The Philosophy Of Leaving The Church Over Historical Issues-Like What Is It?

[semlogo]

It really bothers me when people talk about how the church withholds information, when we have been taught to seek out of the best books and to study and pray on our own. However, that seems to be a symptom of apostasy.

Example. My sister and some of her children have recently left the church as they have come to believe that the prophets are no longer receiving revelation. The compare them to someone like Brigham Young and because the church doesn't talk about the doomsday prophecies of the past they are somehow false. But here is the crux of the matter: they believe the church has suppressed the JOD which contains all these "prophecies" and "revelations" from the dead prophets. Even after I point out the quotes from the JOD in our lesson manuals and that the entire JOD is published on the BYU website they insist the church doesn't encourage us to read it and the insist the JOD is scripture. I can't follow the logic of it but I guess that's me. Prior to their apostasy they never would think such a thing, and in fact isn't it ironic that the very fact they found these writings and read them, contrary to the church "suppressing" them puts a lie to the claim that we are brainwashed and kept from certain things.

The rationalization that goes with leaving the church simply blows my mind. It's one thing to disagree with the teachings and doctrine but quite another to then put a negative light on all the history that they suddenly discover after years of being in the church.

I've come to understand that we all process information differently. That's just human nature. If we're going to say that it's brave for other people to leave their church and join ours in the face of opposition from their family, how can we call people disengenous and "apostates" and rationalizers when they do the reverse?

Most of my brothers and sisters are not active. One of them had her name removed. While we hold different views, I respect hers. Her views came from sincere searching for the truth. Sincere people can and often do come to different conclusions given the same information. Our brains all work differently - including the way we experience the divine.

Edited January 22, 2012 by semlogo

[Deborah]

Sincere people can and often do come to different conclusions given the same information. Our brains all work differently - including the way we experience the divine.

It depends on the person and the circumstance. I have a daughter who likewise asked her name to be removed from the church but I don't consider her apostate. I fully understand her choice and I do have empathy for her circumstances. She doesn't actively preach against the church, she just lives her life and that is her choice and I have come to accept that that which makes her happy is not what makes me happy. One can't say the same about those who openly criticize and call liars the prophets and Apostles that you love and believe in, and that just a short while ago they too embraced. They have alienated family and friends not because of their choice but because of their actions.

[LDSToronto]

Jeff, (and anyone else)

Do you believe it is encouraged, or even possible, to have a Catholic-like experience of the LDS Church? Here's what I mean. A Catholic is welcome in the Catholic church regardless of their fidelity. Many Catholics openly disagree with the Pope on a number of teachings. Many Catholics vocally lobby for women priests. Many Catholics denounce the history (in fact, the Catholic church acknowledges it's checkered past). Many Catholics have pre-marital sex, live together before marriage, and some are openly gay and married to their same-sex spouse.

And yet, these very people claim to be Catholic and are openly welcome into their congregations without guile, without judgment, without labeling.

So let me ask if the same is true of a Mormon. Could a Mormon openly question and openly believe that Joseph was not a prophet, that the Book of Mormon may be scripture but it certainly didn't come from God the way the LDS Church said it does, and that openly disagree with the current prophet? Could a Mormon claim that the Word of Wisdom is not inspired and have a drink now and then, make a modest donation instead of pay 10% tithing, and still decide to attend the temple?

Imagine a group of these Mormons - not just one, and not necessarily a majority, but a substantially sized group. Would that group be welcome to worship fully, the same way a Catholic can worship fully in their faith?

I think if we are all honest, we will say "Absolutely not". But I suspect some here will rationalize the a current vision of the LDS church that has open arms and welcomes these types of worshippers.

H.

[LDSToronto]

It depends on the person and the circumstance. I have a daughter who likewise asked her name to be removed from the church but I don't consider her apostate. I fully understand her choice and I do have empathy for her circumstances. She doesn't actively preach against the church, she just lives her life and that is her choice and I have come to accept that that which makes her happy is not what makes me happy. One can't say the same about those who openly criticize and call liars the prophets and Apostles that you love and believe in, and that just a short while ago they too embraced. They have alienated family and friends not because of their choice but because of their actions.

