Respect For An Lds Church

[Deborah]

Are you saying that most people who hear the basic truth claims of Mormonism actually join the Church and become lifelong faithful members? Because all I am saying is that this is not the case, especially when those who hear the foundational truth claims of the LDS Church and its founder consider them in context as described in post #70 above.

That is your conclusion. There are a lot of reasons people don't join the church after hearing it, including the Word of Wisdom and tithing. Some just aren't willing to make the commitment. In any case as Storm Rider already pointed out "wide is the gate, but narrow the way and few there be that find it." Not everyone will accept but that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the truth claims but more to do with where the person is at in his life.

[Mariner]

The question is what does identifying as Mormon mean? I don't always identify as a Mormon either. And btw most Mormons refer to themselves as LDS not Mormon. Is that in the statistics you use? The only occasion I would have to identify my faith is in a hospital admission where they ask your religious preference and I always put LDS. Under what other circumstances would someone ask your religious affiliation in a recorded format? Just because people don't go around shouting "I'm Mormon" doesn't mean they aren't faithful members. I certainly don't announce I'm a Mormon in groups of people I don't know. Often they start asking questions when they find out I don't drink coffee and it comes out.

You are jumping to conclusions based on numbers that are very subject to interpretation.

Please read the excerpt from the article (s) and census summaries in my earlier post. These data are from formal ARIS and other religious preference and census surveys. When asked directly, as a component of a survey, to state a religion or religious preference, a majority of the membership claimed by the Church in countries outside the US, denied that they were members of the Church or even that they preferred the LDS religion.

[Deborah]

Please read the excerpt from the article (s) and census summaries in my earlier post. These data are from formal ARIS and other religious preference and census surveys. When asked directly, as a component of a survey, to state a religion or religious preference, a majority of the membership claimed by the Church in countries outside the US, denied that they were members of the Church or even that they preferred the LDS religion.

It would be helpful if you actually included the link in which you quoted the info. As far as the accuracy of such a survey it is still subject to many factors. I for example refused to answer any questions on the census except my name and number of people in the house. It was no one else's business. When asked my race I put "the human race." Furthermore in a survey, if LDS are a minority of the population to begin with, what are the chances they would even take part in a survey. Just because the majority of those who answered didn't indicate religious affiliation doesn't mean the majority of LDS population even took part in such a survey.

[Deborah]

Also I want to add an important distinction which is overlooked here. LDS church membership numbers include children as well as adults. This accounts for a very large number. Children would not be participants in any such surveys.

[Mariner]

Also I want to add an important distinction which is overlooked here. LDS church membership numbers include children as well as adults. This accounts for a very large number. Children would not be participants in any such surveys.

Are you saying that census-derived data such as that shown earlier in the thread significantly undercounts the percentage of the population that is LDS because of the way the census is done?

Are you claiming that the adult who fills out the census form is not aware of the religion of others living in the same household, or would lie about it?

Do you think that these same grave errors in methodology would affect other components of the census and skew the numbers there as well?

[Deborah]

Are you saying ....

Uh, yeah.

[Mariner]

Uh, yeah.

So, that would be a "Yes" to all three questions?

If so, perhaps you would have some suggestions as to how government officials in these countries could improve their census-taking methodology.

Edited December 10, 2011 by Mariner

[Pahoran]

Again, we are not talking about "less actives" or people who do not attend as often as the Church would like.. We are talking about people who reject the Church to the point that they will not even self-identify as Mormon.

An evidence-free assumption indeed. Call for references that there is any connection between the two things.

As I already mentioned: everyone who has actually met less-active people, including those who no longer "self-identify as Mormon" knows that apathy, not conscious disbelief, is the defining characteristic of this group.

Are you going to argue that such individuals, in fact, actually believe the fundamental truth claims of the LDS Church?

I am going to argue that there is no evidence one way or another until those "individuals" are interviewed.

Every one of us has met "unmotivated believers." But I have long observed that the propagandists who work themselves into a lather of self-righteous indignation over the Church supposedly exaggerating its membership numbers are themselves eagerly engaged in diligently parlaying their little coterie of bitter apostates into a vast and ever-growing "exodus from Mormonism" by just such transparently dishonest dodges as you have here relied upon.

