Mass Exodus from Church?

[Abulafia]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't recall discussing your church, whatever that might be,, let alone mocking your beliefs about why said church is experiencing an exodus. I try not to mock the religious beliefs of others.

I think Satan will use any means at his disposal to prevent or hinder people from embracing the gospel. This might include confusing their minds relative to less-understood elements of Church history and distracting them from seeking and receiving a witness through the Holy Ghost, which the only real way conversion occurs. 

We have people in the Church with brilliant minds who have long been very well acquainted with material that people "have easy access to" today, and yet they have not abandoned their faith or been hindered in their embracing of the restored gospel of Christ.

Scott, can you picture a place where it is possible to leave the church but not the gospel?  I left the church.  I did not leave the essential defining characteristics of Jesus' s teachings.  So many co-opt and make the gospel exclusive.  For me the gospel is universal, expansive, and simple. Be good.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Abulafia said:

Scott, can you picture a place where it is possible to leave the church but not the gospel?  I left the church.  I did not leave the essential defining characteristics of Jesus' s teachings.  So many co-opt and make the gospel exclusive.  For me the gospel is universal, expansive, and simple. Be good.

There is so much more to Christ's gospel than the limited account in the Bible.

C.S. Lewis once gave an analogy about a boy who refused to leave his sandbox for a holiday at the beach. That is how it seems to some of us when one seems eager to give up or reject the fullness of the gospel as found in the Restoration for the limited understanding that is provided in the Bible.

 

Edited December 9, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[sdc999]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

I think Satan will use any means at his disposal to prevent or hinder people from embracing the gospel. This might include confusing their minds relative to less-understood elements of Church history and distracting them from seeking and receiving a witness through the Holy Ghost, which the only real way conversion occurs. 

 

I think you're a pretty level headed guy but The LDS history is theirs.  It's not Satan whispering false information in someone's ear.  I'm not sure there is confusion.  Sometimes facts are positive and sometimes they are negative.  For so long, the church has run from, denied and yes, even covered up negative history.  They have punished/excommunicated members for exposing this history.   When someone says, 'yes, that happened, BUT......." it's followed up by an excuse of the actions.  The church, through the essays, is beginning to get better at this although some members are still in the old defense, deflect, and excuse mode.  Satan may indeed try to influence people away from the gospel but i'm not sure he's saying, 'I bet if I just  lead them to the truth...'    

[Hamba Tuhan]

14 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree that miraculous truth claims are a hindrance to people, but why? ... Or is it because they don't see the same kind of miracles in their own lives as they are taught to believe in church?

Interesting question. One of the most compelling pieces of evidence for me has been how perfectly the Restored Gospel has produced in my life the very miracles the Church continually teaches about -- and does so consistently, reliably and predictably.

[sdc999]

5 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Interesting question. One of the most compelling pieces of evidence for me has been how perfectly the Restored Gospel has produced in my life the very miracles the Church continually teaches about -- and does so consistently, reliably and predictably.

I'm actually thrilled when people see miracles within their life.  Whether it be from members of the LDS church or the Baptist church......  People have these experiences from a multitude of churches and make the claim of 'my church' all of the time.  Give glory to God and not the church.  But you may say that it is God acting through the church exclusively.  Well, that would then tell people from others faiths that their experience is not real.  I have indeed seen great things from my LDS friends but they are just as susceptible to the tragedies in life as any other faith.   

[HappyJackWagon]

20 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I see you´ve been reading "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman

I've never heard of it. Good?

 

[pogi]

10 hours ago, Five Solas said:

I'll just pick on the first from your list.  You're wrong:  https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/431701.Drinking_With_Calvin_and_Luther_

:0)

--Erik

Unless Calvin and Luther were Mormons (i.e. God's one true religion ), I am not sure what this has to do with his question or my answer. 

[HappyJackWagon]

16 hours ago, rongo said:

I don't see it as one being more "compelling" than the other --- except maybe by default. 1- I feel that we largely have a certain mix of people on the earth right now --- generally apathetic, lethargic, soft, and non-resilient. 2- This predominating type falls prey to the myriad addictions of our day (including, especially, electronics).  3- Those who are energetic, passionate, and resilient (in or out of the Church) stand out.

Who is actually energetic and passionate about secularism? 4- For the vast majority who lean that way, it's a lazy default setting, not a thoughtful and deeply-felt position --- and one that keeps them from having to commit any time and resources to outside endeavors. 

