People leave the church because of a "trust gap"

[William Jones]

7 hours ago, rongo said:

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

Haha

[Rain]

 

 

11 hours ago, why me said:

What should the manuals teach? Of couse, maybe there should now be a church history class. But what should be taught? And why as lds history defined the church when other churches more or less get a free pass when it comes to their history? Does the lutheran church teach lutheran history during their sunday school? Or any protestant faith? Or the catholic church? Whatever may be in their history, it is secondary to actually worshipping and becoming closer to god during worship service. So, why are the mormons singled out? All churches are vulnerable when it comes to history. But the concentration on the mormons seems to have a dubious purpose.

On another message board,  non LDS, several years ago,  we were criticized by former members about the lack of history taught. I then created a separate thread where many (50-100, I can't  remember how many exactly) non LDS answered. There was only one person whose church taught any history and that was of their own specific congregation. 

Edited April 20, 2017 by Rain

[Kevin Christensen]

I've found that if I keep my eyes open, give things time, and re-examine my own assumptions now and then, my faith continues to thrive and increase.  The alternative is to not bother to learn, insist on final answers now, and never re-examine my own assumptions, that is, never check my own eyes for beams on the assumption that I see clearly right now, and that if there is a problem, it is with other people.

And one of the single most important concepts that I have learned is that "anomaly emerges against a background of expectation."  (Kuhn).  When I run across something I did not expect, I ask "What should I expect?"  And there in D&C 1, if I bother to read it carefully, provides a most wonderfully tolerant and robust set of expectations.

Quote

these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;

28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

If I complain thereafter that God's servants ought not to have weakness, never make errors, should never have to seek wisdom because as God's sock puppets, they should have it all ready, on the shelf, packaged, labeled, and distributed to a community that instantly comprehends and perfectly passes on such perfection, that none should ever sin, and only outsiders should ever demonstrate a need to repent, and I should never have to wait for knowledge to come from time to time, because dammit, it should have been here all the time, I am then demonstrating the consequences of the beam in my own eye, and that I do not see clearly.

Expectations, Recovery Communities have learned through sad experience, are premeditated resentments.  And resentments, as Archimedes explained, provide leverage, and a place to stand, and therefore a way to move inconvenient aspects of the world.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited April 20, 2017 by Kevin Christensen

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

The untenable narrative of and about Joseph Smith eliminates Mormonism as an option for me. 

The faults of men do not change the truths of the gospel. All the men who have written it down for us were faulty. One of the main attacks of Satan is to attack the messenger rather than the message. It is rather difficult to disprove gospel truths - it is not difficult to make ad hominem attacks - especially against those who are dead. They are no more valid against dead people than against live people. A large number of Protestant leaders had major faults. Luther was a raving anti-Semite. Calvin was a major factor in having Michael Severitus killed, yet there are still millions of adherents in the churches they set up. I'm not either because I disagree with their trinitarian theology(and other aspects) - not because of their personal faults. Joseph Smith was a sinner - he delayed receiving the gold plates because he sinned. He probably got the Urim and Thummim taken away because he sinned. He got rebuked of the Lord several times because he sinned. Ignoring gospel truths because of perceived sins of the man is playing into the hands of the adversary. This is his specialty... of course he works on other doubts people speak of. I don't worry so much about whether "the Church" is true. I believe perhaps most of its leaders have said stuff I believe is false. If that were my criterion, I could not be a member in good conscience. I am a member because the gospel is true. Leaving because of the faults of men is not an option for me.

