You Lost Me.

[Deborah]

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.

I suppose those who let such small things disturb them wonder about the rest of us who don't see it the same way. The fact is prophets are human, and anyone who reads the OT would not be surprised to learn that Joseph Smith was also very human, truly a rough stone needing smoothing. But this is what makes what he brought forth and which is still going so strong today all the more miraculous. Surely a divine hand was behind it.

I think if young people are truly feeling left out then there is something else missing, probably at home, rather than at church. I have seen too many times parents becoming withdrawn from their children. Just going through a department store watching young mothers talking on their cell phones with little children running around them trying to get attention tells me there is a disconnect somewhere and that it is parents who are alienating their children, not the churches.

[Damien the Leper]

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.

I respect your testimony. However, I am going to side with John Huntsman when he was asked if he was a Mormon. It is a much more difficult question to answer rather than an over simplified yes or no response.

[Damien the Leper]

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.

Perhaps I should rephrase the question. What do you personally identify with that makes your experience unique or has some profound impact on how you identify with God?

[birdgirl]

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?

Some Mormons, like John Dehlin and Joanna Brooks (testimony on MST), call themselves Uncorrelated Mormons. While the church has recently been described as a "big tent" I personally don't think it is big enough for what they envision.

I'm one that the LDS church and Christianity "lost" (to quote the OP) and I'm fascinated by those who sit on the fence or the fringe and try to cause a shift from within- seems hopeless and pointless to me but maybe they are gaining traction as well as supporters.

[Damien the Leper]

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.

Then perhaps someone who teaches church history would like to point out where in the curriculum we weren't paying attention to post 1890 Manifesto continuation of taking plural wives for forty more years.

Perhaps someone would like to point out where we weren't paying attention in our church history class that the Book of Mormon was translated by JS with stones and his head in a hat.

If history is not being appropriately and honestly portrayed then we have reason for concern. As Dr. James Loewen, a US history authority, stated in his book Lies My Teacher Told Me, "Those who don't remember the past are condemned to repeat the eleventh grade."

"What passes for identity in America is a series of myths about one's heroic ancestors."

- James Baldwin

"One is astonished in the study of history at the recurrence of the idea that evil mus be forgotten, distorted, skimmed over. We must not remember that Daniel Webster got drunk but only remember that he was a splendid constitutional lawyer. We must forget that George Washington was a slave owner...and simply rember the things we regard as credible and inspiring. The difficulty, of course, with this philosophy is that history loses its value as an incentive and example; it paints perfect men and noble nations, but it does not tell the truth."

- W.E.B. Dubois

All these quotes apply heavily to those of us who have concerns and to how we interpret and identify with our religious experience. Packer is wrong that only faith promoting history is worthy of study. I refuse to repeat the 'eleventh grade' in any form by neglecting history or by not embracing the the fullness of history as part of the Restoration's sacred story.

[Damien the Leper]

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?

You miss the point. I'm talking about what we identify with within the larger culture and theology of Mormonism.

I identify with LGBT. I identify with the moderates. I identify with the unorthodox. These are aspects to our culture that have meaning and value to me as a Latter Day Saint.

[Sleeper Cell]

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.

Isn’t that sort of like what “many former LDS people” do when they say similarly dismissive and/or accusatory things about the church?

we did not leave the Church, but rather, the Church left us.

and

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.

[Damien the Leper]

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.

Not at all. The LDS church's dirty laundry has influenced how I perceive history. The Gospel of Jesus Christ transcends even the LDS church. While I have and do share my ideas, nothing is absolute except for that which we will never know until the next life.

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.

Of course. The LDS church is not on the earth to accomodate adherents as a spiritual home where all can openly dialogue on their perceptions and ideas of what scripture means or how religious thought is relevent or not. It is meant to be the sole beacon of truth. That is the LDS church's agenda, so be it. Great! Wonderful! But that doesn't stick with me. Does that mean I don't love or respect the church for what it is? Absolutely and whole-heartedly and resoundingly...NO.

I'm not looking for a different church and I don't need one. The LDS church is where I believe that I'm called.

