The Other Side Of The Debate...

[Prufrocks]

Mr. Robert F. Smith cites the following quote and then responds…

I would restate it all as falsifiable if somewhat redundant propositions:

1. The only people who find compelling the Christian and Mormon apologetics regarding divinity and divine truth in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or the Book of Abraham, are those who already believe or have significant investment or committment.

2. Nobody (or virtually nobody, either way) who has critical understanding of the Bible converts from Disbelief to Belief, to either Christianity or Mormonism, either based on or in spite of that understanding.

3. Childhood indoctrination and/or relative ignorance of the Bible are the only ways in which people enter into either Christianity or Mormonism.

4. It is completely logical, reasonable and rational to conclude from the honest, sincere, critical study of the Bible that it is purely manmade in all respects. The only people who conclude otherwise, regardless of how intelligent or brilliant, are those who already have belief, commitment or investment.

Mr. Smith: "…The books and articles I have examined by those who make claims supporting any of your propositions are riddled with logical and factual errors (I have written extensively on this issue for many years). I can think of hundreds of factual and logical reasons why your claim that the Bible is “purely manmade in all respects” in proposition #4 is false. The same is true by extension to the Mormon Canon."

As a backwards novice struggling to keep up and to expand my library, could you first cite any of those books and articles that make claims specifically supporting the specific propositions listed? Second, could you then show where those specific books & articles, and the propositions, are riddled with logical and factual errors? (I'm trying to come up to speed on matters of logic, so help me mostly with the more basic errors of logic involved. Thanks) Could you also provide the references to your extensive writings specific to those propositions? Thanks.

Also, the Proposition #4 does not even make a claim that the Bible is "purely manmade in all respects." So I'm confused how there could be hundreds of factual and logical reasons why a claim that was never made could be false. Or, are you saying that it is not "logical, reasonable and rational to conclude from the honest, sincere, critical study of the Bible that it is purely manmade in all respects."? Are you saying that all interested persons and scholars who conclude that it is are illogical, unreasonable and irrational? Thanks.

Again, #3 appears rather clearly to include an EITHER/OR. Although I have no doubt that it's false, I'm still not sure how Mongolia falsifies it. Thanks

[cinepro]

Probably the second, but I realize the flaws with that statement now. Ultimately, all I was trying to point out is that membership statistics (whether in Mongolia or worldwide) cannot be used to determine the truthfulness of the Church or the Book of Mormon. Saying, "The Church is true because it has 14 million members" is a fallacious statement; the correct thing to say is that "The Church has 14 million members because it's true."

Your second statement is just as fallacious as the first. Another way to look at it is to ask if the Church could have 14 million members and not be "true", and if the Church could be "true" and not have 14 million members.

Ultimately, if the size of the Church isn't directly related to the truthfulness of the Church, then it's fallacious to link them together in any order using any words that indicate a direct causal relationship.

If you don't want to have to explain the relationship (and explore the implications of there being a relationship), then you can simply say "The Church has 14 million members on the records. The Church is true." (but even then, most people would probably understand you to be implying a causal relationship.)

[MMMillie]

I have a question for defenders of the faith (Apologists, TBMs, future General Authorities, etc) and another question for critics of the LDS faith (former-mo's, never-mo's, anti-mo's, devils advocates, fringers, etc)

Defenders of the LDS faith:  What is your greatest issue with the church as it is today (doctrinal, practices or cultural)?

Critics of the LDS faith:  What is your greatest reason to like the church as it is today (doctrinal, practices or cultural)?

Please no back handed complements or snide jeers at the other side.  Give it a page before you start arguing/defending other posts.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation and participation!

What I like most about the Church is that Mormon intellectualism is no joke (http://www.sltrib.co...mment-320676753 ).  And that probably at least partly because of that intellectualism, it is likely that the continued decline of the current Mormon activity rate of 29-36% will be slowed. ( http://www.sltrib.co...mment-174206143 )

[LeSellers]

What I like most about the Church is that Mormon intellectualism is no joke (http://www.sltrib.co...mment-320676753 ). And that probably at least partly because of that intellectualism, it is likely that the continued decline of the current Mormon activity rate of 29-36% will be slowed. ( http://www.sltrib.co...mment-174206143 )

I have seen several studies showing the we Saints, unlike most other Christians become more active as our education levels rise (except for sisters with doctorates, they drop slightly compared to Masters degree holders). Somehow, I doubt your prophecy.

