You Lost Me.

[Damien the Leper]

You Lost Me is a statistically and testimonially based book compiled and written by David Kinnaman who also coauthored unChristian. As the front cover states it is about "why young Christians are leaving church and rethinking faith".

Mormonism never seems to be a focus of the book. However, I would argue that the claims and the testimonies of those who were interviewed or encountered are very real in our faith as well. We are not exclusive.

From the introduction You Lost Me, Explained:

"I wonder what percentage of..."Lost" Catholics feel like I do, that we did not leave the Church, but rather, the Church left us.

"I hung in for a long while, thinking that fighting from within was the way to go, but I ultimately realized that it was damaging my relationship with God and my relationship with myself and I felt no choice but to leave." (Andrew Sullivan, The Lost Catholic Church in America)

I have met many former LDS people whose experience is similar to that above. This is not a situation in which we can simply take a hard line and say "Well, you obviously missed the point!" or gauge someone's testimony or dismiss them as having a flawed understanding of experience. Perhaps more extremely, it should NOT be dismissed as though the person with concerns has done something wrong or that there is something wrong with them.

I beg the question, what would happen for someone to make a statement such as this?

The authors description of the book in the introduction seems appropriate:

"You Lost Me, on the other hand, is about young insiders. At its heart are the irreverent, blunt, and often painful personal stories of young Christians--or young adults who once thought of themselves as Christians--who have left the church and sometimes the faith. The book's title is inspired by their voice and mindset, and reflects their disdain for one-sided communication, disconnect from formulaic faith, and discomfort with apologetics that seem disconnected from the real world. You Lost Me is about their perceptions of churches, Christianity and culture.It gives voice to their concerns, hopes, delusions, frustrations and disappointments.

"A generation of young Christians believes that the churches in which they were raised are not safe and hospitable places to express doubts. Many feel that they have been offered slick or half-baked answeres to their thorny, honest questions, and they are rejecting the "talking heads" and "talking points" they see among the older generations. You Lost Me signals their judgment that the institutional church has failed them." (Kinnaman, 11)

I advocate the question proposed by Kinnaman:

How can we follow Jesus--and help young people faithfully follow Jesus--in a dramatically changing culture?

I started this topic to address not only the fact that young people of faith have deep rooted concerns and issues with their faith traditions but also to bring up the subject of identity.

My first question that many have to answer is: how do we self identify? The inspiration for this question came from the Mormon Matters podcast "Self-Identifying as Mormon". The application is the same for those not of LDS tradition.

From the podcast, John Huntsman was asked if he was a Mormon. Huntsman replied that the question was more difficult to answer. Initially, I thought "How so?" Later and after more reflection from the podcast I realized that I do not and cannot simply identify as Mormon. I know many others who may not be able to do so either. I do know that the terms "orthodox" and "tradition" hold little if no value or meaning to me. What does that say about the type of Mormon that I am?

My next question for young LDS, or even older LDS, is what kind of Mormon do you identify as? Are you orthodox? TBM? Liberal? LGBT? Moderate? Unorthodox?

I do not ask these questions to gauge how I see these 'types' of Mormons but moreso how I can be sensitive to the indivual identities and faith journeys that are shaping those identities. I believe all are important to the bigger and full picture.

_________________________________________________

From You Lost Me table of contents:

Part 1: Dropouts

1) Faith, Interrupted

2) Access, Alienation, Authority

3) Nomads and Prodigals

4) Exiles

Part 2: Disconnections

Disconnections Explained

5) Overprotective

6) Shallow

7) Antiscience

8 ) Repressive

9) Exclusive

10) Doubtless

Part 3: Reconnections

11) What's Old Is New

12) Fifty Ideas to Find a Generation

You can also check out www.youlostmebook.org.

Edited December 21, 2011 by Valentinus

[Sky]

"I wonder what percentage of..."Lost" Catholics feel like I do, that we did not leave the Church, but rather, the Church left us.

The problem with this mindset is that no person or organization can possibly please everybody. There will probably always be some who feel like "the Church left them" for any number of different reasons. And IMHO, anybody who tries to change the LDS Church from within is bound to eventually get disappointed and become disaffected. The LDS Church operates from the top down, not the other way around.