The context to which I was referring is that of common decency and morality, not superstition. Once one buys into a worldview where magic, practice of the occult, polygamy, and polyandry are okay (see Rough Stone Rolling by Richard Bushman) , and the scriptures that are looked to for guidance describe the slaughter of thousands of innocents to please an angry God, one is not considering truth claims in a context that is realistic, or even relevant, to the world in the 21st, Century.

Ah.

So, in other words, your much-vaunted "wider context" consists in nothing more rigorous or impartial than leaning back in one's La-Z-Boy and casually and unthinkingly assuming that the slipshod assumptions of contemporary culture are to be the ultimate arbiter of all truth. Got it.

Many practices described in the OT and the BoM are not acceptable today in western Christianity, nor were they acceptable in 19th Century Christianity. Yet the context required for belief in the foundation truth claims of Mormonism requires acceptance of such practices.

"Acceptance" in what sense? That such things happened? Or that we are supposed to do them now? If the former, then it's fairly indisputable that they did happen. If the latter, then I regret that I cannot accept that you have any good faith basis to believe such an assertion.

Are you going to argue that the vast majority of people who learn the basics of Mormonism and do not believe the fundamental truth claims are not considering these claims in the context of 21st Century Christian ethics and morality?

I am going to argue that your "vast majority" share an uninformed opinion; theirs is the default position of ignorance.

And you know it.

I am further going to argue that those who hear the Gospel and reject it are most commonly doing so on a "knee jerk" basis, deciding that the challenge to their default position is too great.

I will further put forward for your consideration the proposition that, contrary to the fond assumptions of your apostate unfaith, knowledge of the Restored Gospel and the history of the Church correlates positively with belief therein.

If I misunderstood your claim to having knowledge regarding Mormonism greater than that of most who have studied it, I apologize.

I did not claim to have "knowledge regarding Mormonism greater than that of most who have studied it." My actual claim was that "I have never once met an exMo who knows more about the history of the Church than I do." ExMos are not "most who have studied it." You have consciously misrepresented what I said. Indeed, in my experience, exMos almost never study the Gospel. If they are so obsessed with it as to be unable to leave it alone, still the most they ever do is go trolling for snippets and factoids to justify their apostasy.

Please see my comment on context above.

"Context" = "ignorant assumptions." Got it.

Perhaps in your rush to explain away the numbers I referenced you did not look up long enough to accurately determine the position of the goal posts. I trust that I have been able to address your misunderstanding regarding the context in which most people who encounter the LDS truth claims reject them.

As you perfectly well know, you have failed to establish any such rejection.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mariner]

Pahoran,

In the context of the numbers I referenced regarding the numbers of those who self-identify as Mormon, as compared to the numbers of members claimed by the LDS Church, the statements shown in quotes in Post# 83 above make more sense than your responses to them, in every case. So I will just let the numbers speak for themselves.

Since the quest you have apparently taken for yourself is to deny, deflect, or defuse any statements or data that you see as running counter to what you believe to be in the best interest of the Church, I don't expect an unbiased or balanced response. So, you can make of the numbers what you will. Others will do the same.

This OP of this thread was intended as an example showing that many who leave the Church bear no particular animosity toward the Church or those who choose to remain in it. It is apparent that the same cannot be said for some who remain in the Church when it comes to those who choose to leave.

Edited December 12, 2011 by Mariner

[Pahoran]

Pahoran,

In the context of the numbers I referenced regarding the numbers of those who self-identify as Mormon, as compared to the numbers of members claimed by the LDS Church, the statements shown in quotes in Post# 83 above make more sense than your responses to them, in every case. So I will just let the numbers speak for themselves.

Except you are not willing to "just let the numbers speak for themselves." You have rather vocally insisted that the "numbers" mean that people have evaluated the Church's truth claims and decided that they cannot believe them; but as you perfectly well know, the "numbers" say no such thing.

Since the quest you have taken for yourself is to deny, deflect, or defuse any statements or data that you see as running counter to what you believe to be in the best interest of the Church, I don't expect an unbiased or even reasoned response. So, you can make of the numbers what you will. Others will do the same.

Your mind-reading is defective. I have "taken" no such "quest." You have no basis upon which to conclude that I have "taken" any such "quest." You are merely attempting to poison the well.

