People leave the church because of a "trust gap"

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, William Jones said:

You ought to listen to the conference review and the "radio free mormon" programs here http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/. The podcasters make a good case that E. Coleman exaggerated his tsunami miracle story and in an earlier podcast the "radio free mormon" podcaster makes an excellent case that E. Nelson misled in calling the change in policy regarding the children of gay parents "revelation."

There are many other examples as well.

Bill Reel who hosts the podcasts is well known on this board, he posts on occasion under DBMormon.

[clarkgoble]

20 minutes ago, William Jones said:

You ought to listen to the conference review and the "radio free mormon" programs here http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/. The podcasters make a good case that E. Coleman exaggerated his tsunami miracle story and in an earlier podcast the "radio free mormon" podcaster makes an excellent case that E. Nelson misled in calling the change in policy regarding the children of gay parents "revelation."

There are many other examples as well.

Who is E Coleman? I looked on lds.org and I couldn't find that name with a tsunami story.  There's a J. Coleman of the Seventy but I couldn't find any tsunami stories for him either. I'm probably exposing my ignorance here but I've no idea who you're talking about with that example. 

For Nelson on the gay marriage policy I'd heard that but I've not found any evidence I found persuasive. Do you have a text form of the argument?  I'm afraid I don't have time to search through podcasts. The closest I've found was Dave's discussion at T&S last year. I think Dave gets at some of the ambiguity in Nelson's statement. So I'm skeptical there's much to grab onto here.

Part of the problem is that often people conflate being deceitful with being trustworthy as the opposite of being fallible. Reminds me of a good friend who in Haiti felt prompted to pronounce a total healing on a person they were blessing. That evening the person died. This was a huge trial of faith and combined with a few other things really led to a big struggle for him. But should we say he was't trustworthy? Or just that he was fallible like the rest of us.

Edited April 20, 2017 by clarkgoble

[SamIam]

18 minutes ago, William Jones said:

Do you think Ms. Riese's research is flawed somehow and that the "just want to sin" meme is the real reason millenials want to leave?

Absolutely not from my perspective.  I think she sincerely inquired and tabulated and categorized all of the various reasons that all of us have heard concerning the faith crisis of many members.  In my original post I listed some of the common elements of complaint...of which was not found that they just want to sin. I frankly can't figure why that dispersion is even being referenced as it has not be mentioned prior.  As I mentioned, I meet with those who have these questioning moments as often as permitted.  They are generally sincere, they appreciate the standards of the church and often comment that they somehow hope to teach the principles of the church to their children.  For the most parts the ones that go from a state of actively to a slow dance out of the church are genuine good people.  Whatever specificity, though, that we can give to the claims of why the "millenials" or anyone else want to leave it won't alter the fact that this is a prophesied reality that has as it's mastermind the adversary of all truth.  Sure someone as mystical as Satan also takes a reality hit when someone leaves the Gospel.  They aren't going to put at the top of their leaving list "the devil made me do it" as surely there is no devil.   Nope, the cause will always be that they reasoned and thought upon the incongruities and discerned the deceits and deceptions of the leaders of the church or any combination of a dozen other more reasonable and logical reasons.

The point is that there has been for thousands of years prophetic commentary concerning certain circumstances that would arise that would lead to conditions as we see them in this day.  So why with such a legacy of reference and validated commentary is it perceived that the most absurd possibility is that folks might be leaving the church because they are deceived by an entity plotting their destruction.  Why will we prefer to consider upon more "rational" causes contemporary to our age?  Why does a newspaper have more clout as to the causes of why people are leaving the LDS church than a document that clearly predicts such with the explanations of why?  Why are leaders who simply echo the very same warnings and concerns as those of an earlier age disregarded as out of touch or worse intentional deceivers?  There should be an honest and sincere effort to discern the remarkable "coincidence" that we are where scripture said we would be, living in the times amazingly known before we arrived here.  I would want to know how this could be - it is no coincidence.