[Damien the Leper]

The problem with this mindset is that no person or organization can possibly please everybody. There will probably always be some who feel like "the Church left them" for any number of different reasons. And IMHO, anybody who tries to change the LDS Church from within is bound to eventually get disappointed and become disaffected. The LDS Church operates from the top down, not the other way around.

I agree. I'm not interested at this time exploring how to change the LDS church. I don't know that I ever will. When we say that the Church left us, it is to be understood that the institutional church and its highest authorities choose to disregard the importance of not just a single voice but the voices of an ever-growing multitude of young believers.

It is important to be sensitive to the emotions and experiences of others. When one finds out that church history as learned in Institute has been sanitized and faith promotingly revised to protect the sanctity of the faith, the consequences then follow. Deep emotions stem from the feelings of being lied to. I'm not trying to accuse the church of anything but this is a very real situation.

Going into the much bigger picture that is Christianity and Judaism as a whole (much further beyond the reaches of institutional churches such as Mormonism, Catholocism, Lutheran, etc) the theology becomes much more complicated.

[Deborah]

Deep emotions stem from the feelings of being lied to. I'm not trying to accuse the church of anything but this is a very real situation.

I have a problem with this statement, and not just applying to the LDS church. I know from personal experience that very often it's not that someone was misinformed or not informed but that someone wasn't paying attention or wasn't interested at the time such things might have been discussed or come to their attention, but later when they start having issues they all of a sudden were lied to.

[Deborah]

When we say that the Church left us, it is to be understood that the institutional church and its highest authorities choose to disregard the importance of not just a single voice but the voices of an ever-growing multitude of young believers.

This is a big assumption. What types of complaints would it be referring to? If for example the voices are to accept something such as gay marriage, yes they will be ignored.

[Sky]

When one finds out that church history as learned in Institute has been sanitized and faith promotingly revised to protect the sanctity of the faith, the consequences then follow. Deep emotions stem from the feelings of being lied to. I'm not trying to accuse the church of anything but this is a very real situation.

Yeah, I've heard this before. It seems to be a favorite criticism with detractors of the faith. Here is FAIR's answer.

[Damien the Leper]

I have a problem with this statement, and not just applying to the LDS church. I know from personal experience that very often it's not that someone was misinformed or not informed but that someone wasn't paying attention or wasn't interested at the time such things might have been discussed or come to their attention, but later when they start having issues they all of a sudden were lied to.

Then let me rephrase. Not all pertinent information was shared.

As an example, it should be taught that there are several different versions of the First Vision so that the individual members of the church can more intimately develop their faith identity.

[Deborah]

As an example, it should be taught that there are several different versions of the First Vision so that the individual members of the church can more intimately develop their faith identity.

Given that these have been published in church magazines more than once they have been talked about. Plus I don't see what having multiple first vision accounts has to do with faith identity. If someone's faith is subject to change when they receive some new (to them) information, they ought to examine what their faith was based on to begin with.

[Damien the Leper]

This is a big assumption. What types of complaints would it be referring to? If for example the voices are to accept something such as gay marriage, yes they will be ignored.

When I say the Church, I mean Judeo-Christian believers. When I say the church, I am specifically referring to a denomination under the banner of the Church.

To address your off topic slant on gay marriage...I'm losing concern for the arguments surrounding Mormonism and gay marriage. The church's opinion on the matter is of little importance to me. You assume that the LDS church has the final say in matters of theology, truth and culture. This assumption has no place in the intent of my OP.

[Damien the Leper]

Yeah, I've heard this before. It seems to be a favorite criticism with detractors of the faith. Here is FAIR's answer.

Yeah. I've heard this before too.

I like this statement:

" It is true that the Church's teachings are primarily doctrinal and devotional—Church lessons are neither apologetic nor historical in scope or intent."

What is in red is of significance. If history is not of importance when considering the scope of doctrine and devotion...oh boy do we have a problem.