The fact -- as any unbiased observer will admit -- is that a gross set of raw numbers such as those you have so triumphantly flourished in our faces is entirely insufficient to support any conclusions about the opinions of the individuals they represent, or any of them.

This OP of this thread was intended as an example showing that many who leave the Church bear no particular animosity toward the Church or those who choose to remain in it. It is apparent that the same cannot be said for some who remain in the Church when it comes to those who choose to leave.

Another conclusion unsupported by any evidence.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mariner]

Pahoran,

The thread title here is Respect for an LDS Church, and the intent of the OP was to post what I though to be a well written expression of this respect by an individual who has left the Church.

This individual who, as his screen name would indicate, has more reason than most to be disillusioned by his experience in the Church, was nonetheless very nostalgic and positive in his writing. Yet his credibility and motives were immediately attacked and the thread soon devolved into a discussion of membership numbers as claimed by the Church as compared to the much lower number of individuals who self-identify as LDS in census and other types of independent surveys.

Since you deny here that most individuals who hear and understand the truth claims of the LDS Church reject these claims, you have apparently decided to take the position that most individuals who hear and understand the foundational truth claims of the LDS Church eventually come to believe them.

If this were indeed the case, then there are a great deal of data that would need to be explained away. Since such data and their interpretation are not the subject of this thread, perhaps we should take up this issue on a new and appropriately titled thread.

Edited December 12, 2011 by Mariner

[Deborah]

Since you deny here that most individuals who hear and understand the truth claims of the LDS Church reject these claims, you have apparently decided to take the position that most individuals who hear and understand the foundational truth claims of the LDS Church eventually come to believe them.

Not speaking for Pahoran, but I don't interpret that as what he said. What he and others have pointed out is that your conclusions are fallacious. First of all I'm not sure what you mean by "truth claims" but a good many people who hear the missionary lessons do readily accept them as they sound familiar. Some actually accept the ideas but aren't ready for the commitment or are happy where they are so they never join the church but that doesn't mean the same as rejecting "truth claims". Some accept the BOM and a living prophet but have habits which preclude them from being baptized. Some reject the teachings outright but usually these people weren't willing to listen to the missionaries in the first place. The idea that because someone isn't baptized means an automatic rejection of many of the teachings is unfounded.

Having said that, So What? The numbers in the Lord's church have always been few and always will be. Straight is the gate and narrow is the way....

[Pahoran]

Pahoran,

The thread title here is Respect for an LDS Church, and the intent of the OP was to post what I though to be a well written expression of this respect by an individual who has left the Church.

Well, that might have been the intent. What was accomplished was to post a little essay that could well be titled, "How the Mormon Church has Changed for the Worst because of the Evil Power-hungry Moguls in Salt Lake."

Absolutely everything positive in that post was about how things "used to be," and was immediately followed by how things aren't that way any more because Church leadership hasn't let them be.

This individual who, as his screen name would indicate, has more reason than most to be disillusioned by his experience in the Church,

Why? Because he's an Okie from Muskogee?

was nonetheless very nostalgic and positive in his writing. Yet his credibility and motives were immediately attacked and the thread soon devolved into a discussion of membership numbers as claimed by the Church as compared to the much lower number of individuals who self-identify as LDS in census and other types of independent surveys.

And who was responsible for that "devolution," Mariner? Who introduced that utterly irrelevant red herring?

Since you deny here that most individuals who hear and understand the truth claims of the LDS Church reject these claims, you have apparently decided to take the position that most individuals who hear and understand the foundational truth claims of the LDS Church eventually come to believe them.

Here's my suggestion for you, Mariner: why don't you confine yourself to articulating your own position, and let me articulate mine. Because when you arrogate to yourself the role of speaking for me, you get it wrong. See Deborah's post, above.

If this were indeed the case, then there are a great deal of data that would need to be explained away. Since such data and their interpretation are not the subject of this thread, perhaps we should take up this issue on a new and appropriately titled thread.

While, as thread originator, you do get to control the scope of the thread, it would be more than a little bit manipulative and sly for you to declare that the scope allows you to make blatantly fallacious assertions, but prevents anyone from refuting them.

Is that what you are trying to say?

Regards,

Pahoran

[KevinG]

I have fond memories of my Grandma's house. I miss my Grandma. I loved my Grandma.

