culture of the church rubbed up against some of my long time and dearly held beliefs and principles, and I was feeling less and less comfortable with that. I wasn't really, completely, consciously aware of that, until just recently. I went on and on about church history and Joseph's polygamy, etc, for quite some time...and I DID have problems with that stuff, but the other (those core principles, the conservative culture) were really at the root of it all. I have found a much more compatible form of worship and am feeling very content with it. I am also, finally, at peace with the LDS Church, and do not feel a need to blame the church or Joseph Smith for my departure. I think a lot of ex-Mormons have a difficult time getting to that point (and some never do). Not saying that as a judgment, at all, because leaving the church is difficult, especially for those who still have a lot of family in the church. I do feel for them.

Edit: On topic, I'm not sure the church can really do much about people leaving. We have our agency and people are going to leave for varied and sundry reasons.

Edited November 11, 2011 by Libs

[CV75]

Every corporation should be concerned if they are losing customers.

The Church runs very differently from your everyday corporation. And its perspective is the same as Nephi's, who foresaw that its "dominions upon the face of the earth were small." Using the approach I mentioned in #2, the Church reaches out to those members it is losing in a more personal way.

[CV75]

Or, as someone in another forum has pointed out, a lot of the reasons for leaving are similar (or the same) because many people see the same problems with the church. When I'm reading customer reviews on Amazon and see that a lot of people have the same complaint about the product I'm inspecting, I don't assume some sort of conspiracy by product-haters to create volume. I assume all of those people had the same problem with the product.

I think the Church holds that similar issues do have a common root cause. In some cases, it is simply “that same liar who hath caused man to commit murder from the beginning" and this gets addressed in perhaps a unique or unexpected way (one-on-one generally).

[William James]

There are two things I am concerned with and don't know how the Church or its members should approach it.

1. I am concerned that many of the Ex-Mormon stories are faked or recycled to create the illusion of volume. I say this because there are a lot of flaky details that bother me.

a. Many Ex-Mormon stories start off with some unique reason that "started" them down the road (and I can list plenty that really do start with hurt feelings because either God or a member didn't treat them right. Then they fall into this "then I started reading the history, and I found out I was fooled".

b. I have also seen questionable details. One I read said that in a lesson, someone said that the most perfect man on Earth was Joseph Smith and everyone should follow in his example (never heard that) or some other Anti-Mormon sounding material

2. I am also concerned that many LDS that just come across historical materials that are controversial imagine themselves to have come across some hidden secret that no other LDS has ever seen. I worry that the power of knowing there are LDS out there who have seen the same things they did and actually came closer to the Church is being lost.

Should the LDS Church better address these challenges? Should we as members? Or is this a lost cause, and we should close our eyes and ride it out to the second coming? (Flaw being that we are commanded to Proclaim the Gospel, so waiting it out seems a bit wrong).

As to the issue of the authenticity of the stories, how can you reasonably conclude they are faked or false just because they may bear resemblance to each other? Couldn't the same thing be said about conversion stories? From the perspective of an outsider (which I am not because I have been LDS all my life), our conversion stories may very well sound like they have to fit a certain pattern/narrative. But does that make the conversions less than genuine? I think you would say "no." But I guess here's one challenge for you: devise a Mormon exit story which would sound authentic to you, and post it here. Perhaps the reason they sound fake or contrived to you is that you do not perceive any legitimate reasons why people might decide to leave. Many well-meaning TBMs have developed a world view which provides at least a theory to dismiss anyone else's choice to leave: for example, if a person prays about the Book of Mormon and does not get an answer, TBMs jump to conclusions to explain it- i.e., they weren't sincere, they didn't really want to know the truth because knowing would compel them to have to stop sinning, they were deceived by the Devil, the asked amiss, or didn't wait long enough for an answer, or they didn't fast, or they didn't read the entire book with real intent, or they lack faith, or they were supposed to assume that it's true before even asking, etc. But when we look closer at individual stories, we start having to call a heck of a lot of people's integrity into question if we are to dismiss their honesty and sincerity.

Stated another way, I believe that one of the greatest subconscious temptations we as religious people face, is to assume that our subjective spiritual experiences are universally accessible to all. Religious tolerance is in large part an outgrowth of recognizing that this assumption is wrong. In fact, if we would look closer at our own LDS doctrine, we could see clues about this principle. For example, the scriptures talk about faith as being a spiritual gift. For some, it is easier to believe than for others, and I believe we must take this into account before we judge unbelievers or former believers so harshly.