[Damien the Leper]

Given that these have been published in church magazines more than once they have been talked about. Plus I don't see what having multiple first vision accounts has to do with faith identity. If someone's faith is subject to change when they receive some new (to them) information, they ought to examine what their faith was based on to begin with.

You may not but others may.

Perhaps it should be taught in church that JS was a fan of liquor, was a money digger, etc. then? The WoW would have been lost on early church members as a means to gauge the membership as it was never meant to be a commandment when considering Joseph Smith's inquiry to the Lord concerning the matter. I venture to also beg the question of how many SLC temple goers shortly after its opening were 'sober' members. Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith brings to light a more realistic portrayal of our first Prophet. I accept JS good, bad and ugly. The same with the following prophets and apostles. Knowing what I do know has shaped my theology greatly but I'm not against the church.

I'm pro-faith.

Edited December 21, 2011 by Valentinus

[Sky]

The WoW would have been lost on early church members as a means to gauge the membership as it was never meant to be a commandment when considering Joseph Smith's inquiry to the Lord concerning the matter.

The Lord gave the Saints quite a bit of time to fully implement the Word of Wisdom in their lives. He didn’t expect that they practice it perfectly all at once. To me, that is a sign of a merciful and considerate God. But I doubt the Lord would have given the Word of Wisdom as a mere suggestion with no expectation for the Saints to eventually make an honest effort to comply with it.

[Damien the Leper]

The Lord gave the Saints quite a bit of time to fully implement the Word of Wisdom in their lives. He didn’t expect that they practice it perfectly all at once. To me, that is a sign of a merciful and considerate God. But I doubt the Lord would have given the Word of Wisdom as a mere suggestion with no expectation for the Saints to eventually make an honest effort to comply with it.

I respect your opinion.

[Mariner]

Given that these have been published in church magazines more than once they have been talked about. Plus I don't see what having multiple first vision accounts has to do with faith identity. If someone's faith is subject to change when they receive some new (to them) information, they ought to examine what their faith was based on to begin with.

And yet, the substantial variations among the multiple accounts of the "first" visions(s) are cited as a reason by many who leave the Church, including Bishop Steve Bloor in his now famous open letter to the members of his ward in the UK.

Regardless of what you might believe, the strong perception is that the LDS Church has been less than forthcoming about this embarrassing inconsistency in the foundation truth claim narrative of the Church.

As a long time member of the Church, I share this perception. I just checked out my daughter's copy of the BYU text entitled "Church History in the Fullness of Times". This is a 300 level course in religion (Religion 341-343).

One would expect that if the Church intended to be forthcoming about this issue, they would at least trust 300 level BYU students with the truth. But nope - not a chance.

The entirety of the three sections dealing with the First Vision read like they could have been pulled directly from Gospel Doctrine lesson books. They were the same warm pabulum and make no mention - none whatsoever - of multiple accounts of the first vision, let alone the stark differences among them and the fact that the one related in the Religion Text book was written after Joseph Smith's death and is not consistent with the one known to have been written by Joseph Smith himself.

Were you aware of this?

Edited December 22, 2011 by Mariner

[Deborah]

Regardless of what you might believe, the strong perception is that the LDS Church has been less than forthcoming about this embarrassing inconsistency in the foundation truth claim narrative of the Church.

"Embarrassing"? I suppose that is in the eye of the beholder. When I first heard about the differing accounts, which was later in life, I didn't get upset. I since discovered that these had actually been published in the church magazine some years before but I never paid attention because it wasn't an issue. I find the accounts support one another and are evidence that what Joseph related was not a rehearsed story, but he told different people what stood out to him at certain times. If every single account was word for word, that would be reason to question.

[Deborah]

I guess I've done enough reading and studying to know that one can't take bits and pieces from here and there but must look at the whole picture. We can nitpick certain issues but in the end what we have is a gospel that fits together, that is very profound, and that gives a rational explanation for our purpose on earth and in eternity, and which has scriptures which in the big picture are very consistent. I find it difficult to picture a charlatan being able to do what Joseph did which has had a profound affect on many lives throughout the world and which continues to do so.