Ah, so as long as people keep quiet, you are OK with them leaving the church?

H.

[Deborah]

Ah, so as long as people keep quiet, you are OK with them leaving the church?

You know very well that is not what I am saying. There is a difference between explaining your reasons and then openly denouncing what they once believed and what you still believe.

[Deborah]

I think if we are all honest, we will say "Absolutely not". But I suspect some here will rationalize the a current vision of the LDS church that has open arms and welcomes these types of worshippers.

And yet many of these people you describe come to church and are welcomed. Imagine that!

[Senator]

You know very well that is not what I am saying. There is a difference between explaining your reasons and then openly denouncing what they once believed and what you still believe.

Would it be healthier for these people to keep quiet and stay in the church?

[LDSToronto]

And yet many of these people you describe come to church and are welcomed. Imagine that!

Nope - I'm not talking about just showing up at a building and sitting in meetings. I'm talking about full participatory worship - that means bringing up points like, "Nope, Thomas S. Monsen is not a prophet because..." and "Nope, the Book of Mormon was not translated, and here's how we know..." and "Nope, we don't have to follow the WoW, and I have a drink now and then for health"...

Does the leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints welcome this type of worship? Does it issue temple recommends for this type of worship? Does the Church withhold discipline for those who continually worship in this fashion?

Not talking about local wards filled with friendly people, I'm talking about the institutional church.

H.

[LDSToronto]

You know very well that is not what I am saying. There is a difference between explaining your reasons and then openly denouncing what they once believed and what you still believe.

So? Who cares? What's wrong with being vocal in one's beliefs?

H.

[Deborah]

I am amused in an unfunny way how quickly some come to the defense of those who leave the church, even when they do not know the circumstances leading to it. In the experience with my family I have been able to see first hand the decline into apostasy. Again it’s not about choices but about actions after the choices are made, especially knowing those actions are offensive to family and friends who still believe. I would like to say to those of you who left the church it is very likely your family members saw it coming but were fervently hoping and praying that it would not.

Apostasy doesn’t happen suddenly but it is a gradual process, and I don’t deny it is a struggle for those who decide to leave. It is very hard to tell family and friends, and your bishop, that you no longer believe the church is true. That doesn’t mean that they have to accept your reasons for leaving and may in fact still try to sway you to return. It does become hard to fully participate in family activities when you lose that common thing that was so important to all of you. It does become easier with time but it means avoiding discussion about things that used to be a natural part of the conversation.

I still love my sister and her family but it is painful to see how much they have lost and how narrow and backwards their views have become since their decision to leave, and yes that is in my perception of the matter. My sister is now trying to bend over backwards to mend some fences but it is an obvious effort. Those who leave the church are always asking for understanding, but do you offer the same for those who remain and are trying to deal with what they consider a great loss?

When I joined the LDS church my mother and step father were extremely hostile and almost prevented me from doing so (I was only 14). The irony is I wasn’t betraying their beliefs because they had none and I was the only one in the family who even went to any church. No doubt those who leave, whose parents have a strong belief, have a more difficult time. And yes I do understand the shoe on the other foot. But usually those who join the LDS church aren’t tearing down their parents’ beliefs, just trying to express their own, and that is the difference.

[Senator]

I am amused in an unfunny way how quickly some come to the defense of those who leave the church, even when they do not know the circumstances leading to it.

Yes, there's something compelling about the one out of 99.

[Pahoran]

I dunno. I think if a hypothetical sect came along that viewed Joseph Smith in a higher position than Jesus, you'd have to call that sect Mormon.

I wouldn't "have to" do any such thing.

If a hypothetical sect came along that viewed, say, a prominent Catholic in a higher position than Jesus, would you "have to" call that sect Catholic?

