How Prevalent Are Serious Doubters In The Lds Church

[sdc999]

It refers back to Buckeye's comment that people who want an excuse to leave the Church and sin are not apt to put in hours of effort to research intellectual issues as an excuse. Nehor replied that it wouldn't take that much effort, just an hour or so on a poorly researched anti-Mormon site. I responded that the bad arguments are so pervasive on the Internet, it wouldn't even take that long, just a disposition to swallow the anti-Mormon material whenever and wherever one encounters it.

The exchange had nothing to do with "how they stay in it."

Are you up to speed now?

Or was this just an attempted conversation hi-jack?

If I remember correctly, missionaries do not ask for hours of effort to research intellectual issues.  Couple of feel good meetings and bam, would you join?   And secondly, how long do you think it would take on a well researched anti-Mormon site as opposed to a poorly researched site?

[ERayR]

And secondly, how long do you think it would take on a well researched anti-Mormon site as opposed to a poorly researched site?

 To get the truth? 

[Scott Lloyd]

If I remember correctly, missionaries do not ask for hours of effort to research intellectual issues. Couple of feel good meetings and bam, would you join? And secondly, how long do you think it would take on a well researched anti-Mormon site as opposed to a poorly researched site?

Unlike anti-Mormons, missionaries don't purport to convince people through intellectual argument. They invite and encourage people to pray and ask God for personal revelation.

And secondly, when it comes to keeping the field free of the noxious weeds of sophistry so that one may feel free to pray and ask God (which is all most defenders of Mormonism hope to accomplish anyway*) there are well-researched apologetics sites that are a worthy adversary for any supposedly well-researched anti-Mormon site that I'm acquainted with.

*See Daniel Peterson's newly posted essay, "The Modest But Important End of Apologetics" on the website of Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture.

Edited September 7, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[savedbygrace]

Pornography is an example of a person falling short, which leaves the integrity of the church intact. 

If enough members (prominent) defect for doctrinal reasons, then the church's integrity comes into play. 

For example:  If a regular Joe leaves the church, not much is going to be said; In fact, some will be quick to judge and say they sinned or didn't want to live a good life.  But if a Bishop, EQ pres or Stake holding person should leave,  some members react with a 'hey, that is a pretty smart guy/gal.  What does he/she know that I don't?'

This doesn't happen often, but it does happen.   

So, to answer your statement,  you are correct in the church continuing to grow even with members who have fallen away, but it has also grown with porn addicts within its ranks as well.

Decision making weight is not placed upon those without credibility and sinners usually lack credibility.   I would be more worried about fallout of a good standing member leaving for doctrinal reasons rather than a porn addict leaving.

 

 

Of all the sins that all mankind are capable of, why is pornography such a big issue? I just don't understand why this specific sin is such a problem within the massive spectrum of acts that are sinful before God

[canard78]

Of all the sins that all mankind are capable of, why is pornography such a big issue? I just don't understand why this specific sin is such a problem within the massive spectrum of acts that are sinful before God

Why does a thread opened about doubting keep getting detailed to discuss porn. There's no correlation and it's nothing to do with the OP. Can I suggest those that want to reply to this do so in a thread that actually addresses this topic.

[Rivers]

It refers back to Buckeye's comment that people who want an excuse to leave the Church and sin are not apt to put in hours of effort to research intellectual issues as an excuse. Nehor replied that it wouldn't take that much effort, just an hour or so on a poorly researched anti-Mormon site. I responded that the bad arguments are so pervasive on the Internet, it wouldn't even take that long, just a disposition to swallow the anti-Mormon material whenever and wherever one encounters it.

The exchange had nothing to do with "how they stay in it."

Are you up to speed now?

Or was this just an attempted conversation hi-jack?

I think he was making a joke by insinuating that that the "The slanted, out-of-context and poorly sourced material" refers to official church material.  And one can stay in the church by reading it. But I could be wrong.

Edited September 8, 2013 by Rivers

[DBMormon]

humor is only funny if one gets it.

[Scott Lloyd]

Disregard. Posted in error while trying to use MultiQuote function.