Lehi

[MMMillie]

I have seen several studies showing the we Saints, unlike most other Christians become more active as our education levels rise (except for sisters with doctorates, they drop slightly compared to Masters degree holders). Somehow, I doubt your prophecy.

Lehi

I'm not sure I understand. Relating to what you call a "prophecy" are you doubting that there will be a slowing in the decline of Mormon activity?

[altersteve]

I'm not sure I understand. Relating to what you call a "prophecy" are you doubting that there will be a slowing in the decline of Mormon activity?

I highly doubt that. As Lehi said, church attendance among Mormons actually rises as education increases. I've actually just recently noticed that about myself too.

[Jeff K.]

I think the language is confusing.

The slowing decline of inactivity means more people will be active or the rate of inactivity will decline.

[MMMillie]

I'm not sure I understand. Relating to what you call a "prophecy" are you doubting that there will be a slowing in the decline of Mormon activity?

From first post,

"And that probably at least partly because of that intellectualism, it is likely that the continued decline of the current Mormon activity rate of 29-36% will be slowed.

Seems pretty clear what someone called the"prophecy" was suggesting or predicting a SLOWING IN THE DECLINE IN ACTIVITY.... THE CONTINUED DECLINE IN ACTIVITY WILL BE SLOWED.

Nothing at all about a slowed decline in inactivity.

I would think that was a good thing. 14 years ago in Virginia a Mormon bishop told me, unofficially, that the generally accepted Mormon activity rate was ~45-55%. Approximately 8 years ago when visiting Salt Lake City I read (Dialogue? Sunstone? other?) that the activity was estimated to be 35-45%. These latest Mormon researchers linked above suggest 29-36%. That seems like a decline to me. Anything that would slow that trend would be good, no? What's so hard about that? What's not to love about it?

Concerning those other studies that others mentioned about education correlating with activity, for context, are there also studiss looking at education levels among 1) the 64-71% of inactive Mormons? And, 2) the educational level of voluntarily ex-Mormons?

[ebeddoulos]

MMMille,

Your so called "studiss (sic)" are worthless. I'll match your hearsay and related undocumented pseudo-statistics with some genuine documented data:

"The nationwide survey of 1,019 Mormons, conducted Oct. 25-Nov. 16, 2011, finds that Mormons share many of the religious practices and beliefs of traditional Christianity. Three-quarters of Mormons (77%) say they attend church at least once a week, 79% say they donate 10% of their earnings to the church, 83% say they pray every day and fully 98% say they believe in the resurrection of Jesus." (http://www.pewforum....ve-summary.aspx)

Church attendance of 77% at least once a week would be a statistic that SBC must envy, considering that its membership has declined each of the past four years:

"Baptisms fell to their lowest number in 60 years among Souther Baptist, the nation's largest Protestant denomination. ... Membership also dropped for the fourth year in a row ... Giving to overseas missionary also fell short." (http://www.usatoday....sms_11_ST_N.htm)

Now that data should be of concern (and I'm sure it is) to the relevant denomination. On the other hand, your bogus figures hold no relevance to anyone, let alone the Church of Jesus Christ.

[Xander]

It is. But it was never claimed to prove anything. The Church's membership is rising because the Book of Mormon is true, not the other way around.

Membership will always grow because Mormons procreate and they do so at a substantially higher rate than non-LDS. But the Church's activity rates are abysmally low by any standard, and to claim there are 14 million members in any meaningful sense, is intellectually dishonest. Ultimately, the Church's efforts convert result in more ex-Mormons than Mormons. In countries like Chile and Brazil, we know from their national surveys that only 10-20% of the claimed LDS membership, actually identify themselves as LDS. That means 80-90% of the people baptized into the Church, are now ex-Mormon. If the Church were so much truer than other faiths, then following your logic, their activity rates should be that much higher. But activity rates in other faiths like the Seventh-Day Adventists are substantially higher than what we see in the Mormon Church.