If a hypothetical sect came along that viewed, say, a prominent Orthodox Christian in a higher position than Jesus, would you "have to" call that sect Orthodox?

Tafari Makonnen was a prominent Orthodox Christian; when he became Emperor of Ethiopia in 1930, he took the name Haile Selassie, which means "Power of the Trinity." The Rastafarians worship him as a god. Does that make them Ethiopian Orthodox Christians? Somehow I doubt it.

Idolatrous veneration of Joseph Smith would disqualify anyone from being a Mormon. "Mormon" refers to a man, a book and a church. The man is Mormon, the father of Moroni; The book is the Book of Mormon; the church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. April 6 1830 did not see the founding of some kind of amorphous "Latter-day Saint movement," but of a single specific institution.

In practice, Jesus would obviously have to fit in there somewhere. To some extent, the Jesus element is subsumed in the belief that Joseph Smith was a pretty good mystic.

That's false. AFAICT, most Latter-day Saints don't even think about the notion of Joseph Smith as a mystic at all, and of the few who do, I expect most would agree with Hugh Nibley's verdict that the prophetic calling is decidedly non-mystical.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jeff K.]

Deborah, on 22 January 2012 - 12:21 PM, said:

I am amused in an unfunny way how quickly some come to the defense of those who leave the church, even when they do not know the circumstances leading to it.

Yes, there's something compelling about the one out of 99.

I see these guys toss up all kinds of imagined slieghts, all sorts of anguished responses. They have chosen the praise of interpreted history over doctrine, they have chosen to be outriders in forums, people who sit on the periphery of the borders of membership, they complain, they cajole, and if it means that they can bring but one soul to their miserable state, how happy in their misery they can be, how great the evil happiness if they can drag many souls from that periphery.

I bet some almost convince themselves they are doing it for the right cause. More is the pity I hold for them.

Some try mightily to dodge what they do. Going after the 99 doesn't mean justifying them leaving. We leave that to the experts who want them to leave.

[why me]

Do you believe it is encouraged, or even possible, to have a Catholic-like experience of the LDS Church? Here's what I mean. A Catholic is welcome in the Catholic church regardless of their fidelity. Many Catholics openly disagree with the Pope on a number of teachings. Many Catholics vocally lobby for women priests. Many Catholics denounce the history (in fact, the Catholic church acknowledges it's checkered past). Many Catholics have pre-marital sex, live together before marriage, and some are openly gay and married to their same-sex spouse.

This is not exactly true. If any priest challenges the priesthood ban on women in the catholic church they would be experiencing problem with the leadership and with the parish members. They would be gone. And if any bishop marries a same sex couple, he would be gone. The structure of the catholic church is different than the lds church where there is more people involvement in the lds church. And if any nun would advocate same sex marriage they would be gone from the convent. It is really that simple. The catholic church expects fidelity from its priests, bishops, deacons and nuns.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff, (and anyone else)

Do you believe it is encouraged, or even possible, to have a Catholic-like experience of the LDS Church? Here's what I mean. A Catholic is welcome in the Catholic church regardless of their fidelity. Many Catholics openly disagree with the Pope on a number of teachings. Many Catholics vocally lobby for women priests. Many Catholics denounce the history (in fact, the Catholic church acknowledges it's checkered past). Many Catholics have pre-marital sex, live together before marriage, and some are openly gay and married to their same-sex spouse.

And yet, these very people claim to be Catholic and are openly welcome into their congregations without guile, without judgment, without labeling.

So let me ask if the same is true of a Mormon. Could a Mormon openly question and openly believe that Joseph was not a prophet, that the Book of Mormon may be scripture but it certainly didn't come from God the way the LDS Church said it does, and that openly disagree with the current prophet? Could a Mormon claim that the Word of Wisdom is not inspired and have a drink now and then, make a modest donation instead of pay 10% tithing, and still decide to attend the temple?