[Duncan]

Just now, William Jones said:

You ought to listen to the conference review and the "radio free mormon" programs here http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/. The podcasters make a good case that E. Coleman exaggerated his tsunami miracle story and in an earlier podcast the "radio free mormon" podcaster makes an excellent case that E. Nelson misled in calling the change in policy regarding the children of gay parents "revelation."

There are many other examples as well.

E. Stevenson not E. Coleman

[Darren10]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

This post above.....total poppycock. Even more...total horse pucky.  But I understand why people need to tell themselves such twaddle.  

Poppycock on your calling poppycock who called poppycock on the original post which is poppycock. 

/There, I think I covered all my bases.

[William Jones]

4 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Who is E Coleman? I looked on lds.org and I couldn't find that name with a tsunami story.  There's a J. Coleman of the Seventy but I couldn't find any tsunami stories for him either. I'm probably exposing my ignorance here but I've no idea where you're talk about with that example. 

For Nelson on the gay marriage policy I'd heard that but I've not found any evidence I found persuasive. Do you have a text form of the argument, I'm afraid I don't have time to search through podcasts. The closest I've found was Dave's discussion at T&S last year. I think Dave gets at some of the ambiguity in Nelson's statement. So I'm skeptical there's much to grab onto here.

 

Sorry, I meant apostle stevenson. And regarding Nelson, I find it interesting that none of the other apostles have come out to support the "revelation" story. Further, it seems questionable given President Monson's health.  Also, why was E. Nelson's speech given in HI in the manuals then out of the manuals? If it was truly a revelation wouldn't the church want to let their light so shine? It looks like there was some lobbying going on and E. Nelson lost.

[bsjkki]

3 hours ago, SamIam said:

When we use the term church leaders, I'm not sure how broad a group we are referencing.  However, if we were to limit it to the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles then I would heartily disagree.  If you want to try an experiment give me a list of those you might think were unaware of some particular element of history and I will do some research in their writings or other references and see if this holds true.

I've read that Elder Stevenson got some facts wrong in the Tsunami story and Elder Bragg in the fire story from this conference. I really don't feel like researching the details of whether this is true or not. If you would like to research and report back on whether the critics are being too critical or whether their critique has merit, that would be great. I also have heard there is some question about the accuracy of story of the seagulls saving the crops in Salt Lake. One story that is often taught incorrectly or not fully is the story of Haun's Mill. Many times I have heard the story about Haun's mill in reference to the consequences of not following counsel.

Joseph Smith said,  “At Hauns’ Mill the brethren went contrary to my counsel; if they had not, their lives would have been spared” (History of the Church, 5:137)."  Did the brethren go against Joseph's counsel? Jacob Haun did but current historians question whether he was a member of the church at all." Elder Eyring clarifies what we now know about this story. He states, He specifically counseled Jacob Haun, founder of a small settlement called “Haun’s Mill.” A record of that time includes this: “Brother Joseph had sent word by Haun, who owned the mill, to inform the brethren who were living there to leave and come to Far West, but Mr. Haun did not deliver the message” (Philo Dibble, “Early Scenes in Church History,” in Four Faith Promoting Classics [1968], 90).

Later, the Prophet Joseph wrote: “Up to this day God had given me wisdom to save the people who took counsel. None had ever been killed who [had abided] by my counsel” (History of the Church, 5:137). Then the Prophet recorded the sad truth that innocent lives could have been saved from the mob’s attack at Haun’s Mill had his counsel been received and followed." https://www.lds.org/liahona/2001/11/finding-safety-in-counsel?lang=eng

Many current historians do not think Jacob Haun was a member of the church at all. http://mormonhistoricsites.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Jacob-Hawn-and-the-Hawn’s-Mill-Massacre-Missouri-Millwright-and-Oregon-Pioneer.pdf "After collecting and compiling all the information I could find on Jacob and Harriett Hawn, I have come to the conclusion that the Hawns were not affiliated with Mormonism before coming to Missouri in late 1835, and in fact, were never Mormons." Our own Scott Lloyd had a lovely write-up about this in the Church News. http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/64127/Hawns-Mill-Massacre-New-Insights-and-Interpretations.html

The current Primary 5 manual states that Jacob Haun (Hawn) was lds but that is not what the record shows. I also wish the manual made it clear he did not deliver the message from Joseph at all. https://www.lds.org/manual/primary-5-doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history/lesson-31-the-extermination-order?lang=eng How many children and primary teachers get the wrong message from a poorly worded, inaccurate primary manual?

