John Dehlin And Faith Reconstruction

[rockpond]

We tend to forget that most people go inactive or leave not based on history or the internet. But rather because they have lost interest or have become tired. It has only been with the internet do we see claims being made without fact or good research. But back in the day, no one left that I knew over history or the Journal of discourses of brigham young or MMM etc. They just got tired or lost interest.

And I would think that the same is for today also. Now of course, when a member goes to the internet and discovers the critics interpreting this or that about the church that this member did not know...well...it can have a bad affect on that member. And why not when such interpretations are written to get members to doubt. But...being a member of the church is not easy. And people have been leaving the fold because of lifestyle changes too.

I have found that we seem to complicate the reasons for people leaving.

CFR that "most people go inactive or leave not based on history or the internet. But rather because they have lost interest or have become tired."

[wayfarer]

We tend to forget that most people go inactive or leave not based on history or the internet. But rather because they have lost interest or have become tired. It has only been with the internet do we see claims being made without fact or good research. But back in the day, no one left that I knew over history or the Journal of discourses of brigham young or MMM etc. They just got tired or lost interest.

And I would think that the same is for today also. Now of course, when a member goes to the internet and discovers the critics interpreting this or that about the church that this member did not know...well...it can have a bad affect on that member. And why not when such interpretations are written to get members to doubt. But...being a member of the church is not easy. And people have been leaving the fold because of lifestyle changes too.

I have found that we seem to complicate the reasons for people leaving.

Thank you for getting this back on topic. And completely agree (reputation point, even)!

[Calm]

I have found that we seem to complicate the reasons for people leaving.

I suspect that there are just as many reasons to leave that there are people leaving. Everyone will probably have their own unique mix of what causes them to leave including dashes and pinches of disinterest, doubts, contradictions, etc.

[Scott Lloyd]

Deleted. Posting error.

Edited February 7, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

true. As is observable behavior. I'm only observing the behavior, that's all.

Yes, but you are drawing the wrong conclusions....concluding I was giving him a rep point, for example, for something which was not why I was giving him a rep point for.

Though if you also agree with much of what Kevin said, I really don't see why you would have an issue with mfb publicly saying he agreed with him. Should he pretend he didn't agree with him or just choose something to argue about or not say anything at all if he couldn't come up with something negative?

Edited February 7, 2013 by calmoriah

[go_utes01]

CFR that "most people go inactive or leave not based on history or the internet. But rather because they have lost interest or have become tired."

I am not sure there are any metrics to conclusively determine this, but from my antectdotal experience why me is correct in his statement. Most (not all) people, in my experience again, go inactive because of personal issues (boredom, other interests, relationships, offense, too busy, etc.) unrelated to historical or doctrinal questions. Not to say that historical/doctrinal misunderstandings/concerns are not serious and, I believe, growing because of internet dissemination.

Edited February 7, 2013 by go_utes01

[wayfarer]

CFR that "most people go inactive or leave not based on history or the internet. But rather because they have lost interest or have become tired."

not trying to provide the reference, but it seems reasonable, doesn't it? I mean, we have been dealing with an inactivity rate in the church of at least 50% overall, and those that 'leave' in that form, are by and far not affected by the internet -- they just lose interest or are tired. And by the way, most people who claim to leave don't withdraw their membership records -- they just go inactive -- and no I don't have a reference for that.

[mfbukowski]

As it always works both ways -- I struggle with your way of acting, providing deference only for the core cabal, whilst failing to acknowledge a position remarkably similar to your own -- that to me really is a conundrum: it's a behavior I would call 'sycophant', and I'm sorry if that is direct, but that's where I come from. I watch a number of people here click on the 'reputation' button on the core cabal, regardless of how thought-out it is, and it gives me a very distinct impression of the 'spirit' of this site. There's potential here, but there's also a specific 'spirit'. In deference to that 'spirit', I recognize that as a pariah to the cabal, I have to be extremely careful about what I say, lest I be banned. I simply would appreciate that the cabal answer the questions I pose, and they do not.

The fact is, yes, your position and mine are not that far apart intellectually.

But our understanding of the significance of our respective positions are miles and miles apart. I see my position as a total vindication and intellectual affirmation of all that Mormonism is, and you see yours as a reason to separate yourself from the herd mentality, that in your interpretation of reality, Mormonism is.

It seems that you want to be unique and a rebel, and I want to be a mainstream sheep in the flock.

So be it.

When I have posted there, I have said nothing I would not have said here, yet you find it necessary to be a different person there than here.

