Losing Saints, Keeping Saints

[CV75]

I don't understand why people get so defensive about the possibility of improving the church structure.

I think this only occurs when people approach the needs for change with different conclusions as opposed to different perspectives and talents. Unanimity and rightness of spirit has to be evident at the beginning of the process as well as during the discussions and analyses and finally in the decisions made as a result of the process and in implementation. This is the only way councils can work well.

[Tacenda]

I am in an elder's quorum presidency. I visit a lot of inactive people just by nature of my calling. The vast majority of people that are inactive from what I have seen are for the following reasons in order:

1. Apathy. Most plain and simply don't have any desire to perform the work the church requires of active members. This is the biggest reason by far that I have seen.

2. WoW issues. It is difficult for the drinker or smoker to break the habit and feel welcome.

3. Other worthiness issues, most people have a hard time finding their way back when they fall so far away.

4. Other members offended them. This can go with #'s two and three and also may mean they don't like a ward/bishop.

5. Issues with doctrine/church history. This is by far the least common, and usually occurs only among the most active members that decide to leave. Generally the most active are the least likely to leave, but it happens. The also become the most vocal in their opposition.

As I say we all have agency, and from what I have observed the majority of inactives end up that way simply because it was never important enough in their life to make the sacrifice to live it.

Yes, but do you know that many that leave haven't told you the real reason they left, ever come out and ask? I'm kind of doubting that happened but maybe you have.

Think about this, might they start changing their lifestyle once they find something controversial in church history they didn't know about and it starts them into unbelief.

On the outside it looks like they're lazy and just want to live it up. But it may be they act this way because of that unbelief.

[saemo]

I am in an elder's quorum presidency. I visit a lot of inactive people just by nature of my calling. The vast majority of people that are inactive from what I have seen are for the following reasons in order:

1. Apathy. Most plain and simply don't have any desire to perform the work the church requires of active members. This is the biggest reason by far that I have seen.

2. WoW issues. It is difficult for the drinker or smoker to break the habit and feel welcome.

3. Other worthiness issues, most people have a hard time finding their way back when they fall so far away.

4. Other members offended them. This can go with #'s two and three and also may mean they don't like a ward/bishop.

5. Issues with doctrine/church history. This is by far the least common, and usually occurs only among the most active members that decide to leave. Generally the most active are the least likely to leave, but it happens. The also become the most vocal in their opposition.

As I say we all have agency, and from what I have observed the majority of inactives end up that way simply because it was never important enough in their life to make the sacrifice to live it.

Nice list.

I'd say, I've moved in and out of 1 and 5, and spent years not thinking of anything Mormon at all, unless it was brought up by family. I am active in my parish, more or less on my terms and as time allows. I don't know how Mormons do it, really. By the end of the day I'm beat, and if I had to show up for one more meeting or social gathering, it would be as a zombie....with associated vocabulary. Urgh, arrr, mmmmm.

[eddie]

Yes, but do you know that many that leave haven't told you the real reason they left, ever come out and ask? I'm kind of doubting that happened but maybe you have.

Think about this, might they start changing their lifestyle once they find something controversial in church history they didn't know about and it starts them into unbelief.

On the outside it looks like they're lazy and just want to live it up. But it may be they act this way because of that unbelief.

As I said it is just what I have observed. However, many who have lost testimonies and have major concerns about an issue(s) won't even let people come by. The do not contact list is much smaller than the list of inactives that allow home and visiting teachers.

[Duncan]

the missionaries have a new term, RCLA-recent convert less active. I wonder though how many never had a testimony, just went to church and somehow drifted away

[Kenngo1969]

... As for me, I'm not going anywhere. The gospel is true, but there are things we can improve. I don't understand why people get so defensive about the possibility of improving the church structure. ...

I'm glad to hear you're not going anywhere, but could it be that possible disagreement and alleged defensiveness about "things we can improve" has less to do with what needs to be improved than it has to do with the means and methods being suggested to accomplish that improvement?  If God truly is at the helm, doesn't that suggest that His Church primarily (overwhelmingly, in fact) is a "top-down" organization rather than a "bottom-up" one?

[stemelbow]

We are talking about people leaving the church as a result of intellectual disagreements with the prophets.  Is that not rejection of a prophet?

Honestly don't see how that is rejection of a prophet. People disagree.