The Mormon Histories author concludes Joseph Smith was unaware 4 years after the fact that his message was not relayed to the Saints at Haun's Mill by Jacob Haun. "Joseph Smith’s 1842 statement should also be evaluated in this same context. It seems apparent that nearly four years after the tragedy, he was simply unaware of the facts regarding what Hawn had actually reported."

An in-law of mine is a descendant of one of the families from Haun's Mill and gets frustrated that the real facts are often brushed over. They have journals that support the historians findings. 

Edited April 20, 2017 by bsjkki

[JulieM]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think everyone feels betrayed at sometime in our lives when suddenly we discover that our place in the world and why people were pushing us towards it isn't what we thought it was and sometimes is drastically different.  Roles we thought we were secure in may even disappear if we turnover the roles of people around us...our parents stop being guides with great insight into the world when we see a major mistake in their choices that was for self protection more than protecting the family perhaps or we figure out it wasn't discipline because they loved us but abuse and we lose our role as protected child, but take on the role of intelligently protecting ourselves hopefully, our leaders at school, church, home, whatever stop being infallible and we lose our role as safe follower and have to think and examine the roads ahead before making choices now and we start to figure out what we really want to accomplish and become in our lives, our government shafts us or someone else and we feel exposed to danger instead of living in a secure community and we become not so loyal citizen, but maybe someone who works hard to give security to others.

Having the ground shift beneath our feet doesn't always have to be a tragedy, it can be instead the beginning of new growth.

The question for me is if we use that wake up call to become more adult and more about making our own decisions about the roles we play in this world or if we use it to make excuses for ourselves (we all do the latter, but hopefully less and less as time goes on) making as bad or worse mistakes than those we label as betrayers.

We also need to work hard to not change from simplistic believer to simplistic cynic, but informed seeker imo.  There is no progression if we simply reverse our attitudes from white to black or black to white instead of attempting to at least begin to use colour.

I like this.  

I'll admit that I'm struggling with some issues right now, but I do take full responsibility for any knowledge I have or any I don't have.  I'm doing a lot of studying and asking questions (here mainly).  I'm reading the Book of Abraham  again and trying to study about that as well as about other newly discovered issues from church history.

I definitely have huge issues over polygamy and when I learned the details of how Joseph lived it, I was devastated.  But I'm even trying to understand more about why he may have done what he did.

I spend a lot of time on Fair (every day I end up there looking for a source or info).

Anyway, it's difficult to read what I consider judgmental comments that hurt. I'm an active member of the church with a deep testimony of Jesus Christ.  But yes, I'm struggling.

[SamIam]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

I must admit, I learned early on to not trust church leaders when they falsely made a promise in the name of God that if I marry a woman, then over time, I would no longer be gay.  Kind of hard to trust church leaders when you make very important life choices as a foundation of your life only to find that the foundation was a complete lie.  I don't know if I am the very elect or not, but I have to admit, I was totally deceived.

I can't speak to the comments of the leaders in your life.  Having served as a Bishop I can attest to the fact that I wasn't always prepared with the right answer. Perhaps I even encouraged some of these distrust issues because I wasn't the best Bishop or I didn't have the answer to a particularly poignant life choice such as you have made. I do believe that if you had held on or perhaps had the opportunity to hold on then "over time" is a pretty sure bet. 

Again, this in not a subject of which I do not have experience.  One of my own children is engaged in the very same battle.  Very carefully I tread these waters with this one.   As an older person who has passed through the toils of hormones and fantasy, I can honestly say that those things actually interfered with my ability to genuinely love another. In these times of maturity I honestly love my wife with a far greater love having no interest in intimacy than I ever achieved with.  Having that perspective, I am trying to give my child a slightly different hope than perhaps you were given.  I am sure that it is not an insurmountable issue though one of significant challenge.  Yet even those who find themselves outside the church for this reason are no different than being outside the church for any reason.  Rectify the cause and make the commitment and like all of us when we fall we get up again and recommit.  This life is not easy for any of us to win the battles we all must endure.  The reasons for leaving the church only gain merit when we finely quit trying to win the battles and stop believing we can.