Edited April 20, 2017 by RevTestament
typos

[Meadowchik]

1 minute ago, RevTestament said:

The faults of men do not change the truths of the gospel. All the men who have written it down for us were faulty. One of the main attacks of Satan is to attack the messenger rather than the message. It is rather difficult to disprove the truth - it is not difficult to make ad hominem attacks - especially against those who are dead. They are no more valid against dead people than against live people. A large number of Protestant leaders had major faults. Luther was a raving anti-Semite. Calvin was a major factor in have Michael Severitus killed, yet there are still millions of adherents in the churches they set up. I'm not either because I disagree with their trinitarian theology(and other aspects) - not because of their personal faults. Joseph Smith was a sinner - he delayed receiving the gold plates because he sinned. He probably got the Urim and Thummim taken away because he sinned. He got rebuked of the Lord several times because he sinned. Ignoring gospel truths because of perceived sins of the man is playing into the hands of the adversary. This is his specialty... of course he works on other doubts people speak of. I don't worry so much about whether "the Church" is true. I believe perhaps most of its leaders have said stuff I believe is false. If that were my criterion, I could not be a member in good conscience. I am a member because the gospel is true. Leaving because of the faults of men is not an option for me.

The problem with the narrative is not the existence of human faults, although the gravity of human fault is relevant and is a legitimate concern.  The actual narrative, the truth claims are its own adversary.

It appears to me that you believe that a spiritual experience is sufficient for a testimony of the One True Church.

I believe that a spiritual experience is not to override reason but to be its companion.

[Meadowchik]

13 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I've found that if I keep my eyes open, give things time, and re-examine my own assumptions now and then, my faith continues to thrive and increase.  The alternative is to not bother to learn, insist on final answers now, and never re-examine my own assumptions, that is, never check my own eyes for beams on the assumption that I see clearly right now, and that if there is a problem, it is with other people.

And one of the single most important concepts that I have learned is that "anomaly emerges against a background of expectation."  (Kuhn).  When I run across something I did not expect, I ask "What should I expect?"  And there in D&C 1, if I bother to read it carefully, provides a most wonderfully tolerant and robust set of expectations.

If I complain thereafter that God's servants ought not to have weakness, never make errors, should never have to seek wisdom because as God's sock puppets, they should have it all ready, on the shelf, packaged, labeled, and distributed to a community that instantly comprehends and perfectly passes on such perfection, that none should ever sin, and only outsiders should ever demonstrate a need to repent, and I should never have to wait for knowledge to come from time to time, because dammit, it should have been here all the time, I am then demonstrating the consequences of the beam in my own eye, and that I do not see clearly.

Expectations, Recovery Communities have learned through sad experience, are premeditated resentments.  And resentments, as Archimedes explained, provide leverage, and a place to stand, and therefore a way to move inconvenient aspects of the world.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Human flaws are to be expected.  Nevertheless, there is some point when the Spirit will depart from a man.

[HappyJackWagon]

There are many reasons why people lose trust in prophets and apostles. When the Alma 32 experiment is conducted on the word of prophets, sometimes it becomes clear that the seed (word) wasn't good because it either bears bad fruit or no fruit.

There's also the issue of human frailty of both body and mind. Prophets are just people, subject to all manner of affliction. This new LdsLiving article talks about prophets and apostles who have suffered with mental illness. Though it is no personal fault of theirs, it is part of life that mental illness can affect the cognition of a person. So what happens when the person who speaks to God and promulgates His word, suffers from mental illness? Do we trust the mentally ill to really tell us God's word? Or should we be skeptical? The scriptures teach us not to put our trust in the arm of the flesh and I agree with that sentiment.

http://www.ldsliving.com/Prophets-Apostles-Share-Their-Personal-Experience-with-Mental-Illness/s/80539

[Johnnie Cake]

I believe that this article is a positive development in that it helps to dissuade the old widely held and entirely overblown belief that members leave the church due to a desire to sin, laziness or having been offended.  Any information that can put a stake in the heart of that false premise is a positive, in my opinion. 

[JulieM]

15 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I believe that this article is a positive development in that it helps to dissuade the old widely held and entirely overblown belief that members leave the church due to a desire to sin, laziness or having been offended. 

Or because you "do not have a properly founded faith based testimony of Jesus Christ".

Edited April 20, 2017 by JulieM

[clarkgoble]

9 hours ago, Duncan said:

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.

Sorry, using your post as a jumping off point not necessarily addressing you.