Were I you, I might want to look at why that is the case, but I am not you. The truth is I would love to sit down with you over a glass of your favorite beverage and I with mine and have a good long talk.

I can't come over there because when I get punched in the face, it tends to distract the discussion. I'm funny about that I guess.

Oh well.

I guess I will just have to remain a sycophantic member of the cabal, though in fact I am seen here as a rebel anyway.

This thread is out of control. In the time it has taken me to write this post, my screen is now flashing that there are 19 new posts to view!

Somehow I think there are better things to do with one's life.

[Calm]

And by the way, most people who claim to leave don't withdraw their membership records -- they just go inactive -- and no I don't have a reference for that.

I believe this has been demonstrated by comparing records of the rates of those who claim to be LDS and membership counts....I think David Stewart was the one who did some of this type of research on his website cumorah.com but it has been years since I looked at it so I could be wrong.

[rockpond]

I am not sure there are any metrics to conclusively determine this, but from my antectdotal experience why me is correct in his statement. Most (not all) people, in my experience again, go inactive because of personal issues (boredom, other interests, relationships, offense, too busy, etc.) unrelated to historical or doctrinal questions. Not to say that historical/doctrinal misunderstandings/concerns are not serious and, I believe, growing because of internet dissemination.

Well, from my anecdotal experience Why Me is incorrect in his assertion.

And, while there are some holes to be shot in Dehlin's survey work, it certainly makes a stronger case than any of our anecdotal evidence.

[mfbukowski]

I'm curious what you thought of my Soviet Russia example. The man who in 1985 in his 30's finally discovered how biased his worldview was and how many things he assumed about Western Society and capitalism were manipulations and half truths. Is it fair for him to feel like an institution or a culture or some entity was at blame for this?

You mean the Iron Curtain which would never fall and who's leader promised to bury us and those godless socialists who wanted to give us national police and socialized medicine?

Where were those manipulations and half truths anyway? We have become them and they have won.

[Scott Lloyd]

Does anyone even pay attention to reputation points? I know I don't. I'm not sure I see them as persuasive evidence of anything at all. (Do you? Really?)

-Allen

I'm obsessed with them.

I hit the thousand mark a couple of weeks ago, and I'm well on the way to 1,200. (Though that pales in comparison with calmoriah's, who, by the way, is my most generous awarder of points. Last I checked she had received way above 2,000 and might even have hit 3,000 by now.)

Nothing wrong with feedback, say I.

But I do find wayfarer's undue consternation over them a tad amusing.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

not trying to provide the reference, but it seems reasonable, doesn't it? I mean, we have been dealing with an inactivity rate in the church of at least 50% overall, and those that 'leave' in that form, are by and far not affected by the internet -- they just lose interest or are tired. And by the way, most people who claim to leave don't withdraw their membership records -- they just go inactive -- and no I don't have a reference for that.

No, it doesn't seem reasonable to me.

And you continue to make unsupported claims: "those that 'leave' in that form, are by and far not affected by the internet". CFR.

[Calm]

Well, from my anecdotal experience Why Me is incorrect in his assertion.

And, while there are some holes to be shot in Dehlin's survey work, it certainly makes a stronger case than any of our anecdotal evidence.

I am not sure it does since it is just self selected, basically just a larger group of anecdotes....I am not sure how big of a group of anecdotes must be before it makes for a decent case.

[Scott Lloyd]

I actually, I agree almost entirely with what Kevin says in his posts...who cannot? That's not the issue. The issue is simply the rote "as usual, i agree completely" response, that then gets a reputation point. it's rather sycophantish, as well as completely nauseating. Then, in the third person, you diss what I say, and act as if I'm not here. That's insulting, and equally nauseating, since I know your capabilities and understanding.

If you have a problem with me, then you deal directly with me. When I deal directly with Drs. Peterson and Midgley, what do they do? Snide commentary in the third person. If I tangibly fight back on that -- I get banned here. It makes me want to scream. I thought you were better than that.

It might help to bear in mind that this is an open and public board and that posts are as apt to be directed to the viewers in general as they are to the person whose post is the subject of the response.

[wayfarer]

The fact is, yes, your position and mine are not that far apart intellectually.

But our understanding of the significance of our respective positions are miles and miles apart. I see my position as a total vindication and intellectual affirmation of all that Mormonism is, and you see yours as a reason to separate yourself from the herd mentality, that in your interpretation of reality, Mormonism is.

It seems that you want to be unique and a rebel, and I want to be a mainstream sheep in the flock.

So be it.

When I have posted there, I have said nothing I would not have said here, yet you find it necessary to be a different person there than here.