[William Jones]

14 minutes ago, SamIam said:

Absolutely not from my perspective.  I think she sincerely inquired and tabulated and categorized all of the various reasons that all of us have heard concerning the faith crisis of many members.  In my original post I listed some of the common elements of complaint...of which was not found that they just want to sin. I frankly can't figure why that dispersion is even being referenced as it has not be mentioned prior.  As I mentioned, I meet with those who have these questioning moments as often as permitted.  They are generally sincere, they appreciate the standards of the church and often comment that they somehow hope to teach the principles of the church to their children.  For the most parts the ones that go from a state of actively to a slow dance out of the church are genuine good people.  Whatever specificity, though, that we can give to the claims of why the "millenials" or anyone else want to leave it won't alter the fact that this is a prophesied reality that has as it's mastermind the adversary of all truth.  Sure someone as mystical as Satan also takes a reality hit when someone leaves the Gospel.  They aren't going to put at the top of their leaving list "the devil made me do it" as surely there is no devil.   Nope, the cause will always be that they reasoned and thought upon the incongruities and discerned the deceits and deceptions of the leaders of the church or any combination of a dozen other more reasonable and logical reasons.

The point is that there has been for thousands of years prophetic commentary concerning certain circumstances that would arise that would lead to conditions as we see them in this day.  So why with such a legacy of reference and validated commentary is it perceived that the most absurd possibility is that folks might be leaving the church because they are deceived by an entity plotting their destruction.  Why will we prefer to consider upon more "rational" causes contemporary to our age?  Why does a newspaper have more clout as to the causes of why people are leaving the LDS church than a document that clearly predicts such with the explanations of why?  Why are leaders who simply echo the very same warnings and concerns as those of an earlier age disregarded as out of touch or worse intentional deceivers?  There should be an honest and sincere effort to discern the remarkable "coincidence" that we are where scripture said we would be, living in the times amazingly known before we arrived here.  I would want to know how this could be - it is no coincidence.

What do you make of President Uchtdorf's talk where he says that people exaggerate how bad it is today in order to control through fear? Was he wrong when he said he wouldn't change the times in which he personally lives because of how great it is today?

[clarkgoble]

17 minutes ago, Duncan said:

E. Stevenson not E. Coleman

What did Stevenson say that's problematic? I read he oversaw member efforts as Presiding Bishop. Looking through the references on lds.org I don't see a whole lot of claims about things. There's a mention of a missionary meeting when the Tsunami hit. Is that what's claimed as problematic? I found this blog post saying that not all missionaries were there and criticizing the talk. That's a pretty weak claim though since in the talk he doesn't claim to have invited all the missionaries. You could criticize him I guess for not being inspired enough to invite more people but since the others weren't hurt that seems a weak charge. The point is he switched a meeting from being leaders only because he was prompted. So I don't see anything particularly dishonest in the story.

I mean Paul H. Dunn I'll grant you is a problem. McConkie on Adam/God is a problem. Stevenson not giving all the details in a faith example seems not a problem at all. Go back farther and I can find lots of problematic statements where there was more than a bit of exaggeration going on. (J. Golden Kimball is my favorite there) But in recent decades I think they've gone out of their way to avoid mistakes like that. Especially given Dunn's exaggerations that came to light in the 80's. But that's nearly 40 years ago and the McConkie A/G thing before Dunn.

Actually I assume Monson's stories are a little exaggerated but given the way he tells them (and repeats them) I don't think that's too problematic.

Edited April 20, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

8 minutes ago, William Jones said:

Sorry, I meant apostle stevenson. And regarding Nelson, I find it interesting that none of the other apostles have come out to support the "revelation" story. Further, it seems questionable given President Monson's health.  Also, why was E. Nelson's speech given in HI in the manuals then out of the manuals? If it was truly a revelation wouldn't the church want to let their light so shine? It looks like there was some lobbying going on and E. Nelson lost.