In the end, you're making a bad argument by saying Church growth is evidence that it is true.

Xander: Stop making the threads about you. You're out of this one.

[Xander]

Three-quarters of Mormons (77%) say they attend church at least once a week

Of course, this survey refers to Mormons who self-identify as Mormons. How many polled are ex-Mormons? We'll never know but we know roughly half of the Mormon membership is inactive to some degree. All we know from this poll is that among the self-identifying Mormons, 77% of them attend Church at least once a week. It doesn't tell us that the Mormon Church enjoys an activity rate of 77%. That would be a ridiculous way of interpreting this poll. For a reasonable assessment of LDS activity rates, I recommendt David Stewarts comprehensive study documented at Cumorah.org.

[Jeff K.]

Abysmally low by any standard... interesting, what standards specifically do you apply? Or was that merely a rhetorical flourish. Activity rates are low but then I have heard the same conversation at Catholic forums, and there it is substantially lower. Some churches define activity in different ways so a comparison for purposes of setting a standard is "making a bad argument".

In countries like Chile and Brazil, we know from their national surveys that only 10-20% of the claimed LDS membership, actually identify themselves as LDS. That means 80-90% of the people baptized into the Church, are now ex-Mormon.

So, if someone doesn't identify themselves as a Latter-day Saint, they are an ex Mormon. Isn't that one of those narrowly defined niches you catch yourself in? Wouldn't be better to say they might be inactive? Or they could not be bothered with the survey? Or perhaps they did not trust the person asking the question or a combination? Rather than say they simply MUST be ex-Mormon. Is that what you would call a "bad argument"?

[Jeff K.]

Of course, this survey refers to Mormons who self-identify as Mormons. How many polled are ex-Mormons? We'll never know but we know roughly half of the Mormon membership is inactive to some degree. All we know from this poll is that among the self-identifying Mormons, 77% of them attend Church at least once a week. It doesn't tell us that the Mormon Church enjoys an activity rate of 77%. That would be a ridiculous way of interpreting this poll. For a reasonable assessment of LDS activity rates, I recommendt David Stewarts comprehensive study documented at Cumorah.org.

Speaking of ridiculous ways of interpreting the polls, see the earlier post.

I think Xander you are definately struggling to make any fact fit your preconieved distaste and disdain of the church, and in the end all it does is undermine our credibility.

Edited January 15, 2012 by Jeff K.

[ebeddoulos]

Of course, this survey refers to Mormons who self-identify as Mormons. How many polled are ex-Mormons? We'll never know but we know roughly half of the Mormon membership is inactive to some degree. All we know from this poll is that among the self-identifying Mormons, 77% of them attend Church at least once a week. It doesn't tell us that the Mormon Church enjoys an activity rate of 77%. That would be a ridiculous way of interpreting this poll. For a reasonable assessment of LDS activity rates, I recommendt David Stewarts comprehensive study documented at Cumorah.org.

That is the best you can do? An unsupported statement (roughly half of the Mormon membership is inactive) combined with a rather pathetic whine (ridiculous way of interpreting) married with a non-specific link (Cumorah.org) in a foreign language filled with pictures of girls in bathing suits? Surely you can do better.

[Xander]

Abysmally low by any standard... interesting, what standards specifically do you apply? Or was that merely a rhetorical flourish. Activity rates are low but then I have heard the same conversation at Catholic forums, and there it is substantially lower.

That's because you're comparing apples and oranges. Catholics tend to remain committed Catholics despite the fact that they show up for Church only on Easter and Christmas. Mormonism is far more communal as a religion, as everyone is involved. If you're not participating, then you're simply not in. Most Catholics I know don't go to Church every week, or even every month.

Some churches define activity in different ways so a comparison for purposes of setting a standard is "making a bad argument".