This is the dilemma the Church (and other traditional institutions) finds itself in. 5- Most who agree to be baptized are not committed to the doctrine and cause of the Church. 6- Many inactive Mormons on the rolls have no particular doctrinal quarrel with the Church, they just don't want to "church" at all. So, we continue to baptize a couple hundred thousand each year, most of whom drop out not due to the Church's or anyone's fault --- 7- it's just part and parcel the times we live in and the mix of people.

8 Do they mistrust organized religion? This question assumes that they give that amount of thought to it. 

There is a lot to respond to here.

1- I thought the latter days were full of Saturdays warriors. The greatest, strongest generations preparing for the return of Jesus. Not true? What evidence do you have that the people in the world today are distinctively more apathetic, lethargic, soft and non-resilient than past peoples?

2- Isn't it hard to say the propensity to addictions like electronics indicates a difference in the "type" of people living today, when there is no other time to compare electronic addiction to?

3- I agree. I think these kinds of people have always and will always stand out.

4- I cringed when I read this because it punctuates your lack of understanding on this topic. I don't mean that to be rude, but I would really recommend you study the subject a little bit. Calling secularism as mostly a lazy default setting is a bit comical.

5- Why would we expect anything different. If the church really valued and required this type of commitment they wouldn't baptize people after a few lessons with teenagers and a field trip to a church service.

6- I'm curious how you come to this very broad conclusion. I have no doubt that there are many people for whom this description would fit, but I think we underestimate people when we simply assume they are lazy. More likely, they probably see little value in committing time and resources to a church with doctrines they don't believe.

7- Is it part and parcel for the time because of the mix of people, or does the policy around the teaching and baptizing of people play a role? Again, I don't know how you can make conclusions about the mix of people in todays world being so vastly different than at other times.

8- Most of your comments assume that people don't think about these things. I think that's a faulty and negative assumption to make about people.

[pogi]

9 hours ago, James Tunney said:

Are you serious? Do you know any non- mormons? Have you ever ventured outside of your religious cocoon? Maybe if you did, you'd realize that the "they just want to sin" simplistic reasoning doesn't function very well outside mormonism?

A careful examination of his question and my response will show that I never made the "they just want to sin" reasoning.

The response I think you are having trouble with is to the question "what is more compelling about secularism than Mormonism?"

If I was honest with myself, beer is pretty compelling.  There have been several occasions where I have just wanted to sit down and have a beer with my buddy, or have wanted to have a glass of wine at a dinner party. To me, that is compelling. 

By the way, what I said was mostly tongue-in-cheek, but there is also some truth to it in my experience.

The question was not, why do people leave Mormonism? The question was, what is more compelling about secularism?

Most people do not leave Mormonism because they are more compelled by secularism.  They are not running to secularism as much as they are running from Mormonism.  It is not a conversion to secularism, it is an aversion to Mormonism and religion in general.  So when the question was asked, '"what is it about secularism that is more compelling than Mormonism?"  That is hard to say because I have not met someone who left Mormonism because they were converted to secularism because it was more "compelling".  However, most people that I know who have left Mormonism express a feeling of "freedom".  They like being able to have a beer occasionally, and their porn hobby is no longer an "addiction" but a healthy outlet.  They express that it feels good to be free of guilt and shame.  Yes, these are real conversations that I have had.

 

Edited December 9, 2016 by pogi

[HappyJackWagon]

17 minutes ago, pogi said:

A careful examination of his question and my response will show that I never made the "they just want to sin" reasoning.

The response I think you are having trouble with is to the question "what is more compelling about secularism than Mormonism?"

If I was honest with myself, beer is pretty compelling.  There have been several occasions where I have just wanted to sit down and have a beer with my buddy, or have wanted to have a glass of wine at a dinner party. To me, that is compelling. 

By the way, what I said was mostly tongue-in-cheek, but there is also some truth to it in my experience.

The question was not, why do people leave Mormonism? The question was, what is more compelling about secularism?

Most people do not leave Mormonism because they are more compelled by secularism.  1- They are not running to secularism as much as they are running from Mormonism.  It is not a conversion to secularism, it is an aversion to Mormonism and religion in general.  So when the question was asked, '"what is it about secularism that is more compelling than Mormonism?"  That is hard to say because I have not met someone who left Mormonism because they were converted to secularism because it was more "compelling".  However, most people that I know who have left Mormonism express a feeling of "freedom".  They like being able to have a beer occasionally, and 2- their porn hobby is no longer an "addiction" but a healthy outlet.  They express that it feels good to be free of guilt and shame.  Yes, these are real conversations that I have had.