That T&S post goes through this. A revelation doesn't necessarily mean a huge doctrinal revelation ala the revelation of blacks and the priesthood let alone something like D&C 138. More that they were praying about it and felt their policy was correct as a matter of inspiration.

[carbon dioxide]

People will find any excuse in the world to leave the Church if that is their ultimate desire.  If one as a firm testimony of the restoration, nobody is going to care if the Church has not been open about some issue or even a group of issues that at the end of the day are trivial and do not matter in regards to the restoration.  The Church however can do a better job at teaching its members on a wide variety of subjects.  I personally see the Sunday School program for the youth to be very weak.  I have a problem with the Come follow me program.  It is not the teaching manual itself but at the age range that it is targeted at.  If our public schools were teaching 6 graders through 12 graders the same material from the same basic resources, we would be upset.  We would not be challenging the youth and they would be bored hearing the same things over and over again.  Yet that is what we are doing in Sunday School.  The Come, Follow me manual is fine for 12 and perhaps up to 14 or 15 year olds. The older kids need more challenge and a broader education.  If the same basic topics are being discussed each Sunday to 12 year old kids as to the 17 year old kids, the progression of the youth is going to be limited.

[Duncan]

Just now, clarkgoble said:

What did Stevenson say that's problematic? I read he oversaw member efforts as Presiding Bishop. Looking through the references on lds.org I don't see a whole lot of claims about things. There's a mention of a missionary meeting when the Tsunami hit. Is that what's claimed as problematic? I found this blog post saying that not all missionaries were there and criticizing the talk. That's a pretty weak claim though since in the talk he doesn't claim to have invited all the missionaries. You could criticize him I guess for not being inspired enough to invite more people but since the others weren't hurt that seems a weak charge. The point is he switched a meeting from being leaders only because he was prompted. So I don't see anything particularly dishonest in the story.

I mean Paul H. Dunn I'll grant you is a problem. McConkie on Adam/God is a problem. Stevenson not giving all the details in a faith example seems not a problem at all. Go back farther and I can find lots of problematic statements where there was more than a bit of exaggeration going on. (J. Golden Kimball is my favorite there) But in recent decades I think they've gone out of their way to avoid mistakes like that. Especially given Dunn's exaggerations that came to light in the 80's. But that's nearly 40 years ago and the McConkie A/G thing before Dunn.

Actually I assume Monson's stories are a little exaggerated but given the way he tells them (and repeats them) I don't think that's too problematic.

I wasn't criticizing him but people are up in arms about the Tsunami story and a previous poster said it was Elder Coleman when in fact it was Elder Stevenson who said it.

[William Jones]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

That T&S post goes through this. A revelation doesn't necessarily mean a huge doctrinal revelation ala the revelation of blacks and the priesthood let alone something like D&C 138. More that they were praying about it and felt their policy was correct as a matter of inspiration.

I read it when it was originally posted over there. I think the problem with the diminished "revelation" characterization is that that is not how E. Nelson portrayed it. Anyway, I appreciate your comments and posts there and here.

[William Jones]

9 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

What did Stevenson say that's problematic? I read he oversaw member efforts as Presiding Bishop. Looking through the references on lds.org I don't see a whole lot of claims about things. There's a mention of a missionary meeting when the Tsunami hit. Is that what's claimed as problematic? I found this blog post saying that not all missionaries were there and criticizing the talk. That's a pretty weak claim though since in the talk he doesn't claim to have invited all the missionaries. You could criticize him I guess for not being inspired enough to invite more people but since the others weren't hurt that seems a weak charge. The point is he switched a meeting from being leaders only because he was prompted. So I don't see anything particularly dishonest in the story.

I mean Paul H. Dunn I'll grant you is a problem. McConkie on Adam/God is a problem. Stevenson not giving all the details in a faith example seems not a problem at all. Go back farther and I can find lots of problematic statements where there was more than a bit of exaggeration going on. (J. Golden Kimball is my favorite there) But in recent decades I think they've gone out of their way to avoid mistakes like that. Especially given Dunn's exaggerations that came to light in the 80's. But that's nearly 40 years ago and the McConkie A/G thing before Dunn.