Imagine a group of these Mormons - not just one, and not necessarily a majority, but a substantially sized group. Would that group be welcome to worship fully, the same way a Catholic can worship fully in their faith?

I think if we are all honest, we will say "Absolutely not". But I suspect some here will rationalize the a current vision of the LDS church that has open arms and welcomes these types of worshippers.

H.

You don't know the Catholic church very well.

To begin with, for members who disagree and turn from the Pope and discount the pope, just as those who go to a sacrament meeting, they are welcome. It is hoped they repent of their situation. So to inactive members who come to Sacrament. The difference is that the Catholic church has in place a bureaucracy that does much of what we do in our church as lay members.

Secondly, if you look to the vast majority of Catholics who are ACTIVE in the affairs of the Catholic church, just as we are active, you would see like the Knights of Columbus, they are very strong members who take a much dimmer view of people who speak out against the Pope and its leadership.

Now if you are saying, why can't the church have a bureaucracy that simply lets me come in, sit down, get up and leave and doesn't care a wit for my opinion. If that is your cup of tea, don't bother us, in fact don't bother the Catholics either, they have enough people like that, they don't need anymore.

Once your false premise is removed, your point doesn't stand up very well, does it.

Edited January 22, 2012 by Jeff K.

[why me]

Once your false premise is removed, your point doesn't stand up very well, does it.

This is also true for opus dei. Gone in a flash from opus dei if one comes out and favors something that the church doesn't. And of course, this is perfectly okay because one needs unity as Paul stated in being of one mind.

Edited January 22, 2012 by why me

[Pahoran]

The Pew Memorial Trust is the largest of the Pew Trusts and operates one of the leading public opinion polling organizations in the country. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life is an active and trusted component of the Pew organization.

In 2010, the Pew Trust published the results of a survey entitled Mormons in America .

You and I have had this discussion before, Mariner. I pointed out the flaws in your argument, yet here you are repeating the same discredited claims as if they had never been addressed.

As is SOP for most anti-Mormons.

In a follow-on 2011 Pew survey 49% of non-Mormons say that they know some or a great deal about Mormonism.

If 49% or non-Mormons know something or a lot about Mormonism, and Mormons make up approximately 2% of the US population, then one can reasonably assume that 51%, (or most) people in the US would be familiar with the basic Mormon truth claims.

No, one cannot "reasonably assume" any such thing, and you know it.

When people claim to know a lot about a subject, it may be because they have studied it extensively for a number of years. I have no doubt that Tarski, for example, knows a lot about physics.

However, absent such study, people may well assume that they know a lot about a subject because they actually know so very little that they have no idea how much there is that they don't know. I bet you can find thousands of Southern Baptists who think they know a lot about Mormonism because their pastor showed them "The God Makers" twenty years ago.

Thus, out of the 49% of American non-Mormons who assume that they know a lot about Mormonism, you'd have to weed out those who think we refuse blood transfusions or to see doctors at all, those who assume that the Book of Mormon is about Brigham Young, those who think the Church is a Vatican-led conspiracy, those who think Salt Lake City is honeycombed with tunnels where all the reptilian aliens live, not to mention the millions of deluded souls who persist in the ignorant assumption that "Marmunz ain't Chrisjuns," before you find the one in a thousand who could actually give a recognisable description of what the Church actually claims for itself.

However, of the roughly 50% who are familiar with the Mormon truth claims, only about 4% have joined the Church at any time in their lives. This means that more than 90% of the people who are familiar with the truth claims of Mormonism have rejected them.

Numbers you have completely made up out of thin air.

I would call that an overwhelming majority.

Of course you would. That's what you are manipulating the stats for.

The reality, of course, is that your "overwhelming majority" is an overwhelmingly uninformed and apathetic majority.

And you know this already.

But when will you ever have the honesty to admit it?

Regards,

Pahoran

[LDSToronto]

You don't know the Catholic church very well.