[Nofear]

Sometimes I get frustrated because it seems like the talk is all "it's not fair! It needs to change" and "it's from the Lord! Don't change it!" and not near enough talk of "how can I change and see what the Lord wants, look upon my fellow church member's heart and do what needs to be done in my little corner of the world?"

 

I this is a very good sentiment. The Church does have issues. Wo wo wo unto those who say all is well in Zion. But we don't always have to go all grand in advocacy and what not (that is the purview of the General Authorities) but simply do our part to make our local unit better. And sometimes, sometimes our efforts may be seen and serve as a guide to inspiration for greater light and knowledge by the General Authorities.

[DJBrown]

Honestly don't see how that is rejection of a prophet. People disagree.

 

Disagreeing with a prophet to the degree of leaving the church- that is not rejecting a prophet?  If that is not, I don't know what is.  I suppose stoning a prophet or seeking to hurt him physically would be another form of rejection.

[stemelbow]

Disagreeing with a prophet to the degree of leaving the church- that is not rejecting a prophet?  If that is not, I don't know what is.  I suppose stoning a prophet or seeking to hurt him physically would be another form of rejection.

Then there has been some confusion. I haven't been thinking in this conversation of people rejecting prophets and leaving based on their rejection. I would say there is plenty of room for members to find disagreement with some statements and ideas by those who are prophets. Disagreements come. Do people leave for women's issues? Sure. Does that mean they are leaving because they reject prophets? perhaps. or perhaps not. And perhaps we need to make some fixes in terms of women's roles and participation within the Church.

Edited July 1, 2014 by stemelbow

[Storm Rider]

Disagreeing with a prophet to the degree of leaving the church- that is not rejecting a prophet?  If that is not, I don't know what is.  I suppose stoning a prophet or seeking to hurt him physically would be another form of rejection.

 

DJ, to be fair the Church has created their own hell. There have been times in the Church's history where policy was created that was not based on revelation; however, the policies were implemented and the action strongly impacted the lives of many individuals.  Specifically, the priesthood ban being the most difficult to explain without making the leadership appear less than godly.

 

These types of actions provide ammunition for the current agitators to have less confidence in prophets, seers, and revelators when it is apparent that they are just men and can make mistakes.  I think we could more easily weather these storms of discontent if the history was clear and without any leadership actions that are clearly policy rather than revelation.  This will remain a fish bone that gets caught in the throat of many well-meaning Latter-day Saints until the fish bone is removed.

 

I see a difference between an agitator, one who publicly speaks out and attempts to draw people to their cause, and those who just have difficult times swallowing.  Until the Brethren remove the bone themselves it will be difficult for some to less than confident and always wary of the individual man and his godly calling of apostleship.   

[ELF1024]

DJ, to be fair the Church has created their own hell. There have been times in the Church's history where policy was created that was not based on revelation; however, the policies were implemented and the action strongly impacted the lives of many individuals.  Specifically, the priesthood ban being the most difficult to explain without making the leadership appear less than godly.

 

These types of actions provide ammunition for the current agitators to have less confidence in prophets, seers, and revelators when it is apparent that they are just men and can make mistakes.  I think we could more easily weather these storms of discontent if the history was clear and without any leadership actions that are clearly policy rather than revelation.  This will remain a fish bone that gets caught in the throat of many well-meaning Latter-day Saints until the fish bone is removed.

 

I see a difference between an agitator, one who publicly speaks out and attempts to draw people to their cause, and those who just have difficult times swallowing.  Until the Brethren remove the bone themselves it will be difficult for some to less than confident and always wary of the individual man and his godly calling of apostleship.   

 

That's interesting... How exactly do you propose that the brethren remove the bone?

[DJBrown]

DJ, to be fair the Church has created their own hell. There have been times in the Church's history where policy was created that was not based on revelation; however, the policies were implemented and the action strongly impacted the lives of many individuals.  Specifically, the priesthood ban being the most difficult to explain without making the leadership appear less than godly.

 

These types of actions provide ammunition for the current agitators to have less confidence in prophets, seers, and revelators when it is apparent that they are just men and can make mistakes.  I think we could more easily weather these storms of discontent if the history was clear and without any leadership actions that are clearly policy rather than revelation.  This will remain a fish bone that gets caught in the throat of many well-meaning Latter-day Saints until the fish bone is removed.

 

I see a difference between an agitator, one who publicly speaks out and attempts to draw people to their cause, and those who just have difficult times swallowing.  Until the Brethren remove the bone themselves it will be difficult for some to less than confident and always wary of the individual man and his godly calling of apostleship.   