[Jeanne]

Seems like no matter what...I am just broken.  I liked the article.  My trust in so many things went awry and took away a foundation of what I thought was truth. 

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, readstoomuch said:

I think secularism has crept into the church at all ages level.  Of the 6 or 7 adults in my ward who struggle or left there is secularism, but I talked to each one at the bishops direction and it comes down to history so often.  The manuals are woefully out of date and I sometimes just have to clarify what I see are only part s of the truth or inadequate facts.  We spend hours in these classes.  We can and need to do better.  The gospel is interesting when taught well.

Like I said in another post, people are getting so tired of the same thing over and over. I remember my oldest daughter saying years ago when she was in high school that she's heard the same lesson over and over. I never saw the problem at that time, thinking that it's all about reiterating things. 

The church needs to do some work on those lesson manuals definitely, like I posted elsewhere also, my husband teaches primary and the lesson manual wasn't current with Joseph's translation methods. 

[clarkgoble]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

Exactly. And for not only youth but the rising number of unmarried people in their 20's and 30's sex matters a great deal. Not just sex but peers. I've seen it a lot among people who hit the 25 age and notice that suddenly all the socialization changes. Once they get the boot from singles wards how one socializes changes drastically and frankly many fall away. It's not just testimony. I knew of people sleeping around and doing drugs that still had fragments of their testimonies left but their social habits had effectively led them away.

[RevTestament]

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The problem with the narrative is not the existence of human faults, although the gravity of human fault is relevant and is a legitimate concern.  The actual narrative, the truth claims are its own adversary.

If you mean the white-washed narrative, I'm inclined to agree somewhat that modern society is too suspicious of institutions for it to work. 

 

"It appears to me that you believe that a spiritual experience is sufficient for a testimony of the One True Church.

I believe that a spiritual experience is not to override reason but to be its companion."

I do believe a spiritual experience is sufficient for a testimony. For instance the man in the Netherlands who was praying for his neighbor and thinking of her in his front yard when he heard a voice tell him "stop the men on the bikes" I believe acted and believed on a spiritual experience. That alone would be sufficient but upon learning the restored gospel, I'm sure the Spirit witnessed to him more times based upon the scriptures - not upon the church narrative. The church narrative reveals the faults of men, because men have faults. If that is your measuring stick, you will find faults because they are there. The witness never told me that Joseph Smith was a Saint or a perfect man - i received a witness that the gospel is true and comports with scripture. The gospel teachings are true. Although as a young investigator I strongly identified with Joseph Smith, and believed his story, I have grown to find him imperfect. He made a lot of problems for himself because of his own sin. i imagine the same is true for me. That is just not determinative for me. The gospel was beautiful for me. To know that God does not punish those who have not heard the gospel was something that strongly resonated with me. Everything just continued to click with scripture, and I was very excited to find the truth - not about Joseph Smith, but about the gospel. The truth about Joseph Smith stings a little. Again it is kind of like the Santa Claus effect. It stang a little to find out there is no Santa. But that is a conscious lie that parents tell their children. There is no perfect Church narrative, because history is messy. We cannot record all the perspectives held by people, all the reasons they do things and sin, etc, etc. Did Joseph talk about his sins? No. That just shouldn't be a big surprise. The fact that the Lord openly rebuked him though, should be a surprise to critics who believe he was a fake. 

There is a principle in history known as the principle of embarrassment. When embarrassing things are said or written by a person or their followers, historians generally accept them as true, because fakes don't record embarrassing stuff about themselves. Research that Meadowchick.

 

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

When the student is ready, the teacher will appear.

That doesn't appear to be happening or have happened. Seriously CV75, they're ready already!

[Johnnie Cake]

27 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Or because you "do not have a properly founded faith based testimony of Jesus Christ".

Actually "having a properly founded faith based testimony of Jesus Christ" has absolutely NOTHING to do with it.  Members with a faith based testimony of Jesus Christ leave the church all the time. Having said that I understand why you would need to believe this since the alternative is not supportive of your faith paradigm.