No, not really. There is no reason to claim 14 million members when you know perfectly well that more than half of those people are not LDS in any real sense. If I know this, then the Church does too. But it sends PR reps on TV to claim there are "14 million strong" which is nthing short of deceptive. The majority of them are members on paper alone. Heck, the Church still considers me a full member. But I've done enough home teaching and seen enough ward lists to know that most people on them do not attend Church, nor do they want any contact from other Church members. Now I'm sure this is different in places like Utah where activity rates are much higher, but this is to be expected where activity in the faith is important for social reasons.

When I served my mission in Spain, the activity rates were ridiculously low. Half of the people we baptized were teenage girls who were mainly interested in talking with cute American boys. I remember Hunter said Madrid was going to be the heart of the LDS Church in Europe, so the Church invested in a gigantic temple there. Years later, the membership dwindled even further. And when we had a Church conference in Seville, Gordon Hinckley gave us all an earful when less than 4,000 members from across the country showed up. It seemed like a quarter of those in attendance were missionaries from the five different Spanish missions.

So, if someone doesn't identify themselves as a Latter-day Saint, they are an ex Mormon. Isn't that one of those narrowly defined niches you catch yourself in? Wouldn't be better to say they might be inactive?

You're not paying attention to what's been said. For a Mormon on paper to refuse identification as a Mormon, is to say something much more than "I'm just temporarily inactive." You want to believe they are still Mormons who are just going through a rut and haven't gone to Church in awhile, but that doesn't explain why they'd refuse to identify as Mormons. I know a number of inactives who drink and do all the things they're not supposed to, but they still proudly identify as Mormons.

Or they could not be bothered with the survey?

This was a National census, and it was mandatory that everyone participate. That's what makes this so informative about activity rates. You can't just assume the tens of thousands of baptized Mormons were just refusing to "be bothered" with it. They had no choice.

Or perhaps they did not trust the person asking the question or a combination?

Uh huh, right. Because Mormons are so persecuted down there, right? Give me a break. You're just doing the usual confirmation bias thing. They would be idiots to lie in a National survey.

Rather than say they simply MUST be ex-Mormon.

I never said MUST now did I? But it is obviously the most reasonable assumption to make. By ex-Mormon I do not mean someone who has been removed from the membership list. I'm speaking of people who were baptized but no longer believe. I've yet to find a Mormon, aside from David Stewart, who is willing to accept the reality of LDS activity rates. And I find it humorous when some apologists, completely unaware of this data, try to propagate the myth that the Church is growing at a fast pace, and that this has some bearing on its truthfulness.

I think Xander you are definately struggling to make any fact fit your preconieved distaste and disdain of the church, and in the end all it does is undermine our credibility.

The fact that you have to make this subject about me, means you lose credibility and you also lose the debate. There is no "preconceived distaste" on my part, only a preconceived idea of what you think all critics are supposed to be like. And the website is cumorah.com, not .org. It is run by a faithful LDS apologist who understands the sad reality of LDS activity rates.

Did you know that the number of LDS missions dropped dramatically between 2007 and 2009?

And that the convert per missionary ration has been gradually dropping as well?

[Bernard Gui]

Anyone who has been baptized and confirmed is considered a member of the church. A huge effort is made by members to keep track of them, even those who are not active. Bishops are responsible for the welfare of all members in his ward. The ward leadership is instructed to search out all members and provide for their needs. My sister was inactive for over 4o years, but returned to the church in her 60's. Even antagonist members have been known to come back. When shall we see you again?

Bernard

[Xander]

Uh, anyone familiar with home teaching knows that what you describe is the exception, not the rule. Sure, there are rare exceptions in which family members are eventually lured back to Church. But most members on paper have no family connections to the Church, and many inactives leave shortly after baptism. I baptized something like 40 people in California and I know of only one who is still in the church. I haven't kept track of all of them, but as of ten years ago, I know that at least 27 of them were no longer active, and most of them stopped going shortly after I left the mission.