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

And you're regurgitating. My experience is not my own but one that is shared by many. Just as you would say yours is. In this case, neither is more right than the other.

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?

What does the intro to Section 89 say? Point out to me anywhere that it says COMMANDMENT and not a word coyly meant to imply commandment. For me, scripture is the second in ultimate authority next to the Supreme Authority, God.

"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.

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

I don't reject the church. Don't assume you know anything about me, Selek. If you are unable to recognize the 'our' then you aren't paying close enough attention to the broader life and religious experiences of other LDS and self-identifying Mormons. That's your problem and not mine.

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".

Not at all. You need to stop assuming things, Selek. Just because I don't take a 'conservative', or 'faith promoting' or 'orthodox' or 'traditional' stance on all things LDS does not make me an anti-Mormon. My faith journey as a Latter Day Saint will continue for the rest of my life and that journey is between myself and the Savior.

You approach it differently. I will admit that I am impatient and I wish that I could better portray my understanding but I don't want others to change their mind because I say so. I want to freely express ideas, outside of the actual church setting, and dialogue on shared ideas. The hardline of only seeing things one way does't work for me.

Last night, I went to the temple lights with some friends from my ward. One of those friends and I shared a long discussion on how we see and interpret our faith heritage, our individual experience and our current thoughts on important matters (to us). He is what he labels himself as...a more conservatively moderate member. I respect him for that and we walk away with no hurt feelings and a deeper respect for each other.

Your own comments belie this claim.

You're assuming you know what you're talking about again.

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

Whatever you want to call it, Selek. I'm no less LDS than you are because you are at the opposite extreme.

In your opinion.

Ok.

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.

Theology has always been and will always be shaped by the historical human experience. I am not naive enough to believe that any church on the face of the earth is outside of this condition. There is no supporting evidence for such a claim. And screaming and citing modern revelation doesn't help an argument either.

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.

I wasn't trying to present anything new. An example of something that is isn't new is the historical evidence of early Jews being polytheistic. However, a friend of mine left Judaism because it wasn't the monotheistic religion that he grew up knowing about. Like him, I have not turned against my faith heritage but I choose to embrace all its characteristics and seek understanding as to how that may or may not shape my theology or religious experience.

Call it rationalizations or justifications all you want, Selek. But the church does not speak for individual experience with the Divine nor does it speak for the individual religious experience of what is 'truth'. The church speaks for itself and its own agenda.

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?

You need to stop this, Selek. I started the board not to antagonize or initiate a debate.

Don't you dare speak of my testimony because you know nothing about it. I respect your testimony as uniquely yours and while I may not agree with it does not make it any less sacred. I ask that you grant me the same courtesy.

The OP was directed toward the study of WHY young Christians are leaving their churches and rethinking faith.

Now, if you're done derailing, perhaps you would like to address the OP and do some reading if you haven't already (I know you read and I'm not trying to insult you) and explore the issues being proposed by the book You Lost Me.

Or if you have anything to contribute about how we as Latter Day Saints self-identify within the much broader Mormon culture, I would like to hear your thoughts on that as well.

But lets stop arguing bitterly and look at the heart of those who have concerns and I'm not just limiting this to the LDS community.

[LeSellers]

Young Evangelicals leaving church, going liberal']It involves an entire culture of indoctrination about worldview, including sexual mores (and notice, all of the bullet-points above are about sex), that begins early in public school, and explodes into manifestation when a child is given freedom from parental supervision for the first time at college. Stepp’s anecdote reveals this clearly:

Brittany, a 24-year-old veterinary technician, is an example of the newly disaffected. In high school, she attended a conservative Episcopal church in northern Virginia. She enrolled in college thinking of herself as a conservative and not wanting to have sex until she was married. Her views changed when she met her boyfriend. She began to question the theology of her home church on a number of social issues.

The story might as well have said, “Brittany said she believed in biblical values until she got alone with her boyfriend for the first time, got passionately aroused, had no accountability, and had sex. Then she needed a new values system to justify her desire to continue premarital sex and help her not feel guilty.”