Isn't the issue one of exaggerating to make the story seem more inspirational? Isn't that part of what's turning millenials off? Why exaggerate the tsunami or the fire stories in the first place?

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

......................  Joseph Smith tells of translating Golden Plates when the majority of the time he is looking at a rock in a hat.

The seer stone in the hat method comes from straightforward historical sources, in addition to the existence and use of the interpreters and plates early on.  There is no more logical contradiction there than there is with you looking at the LED screen on one of your digital devices today.  The Gospel Topics Essay on that issue is historically sound and honest.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

 ...............................  And Joseph makes a claim that mummy paparius was written by the hand of Abraham himself and translated by the power of God to be the Book of Abraham was part of the plot to fool the very elect.

No secular historian has a problem with St Paul claiming to have written and signed at least the closing greetings to many of his epistles "with my own hand” (Galatians 6:11, I Corinthians 16:21, II Thessalonians 3:17, Colossians 4:18, Philemon 19), or of Hammurabi claiming “my words which I wrote on my stela” (Codex Hammurapi, reverse, XXIV:65-66), or of the claim that Pontius Pilate actually personally wrote the trilingual inscription placed over Jesus’ head at the Crucifixion (John 19:19; the NAB comments that “this does not necessarily mean he wrote them with his own hand”; cf. John 21:24), so why single out the Mormons for special negative treatment?  Is that fair?

1 hour ago, california boy said:

And wiping all DNA evidence from all those the church claimed were Lamanites was part of the cleaver plot by the church to deceive the very elect......................

.................................. 

Once again, the Gospel Topics Essay on the DNA question is reasonable and well in line with science.  It isn't even clear here what you are claiming about DNA.  Unless it is just emotional lashing out with a scatter-gun effect.

I don't mind at all people rejecting Mormonism.  That goes with the territory.  But mightn't we at least expect the claims made against the Church to be valid and coherent?

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Poppycock on your calling poppycock who called poppycock on the original post which is poppycock. 

/There, I think I covered all my bases.

Now I am getting cravings.

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I've read that Elder Stevenson got some facts wrong in the Tsunami story and Elder Bragg in the fire story from this conference. I really don't feel like researching the details of whether this is true or not. If you would like to research and report back on whether the critics are being too critical or whether they their critique has merit, that would be great. I also have heard there is some question about the accuracy of story of the seagulls saving the crops in Salt Lake. One story that is often taught incorrectly or not fully is the story of Haun's Mill. Many times I have heard the story about Haun's mill in reference to the consequences of not following counsel.

Joseph Smith said,  “At Hauns’ Mill the brethren went contrary to my counsel; if they had not, their lives would have been spared” (History of the Church, 5:137)."  Did the brethren go against Joseph's counsel? Jacob Haun did but current historians question whether he was a member of the church at all." Elder Eyring clarifies what we now know about this story. He states, He specifically counseled Jacob Haun, founder of a small settlement called “Haun’s Mill.” A record of that time includes this: “Brother Joseph had sent word by Haun, who owned the mill, to inform the brethren who were living there to leave and come to Far West, but Mr. Haun did not deliver the message” (Philo Dibble, “Early Scenes in Church History,” in Four Faith Promoting Classics [1968], 90).

Later, the Prophet Joseph wrote: “Up to this day God had given me wisdom to save the people who took counsel. None had ever been killed who [had abided] by my counsel” (History of the Church, 5:137). Then the Prophet recorded the sad truth that innocent lives could have been saved from the mob’s attack at Haun’s Mill had his counsel been received and followed." https://www.lds.org/liahona/2001/11/finding-safety-in-counsel?lang=eng