To begin with, for members who disagree and turn from the Pope and discount the pope, just as those who go to a sacrament meeting, they are welcome. It is hoped they repent of their situation. So to inactive members who come to Sacrament. The difference is that the Catholic church has in place a bureaucracy that does much of what we do in our church as lay members.

Secondly, if you look to the vast majority of Catholics who are ACTIVE in the affairs of the Catholic church, just as we are active, you would see like the Knights of Columbus, they are very strong members who take a much dimmer view of people who speak out against the Pope and its leadership.

Now if you are saying, why can't the church have a bureaucracy that simply lets me come in, sit down, get up and leave and doesn't care a wit for my opinion. If that is your cup of tea, don't bother us, in fact don't bother the Catholics either, they have enough people like that, they don't need anymore.

Once your false premise is removed, your point doesn't stand up very well, does it.

No, Jeff - you misunderstand.

I am talking about the majority of those who refer to themselves as Catholic, who occasionally or more often attend Mass. I went to Catholic mass for quite a while myself, and my mother is Catholic, so I know something about Catholocism and its culture.

Now, please asnwer the actual question about how the institutional LDS Church would accept members as I've described.

H.

[Jeff K.]

No, Jeff - you misunderstand.

I am talking about the majority of those who refer to themselves as Catholic, who occasionally or more often attend Mass. I went to Catholic mass for quite a while myself, and my mother is Catholic, so I know something about Catholocism and its culture.

Now, please asnwer the actual question about how the institutional LDS Church would accept members as I've described.

H.

I have answered the question, you just don't like the answer.

Now if you are saying, why can't the church have a bureaucracy that simply lets me come in, sit down, get up and leave and doesn't care a wit for my participation. If that is your cup of tea, don't bother us, in fact don't bother the Catholics either, they have enough people like that, they don't need anymore.

Do you believe it is encouraged, or even possible, to have a Catholic-like experience of the LDS Church?

Catholic like church experience is a false premise to begin with, as I stated clearly. Do you mean inactives who come to church once in a while like Christmas and Easter... Happens all the time, they aren't barred from entering for sacrament. That IS your Catholic like experience.

If you mean are they active, do people give them responsibility? No Not in the Catholic church not anywhere.

Now Toronto, please if you don't like the answer, don't say it wasn't given to you, simply acknowledge you don't like the answer.

Edited January 22, 2012 by Jeff K.

[why me]

No, Jeff - you misunderstand.

I am talking about the majority of those who refer to themselves as Catholic, who occasionally or more often attend Mass. I went to Catholic mass for quite a while myself, and my mother is Catholic, so I know something about Catholocism and its culture.

Now, please asnwer the actual question about how the institutional LDS Church would accept members as I've described.

H.

No, Jeff - you misunderstand.

I am talking about the majority of those who refer to themselves as Catholic, who occasionally or more often attend Mass. I went to Catholic mass for quite a while myself, and my mother is Catholic, so I know something about Catholocism and its culture.

Now, please asnwer the actual question about how the institutional LDS Church would accept members as I've described.

H.

I tried to answer your post above. Please see my reference to priests, bishops and nuns. The catholic church does not like dissent among its members who have vocations in the catholic church.

[LDSToronto]

Now if you are saying, why can't the church have a bureaucracy that simply lets me come in, sit down, get up and leave and doesn't care a wit for my opinion. If that is your cup of tea, don't bother us, in fact don't bother the Catholics either, they have enough people like that, they don't need anymore.

I love this answer! Absolutely love it. Thank you.

H.

[ERayR]

It really bothers me when people talk about how the church withholds information, when we have been taught to seek out of the best books and to study and pray on our own. However, that seems to be a symptom of apostasy.