Edited September 8, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I think he was making a joke by insinuating that that the "The slanted, out-of-context and poorly sourced material" refers to official church material.  And one can stay in the church by reading it. But I could be wrong.

 

 

humor is only funny if one gets it.

I got the joke. I didn't find it particularly funny. I elected to answer it straight.

Please see my post #178.

[Bikeemikey]

Absent reliable statistics, I doubt the accuracy of this.

And let me hasten to add that I don't find John Dehlin's Internet "survey" of self-selected respondents all that compelling.

You can only have a faith crisis is you have faith.

[cursor]

Everyone has some form of faith. How much, and on which side of the fence is up for grabs.

Edited September 10, 2013 by cursor

[cursor]

humor is only funny if one gets it.

 

and ... Humor is only funny if one properly delivers it.

[DBMormon]

and ... Humor is only funny if one properly delivers it.

Cinepro usually delivers it well!!!!

[ERayR]

Cinepro usually delivers it well!!!!

Well!!!!!! Well not so much.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Cinepro usually delivers it well!!!!

Sometimes. Once in a while I lol.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well!!!!!! Well not so much.

At least not four exclamation points' worth.

[cinepro]

 

 

I got the joke. I didn't find it particularly funny. I elected to answer it straight.

Please see my post #178.

 

The question isn't whether or not you thought it was "funny".  The question is whether or not it's true.

 

You said "They don't even have to research in earnest. The slanted, out-of-context and poorly sourced material is ubiquitous on the Internet. All they have to do is uncritically swallow it whenever and wherever they encounter it."

 

If we're looking at this "straight", would you say that it is easy to find "slanted, out-of-context and poorly sourced material" on the internet that is produced by LDS (even, possibly, the Church itself) and is aimed towards LDS and defends the Church and promotes good feelings towards the Church and belief in the Church's claims? 

 

Because if the emails I'm constantly getting from relatives and other Church members are any indication, such information is ubiquitous, swallowed and forwarded with great frequency.

[Anti-NOMunistJackMormon]

Many doubters start doubting through research and study. Yes there are are some who simply want to sin. The "doubting tent" is a big one and equating someone inactive but believing with doubts is far different from many others.

 

The church is at best 40-50% active for any number of reasons.It is very easy for some to claim it's just the fact that they want to sin. I know many inactives that have doubts or differences with the church but would otherwise be looked upon as good Christians with conservative family values but simply wish to stay away for organized religion.

 

Many times this due to stupid authoritarianism within the church that is little more than pseudo-doctrine or incorporating well-poisioning with pre-conversional edicts of former beliefs. Taking members to task for chewing gum in the chapel. Caffienated soda. White shirts. People with jobs working on Sunday to maintain them. People who believe in the Gospel that feel they just aren't right for full-time missionary work. People who can't afford large ammounts of tithing. Watching TV on Sunday. Any number of minor offenses that some "Osama-bin-Mormon" thinks they have right to brow beat other members for due to thier status or connection with in the stake or region. Many times it comes out later they have major moral violations of thier own. This is not simply being offended many times as some may suppose but religious abuse in some cases.

 

On the other hand I think the driving factor as of late relates to the secular political disposition of members. They want to leave because the church differs with thier politics. I think some of these groups have become exactly the cult they claim the church to be and almost model themselves in ideology, dogma and evangelism as the "threat" they oppose. The discourse in many of these groups, is to the extent that any deviation from thier collective agenda or thought concensus is given a brow beating.

 

I don't think the church needs to bend to the whims of the world or every member's wish. However some conservative reform is highly in need. We need good values within the church. We need good people in the church. We need to keep traditional values. Burying one's ultra-orthodox head in the sand and trying to run the church like the USMC is not the way to do it. A member who thinks outside the manuals and doesn't wear a tie sometimes is not the same as someone who wants Athiest bishops performing nude Wiccan weddings in the chapel. 

 

I'm not trying to offend anyone I'm simply trying to point out that all people who doubt are not the same and generally speaking even the stong will eventually have thier doubts. How others and the church deal with them will make a very large impact for better or worse.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Anti-NOMunistJackMormon