Edited April 20, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[RevTestament]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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  

While this appears to be true, I believe secularism is able to make inroads because people feel an incongruity between what their churches teach, and what they have come to believe through science, etc. If that is what you mean by secularism, then yes, it is probably the largest single factor. But yes, you can also observe that secularists don't like being shamed. Thus, the major mega-churches don't preach repentance or about the sins of society. They only preach "positive things." Thus, when society is sickest, it does not receive a remedy.

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

The untenable narrative of and about Joseph Smith eliminates Mormonism as an option for me.

I find nothing about Joseph Smith "untenable".
Our problem is that we cannot get past our own traditions, the ones he violated.
It is little different than Christ and the Pharisees.  Christ was busy breaking their deeply held convictions and laws and traditions.  And they just couldn't accept it.

[Johnnie Cake]

I also find it interesting that members of this board...when given the reason for leaving the church by the very people who are leaving the church...don't believe their reasons and instead offer up their own reasons for why these people are leaving the church.  Why not just accept what the people who are actually leaving are claiming is their reason for leaving?

Edited April 20, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Meadowchik]

32 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

If you mean the white-washed narrative, I'm inclined to agree somewhat that modern society is too suspicious of institutions for it to work. 

 

"It appears to me that you believe that a spiritual experience is sufficient for a testimony of the One True Church.

I believe that a spiritual experience is not to override reason but to be its companion."

I do believe a spiritual experience is sufficient for a testimony. For instance the man in the Netherlands who was praying for his neighbor and thinking of her in his front yard when he heard a voice tell him "stop the men on the bikes" I believe acted and believed on a spiritual experience. That alone would be sufficient but upon learning the restored gospel, I'm sure the Spirit witnessed to him more times based upon the scriptures - not upon the church narrative. The church narrative reveals the faults of men, because men have faults. If that is your measuring stick, you will find faults because they are there. The witness never told me that Joseph Smith was a Saint or a perfect man - i received a witness that the gospel is true and comports with scripture. The gospel teachings are true. Although as a young investigator I strongly identified with Joseph Smith, and believed his story, I have grown to find him imperfect. He made a lot of problems for himself because of his own sin. i imagine the same is true for me. That is just not determinative for me. The gospel was beautiful for me. To know that God does not punish those who have not heard the gospel was something that strongly resonated with me. Everything just continued to click with scripture, and I was very excited to find the truth - not about Joseph Smith, but about the gospel. The truth about Joseph Smith stings a little. Again it is kind of like the Santa Claus effect. It stang a little to find out there is no Santa. But that is a conscious lie that parents tell their children. There is no perfect Church narrative, because history is messy. We cannot record all the perspectives held by people, all the reasons they do things and sin, etc, etc. Did Joseph talk about his sins? No. That just shouldn't be a big surprise. The fact that the Lord openly rebuked him though, should be a surprise to critics who believe he was a fake. 

There is a principle in history known as the principle of embarrassment. When embarrassing things are said or written by a person or their followers, historians generally accept them as true, because fakes don't record embarrassing stuff about themselves. Research that Meadowchick.

 

Oh, I understand that. For the last two years and more, until recently, I lived next door to a person who lied and hurt us. He seemed to have the the traits of a narcissist and pathological liar. He would volunteer potentially embarassing things, especially if it spared him worse embarrassment or other undesirable penalties. So you could say I have researched this.

One thing that strikes me about Joseph is that he started with a very particular group of believers and followers with shared interests.  As his following expanded, so did his versions of events alter and evolve. One could say that more impressive evidence was needed as his udience grew in number and variety of worldview. 

Anyways, you and I are at fundamental disagreement in our methodology. I don't think one experience, however interpreted, can stand as confirmation for an entire religion.

[stemelbow]

9 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I also find it interesting that members of this board...when given the reason for leaving the church by the very people who are leaving the church...don't believe their reasons and instead offer up their own reasons for why these people are leaving the church.  Why not just accept what the people who are actually leaving are claiming is their reason for leaving?