As far as antagonistic members returning, I can't think of any. There are the few people using pseudonyms, like ldsfaqs, claiming to have been some serious "anti-Mormon" in a previous life, who finally saw the light... but there is really no evidence to believe this. It is interesting that in more than 15 years of interacting with online apologetics, both as an apologist and critic, I've encountered a couple dozen people who I knew were once LDS apologists on these forums, but eventually left the faith. I'm a perfect example, Mike Reed is an example, Paul Osborne is an example, and there are a number of people on the forums who use pseudonyms, but have revealed their IRL identity to me offline. And yet, I've never encountered a verifiable example of a known anti-Mormon converting to the Church because of his or her interactions with LDS apologetics, or for any other reason for that matter. This tells me that the current wave of apologetic arguments are not designed to convince people of what's true. They are designed to give certain members enough FUD to stay active just a little bit longer.

[Deborah]

Church membership numbers and church activity rates are not the same. However, just because someone is "inactive" doesn't mean they have left the church. Many of these people still believe in the teachings but drop off because of other things, be it lifestyle choice, family pressures, or just the pressures of life. And yes I not only know people who fit into those categories I was one of them. I stayed away for a year and it had nothing to do with the church or the doctrine. It was what I was dealing with at the time. I know many people through many years who have been "inactive" and have come back to church.

The church does not consider someone lost just because they become inactive. If someone's name is not officially removed from the church records why wouldn't they be considered part of the membership. Their families and friends are still tied to them. Inactivity is usually a temporary phase, whether it be 6 months or 20 years, and a person could be "inactive" at the time of such a survey and be fully involved the next year.

[Deborah]

And yet, I've never encountered a verifiable example of a known anti-Mormon converting to the Church because of his or her interactions with LDS apologetics, or for any other reason for that matter.

Well if you've never encountered it it must not be so. I guess those of us who have are just making it up.

[Jeff K.]

Quote

Abysmally low by any standard... interesting, what standards specifically do you apply? Or was that merely a rhetorical flourish. Activity rates are low but then I have heard the same conversation at Catholic forums, and there it is substantially lower.

That's because you're comparing apples and oranges. Catholics tend to remain committed Catholics despite the fact that they show up for Church only on Easter and Christmas. Mormonism is far more communal as a religion, as everyone is involved. If you're not participating, then you're simply not in. Most Catholics I know don't go to Church every week, or even every month.

You haven't answered the question. By what standard? By what standard do you apply? I find your disdain for the church so incredibly large that you are willing to undermine your own credibility. Your argument is that Catholics who cannot be bothered to come to a church for a short mass and only come on Easter or Christmas are committed. But you choose a different range of standards for Mormons. I find that more than a bit disengenuous. Yes Mormons are committed, and the standard applied would not be different. In essence the correct answer is Mormons are more committed than Catholics (by the way Catholics are also very communal, and giving, and have many of the same aspects as Latter-day Saints in their church, with your deep knowledge of Catholics I am suprised you are so unaware of that.

Quote

Some churches define activity in different ways so a comparison for purposes of setting a standard is "making a bad argument".

No, not really. There is no reason to claim 14 million members when you know perfectly well that more than half of those people are not LDS in any real sense. If I know this, then the Church does too. But it sends PR reps on TV to claim there are "14 million strong" which is nthing short of deceptive. The majority of them are members on paper alone. Heck, the Church still considers me a full member. But I've done enough home teaching and seen enough ward lists to know that most people on them do not attend Church, nor do they want any contact from other Church members. Now I'm sure this is different in places like Utah where activity rates are much higher, but this is to be expected where activity in the faith is important for social reasons.

When I served my mission in Spain, the activity rates were ridiculously low. Half of the people we baptized were teenage girls who were mainly interested in talking with cute American boys. I remember Hunter said Madrid was going to be the heart of the LDS Church in Europe, so the Church invested in a gigantic temple there. Years later, the membership dwindled even further. And when we had a Church conference in Seville, Gordon Hinckley gave us all an earful when less than 4,000 members from across the country showed up. It seemed like a quarter of those in attendance were missionaries from the five different Spanish missions.