I have found that those who find a pet issue are very narrow in their views and have lost sight of the big picture.

[Hamba Tuhan]

My next question for young LDS, or even older LDS, is what kind of Mormon do you identify as? Are you orthodox? TBM? Liberal? LGBT? Moderate? Unorthodox?

I personally don't relate to any of those labels. I guess that, if I were pressed, I'd say that I'm a grateful 'Mormon.' When I consider what blessings have come into my life as a consequence of being a member of the Restored Church, I feel like I want to climb to the top of the tallest tree and shout happy things both to God and to all the passersby.

[Mariner]

I have found that those who find a pet issue are very narrow in their views and have lost sight of the big picture.

Interesting statement. In my experience, it is when folks begin to glimpse the "big picture" that they are first able to see Mormonism for what it really is.

[BlueDreams]

My next question for young LDS is what kind of Mormon do you identify as? Are you orthodox? TBM? Liberal? LGBT? Moderate? Unorthodox?

I'm young LDS. Personally I could see myself in some form or fashion with all accept LGBT. Definitely straight and female. But next to that, I see myself as Mormon without labels. My only concern with ideology and my path is if God approves of it and desires me to go that way. If the spirit doesn't come with me in an endeavor, I turn around and figure out what I need to fix. Nothing else matters to me.

And for that matter, most of the examples you gave as spiritually important simply weren't. They have no effect with my relationship with God and the building of my faith.

Personally, I dislike the idea that mormonism somehow is growing more distant from the young adult. To me, it's just relabeling disenchantment to a faith to add legitimacy to it. Some will not find mormonism is their cup of tea in any generation. In part I probably just don't like it because it makes sweeping claims to youth who many do not feel the same as mentioned.

[why me]

I have a problem with this statement, and not just applying to the LDS church. I know from personal experience that very often it's not that someone was misinformed or not informed but that someone wasn't paying attention or wasn't interested at the time such things might have been discussed or come to their attention, but later when they start having issues they all of a sudden were lied to.

I think that you are right about this. I have seen this happen to people, especially on the internet as they search for issues that they can latch onto because they want to find fault somewhere. For example, when suddenly they find themselves not temple worthy and a relative is getting married in the temple. Suddenly, there is a slew of posts on just how unfair the lds church is. But when they were active, no problem at all with the poicy.

[why me]

My next question for young LDS is what kind of Mormon do you identify as? Are you orthodox? TBM? Liberal? LGBT? Moderate? Unorthodox?

We have too many labels to deal with these days. It is not the church's fault but living in postmodern times where we seem to want to narrow our label a little. In the past, we had too main labels: mormon or jack mormon. And within the mormon label we had active or inactive. Now we have quite a few labels that people would like to assign themselves to. Why should we continue to find a label to describe who we are?

[why me]

You Lost Me is a statistically and testimonially based book compiled and written by David Kinnaman who also coauthored unChristian. As the front cover states it is about "why young Christians are leaving church and rethinking faith".

You can also check out www.youlostmebook.org.

We are living in times that have been described as liquid modernity. Nothing is solid and a world in flux. It would not be uncommon for people to become apart of the liquid that is within our postmodern times. Also, a little back, our world was decribed as a runaway world. This usually means that the world is in a constant change, something difficult to catch up with and roots become uprooted.

http://www.culturewars.org.uk/2004-02/identity.htm

http://books.google.fi/books/about/Runaway_world.html?id=0FwfT2s5dIsC&redir_esc=y

When people realize that they are basically 'victims' of such a world, maybe they will realize that our world is not the same as it was in the past. Human beings are a rooted people. Uproot us over and over again, and we will have problems.

[selek1]

Perhaps it should be taught in church that JS was a fan of liquor, was a money digger, etc. then?

And so we see that your criticisms are nothing more than a rehash of the tired and trite "the Church didn't wrench my head open with a can opener and pour in complete and omniscient knowledge".

I would suspect that a vast majority of ex-Mormons justify themselves using this excuse. We've heard it so many times that it's lost its luster.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not here to cater to itching ears, nor to endlessly contort itself to satiate those who wish to reinvent God in their own image.