 

1- I think you're right about this. People are de-converted from Mormonism/religion, often times without being converted to an alternative. They simply reject religion. But what causes them to reject religion? It's not a conversion to secularism but rather an embrace of secularism as a natural state in today's environment. I don't know that movement away from religion is the result of propositional beliefs but rather a move away from propositional beliefs that are suggested, monitored, and managed by authority figures.

2- Great line

 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, sdc999 said:

I think you're a pretty level headed guy but The LDS history is theirs.  It's not Satan whispering false information in someone's ear.  I'm not sure there is confusion.  Sometimes facts are positive and sometimes they are negative.  For so long, the church has run from, denied and yes, even covered up negative history.  They have punished/excommunicated members for exposing this history.   When someone says, 'yes, that happened, BUT......." it's followed up by an excuse of the actions.  The church, through the essays, is beginning to get better at this although some members are still in the old defense, deflect, and excuse mode.  Satan may indeed try to influence people away from the gospel but i'm not sure he's saying, 'I bet if I just  lead them to the truth...'    

Often, the truthfulness of the restored gospel does not depend on this or that fact of history. Satan's method is to try to convince people that it does. (That sort of thing is called sophistry.)

The late David Bitton, former assistant Church historian, said, "I don't have a testimony of Church history." By that, he meant that his acceptance of the restored gospel was due to the spiritual witness of the Holy Ghost, not the sum total of the history of the Church, although I sure he believed, like many of us do, that the history, properly understood, does not disprove or nullify Mormonism.

Edited December 9, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Oliver_Cowdery]

22 hours ago, lostindc said:

I gave you one of those reputation points.  Do you think Satan's helpers are providing information that is less faith promoting to the LDS?

I applied to be one of Satan's helpers but was rejected. I just couldn't quite ever figure out how to acquire a taste for eating babies.

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There is so much more to Christ's gospel than the limited account in the Bible.

C.S. Lewis once gave an analogy about a boy who refused to leave his sandbox for a holiday at the beach. That is how it seems to some of us when one seems eager to give up or reject the fullness of the gospel as found in the Restoration for the limited understanding that is provided in the Bible.

 

Oh, this seems to be the opposite that some on here have said, they act as if the COJCOLDS teachings about eternity etc. is in the Bible. What you stated here, is different.

[Scott Lloyd]

33 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Oh, this seems to be the opposite that some on here have said, they act as if the COJCOLDS teachings about eternity etc. is in the Bible. What you stated here, is different.

I'm not accountable for what other people have said (or your understanding thereof) but I've never maintained the Bible all by itself is sufficient. We need latter-day scripture and ongoing revelation. Of course we do. That's elementary Mormonism. 

Sola scriptura is other groups' dogma, not ours. 

Who told you Mormons believe the Bible all by itself is sufficient?

Edited December 9, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

35 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

I applied to be one of Satan's helpers but was rejected. I just couldn't quite ever figure out how to acquire a taste for eating babies.

Satan doesn't need applicants. There are plenty of people who are quite content to fall in line with his purposes voluntarily, some of whom don't even believe he exists. 

Edited December 9, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[James Tunney]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

A careful examination of his question and my response will show that I never made the "they just want to sin" reasoning.

The response I think you are having trouble with is to the question "what is more compelling about secularism than Mormonism?"

If I was honest with myself, beer is pretty compelling.  There have been several occasions where I have just wanted to sit down and have a beer with my buddy, or have wanted to have a glass of wine at a dinner party. To me, that is compelling. 

By the way, what I said was mostly tongue-in-cheek, but there is also some truth to it in my experience.

The question was not, why do people leave Mormonism? The question was, what is more compelling about secularism?

Most people do not leave Mormonism because they are more compelled by secularism.  They are not running to secularism as much as they are running from Mormonism.  It is not a conversion to secularism, it is an aversion to Mormonism and religion in general.  So when the question was asked, '"what is it about secularism that is more compelling than Mormonism?"  That is hard to say because I have not met someone who left Mormonism because they were converted to secularism because it was more "compelling".  However, most people that I know who have left Mormonism express a feeling of "freedom".  They like being able to have a beer occasionally, and their porn hobby is no longer an "addiction" but a healthy outlet.  They express that it feels good to be free of guilt and shame.  Yes, these are real conversations that I have had.