Nowhere in my praise of my long dead Grandma do I feel the need to criticize the fact that my Mother is not my Grandma.

[Pahoran]

I have fond memories of my Grandma's house. I miss my Grandma. I loved my Grandma.

Nowhere in my praise of my long dead Grandma do I feel the need to criticize the fact that my Mother is not my Grandma.

I'm sure the sweet, kind people on RfM can explain to you in detail how it is all the fault of the power-hungry, money-grabbing empire-builders in Salt Lake City that your Mother is not your Grandma.

And then Mariner will explain to us how that isn't a criticism of the Church.

(Actually he won't explain that to us; he'll simply take it for granted.)

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mariner]

[quote name='Pahoran' timestamp='1323715914' post='1209073196'

Why? Because he's an Okie from Muskogee?

______________________________

Mus·kho·ge·an (mŭs-kō'gē-ən)

n.

A family of Native American languages of the southeast United States that includes Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Alabama.

adj.

Of, or pertaining to, the Muskhogean language group or people.

also: Muskogean, Muscogean

___________________________________

Well done, Pahoran.

[Pahoran]

Mus·kho·ge·an (mŭs-kō'gē-ən)

n.

A family of Native American languages of the southeast United States that includes Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Alabama.

adj.

Of, or pertaining to, the Muskhogean language group or people.

also: Muskogean, Muscogean

___________________________________

Well done, Pahoran.

Thank you. That is the first piece of actual information I've seen you post.

And now that you've told us this, can you please explain why that means he "has more reason than most to be disillusioned by his experience in the Church?"

Because, you see, without any explanation, that looks like some kind of racist assumption.

Which couldn't possibly be the case, could it?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I have fond memories of my Grandma's house. I miss my Grandma. I loved my Grandma.

Nowhere in my praise of my long dead Grandma do I feel the need to criticize the fact that my Mother is not my Grandma.

Great wit...

[Mariner]

Thank you. That is the first piece of actual information I've seen you post.

And now that you've told us this, can you please explain why that means he "has more reason than most to be disillusioned by his experience in the Church?"

Because, you see, without any explanation, that looks like some kind of racist assumption.

Which couldn't possibly be the case, could it?

Regards,

Pahoran

Pahoran,

Don't know if you have spent much time in the US. I assume that you have not and that is why I included the definitions for you in my post above. Your "Okie from Muscogee" remark was entirely inappropriate. However, if you have not spent much time in the States, you could be given some slack on that count.

Time in the States or not, I am sure that you know that the LDS Church "programs" for "Lamanintes" in this country have been discontinued because of less than stellar outcomes, and that there are a lot of people of Native American descent whose lives were negatively impacted by these programs. If I were to come across a piece about the Church with a positive spin written by someone who has left the LDS Church with a screen name of Muscogean, I would assume that the author was of Native American descent and would definitely not call that individual an "Okie from Muskogee".

Okies are generally assumed to be rural dwelling folks from Oklahoma, many of whom were forced off of their land and migrated west to California during the dust bowl era and the Great Depression. The term does not have a positive connotation in most parts of the US.

In case you are not attuned to self-mockery or inside jokes, "Okie from Muscogee", by Merle Haggard is an example.

[Pahoran]

Pahoran,

Don't know if you have spent much time in the US. I assume that you have not and that is why I included the definitions for you in my post above. Your "Okie from Muscogee" remark was entirely inappropriate. However, if you have not spent much time in the States, you could be given some slack on that count.

Time in the States or not, I am sure that you know that the LDS Church "programs" for "Lamanintes" in this country have been discontinued because of less than stellar outcomes, and that there are a lot of people of Native American descent whose lives were negatively impacted by these programs.

I'm aware that some naysayers have decried the program you mention. I'm not aware that the whining has ever been backed up by any non-partisan examination of the program and its outcomes. Even the most ideologically driven grumbles I've seen about it do not deny that the outcomes were positive for many, if not a majority, of the participants.

I'm also aware that the program took place mostly in the Intermountain region. So when I see you so casually assuming that someone "has more reason than most to be disillusioned by his experience in the Church" on no other basis than that his screen name has some Native American meaning (from the Southeast, not the Intermountain West) then it becomes obvious that your casual assumption grows from the well-fertilized soil of anti-Mormonism and racism.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mariner]

I'm aware that some naysayers have decried the program you mention. I'm not aware that the whining has ever been backed up by any non-partisan examination of the program and its outcomes. Even the most ideologically driven grumbles I've seen about it do not deny that the outcomes were positive for many, if not a majority, of the participants.