Our brains are forced to work harder when we accept that things are not so simple, black and white. I may have a conviction that Joseph Smith was a prophet, but I accept that other people have not experienced what I have experienced, and because of that, they will subjectively process the question about whether he was a prophet much differently than I will, and I cannot blame them for coming up with a different conclusion.

One of my family members was raped by a member of her bishopric when she was a girl. What is a TBM's explanation for that? Was the perpetrator called of God or not? If yes, then wouldn't we agree that God sure did not make a very good choice? If no, then doesn't that necessarily disrupt the simple-minded view that all callings given in the Church are God-inspired, and is there any rational way we can determine when they are and when they aren't (before the tragedy)? And is it a good enough explanation to simply say that we can pray to know? What if the bishop or stake president prayed to know and got a warm fuzzy feeling about this closet sex predator? That then undermines our entire premise about the reliability of perceived spiritual confirmations of truth. Some people respond to these problems by tossing out spritual witnesses altogether as being worthless. For me, I have decided not to toss them out, but instead to recognize how psychology can play a role in distorting perceived revelation. Fear, hope, ignorance, greed, pride, and many other factors can distort our ability to get true answers from God. Because of that, I believe we as LDS must inject far more study, contemplation, and reason into our process of spiritual development. A criminal background check on an confession-role ecclesiastical leader is at least as valid as (if not more valid than) a spiritual witness that he/she should be called.

On the issue of history, your post seems to suggest the following:

1. None of the LDS Church's history is sufficiently problematic to cause any member to reasonably choose to leave the Church;

2. The fact that some well-read members stay active after learning of problematic historical issues proves that it is reasonable for everyone to stay; and

3. You personally are aware of the historical problems which cause members to leave.

Let me start with number 2 above- There is such a thing as reasonable disagreement. We have many very bright, scholarly types in the Church who choose to stay despite learning about troubling history. Generally, in order to do this, they have to come up with apologetic arguments to explain away the problems. It is fine with me if that satisfies them, but we cannot demand that all people hold the same standards of what seems and does not seem plausible.

As to numbers 1 and 3 above, I think it would be helpful to do a little exercise. You, as a member familiar with church history, can make a list of what you consider to be the top 10 problems in church history for those who have left the Church. Then, provide a one-paragraph answer for each one, explaining why it is not a problem and should not prevent someone from believing in the Church. Then, we will see how well you grasp the issue. If you demonstrate that you understand and appreciate the concerns of those who have left, then in my view, you will have maintained at least your credibility in my eyes. But I suspect it is far more likely that you simply do not understand the arguments of the other side; otherwise, you would not be so critical of them.

[zerinus]

There are two things I am concerned with and don't know how the Church or its members should approach it.

1. I am concerned that many of the Ex-Mormon stories are faked or recycled to create the illusion of volume. I say this because there are a lot of flaky details that bother me.

a. Many Ex-Mormon stories start off with some unique reason that "started" them down the road (and I can list plenty that really do start with hurt feelings because either God or a member didn't treat them right. Then they fall into this "then I started reading the history, and I found out I was fooled".

b. I have also seen questionable details. One I read said that in a lesson, someone said that the most perfect man on Earth was Joseph Smith and everyone should follow in his example (never heard that) or some other Anti-Mormon sounding material

2. I am also concerned that many LDS that just come across historical materials that are controversial imagine themselves to have come across some hidden secret that no other LDS has ever seen. I worry that the power of knowing there are LDS out there who have seen the same things they did and actually came closer to the Church is being lost.

Should the LDS Church better address these challenges? Should we as members? Or is this a lost cause, and we should close our eyes and ride it out to the second coming? (Flaw being that we are commanded to Proclaim the Gospel, so waiting it out seems a bit wrong).

People have been mass-producing falsehoods and lies about the Church ever since it was created; and there have always been some who have fallen victim to it. The best way for the Church to protect its members against that is to do what is required to bolster their faith and testimony of the Restored gospel, increase their understanding of its truths, and improve their obedience to its commandments. Those Church members who are strengthened in that way will never fall victim to that kind of deception and misrepresentation. And that is what the Church does, or tries to do, to the best of its ability. All the programs of the Church, be it Sacrament Meeting, Sunday School, General Conference, Institute, or you name it are designed to do just that; and that is the way in which the Church is protected. If you are suggesting that the Church should specifically talk about the topics that the critics raise, and try to address them individually or specifically, then that is exactly the wrong way of going about it. The Church doesn't do that, and neither should it. Those who fall by the wayside are invariably those who fail or refused to be strengthened by the Church in the way I have described. Those who are strengthened by that Church and its ministration in that way, will never fall victim to that kind of deception, because they will always have the Spirit of the Lord with them to enlighten their minds to see through them, and not fall victim to their deception.