Many current historians do not think Jacob Haun was a member of the church at all. http://mormonhistoricsites.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Jacob-Hawn-and-the-Hawn’s-Mill-Massacre-Missouri-Millwright-and-Oregon-Pioneer.pdf "After collecting and compiling all the information I could find on Jacob and Harriett Hawn, I have come to the conclusion that the Hawns were not affiliated with Mormonism before coming to Missouri in late 1835, and in fact, were never Mormons." Our own Scott Lloyd had a lovely write-up about this in the Church News. http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/64127/Hawns-Mill-Massacre-New-Insights-and-Interpretations.html

The current Primary 5 manual states that Jacob Haun (Hawn) was lds but that is not what the record shows. I also wish the manual made it clear he did not deliver the message from Joseph at all. https://www.lds.org/manual/primary-5-doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history/lesson-31-the-extermination-order?lang=eng How many children and primary teachers get the wrong message from a poorly worded, inaccurate primary manual?

The Mormon Histories author concludes Joseph Smith was unaware 4 years after the fact that his message was not relayed to the Saints at Haun's Mill by Jacob Haun. "Joseph Smith’s 1842 statement should also be evaluated in this same context. It seems apparent that nearly four years after the tragedy, he was simply unaware of the facts regarding what Hawn had actually reported."

An in-law of mine is a descendant of one of the families from Haun's Mill and gets frustrated that the real facts are often brushed over. They have journals that support the historians findings. 

The Primary manuals must be over 20 years old by now and definitely need an overhaul.

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, William Jones said:

Isn't the issue one of exaggerating to make the story seem more inspirational? Isn't that part of what's turning millenials off? Why exaggerate the tsunami or the fire stories in the first place?

Please demonstrate this rather than commenting like it was a given.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, William Jones said:

Do you think Ms. Riese's research is flawed somehow and that the "just want to sin" meme is the real reason millenials want to leave?

I am always happy with real scientific sampling techniques used in standard polling, William, and am sometimes surprised at the results.  I'd like to see a professional evaluation of Jana Riese's research design and execution, along with comparison with standard polls taken by the large polling organizations which also ask such general questions.  One can start with  S. L. Albrecht & H. M. Bahr, "Patterns of Religious Disaffiliation: A Study of Lifelong Mormons, Mormon Converts, and Former Mormons," Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 22 (1983):366-379; “Why People Leave the LDS Church,” Sunstone Review, 4/3 (Mar 1984): 10. 

The real reason for people leaving religion generally (and actual research consistently shows this) is the strong secularization process going on in the Western world (that means Europe, North America, and other modern areas).* The bottom line is that secularists don't like being shamed by religious adherents, even by implication.  That means that the mere existence of religious people is an implied insult to the secularists, leading to the strong efforts of some secularists to denounce and belittle religion.

*  The National Survey of Youth and Religion (NSYR) showed that around three-quarters of youth lost by religion are lost to secularism -- http://youthandreligion.nd.edu/research-findings/reports/ .  This and other polling sources are discussed and analyzed in detail by John Gee, “Why Do They Leave?” Forn Spoll Fira, Dec 29, 2014, online at http://fornspollfira.blogspot.com/2014/12/why-do-they-leave.html?m=1 , showing that 

Quote

Among emerging adults (18- to 23-year-olds) in America, 84% have engaged in sexual relations and 66% have done so with more than one partner (Regnerus and Uecker, Premarital Sex in America, 25). Thus about five-sixths of emerging adults may potentially fall under those whose sex lives conflicts with their religion and, if they give it much thought, will fall under the temptation to make their beliefs conform to their practice. For teenagers we have better separated data published. Among Americans 37.2% or teenagers have been sexually active and another 24.5% wish they were. Among Latter-day Saints 12.6% of teenagers have been sexually active and another 14.9% wish they were. (Regnerus, Forbidden Fruit, 132-33.)

...........................

The narrative that Latter-day Saint youth are leaving the Church in droves because of something they learned from the internet that raises doubts in their minds is not supported by the available data.

cf. also previous discussion on this board: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/64733-why-are-youth-leaving-the-church/ , saying that 

Quote

It has to do with ideology, an ideology that seems to demand that young people should receive instant gratification from the choices that they make. The church seems to be the opposite of such trends.
http://www.bloomsbury.com/us/the-impulse-society-9781608198146/ .