I'm also aware that the program took place mostly in the Intermountain region. So when I see you so casually assuming that someone "has more reason than most to be disillusioned by his experience in the Church" on no other basis than that his screen name has some Native American meaning (from the Southeast, not the Intermountain West) then it becomes obvious that your casual assumption grows from the well-fertilized soil of anti-Mormonism and racism.

Regards,

Pahoran

Since this individual was writing about a meeting house where he had attended Church in California, it would seem doubtful that he was still in the Southeast, would you not agree?

As to you gratuitous comments regarding "well fertilized soil," you can rest assured that any slight negative effect on faith that my contribution may have here in trying to help believing Mormons and investigators to broaden their perspective when it comes to science and secular thought pales in comparison to the negative effects on the overall view of the LDS Church created by your general attitude and demeanor on this and other boards.

Edited December 21, 2011 by Mariner

[Pahoran]

Since this individual was writing about a meeting house where he had attended Church in California, it would seem doubtful that he was still in the Southeast, would you not agree?

Of course I would.

Adults move around; indeed, so do families, often taking their young children with them. But the Lamanite program you referred to earlier largely entailed providing homestays in towns, near good schools, for children and youth living on reservations.

Is it likely that he grew up on a Navajo, Hopi, Ute or Shoshoni reservation in the Intermountain West?

I'm not saying it's entirely impossible; but it's hardly the conclusion one would leap to, seeing that he identifies himself with an NA grouping centred in the US Southeast, is it?

It's no disgrace to make a mistake about something, Mariner; but it seems increasingly apparent that you leaped to the conclusion, purely on the basis of his NA screen name, that he had, in your words, "more reason than most to be disillusioned by his experience in the Church," and now you are too stubborn to admit that it was, at best, a hasty and rather baseless assumption.

As to you gratuitous comments regarding "well fertilized soil," you can rest assured that any slight negative effect on faith that my contribution may have here in trying to help believing Mormons and investigators to broaden their perspective when it comes to science and secular thought pales in comparison to the negative effects on the overall view of the LDS Church created by your general attitude and demeanor on this and other boards.

Ah, yes. The old classics never die. When out of arguments, everyone resort to anti-Mormon Mind Game (AMMG) #1: "Eau Yew Evil Apologist Yew."

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mariner]

Pahoran,

Perhaps I should simply send an e-mail to Muscogean and ask him why he left the LDS Church.

How would that be?

If his answer indicates that the LDS Church attitude toward, and treatment of, "Lamanites was not a factor in his disillusionment with Mormonism, I would be more than happy to acknowledge as much.

[Pahoran]

Pahoran,

Perhaps I should simply send an e-mail to Muscogean and ask him why he left the LDS Church.

How would that be?

If his answer indicates that the LDS Church attitude toward, and treatment of, "Lamanites was not a factor in his disillusionment with Mormonism, I would be more than happy to acknowledge as much.

Another fan of push-polling, I see.

Instead of offering him a handy subjective justification to latch onto, why don't you ask him something more objective and relevant, such as, as an adult convert in SoCal, what personal experience, if any, did he have with any Lamanite placement style program in the Intermountain states?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

Another fan of push-polling, I see.

Instead of offering him a handy subjective justification to latch onto, why don't you ask him something more objective and relevant, such as, as an adult convert in SoCal, what personal experience, if any, did he have with any Lamanite placement style program in the Intermountain states?

Regards,

Pahoran

It has been six days, and I'm just a tad curious: Did Mariner abandon his proposal, perhaps thinking it not worth the trouble, to write to Muscogean and ask about his ethnic background? Or did Mariner proceed and thereby elicit a response he does not care to share with us to the effect that his assumption, as some of us believe, was ill-founded?

Add-on: Lest I be accused of a false dichotomy, I hasten to acknowledge that there are possiblities other than the above, not the least of which being that Mariner has simply been distracted in the iterim by yuletide observance. I'm jut wondering why he has not returned to report on a matter on which he seemed so certain.

.

.

Edited December 28, 2011 by Scott Lloyd