[William James]

I definitely disagree with post #6 above. Focusing on Christ is no problem, but the Church is stronger when the doctrine is bolder and there is no misunderstanding as there is now, that the doctrines are somehow changing when they're not. I think what's happening now is akin to when we presented ourselves as "we are christians just like you". Conversions dropped until we went back. So likewise when we soften our stance to appear more compassionate, we actually become falsely compassionate to the point that no one actually learns anything or changes their behavior to become more Christ-like and believing. The wicked among us become more emboldened, not pacified. John Dehlin and his following is a prime example.

Are you saying that John Dehlin and his following are prime examples of "the wicked among us becom[ing] more emboldened"?

[zerinus]

Well I haven't done the research either. I have my theories, but what do I know?

I know enough people who have left the Church to know that jskains is up in the night, though.

Every corporation should be concerned if they are losing customers. If any corporation's theories on customer loss has to do with deep character flaws on the part of the departed...well that company is going to have huge problems.

I don't see the LDS Church having such a "problem" at all. It has a bigger growth, fewer defections, and greater faithfulness of its members than any of the mainstream churches as far as I know. LDS critics seem to be very keen to try to fix a problem which doesn't exist. It ain't broke, and we don't need your help to fix it.

[zerinus]

When dogma becomes more important to the church than the simple message of Christ of charity, love, compassion carrying for others, bearing each others burdens, then division begins. When judging others and worrying about what members of the church are going to make it into the Celestial Kingdom, is when division, hurt feelings and perceived ostracization occur. It happened during the time of Christ with the Pharisees when the law became more important than those following the Jewish religion. It is a message that Christ pointed out countless times in His teachings. Christ focused on very little dogma in his message.

He told us not to worry what workers in the field would get their pay at the end of the day. Leave the judgement up to God. The Pharisees tried to discredit Christ during his lifetime as well, but the example of Christ and how He treated others testified of a different Christ, and people flocked to Him. How many times does Christ have to say, "A new commandment I give unto you, love one another as I have loved you."

When church leaders speak of repentance, we all look around the room to see who the speaker is talking about For example, living the word of wisdom in our own minds tells us we are good followers of Christ, but some how doing our home teaching is the most difficult part of living the gospel. How is visiting others, carrying for their needs and providing a message of hope the most difficult thing many members do each month? Which act is closest to the message of Christ. Yet when we see someone breaking the WoW, what runs through our minds. Perhaps it is easier to follow dogma then it is living the gospel of Christ.

This is not just a Mormon church problem, it seems to be a Christian church problem. This whole flare up of Mormons being Christians is just another example of worrying more about dogma than about the message of Christ. Do they really think Christ cares how people define Him? In my opinion it is why a lot of people brought up in various religions are now turning away from ALL organized religion.

Many people have chosen to walk away from all organized religion. They still seek to follow Christ and focus their religion on just the simple message of Christ. They have stripped away the dogma from their lives. For THEM it brings more peace to their souls to work in shelters, or soup kitchens each week rather than attending sacrament meeting every week. The question is, should the church be worried about these "lost" souls that are no longer active in the church?

I am not aware that the "Mormon church" has a "problem" that it needs help from anybody else to solve. You may have some problems that the Church can help you resolve; but I am conficent that the Church doesn't have any problems that it needs anybody else's help to solve. My suggestion to the critics is to try to take advice from the Church, rather than offering advice to the Church which is not sought nor needed.

[William James]

People have been mass-producing falsehoods and lies about the Church ever since it was created; and there have always been some who have fallen victim to it. The best way for the Church to protect its members against that is to do what is required to bolster their faith and testimony of the Restored gospel, increase their understanding of its truths, and improve their obedience to its commandments. Those Church members who are strengthened in that way will never fall victim to that kind of deception and misrepresentation. And that is what the Church does, or tries to do, to the best of its ability. All the programs of the Church, be it Sacrament Meeting, Sunday School, General Conference, Institute, or you name it are designed to do just that; and that is the way in which the Church is protected. If you are suggesting that the Church should specifically talk about the topics that the critics raise, and try to address them individually or specifically, then that is exactly the wrong way of going about it. The Church doesn't do that, and neither should it. Those who fall by the wayside are invariably those who fail or refused to be strengthened by the Church in the way I have described. Those who are strengthened by that Church and its ministration in that way, will never fall victim to that kind of deception, because they will always have the Spirit of the Lord with them to enlighten their minds to see through them, and not fall victim to their deception.