 

The most obvious question and the one that so many seem so unwilling to ask is- are the brethren right?  Are they prophets or not?  Did Christ restore His church and gospel or not?  Is He in control?  This is the heart of the question relating to the church and its claims.  If people do not believe in the prophets, then how can any of it really be true?  

 

This conflict is as old as the ages.  And I am surprised how many people in the church seem to think this is some new thing or issue.  The question before every generation is- will we accept God's prophets?  

 

Do people think that temptations and blindness in the last days that have been predicted by so many prophets, ancient and modern, would be easy to navigate?  How many church leaders in modern times have plead with the saints to keep their eyes on the prophet and to not deviate from his counsel and direction?  And now, so many people are up in arms and claiming that the Lord's anointed prophets are misled and behind and to stubborn.......    Of course they do.  This has all been predicted and we have been warned too many times to count.   

[Senator]

The most obvious question and the one that so many seem so unwilling to ask is- are the brethren right?  Are they prophets or not?  Did Christ restore His church and gospel or not?  Is He in control?  This is the heart of the question relating to the church and its claims.  If people do not believe in the prophets, then how can any of it really be true?  

 

 

 

This is a false dilemma, DJBrown.

[DJBrown]

This is a false dilemma, DJBrown.

 

How so?

[Senator]

How so?

 

Because it's a very real option that "they are prophets" and that "Christ did restore his church and gospel", yet both are susceptible to error.

[Storm Rider]

That's interesting... How exactly do you propose that the brethren remove the bone?

 

For me it is akin to the repentance process.  There has to be a recognition of what was done, request for forgiveness, and some organizational standard that prevents such actions from occurring again.  This is not an easy process, but it is the the way our Father in Heaven has taught us to be forgiven and move forward in a new life.  

[jbarm]

One thing that is missed out on this hand-wringing over losing people over gay rights or women's rights or whatever is the other side of the ledger.  If these changes are made in various doctrines, what about the folks who will leave because of the changes?

The Community of Christ (former RLDS) lost many entire congregations in a major schism after embracing women's ordinations in the 1980's.  The Evangelical Lutherans have lost a number of congregations recently after embracing gay marriage.

 

It is a little deceptive to count only the folks lost by current doctrine if you don't count the many who will have their faith affirmed and remain because of the current doctrines.

[ELF1024]

For me it is akin to the repentance process.  There has to be a recognition of what was done, request for forgiveness, and some organizational standard that prevents such actions from occurring again.  This is not an easy process, but it is the the way our Father in Heaven has taught us to be forgiven and move forward in a new life.  

 

Well, that's a very pretty concept. However, the people who may or may not have made such an error are long dead. There seems to be a large amount of Presentism going on here. We are condeming those in the past for things we find today to be distateful and wrong. I do not blame Brother Brigham for being a man of his times.

 

 

What safeguards do you see as being sufficent to prevent the error of man from happening again? In a century from now, what things do we do today that our great-grandchildren are going to see as just as distateful as what Brother Brigham did?

[Storm Rider]

The most obvious question and the one that so many seem so unwilling to ask is- are the brethren right?  Are they prophets or not?  Did Christ restore His church and gospel or not?  Is He in control?  This is the heart of the question relating to the church and its claims.  If people do not believe in the prophets, then how can any of it really be true?  

 

This conflict is as old as the ages.  And I am surprised how many people in the church seem to think this is some new thing or issue.  The question before every generation is- will we accept God's prophets?  

 

Do people think that temptations and blindness in the last days that have been predicted by so many prophets, ancient and modern, would be easy to navigate?  How many church leaders in modern times have plead with the saints to keep their eyes on the prophet and to not deviate from his counsel and direction?  And now, so many people are up in arms and claiming that the Lord's anointed prophets are misled and behind and to stubborn.......    Of course they do.  This has all been predicted and we have been warned too many times to count.   

 

DJ, I don't question that they are prophets, seers, and revelators and I suspect that those who have received a testimony of the restoration think or feel anything different. The problem is when the mantle is put aside and they act as men while in their ecclesiastical position.

 

I have said these many times; we do not lead or follow policies.  We lead and follow by revelation.  There is a very wide gulf indeed between the situation where A)  We have received a revelation from God that black men will no longer hold the priesthood, and B)  We will no longer ordain black men to the priesthood.  You don't get to play God; you don't get to abuse your position; and you certainly are not entitled to speak as a prophet when there is no revelation.