There is much more to this story, of course, but liberal indoctrination that begins in childhood is a huge element. Public schooling was designed very early to disaffect children from their parents’ religion. As Charles Francis Potter famously wrote already in 1930:

Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism, and every American school is a school of humanism. What can a theistic Sunday school’s meeting for an hour once a week and teaching only a fraction of the children do to stem the tide of the five-day program of humanistic teaching?

By the time they arrive at college, these kids may still be members of the church, fans of Tim Tebo [sic], and even quoting Bible verses on the surface, but inside they’ve already been converted to “Democratic ideology”—because their parents entrusted the vast majority of their development to liberals long ago.

Author's emphasis

My emphasis

I've been saying this for years. Few have heard (or wanted to), but the truth is the truth.

Lehi

[Damien the Leper]

I suppose those who let such small things disturb them wonder about the rest of us who don't see it the same way. The fact is prophets are human, and anyone who reads the OT would not be surprised to learn that Joseph Smith was also very human, truly a rough stone needing smoothing. But this is what makes what he brought forth and which is still going so strong today all the more miraculous. Surely a divine hand was behind it.

I think if young people are truly feeling left out then there is something else missing, probably at home, rather than at church. I have seen too many times parents becoming withdrawn from their children. Just going through a department store watching young mothers talking on their cell phones with little children running around them trying to get attention tells me there is a disconnect somewhere and that it is parents who are alienating their children, not the churches.

Rough Stone Rolling, Mormon Enigma, No Man Knows My History all amplified my testimony of the full humanity that is always at work even in the prophet and even as they act within the full capacity of that ecclesiastical office. Those books further testified to me that Joseph Smith was a prophet and an amazingly profound and complex prophet at that.

[Grundelwalken]

I respect your testimony. However, I am going to side with John Huntsman when he was asked if he was a Mormon. It is a much more difficult question to answer rather than an over simplified yes or no response.

Having had some personal interaction with Br. Huntsman and his family, I would not feel comfortable using his opinion of the gospel as a reference. The question is only difficult when there are gaps in the heart and soul. MW

[Damien the Leper]

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.

I can respect this. But don't teach incomplete history and call it good. Provide references for the full history to be studied in a separate setting.

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.

It didn't affect me either.

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.

While there may be evidence in Community of Christ archives of JS telling William Marks that he was wrong about polygamy, I am personally okay with the doctrine. I remember when I had an issue with it but I see it much differently now as I have read about families of the past who practiced and modern families who do practice.

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

I don't know anything about the Kinderhook plates. I've heard about them but I suppose that they never really caught my attention.

[Damien the Leper]

I've been saying this for years. Few have heard (or wanted to), but the truth is the truth.

Lehi

Interesting, Lehi. Thanks for sharing.

[Damien the Leper]

Isn’t that sort of like what “many former LDS people” do when they say similarly dismissive and/or accusatory things about the church?

and

Is this question you're asking coming after closely looking at the individual experiences of those who feel the way they do? If you haven't taken the time, and I don't know if you have or not, to learn about these people and where their concerns are rooted then I invite you to do so.

[lachrymolotov]

Outsiders view many of the beliefs of the LDS church to be just plain wacky and weird. As young people intermingle with different cultures, they are able to examine their religion from another lense. It is only natural that they start adopting viewpoints of the culture they are surrounded by. In this age of easy access to information from all over the world, it is easier for young people to branch out beyond their town and their church. This explosion of exchange in information is just getting started, too.

Questions we have as young Mormons are more comfortably searched out on Google. If I wanted to know about horses in the 3rd grade when we were taught that the Europeans brought them, I wasn't able to Google it. Instead, I was left with the unsettling answer that "they all died out." Now, a 3rd grader can hop on the Internet and find out the the LDS church doesn't have any good answers for this problem. You may not agree with that last sentence, but it is unimportant how you feel about it because that is how many, many people who left the church felt about it.

Is it their fault that the evidence presented by the church wasn't convincing enough?

Is it their fault that when they come to the Internet to discuss it with other Mormons that they are treated harshly and with personal insults? Because that is basically what happens here.