Example. My sister and some of her children have recently left the church as they have come to believe that the prophets are no longer receiving revelation. The compare them to someone like Brigham Young and because the church doesn't talk about the doomsday prophecies of the past they are somehow false. But here is the crux of the matter: they believe the church has suppressed the JOD which contains all these "prophecies" and "revelations" from the dead prophets. Even after I point out the quotes from the JOD in our lesson manuals and that the entire JOD is published on the BYU website they insist the church doesn't encourage us to read it and the insist the JOD is scripture. I can't follow the logic of it but I guess that's me. Prior to their apostasy they never would think such a thing, and in fact isn't it ironic that the very fact they found these writings and read them, contrary to the church "suppressing" them puts a lie to the claim that we are brainwashed and kept from certain things.

The rationalization that goes with leaving the church simply blows my mind. It's one thing to disagree with the teachings and doctrine but quite another to then put a negative light on all the history that they suddenly discover after years of being in the church.

You mean because they don't have their own GA to force them into a study session the church is hiding information?

[LDSToronto]

Now if you are saying, why can't the church have a bureaucracy that simply lets me come in, sit down, get up and leave and doesn't care a wit for my participation. If that is your cup of tea, don't bother us, in fact don't bother the Catholics either, they have enough people like that, they don't need anymore.

I love this answer! Absolutely love it. Thank you.

Here is why I love what you said, Jeff - I love it because you now have an opportunity to learn from an Apostle. Here's what Elder Jeffrey R. Holland said:

I think you'd be as aware as I am that that we have many people who are members of the church who do not have some burning conviction as to its origins, who have some other feeling about it that is not as committed to foundational statements and the premises of Mormonism. But we're not going to invite somebody out of the church over that any more than we would anything else about degrees of belief or steps of hope or steps of conviction. ... We would say: "This is the way I see it, and this is the faith I have; this is the foundation on which I'm going forward. If I can help you work toward that I'd be glad to, but I don't love you less; I don't distance you more; I don't say you're unacceptable to me as a person or even as a Latter-day Saint if you can't make that step or move to the beat of that drum." ... We really don't want to sound smug. We don't want to seem uncompromising and insensitive.

H.

[Senator]

Some try mightily to dodge what they do. Going after the 99 doesn't mean justifying them leaving. We leave that to the experts who want them to leave.

I have no idea what you are talking about, or whom you are taking to....

Edited January 22, 2012 by Senator

[Mariner]

You and I have had this discussion before, Mariner. I pointed out the flaws in your argument, yet here you are repeating the same discredited claims as if they had never been addressed.

As is SOP for most anti-Mormons.

No, one cannot "reasonably assume" any such thing, and you know it.

When people claim to know a lot about a subject, it may be because they have studied it extensively for a number of years. I have no doubt that Tarski, for example, knows a lot about physics.

However, absent such study, people may well assume that they know a lot about a subject because they actually know so very little that they have no idea how much there is that they don't know. I bet you can find thousands of Southern Baptists who think they know a lot about Mormonism because their pastor showed them "The God Makers" twenty years ago.

Thus, out of the 49% of American non-Mormons who assume that they know a lot about Mormonism, you'd have to weed out those who think we refuse blood transfusions or to see doctors at all, those who assume that the Book of Mormon is about Brigham Young, those who think the Church is a Vatican-led conspiracy, those who think Salt Lake City is honeycombed with tunnels where all the reptilian aliens live, not to mention the millions of deluded souls who persist in the ignorant assumption that "Marmunz ain't Chrisjuns," before you find the one in a thousand who could actually give a recognisable description of what the Church actually claims for itself.

Numbers you have completely made up out of thin air.

Of course you would. That's what you are manipulating the stats for.

The reality, of course, is that your "overwhelming majority" is an overwhelmingly uninformed and apathetic majority.

And you know this already.

But when will you ever have the honesty to admit it?

Regards,

Pahoran

Pahoran,

Now that you have finished your rant, would you mind checking out the Pew Memorial Trust surveys that I referenced?

If you do, you will find out that every one of the numbers and statistics that I used in my argument can be substantiated by the data reported from these surveys.

I know it would be asking for great personal sacrifice on your part, but perhaps you should just admit that you are wrong.

Talk about your miraculous event.

Edited January 23, 2012 by Mariner