 

Every time we create a policy to guide righteousness without revelation we are not following our most basic, fundamental teaching of revelation.  God speaks today to his servants.  

 

Process is important to me because I believe it is important to God.  We don't allow anyone to just assume authority; you are called as was Aaron by the laying on of hands and ordination.  As a Church we have created this beast of allowing men to act as prophets when there has been no revelation and we have followed their dictates as if it was true.  We are paying the price of that choice today and will do so until the we spit the bone out and declare it will never happen again.

 

Men will always be men and will continue to sin; however, we should never allow a man to use his calling to implement his own ideas without direct guidance from God to do so. 

[Storm Rider]

Well, that's a very pretty concept. However, the people who may or may not have made such an error are long dead. There seems to be a large amount of Presentism going on here. We are condeming those in the past for things we find today to be distateful and wrong. I do not blame Brother Brigham for being a man of his times.

 

 

What safeguards do you see as being sufficent to prevent the error of man from happening again? In a century from now, what things do we do today that our great-grandchildren are going to see as just as distateful as what Brother Brigham did?

 

That is easy and we do it all the time today.  When the Brethren receive revelation i.e. the 1978 priesthood revelation they declare it as such.  A commitment never to create a policy without first receiving revelation to declare doctrine or other things of major import.  

 

Brigham is my favorite prophet, hands-down, but I am willing to acknowledge that he created a policy based on his own understanding. That is not the role of a prophet; a prophet is to declare the will of God.  We don't follow men; we follow prophets.  The problem develops when a man speaks and then implements their opinion as policy without a declared guidance from God.

 

We teach each other that revelation is real; to listen and pray for a testimony of the truth of a thing.  That is God's teaching and it is as true today as it was when Jesus asked Peter who he was 2,000 years ago.  

 

The Church is not in the position of following the fickle morals of society.  She declares truth and allows the Spirit to guide.  All I am saying is to continue to follow this process.  What I am not willing to follow is some other bloke who has an opinion and a calling.  

[ELF1024]

That is easy and we do it all the time today.  When the Brethren receive revelation i.e. the 1978 priesthood revelation they declare it as such.  A commitment never to create a policy without first receiving revelation to declare doctrine or other things of major import.  

 

Brigham is my favorite prophet, hands-down, but I am willing to acknowledge that he created a policy based on his own understanding. That is not the role of a prophet; a prophet is to declare the will of God.  We don't follow men; we follow prophets.  The problem develops when a man speaks and then implements their opinion as policy without a declared guidance from God.

 

We teach each other that revelation is real; to listen and pray for a testimony of the truth of a thing.  That is God's teaching and it is as true today as it was when Jesus asked Peter who he was 2,000 years ago.  

 

The Church is not in the position of following the fickle morals of society.  She declares truth and allows the Spirit to guide.  All I am saying is to continue to follow this process.  What I am not willing to follow is some other bloke who has an opinion and a calling.  

 

The GAs are not infallible. We all make mistakes. To assume that they, or anyone (short of the Godhead) for that matter, cannot make a mistake is the road to dissipointment.

 

We have faith that they are doing the best they can with the information they have. In the end we are all blokes who have an opinion and a calling. We all try and temper it with prayer and inspiration.

 

Brigham Young implemented the Priesthood Policy. Joseph Smith was sealed to women who had living husbands. Elisha summoned several she bears to kill a group of kids who made fun of his bald head. Jonah ended up swallowed by a whale because of his disobedience... "DooDoo Occurs"

Edited July 1, 2014 by ELF1024

[ksfisher]

DJ, I don't question that they are prophets, seers, and revelators and I suspect that those who have received a testimony of the restoration think or feel anything different. The problem is when the mantle is put aside and they act as men while in their ecclesiastical position.

 

I have said these many times; we do not lead or follow policies.  We lead and follow by revelation.  There is a very wide gulf indeed between the situation where A)  We have received a revelation from God that black men will no longer hold the priesthood, and B)  We will no longer ordain black men to the priesthood.  You don't get to play God; you don't get to abuse your position; and you certainly are not entitled to speak as a prophet when there is no revelation.

 

Every time we create a policy to guide righteousness without revelation we are not following our most basic, fundamental teaching of revelation.  God speaks today to his servants.  