The questioner is blamed via some personal flaw that they "aren't getting it." Unfortunately, for the Mormons, 6,995,000,000 people don't get it either, and they are willing to treat questioners with a different attitude. I know, everyone isn't like that... but it only takes one.

Remember that. When someone is questioning, it only takes one back-handed comment to push them away forever. By blaming the doubtful for their doubt and equating doubt with immorality, you are certain to bleed members. Why? Because EVERYONE has times of doubt.

[Damien the Leper]

Outsiders view many of the beliefs of the LDS church to be just plain wacky and weird. As young people intermingle with different cultures, they are able to examine their religion from another lense. It is only natural that they start adopting viewpoints of the culture they are surrounded by. In this age of easy access to information from all over the world, it is easier for young people to branch out beyond their town and their church. This explosion of exchange in information is just getting started, too.

Questions we have as young Mormons are more comfortably searched out on Google. If I wanted to know about horses in the 3rd grade when we were taught that the Europeans brought them, I wasn't able to Google it. Instead, I was left with the unsettling answer that "they all died out." Now, a 3rd grader can hop on the Internet and find out the the LDS church doesn't have any good answers for this problem. You may not agree with that last sentence, but it is unimportant how you feel about it because that is how many, many people who left the church felt about it.

Is it their fault that the evidence presented by the church wasn't convincing enough?

Is it their fault that when they come to the Internet to discuss it with other Mormons that they are treated harshly and with personal insults? Because that is basically what happens here.

The questioner is blamed via some personal flaw that they "aren't getting it." Unfortunately, for the Mormons, 6,995,000,000 people don't get it either, and they are willing to treat questioners with a different attitude. I know, everyone isn't like that... but it only takes one.

Remember that. When someone is questioning, it only takes one back-handed comment to push them away forever. By blaming the doubtful for their doubt and equating doubt with immorality, you are certain to bleed members. Why? Because EVERYONE has times of doubt.

I wish you could have heard me screaming at my computer screen as an echo of the sentiments of this post. Thank you for doing what I could not.

[sethpayne]

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?

Fascinating OP and this sounds like a fascinating book.

I lost my belief in some Mormon truth claims as a relatively young person through my mid-twenties and into my late twenties. At age of 30 I lost faith in the majority of Mormon truth claims – at least in the “orthodox” sense, I suppose.

At present (age 34) I am very much a theist but I don’t have many specific metaphysical beliefs. I believe in God but have no concept of what God is/means. I find beauty in the Christian Canon and in the Book of Mormon even though I am agnostic about the reality of the resurrection and quite skeptical of Book of Mormon historicity.

I still proudly self-identify as Mormon. I attend Church fairly regularly and this year had close to 100% home teaching.

Some of my fellow ward members know my personal views and some don’t. I don’t broadcast my views at Church – as I see Church as an opportunity for me to pray, ponder, and congregate with some fantastic human beings – and not as a venue for me to pontificate on my own opinions.

I was recently married to a wonderful Buddhist wife (my best friend for nearly 13 years before I convinced her to marry me!) and, in an effort to better understand her religious tradition, have undertaken a study of the Pali and Sanskrit canons of Buddhism. I’ve been struck by the some of the similarities – and the differences – between Christian and Buddhist belief, scripture, and practice. Both religions encourage us to forsake the world and focus on developing compassion and charity. She often asks me: “What would Jesus do?” and I often ask her “Are you unduly attached to X?” In essence, we are asking the same question: “How should one who seeks to become a kind, charitable, and compassionate person think and act?”

In any case, enough rambling from me.

[BlueDreams]

Perhaps I should rephrase the question. What do you personally identify with that makes your experience unique or has some profound impact on how you identify with God?

Revelation?

I'm only being obtuse slightly on purpose. I think many tend to focus too much on uniqueness. Am I unique? Sure. I stick out in a crowd, mormon or not. But the older I get the less I care about my unique identity and more about how that identity is to serve my community and God. Ergo revelation. There's nothing I identify with that has a profound impact on how I identify with God. Rather God shapes and molds with what I identitify with and how.

with luv,

BD

[KevinG]

My observation with friends and ward members is that the family loses many more people than the congregation. If someone does not have a chance to live the gospel as written they have a hard time reconciling the doctrines. Any seeming discrepancy will do for a catalyst if there is no familial or ward support. If that discrepancy is reported selectively by an anti-Mormon or critic to someone unfamiliar with the history then it is more effective.