I still haven't seen your study relative to other churches. I haven't seen a link, I haven't seen a study. I have seen a great deal of contradiction in your post. I mean at first you call it comparing apples to oranges, now you are stating you believe everyone here is lying when we say we have 14 million members. I know perfectly well we have 14 million members by the count, I do not know how active or inactive all the members are. So you will forgive me if I treat you with the same disdain as you treat everyone else here. The truth of the matter is that your personal anecdotal references are only used in the negative sense so we cannot in honesty accept what you have to say given you contradict yourself, given your penchant for not providing documentation in comparison to other churches, given you standard is "Mormons bad" / Attack good. These things so color your posts that a Mormon could do the greatest good to you or for you, and you would spit upon him as an attack.

It seems to me that I do not trust you when you say only 4000 showed up, or that President Hinckley gave you an earful. President Hinckley would have praised the saints in Spain, and you would still call it "an earful". So I must ask for documentation, where and what was said? Since you are so loose with the facts, we are forced to corner you and ask for something documented.

Quote

So, if someone doesn't identify themselves as a Latter-day Saint, they are an ex Mormon. Isn't that one of those narrowly defined niches you catch yourself in? Wouldn't be better to say they might be inactive?

You're not paying attention to what's been said. For a Mormon on paper to refuse identification as a Mormon, is to say something much more than "I'm just temporarily inactive." You want to believe they are still Mormons who are just going through a rut and haven't gone to Church in awhile, but that doesn't explain why they'd refuse to identify as Mormons. I know a number of inactives who drink and do all the things they're not supposed to, but they still proudly identify as Mormons.

Unlike you, I have run a marketing firm, part of our work included reviewing the questions and those presenting them, and the results. You made an extraordinarily ignorant statement saying that if someone doesn't identify themselves as a Mormon, they are an ex-Mormon. The facts are quite different. You seem to think when a surveyor places something on paper that for a mormon to refuse identification "on paper" is of serious consequence. Was it an affidavit? Do you seriously expect us to believe that sometimes people don't want to be bothered with surveyors? You have to be kidding. The myriad reasons people refuse to identify themselves can include "I don't want to be bothered because if I say Mormon you will ask me other questions" or "I am not happy with my bishop so I won't identify myself today as a Mormon" or perhaps some jerk who is hostile and will misinterpret anything they say, so its easier just to move on than to deal with the jerk. Luckily this form has more patience with the jerks.

As to who you know and don't know, if I might, we just aren't sure about that now are we. You don't like Mormons so you could say all kinds of things. You have been caught contradicting yourself in order to do what you imagine is damage to Mormons. So how can we be sure. I have shrug on that one. We all know people who have fallen short of living their commitments, I am sure compared to the rest of us "every Mormon you know is a flawed human being" with bad stuff in their life. Sigh, we understand that is where you come from.

Quote

Or they could not be bothered with the survey?

This was a National census, and it was mandatory that everyone participate. That's what makes this so informative about activity rates. You can't just assume the tens of thousands of baptized Mormons were just refusing to "be bothered" with it. They had no choice.

You know this how? By what means? I want to see some documentation.

I do know this, even when forced to, if people feel they might be oppressed they won't answer. Or if they don't want to share their religion (as many don't) they don't want to answer. Or if they feel it is a right to privacy, they don't want to answer... Do you know how many reasons there are out there? Or are you once again simply focusing on the narrowness of your ability to comprehend that something more than merely hating Mormons might be in the mix?

Quote

Or perhaps they did not trust the person asking the question or a combination?

Uh huh, right. Because Mormons are so persecuted down there, right? Give me a break. You're just doing the usual confirmation bias thing. They would be idiots to lie in a National survey.

Why would they be idiots to lie in a national survey? Especially when there are many many reasons not to be fully open in some countries? It is idiotic to believe that a compelled people do not look at a forced survey from their government with both suspicion and fear. I was in Chile during the Pinochet years, people lied there all the time. They do so now in Venezuela. Again, you seem to have a very very narrow perspective and are without real life experience in these things.

Quote

Rather than say they simply MUST be ex-Mormon.

I never said MUST now did I? But it is obviously the most reasonable assumption to make. By ex-Mormon I do not mean someone who has been removed from the membership list. I'm speaking of people who were baptized but no longer believe. I've yet to find a Mormon, aside from David Stewart, who is willing to accept the reality of LDS activity rates. And I find it humorous when some apologists, completely unaware of this data, try to propagate the myth that the Church is growing at a fast pace, and that this has some bearing on its truthfulness.