 

[readstoomuch]

Some don't nourish their testimony of Christ.  I see that.  Too many people raised and served in the Church and feel betrayed.  I know I did.  I just see a lot more openness and resources, but they still complain.  That I don't understand.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

I like this.  

I'll admit that I'm struggling with some issues right now, but I do take full responsibility for any knowledge I have or any I don't have.  I'm doing a lot of studying and asking questions (here mainly).  I'm reading the Book of Abraham  again and trying to study about that as well as about other newly discovered issues from church history.

I definitely have huge issues over polygamy and when I learned the details of how Joseph lived it, I was devastated.  But I'm even trying to understand more about why he may have done what he did.

I spend a lot of time on Fair (every day I end up there looking for a source or info).

Anyway, it's difficult to read what I consider judgmental comments that hurt. I'm an active member of the church with a deep testimony of Jesus Christ.  But yes, I'm struggling.

Yeah, struggling is not fun and probably spiritual struggling rates up there with the worst because of the security spiritual belief can give us for the physical, financial, and other struggles (a sense of purpose for the struggles for one thing and a sense of peace that in the end it all turns out okay...very different if we are suffering and are not so certain of that).  I am grateful that is not one of my burdens at this time and I greatly respect those who meet their spiritual struggles responsibly as you are doing.

Feel free to send us questions if the references aren't satisfying.  Can't guarantee we will do better directly, but sometimes there is additional information that was left out as not enough on point and with the variety of volunteers, perhaps there will be one that 'speaks the language' that you hear best.

I think I was greatly ahead of the game in one way because I grew up without having any sense of dependence on church leaders, not even prophets.  I loved the scriptures and ancient history, but was indifferent to the modern church and only absorbed stuff because that is what I did.  Never had a teacher who caught my heart or mind in a religious or spiritual sense (or any sense really) until Victor Ludlow as an OT prof at BYU (and he was the only professor I had that experience with and it was probably a pretty mild case of it).  Also I really disliked BY for some reason as a kid (the beard?, maybe I imagined him like Heston's Moses since I heard him described as a modern Moses and that character really bugs me) and I had to work hard at overcoming that distaste for him, had to work hard to want to overcome that distaste, finally started late 30s, early 40s.  Still don't feel any fondness for him, but I have greater respect in many areas of his life for what he accomplished and tried to accomplish.

  I am sure at some level there is a core trust for church leaders that would leave me shocked to find they (in general) had betrayed it, but not sure what that would be.  Our leaders have helped me seek out God better and more, but I never saw their role as speaking to God for me and only as part of what God is saying to me and I see everyone around me as filling that role in different ways.

I wish at times I had a hero in my life I wanted to emulate, I sense a special relationship and focus in people who have that.  My mother was the closest thing to that, but it was more great admiration for her being willing to find her own way rather than seeing her way as something I wanted to follow (and in fact I didn't want to follow it except in general terms of being a perpetual student and disciple of Christ).

There are real benefits from having people you can anchor your ideals and dreams to, but whenever there are benefits there are risks of being hurt.  I wish people could be more aware of what a gift a bit of heroworship can be growing up, how it can give a sense of belonging and direction when it is needed most and therefore not be so angry when it comes time to put that behind one.

Edited April 20, 2017 by Calm

[The Nehor]

Well if Jana Reiss's research says it it must be true. People leave primarily over problems with church history and a lack of trust based on that. I have been a missionary and a ward missionary for almost a decade and I know of only two people who left for those reasons. I have met others who know a lot about it but they were never members and were just spoiling for an argument with the missionaries.

I do not deny these people exist but the most common cause....yeah right. More people have left the church because they went off to college and decided they liked sleeping in on Sundays.

[rongo]

1 hour ago, William Jones said:

What do you make of President Uchtdorf's talk where he says that people exaggerate how bad it is today in order to control through fear? Was he wrong when he said he wouldn't change the times in which he personally lives because of how great it is today?

He's probably just greatly exaggerating how much people exaggerate how bad it is today . . .