 

Process is important to me because I believe it is important to God.  We don't allow anyone to just assume authority; you are called as was Aaron by the laying on of hands and ordination.  As a Church we have created this beast of allowing men to act as prophets when there has been no revelation and we have followed their dictates as if it was true.  We are paying the price of that choice today and will do so until the we spit the bone out and declare it will never happen again.

 

Men will always be men and will continue to sin; however, we should never allow a man to use his calling to implement his own ideas without direct guidance from God to do so. 

How do these two scriptures fit into your vision of leadership in the church?

 

For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.  D&C 58:26

 

And he cried again unto the Lord saying: O Lord, behold I have done even as thou hast commanded me; and I have prepared the vessels for my people, and behold there is no light in them. Behold, O Lord, wilt thou suffer that we shall cross this great water in darkness?  23 And the Lord said unto the brother of Jared: What will ye that I should do that ye may have light in your vessels?  Ether 2:22-23

 

 

At times when I've prayerfully asked for answers to problems the response seems to come to me "what do you think should be done?"  I think that this can work on a church level as well.  The Lord expects us to work amongst ourselves, at times, to figure out the best solutions to problems.  He teaches us correct principles and expects us to come up with some of the answers ourselves, then, like the brother of Jared, take those solutions to him, and if he approves, he will bless them.  If we waiting for him to command us in all things we would truly be unprofitable servants.

 

Does this mean that we, as a church, will make mistakes?  Yes.  But as we work towards our common goal we grow and come closer to knowing the mind and will of the Father.  The key is that we work together and that we work with our priesthood leaders.  The Lord's house is a house of order.

[stemelbow]

Does this mean that we, as a church, will make mistakes?  Yes.  But as we work towards our common goal we grow and come closer to knowing the mind and will of the Father.  The key is that we work together and that we work with our priesthood leaders.  The Lord's house is a house of order.

It rests on whether the priesthood leaders will work with us, then. If they ignore and pretend we aren't trying to work with them, then what? Create a website, make a fuss, politely ask for entrance to the priesthood session, I guess, and agitate until they excommunicate.

[DJBrown]

DJ, I don't question that they are prophets, seers, and revelators and I suspect that those who have received a testimony of the restoration think or feel anything different. The problem is when the mantle is put aside and they act as men while in their ecclesiastical position.

 

I have said these many times; we do not lead or follow policies.  We lead and follow by revelation.  There is a very wide gulf indeed between the situation where A)  We have received a revelation from God that black men will no longer hold the priesthood, and B)  We will no longer ordain black men to the priesthood.  You don't get to play God; you don't get to abuse your position; and you certainly are not entitled to speak as a prophet when there is no revelation.

 

Every time we create a policy to guide righteousness without revelation we are not following our most basic, fundamental teaching of revelation.  God speaks today to his servants.  

 

Process is important to me because I believe it is important to God.  We don't allow anyone to just assume authority; you are called as was Aaron by the laying on of hands and ordination.  As a Church we have created this beast of allowing men to act as prophets when there has been no revelation and we have followed their dictates as if it was true.  We are paying the price of that choice today and will do so until the we spit the bone out and declare it will never happen again.

 

Men will always be men and will continue to sin; however, we should never allow a man to use his calling to implement his own ideas without direct guidance from God to do so. 

 

The keys of the Priesthood are the authority to direct the work of the Priesthood in a given area or quorum, or in the instance of the apostles and prophets- the whole church and throughout the world.  Are we responsible for following those who hold keys and stewardship over us?  Yes.  How do we know when we don't need to follow their guidance and leadership?  We don't.  We are always responsible for following them.  There are no exceptions. 

 

The Lord ratifies the decisions of His servants. And we are responsible to follow those leaders.  Once we have a testimony of their divine calls, we are responsible for our response to their leadership.  That is the primary role of our invitation for people to gain their own testimonies of their prophetic calls.  If we can all just pick and choose which things that come from them are true according to our own perspectives, we are left with chaos and disorder.  

 

When we decide that they are not acting appropriately in their callings, we are no different than those who reject them categorically in the belief that they are not prophets.

 

If we can just pick and choose when and how they are being true prophet versus when and how they are not, then no guidance from them is beyond our justified dismissal.  We can just say- well, I just didn't feel that was right.  And according to this philosophy, there is no bond upon us to follow them.

 

There is a disconnect when we try to separate the questions of whether they are prophets and whether what they are saying is true.  What good is it to have prophets if they can lead us astray?

 

I really think this is the core issue with almost all modern instances of apostasy (besides those times when people just simply do not care what is right).