Really, very amusing. First you say you never said it, but then you say, it is the most reasonable assumption to make. In other words your original post wasn't reasonable? Well we can agree on that. But no, it is not the most reasonable assumption to make. So you once again are left with these weird assumptions you toss out that reflect no logic per se so much as a very ingrained contempt for Mormons and you in effect cannot even muster the thought of anything that is not anti Mormon.

Quote

I think Xander you are definately struggling to make any fact fit your preconieved distaste and disdain of the church, and in the end all it does is undermine our credibility.

The fact that you have to make this subject about me, means you lose credibility and you also lose the debate. There is no "preconceived distaste" on my part, only a preconceived idea of what you think all critics are supposed to be like. And the website is cumorah.com, not .org. It is run by a faithful LDS apologist who understands the sad reality of LDS activity rates.

Xander, I don't have to make it about you. YOU make it about you. You provide no documentation for the survey, you artificially narrow down plausible explanations in the vain hope to bolster your own weakness in research and give voice to your contempt of the church. You do all this. The rest of us would be worried if you had any kind of real documentation for your claims that were valid. Everything you write, everything you place here, you do through a lens of contempt, there isn't even a trace of objectivity. We can't help but discuss it with you because you don't show us anything else but your anger and anguish and contempt and even hatred of the church.

[Jeff K.]

Uh, anyone familiar with home teaching knows that what you describe is the exception, not the rule. Sure, there are rare exceptions in which family members are eventually lured back to Church. But most members on paper have no family connections to the Church, and many inactives leave shortly after baptism. I baptized something like 40 people in California and I know of only one who is still in the church. I haven't kept track of all of them, but as of ten years ago, I know that at least 27 of them were no longer active, and most of them stopped going shortly after I left the mission.

As far as antagonistic members returning, I can't think of any. There are the few people using pseudonyms, like ldsfaqs, claiming to have been some serious "anti-Mormon" in a previous life, who finally saw the light... but there is really no evidence to believe this. It is interesting that in more than 15 years of interacting with online apologetics, both as an apologist and critic, I've encountered a couple dozen people who I knew were once LDS apologists on these forums, but eventually left the faith. I'm a perfect example, Mike Reed is an example, Paul Osborne is an example, and there are a number of people on the forums who use pseudonyms, but have revealed their IRL identity to me offline. And yet, I've never encountered a verifiable example of a known anti-Mormon converting to the Church because of his or her interactions with LDS apologetics, or for any other reason for that matter. This tells me that the current wave of apologetic arguments are not designed to convince people of what's true. They are designed to give certain members enough FUD to stay active just a little bit longer.

I am afraid we cannot really accept your anecdotal evidence given you tend to be less than objective. If you have never met someone who was anti Mormon that later became a member of the church we can only presume you haven't met many members or your contempt is so palpable in real life that they choose not to share their information with you.

This tells me that anti Mormons like yourself are becoming more and more desperate.

Edited January 16, 2012 by Jeff K.

[Storm Rider]

There are those that fall away from the Church and find joy in serving the Lord in another Church. Then there are those who leave the Church and drink the bitter drink that only the Evil One serves. Their life becomes full of cynicism and they become hostile to that which they had once known to be true.

Our Father tells us that he wishes us to have joy. When joy is so observably absent from a person's life it is sad and they become an object of pity. These are they that need our prayers and our love; their words should be set aside and they are no longer responsible for their actions for they have become the children of sadness. May God bless them and lead them to a greater sense of eternal joy.

[KevinG]

Xander posted: "Catholics tend to remain committed Catholics despite the fact that they show up for Church only on Easter and Christmas. Mormonism is far more communal as a religion, as everyone is involved. If you're not participating, then you're simply not in. Most Catholics I know don't go to Church every week, or even every month. "

There's the solution: Lower your standards for behavior of "committed" members! The numbers will automatically increase!

[KevinG]

Bah- the thread got corrupted by bad behavior. Please close mods.