We are proclaiming the truth as we understand it and as revealed by God. We are here to proclaim the Gospel and Christ's revealed teachings, not cater to those who demand a lesser law or a "Get Out of Jail Free" card.

If you don't like it, there are plenty of others out there to flatter you and tell you what you want to hear.

You are imparting your spin and your bias, and proclaiming that the Church cannot be objective unless they meet YOUR agenda YOUR way.

The WoW would have been lost on early church members as a means to gauge the membership as it was never meant to be a commandment when considering Joseph Smith's inquiry to the Lord concerning the matter.

Call For References. You state unequivocably what you cannot possibly know- and expect us to genuflect before your self-proclaimed authority.

That the Word of Wisdom "was never meant to be a commandment" is your conjecture. Can you back it up with substantive fact?

I venture to also beg the question of how many SLC temple goers shortly after its opening were 'sober' members.

"Begging the Question" is precisely the right turn of phrase for your tactic. As has already been reported, you are leaving out a number of important historical facts in pursuit of an agenda.

Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith brings to light a more realistic portrayal of our first Prophet.

Considering your loud, proud, and on-going rejection of the Church and its authority, I find the "our" to be disingenuous at best.

I accept JS good, bad and ugly. The same with the following prophets and apostles.

While we applaud this high standard (and embrace it ourselves), we flatly reject the implicit suggestion that faithful Mormons do not accept Joseph good, bad, and ugly.

You are merely parroting the tired anti-Mormon canard that the faithful are ill-informed dupes who would apostatize "if they only knew".

Knowing what I do know has shaped my theology greatly but I'm not against the church.

Your own comments belie this claim.

I'm pro-faith.

Meaning pro-"God on my own terms, rather than his".

" It is true that the Church's teachings are primarily doctrinal and devotional—Church lessons are neither apologetic nor historical in scope or intent."

What is in red is of significance.

In your opinion.

If history is not of importance when considering the scope of doctrine and devotion...oh boy do we have a problem.

And yet the Church said nothing of the kind.

The Church has neither said nor implied that history is "not of importance". That's a deliberate and inflammatory falsehood which has the single redeeming value of supporting your agenda and bias.

The Church's statement is quite clear: we are teaching theology, not philosophy or world history.

The Church lessons are meant to teach doctrinal and devotional truths- not dates, names, and places. The focus and intent of the lessons are the eternal principles of the Gospel.

Nothing in their statement- either expressly or implied- can be construed by an honest observer in such a way as to denigrate or dismiss history.

To reach that conclusion, one must twist the words of the Church and distort them with a lens of bias.

I'm losing concern for the arguments surrounding Mormonism and gay marriage. The church's opinion on the matter is of little importance to me.

And in the same vein, we have lost any and all concern for the self-serving rationalizations and self-justifications people use to reject the truths the Church teaches.

For all the presumption, you've yet to raise a single new issue. Each of the complaints you raised in this thread (and nearly all of your others) has been regurgitated dozens- if not hundreds- of times on this very board.

We were not impressed the first hundred times.

Nor are we swayed by its obsessive repetition.

You assume that the LDS church has the final say in matters of theology, truth and culture. This assumption has no place in the intent of my OP.

And you expect us to be surprised by that?

You came here to bear your anti-testimony, and to proclaim yourself "more-enlightened-than-those-rubes-who-still-believe".

So why should we be surprised when you reject wise counsel from those same rubes?

[selek1]

And yet, the substantial variations among the multiple accounts of the "first" visions(s) are cited as a reason by many who leave the Church, including Bishop Steve Bloor in his now famous open letter to the members of his ward in the UK.

"Substantial" is a matter of subjective opinion, and the appeal to Bloor's presumptive authority as a Bishop is fallacious at best.

Even one of Christ's own twelve fell away. We are warned that in the last day, even the elect shall be deceived. Why should we be surprised when a lowly Bishop turns away from the truth?

Regardless of what you might believe, the strong perception is that the LDS Church has been less than forthcoming about this embarrassing inconsistency in the foundation truth claim narrative of the Church.