Were I you, I might want to look at why that is the case, but I am not you. The truth is I would love to sit down with you over a glass of your favorite beverage and I with mine and have a good long talk.

I can't come over there because when I get punched in the face, it tends to distract the discussion. I'm funny about that I guess.

Oh well.

I guess I will just have to remain a sycophantic member of the cabal, though in fact I am seen here as a rebel anyway.

This thread is out of control. In the time it has taken me to write this post, my screen is now flashing that there are 19 new posts to view!

Somehow I think there are better things to do with one's life.

yeah, let's do that -- I'll take a diet coke.

[rockpond]

I am not sure it does since it is just self selected, basically just a larger group of anecdotes....I am not sure how big of a group of anecdotes must be before it makes for a decent case.

Yes, the self-selection is a problem with his survey. But several thousand anecdotes ought to make us pause.

[Calm]

Last I checked she was way above 2,000 and might even have hit 3,000 by now.)

I stopped checking once I got over 2000, too embarrassing.

[wayfarer]

No, it doesn't seem reasonable to me.

And you continue to make unsupported claims: "those that 'leave' in that form, are by and far not affected by the internet". CFR.

dude (or dudette) -- the original 'unsupported claim' you CFRed was from go-utes, not me. I said that I was not trying to answer the CFR, and I already said I don't have a reference for it. RTFP.

Edited February 7, 2013 by wayfarer

[Calm]

Yes, the self-selection is a problem with his survey. But several thousand anecdotes ought to make us pause.

I think his survey would make a great place to start constructing a research project from. I don't discount it based on its self selection, I just don't think there is much there to based decisions on....(add-on, got interrupted) but one could certainly use it to base 'cautions' on. Edited February 7, 2013 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

I do rep points mainly as a way to say "hi, I've read your post and there is something in it that I like". I even rep posts where I disagree with part of what they say if there are points that particularly well stated in my view.

There are actually very few of us who give rep points on the board on a regular basis, so few in fact that I am surprised that wayfarer even noticed. volgadon and myself are the most regular of point givers, I've notice. Scott Lloyd, ERayR and a few others are also regular, but I doubt they ever max out their numbers much.

I used to, but not since they changed things and substantially boosted my daily allotment.

[Daniel Peterson]

Dr. Peterson and Dr. Midgley can say anything they want and completely abuse others

Where have I "abused" you or anybody else here?

You keep making these outlandish claims against me, but they're flatly untrue.

Stop bearing false witness.

I can say nothing.

And yet, for a silent person, you're remarkably loquacious.

I know you know this

Actually, I think it's absurd nonsense.

I'm completely befuddled by your response here.

Perhaps so.

[mfbukowski]

Yes, but you are drawing the wrong conclusions....concluding I was giving him a rep point, for example, for something which was not why I was giving him a rep point for.

Though if you also agree with much of what Kevin said, I really don't see why you would have an issue with mfb publicly saying he agreed with him. Should he pretend he didn't agree with him or just choose something to argue about or not say anything at all if he couldn't come up with something negative?

The fact is, I was just giving his post a second chance to appear in case someone missed it. Unfortunately, I can't give myself rep points though honestly they don't mean much to me.

Cal and I sometimes joke about it, but the truth is that I am seen as kind of a rebel around here anyway I suspect.

[wayfarer]

[nothing relevant]

Please answer my post 405 above.

[Daniel Peterson]

We tend to forget that most people go inactive or leave not based on history or the internet. But rather because they have lost interest or have become tired. It has only been with the internet do we see claims being made without fact or good research. But back in the day, no one left that I knew over history or the Journal of discourses of brigham young or MMM etc. They just got tired or lost interest.

And I would think that the same is for today also. Now of course, when a member goes to the internet and discovers the critics interpreting this or that about the church that this member did not know...well...it can have a bad affect on that member. And why not when such interpretations are written to get members to doubt. But...being a member of the church is not easy. And people have been leaving the fold because of lifestyle changes too.

I have found that we seem to complicate the reasons for people leaving.

This is absolutely my experience and my impression. The vast majority of the people that I know who are inactive couldn't care less about historical or doctrinal issues. They're just not interested in the topic. They're not interested in the Church. Not enough, anyway, to want to attend.

Most of my maternal extended family, I would estimate, are inactive. (My paternal extended family aren't members.) I can't think of a single one who left the Church over any intellectual issue. I don't think intellectual issues loom large in their universe. They're just not religious, period. And most inactives, I think, are more like my extended family than they are like the Tanners.