 

Or just maybe people leave because it's not what it claims? These people then discover that the arbitrary rules set up by the church of unsustainable claims are no longer relevant. 

[James Tunney]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Satan doesn't need applicants. There are plenty of people who are quite content to fall in line with his purposes voluntarily, some of whom don't even believe he exists. 

I dated satan's mistress for a time, scott, and she really loved your work. I wonder what that means? 

[Oliver_Cowdery]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Satan doesn't need applicants. 

Then what was I standing in line all day for!? Years of evil academy training... wasted.  Not to mention all the wasted effort I put into trying to develop a taste for eating babies.

Edited December 9, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[pogi]

40 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

Or just maybe people leave because it's not what it claims? These people then discover that the arbitrary rules set up by the church of unsustainable claims are no longer relevant. 

I am not sure why you are arguing with me.  Yes, some people hold that opinion and leave for that reason.  There are lots of reasons why people leave, not just the one that you mention.  But again, the question wasn't, why do people leave Mormonism?  The question was "what is compelling about secularism?"  So, your straw man argument does not address the question I was answering at all.  I am not sure how that was not clear from my last response.

Edited December 9, 2016 by pogi

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm not accountable for what other people have said (or your understanding thereof) but I've never maintained the Bible all by itself is sufficient. We need latter-day scripture and ongoing revelation. Of course we do. That's elementary Mormonism. 

Sola scriptura is other groups' dogma, not ours. 

Who told you Mormons believe the Bible all by itself is sufficient?

I'm going to need back up for this, now second guessing myself. I swear some on here have mentioned different concepts of Mormonism is in the Bible. Even though to the non LDS Christian, they say that Mormonism is counter to the Bible teachings, someone on here has said that isn't true, and then mention I have to look hard and I'll find it, or something like that.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, James Tunney said:

I dated satan's mistress for a time, scott, and she really loved your work. I wonder what that means? 

 

1 hour ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

Then what was I standing in line all day for!? Years of evil academy training... wasted.  Not to mention all the wasted effort I put into trying to develop a taste for eating babies.

1 Nephi 8:26-28

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm going to need back up for this, now second guessing myself. I swear some on here have mentioned different concepts of Mormonism is in the Bible. Even though to the non LDS Christian, they say that Mormonism is counter to the Bible teachings, someone on here has said that isn't true, and then mention I have to look hard and I'll find it, or something like that.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying there is no support in the Bible for uniquely LDS doctrines, only that the Bible alone is not sufficient for teaching the fulness of the gospel without other divine scripture and latter-day revelation.

[James Tunney]

42 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am not sure why you are arguing with me.  Yes, some people hold that opinion and leave for that reason.  There are lots of reasons why people leave, not just the one that you mention.  But again, the question wasn't, why do people leave Mormonism?  The question was "what is compelling about secularism?"  So, your straw man argument does not address the question I was answering at all.  I am not sure how that was not clear from my last response.

Ok. I would say that religion is pure speculation, no tangible proof, guesswork and based on testimony of others, e.g. joseph smith claimed to have seen god, jesus, and angels. We don't see those things but are required to accept them through emotional experience. Sadly, the emotional validation model has led to many different interpretations as to what exactly is the correct myth to believe in.

On the contrary, secularism is based on what we can gather from this life without reliance on myth or the unseen. It's easier to prove and less susceptible to mischief. I think this is why secularism is compelling and is gaining acceptance.

[lostindc]

31 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

1 Nephi 8:26-28

So what are the qualifications needed to become employed by Satan?

[pogi]

31 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

Ok. I would say that religion is pure speculation, no tangible proof, guesswork and based on testimony of others, e.g. joseph smith claimed to have seen god, jesus, and angels. We don't see those things but are required to accept them through emotional experience. Sadly, the emotional validation model has led to many different interpretations as to what exactly is the correct myth to believe in.

On the contrary, secularism is based on what we can gather from this life without reliance on myth or the unseen. It's easier to prove and less susceptible to mischief. I think this is why secularism is compelling and is gaining acceptance.

First, I would say that your opinion that religion is "pure speculation" is pure speculation.  "Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world (James 1:26.27)".

 I personally don't see a problem with "many different interpretations" as a result of spiritual ("emotional") validation.  It is all part of the process of "line upon line..." 

Second, I never said that secularism is not compelling to some.  In fact, I was giving reasons as to why secularism might be compelling to some.

Edited December 9, 2016 by pogi