Zerinus:

I suggest you conduct a study, and then ask who is deceiving. Select 1000 non-members who are generally ignorant of LDS history and teachings. First show them the church-produced movie, "Joseph Smith: Prophet of the Restoration" which can be seen here:

Then, take a survey and ask them to regurgitate a short summary of the salient history of the church, and question them about their impression of the LDS Church based upon what is in the movie.

Then hand them one of the books currently sold in Deseret Book, Rough Stone Rolling by LDS historian Richard Bushman, which book received the 2006 Best Book award from the Mormon History Association, and require all of them to read it from start to finish. Then conduct a new survey- ask them to summarize church history, and to explain how, if at all, their impression about the church has changed based upon what they now know. Then ask them whether they believe that the church-produced film is an accurate and honest representation of Joseph Smith's life.

I think you will find that most people would say the Church is not presenting a fair picture, and that it does this on purpose to promote faith. The god I believe in would not mislead like that.

[William James]

Which are?

I believe that the root cause of people leaving is the Church's emphasis on dogma over reason. We are too afraid that admitting error in revelation, and admitting that sometimes the "philosophies of men" are actually right, will undermine faith and confidence in the church as an institution. So the Church entrenches itself and buries its head further in the sand.

[zerinus]

Zerinus:

I suggest you conduct a study, and then ask who is deceiving. Select 1000 non-members who are generally ignorant of LDS history and teachings. First show them the church-produced movie, "Joseph Smith: Prophet of the Restoration" which can be seen here:

Then, take a survey and ask them to regurgitate a short summary of the salient history of the church, and question them about their impression of the LDS Church based upon what is in the movie.

Then hand them one of the books currently sold in Deseret Book, Rough Stone Rolling by LDS historian Richard Bushman, which book received the 2006 Best Book award from the Mormon History Association, and require all of them to read it from start to finish. Then conduct a new survey- ask them to summarize church history, and to explain how, if at all, their impression about the church has changed based upon what they now know. Then ask them whether they believe that the church-produced film is an accurate and honest representation of Joseph Smith's life.

I think you will find that most people would say the Church is not presenting a fair picture, and that it does this on purpose to promote faith. The god I believe in would not mislead like that.

I think you have just got the wrong end of the stick. The Church does not have a problem, and does not need your help to resolve it. Why is it so hard for the critics to understand that?

[William James]

I think you have just got the wrong end of the stick. The Church does not have a problem, and does not need your help to resolve it. Why is it so hard for the critics to understand that?

If declining convert baptisms, declining retention and activity rates, declining tithing revenues, and widespread desertion by young people are not problems, then perhaps we are in agreement.

[zerinus]

I believe that the root cause of people leaving is the Church's emphasis on dogma over reason. . . .

Well, thank you for your concern; but let me assure you that the Church does not have problem that it does not know how to solve, or that needs your help to solve it. You may have a problem, that you could do with help from the Church to solve.

[zerinus]

If declining convert baptisms, declining retention and activity rates, declining tithing revenues, and widespread desertion by young people are not problems, then perhaps we are in agreement.

I am not aware that the Church does have such a problem; but if it did, I am equally confident that it doesn't need your help to resolve it. It knows how to cope with its problems better than you do. But by the look of it, you may have a problem that you could do with help from the Church to resolve.

[Verum]

Jskains, I somewhat agree with you that there are people who leave the church because they fall victim to certain character or personal flaws. For example, someone who is clinically depressed may have believe that it is the church that is causing them pain even though its probably their own depression manifesting itself through their activity in the church. Also, getting offended by members or not fitting can make church attendance incompatible to them, but it doesn't make the church its self untrue. I do think the church can do things with their rhetoric and culture to be more sensitive to these types of people and situations, but I agree that it doesn't make the church untrue or bad and is probably not their primary responsibility to adapt to them.

However, the traditional narrative of the church's history is a problem. Telling only one side of a story to be more faith promoting legitimizes the idea that the untold side is not faith-promoting, or is faith distracting (whether it is or isn't). And for those who never really like church in the first place will not put up much of a fight when stumbling across it, especially when discovering the church is had not been upfront with with it. But can you really blame them? Only those who've had great, wholesome experiences in the church will gut through the difficult issues to remain active. The church has to be more open about it. The fact that church practiced polygamy is not a big issue for most members because its been out there and acknowledged for years in the church. If the church is worried about the negative reaction many of its members will have if being too open and candid about its history, then what message does that send about either the strength of its own truth claims, or on the overall faithfulness of its members? If its history is authentic and true, there's nothing for the church to hide, and if members are truly grounded in their spiritual confirmations of real truth, then open history should not be sufficient to persuade them away.