The differing reports of the foundational story are not so different. http://eldenwatson.net/harmony.htm Does anyone here get bent out of shape over the differences in the foundational Christian writings, the Gospels?

In short teach and love your children and they are more likely to remain faithful to the teachings of their parents.

Edited December 23, 2011 by DaddyG

[Hamba Tuhan]

But the older I get the less I care about my unique identity and more about how that identity is to serve my community and God. Ergo revelation. There's nothing I identify with that has a profound impact on how I identify with God.

Thanks, BD. I still have no clue whatsoever what Valentinus is even asking, I'm afraid, but both of your posts make perfect sense to me.

[Sethbag]

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. (emphasis added)

What you criticize, I advise. I think people should both examine what their faith is based on, and also be willing to change their beliefs when they receive new information that warrants such change. That, in part, defines why you're TBM and I'm an apostate critic: you probably believe my testimony was not strong enough to withstand a few slings and arrows, and I think it's foolhardy in the extreme to hold onto beliefs even when contradictory evidence seems to indicate that they are wrong. Well, some people are more like you in their approach to truth, and some people are more like me. And some are like neither of us. I guess the book referenced in the OP was talking about this variety of approaches to truth that people have.

[Hamba Tuhan]

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 keep thinking about this. If a young person in the Church has experienced personal revelation, family revelation, answers to personal and collective prayers, the peace of the Spirit, the lifting of the burden of sin, changes in his/her foundational nature as a consequence of repentance, miraculous healings, prophecy, visions, the joy of service, unconditional love from both family and the community of Saints, priesthood power, the power of fasting, the peace and joy of the temple, inspiration from daily scripture reading, etc., why would s/he leave (or allow it to leave him/her)?

If a young person hasn't experienced these things in the Church, regardless of who may be at fault, hasn't s/he 'missed the point?'

[Sethbag]

I keep thinking about this. If a young person in the Church has experienced personal revelation, family revelation, answers to personal and collective prayers, the peace of the Spirit, the lifting of the burden of sin, changes in his/her foundational nature as a consequence of repentance, miraculous healings, prophecy, visions, the joy of service, unconditional love from both family and the community of Saints, priesthood power, the power of fasting, the peace and joy of the temple, inspiration from daily scripture reading, etc., why would s/he leave (or allow it to leave him/her)?

If a young person hasn't experienced these things in the Church, regardless of who may be at fault, hasn't s/he 'missed the point?'

Or maybe they have experienced these things, but simply realized that they weren't what they were thought to be at the time, or are just part of the human experience (joy of service, unconditional love from family, etc.). As an example, I will never deny that I had a very powerful "spiritual" reaction upon finishing the BoM in German for the first time, on my mission, in a very short space of time. I definitely experienced something. What's changed is that, especially after experiencing essentially the same thing upon finishing a vulgar fantasy series, I came to a new and different understanding of what it was that I had previously experienced.

I experienced a lot of the things you listed, but you would probably say I have most certainly missed the point. I would say that I understand what you would say the point was, but that "the point" of the LDS Church is of no interest to me, and I have rejected its premise. I'm not alone in this.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I will never deny that I had a very powerful "spiritual" reaction upon finishing the BoM in German for the first time....

Please note that I didn't include '"spiritual" reactions' anywhere in my partial list, and I'm not sure what you mean by that phrase.

I would say that I understand what you would say the point was, but that "the point" of the LDS Church is of no interest to me....

Having experienced what I have, I personally wouldn't wish to live without direct answers to prayers, personal revelation, or the ability to use priesthood authority to bless others, for example, but I can certainly respect that you don't personally find any interest in keeping such things in your life. To each his own. In the end, I guess it comes down to what we like most.

[KevinG]

Note "spiritual" in scare quotes.