As has been stated, "embarrassing" is in the eye of the beholder.

That depends largely on the size of your sample. I'm quite certain it's strong and prominent- bordering on a catechism or sacred communion- among certain anti-Mormon subsets.

I'm equally certain that it doesn't even appear on the radar outside of those with a vested interest in attacking a/o undermining the LDS Church.

As a long time member of the Church....

Your credibility as "a life-long member" is somewhat diminished by your unrelenting attacks upon and hostility to the Church. Your appeal to authority is little more than a logical fallacy and a rehetorical sleight-of-hand.

One would expect that if the Church intended to be forthcoming...

The "if" is not exactly indicative of an unbiased analysis, now is it?

about this issue, they would at least trust 300 level BYU students with the truth. But nope - not a chance.

More spin and rhetorical shenanigans. The Church's statements were not factually false or inaccurate. At worst, they can be characterized as incomplete. But they cannot be reasonably described as either false or dishonest.

They were the same warm pabulum

There's that calm, dispassionate analysis again.

and make no mention - none whatsoever - of multiple accounts of the first vision,

Why should they? To satisfy the itching ears or our critics? To answer an impossible dream of total historical omniscience?

let alone the stark differences among them and the fact that the one related in the Religion Text book was written after Joseph Smith's death and is not consistent with the one known to have been written by Joseph Smith himself.

Consistent in who's opinion?

"Stark" differences according to whom? Your own posts above demonstrate a very clear bias, cynicism, and hostility. Why then should we assume that your characterization of "stark differences" and "consistency" are any more accurate or balanced?

Interesting statement. In my experience, it is when folks begin to glimpse the "big picture" that they are first able to see Mormonism for what it really is.

More dispassionate, factual analysis.

More accurately, however, it is when we review your posts we see them for what they really are.

Bigoted, smug, and unendingly condescending.

Even a cursory review of your posts reveals that you are not an unbiased witness, nor an objective analyst, nor a credible source for what "true Mormons" think or believe.

Your agenda is everything and all- and you have repeatefly proven willing to sacrifice unbiased analysis, facts, unbiased, and intellectual honesty upon that altar.

Both this thread and the "eternal consequeces of grooming" thread illustrate a single eternal verity:

critics, apostates, and their various clingers-on will seize on any issue- no matter how trivial, inconsequential, or down-right silly in an attempt to undermine the faith of the believer.

[russianwolfe]

Then let me rephrase. Not all pertinent information was shared.

As an example, it should be taught that there are several different versions of the First Vision so that the individual members of the church can more intimately develop their faith identity.

It is not the duty or responsibility of the Institute nor the Seminary to teach an academic class on Church history. Most people don't really care to know all the details and controversies of history. For those who claim that they were lied to, it is more likely they are lying to themselves. If most of the 'pertinent details' have been at the very least published in offical publications of the church, then they have only themselves to blame for not knowing. The information is available. Claiming they were not told of these details is only a sign of laziness.

When I learned about these things, I probably didn't have a typical reaction. When the Church News published the Salamander Letter, my reaction was to see that these men were real human beings. They became more real to me. When the letter was revealed to be a fraud, my opinion of Joseph or Martin did not change.

When I learned about plural marriage, I was in favor. I thought it was an interesting doctrine. I even knew two girls in my ward who were close friends, that if plural marriage were to come back, I would have proposed to both of them. When I learned that Joseph Smith married his first plural wife in 1831, I admired how faithful he was. It did not disturb me.

When I learned about the Kinderhook plates, I held the information in reserved until I could learn more. I examined the information in Church History and thought that the descriptions showed that something very old was uncovered. I took the copies of the characters to work because I worked with native Chinese. They discussed the history of Chinese writing and all agreed that the characters were not Chinese. Then I read that article that revealed that most of what is in Church History was not written by Joseph Smith but taken from the journals of people who were there and was probably just rumors that were going around that had no basis in fact, I agreed with the article. I never doubted the Church nor Joseph Smith because of what others claimed. Anything that might have caused others to lose faith, I hold in reserve until I have more information.

Marvin