Easier to say poppycock then accept that people speak for themselves. 

I can't get over that early response to this thread, because of the reason you identify.  Why can't we just accept what people say for themselves and move on?  Easier to blame everyone else, I guess. 

[stemelbow]

29 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I find nothing about Joseph Smith "untenable".
Our problem is that we cannot get past our own traditions, the ones he violated.
It is little different than Christ and the Pharisees.  Christ was busy breaking their deeply held convictions and laws and traditions.  And they just couldn't accept it.

I agree that it's a little like the Christ and the Pharisees thing.  The problem is Joseph is no Christ.  And we're left now stuck in tradition that he started.  Sure, in some ways traditions and our culture have moved us far away from him, but in others it might be that we got off on the wrong foot to begin with.  We were supposed to learn and grow, evolve since Joseph. In some ways we might have, in others it feels like we've gone backwards, and yet in others it feels like we were pointed in the wrong direction to begin with. 

Edited April 20, 2017 by stemelbow

[Kevin Christensen]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Human flaws are to be expected.  Nevertheless, there is some point when the Spirit will depart from a man.

Certainly.  One human flaw is that people often see what they expect to see and want to see, rather than what is there.  For instance, I noticed the phrase "One True Church" that you use in another response here, which it happens does not occur in D&C 1, which is the formal statement of "mine authority" and "the authority of my servants."  It does happen that the key phrase in D&C 1:30 is rather more tolerant and robust than "One True Church".  And it happens that Position 2 of the Perry Scheme, provides a very good human explanation for why so many people misread D&C 1:30.

Here is Position 2:

Quote

POSITION 2 - Multiplicity Prelegitimate.  (Resisting snake)

Now the person moves to accept that there is diversity, but they still think there are TRUE authorities who are right, that the others are confused by complexities or are just frauds.  They think they are with the true authorities and are right while all others are wrong.  They accept that their good authorities present problems so they can learn to reach right answers independently. 

People at Position 2, nature rather than LDS measure, tend to deal with complexity in this way. The common misreading reveals a human tendency, not a formal LDS essential.

And here is D&C 1:30, and a bit more:

Quote

And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually—

31 For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance;

32 Nevertheless, he that repents and does the commandments of the Lord shall be forgiven;

33 And he that repents not, from him shall be taken even the light which he has received; for my Spirit shall not always strive with man, saith the Lord of Hosts.

34 And again, verily I say unto you, O inhabitants of the earth: I the Lord am willing to make these things known unto all flesh;

I've observed and written many times for decades that in verse 30 the "only" modifies "we pleased" relative to what qualities the merism "true and living" describes.  The Biblical passages which use "true" and/or "living" turn out to match the themes of D&C 1 overall point for point, verse for verse, and have to do with the voice of warning, scripture, revelation, priesthood, ordinances, Christ, the sacrament, baptism, the temple, the Holy Spirit, and such that in actual fact and practice distinguish the LDS assembly of people from others.  An D&C 30 emphasizes the expressly non-exclusive approach the Lord takes to this.  "All flesh," not just the church.  With that beam out of my eye, I find substantially more clarity in my vision, and a substantially different expectation against which to view Mormon culture and claims in light of broader human experiences.

The Spirit may not always strive with man or woman, true, but there is repentance, isn't there?  A person who has lost it may after all, get it back from time to time.

I did take the time to search out and discover 28 Biblical Tests for True and False prophets, along with a wide range of scriptures that describe what a person should to do see truth, and a wide range of scriptures describing how Bible peoples justified rejecting true prophets.  Joseph Smith, I find, measures up very well indeed.  Uniquely so, with his successors, since Bible times.  Hence, despite my publishing them at FAIR in 2009, most people prefer to use different measures, more subjective and personal.

By other measures, things can be different.  But that is the key... what measure do we use?  All of the Biblical examples turned out to be saying, that person is not what I want, not what I think.  But is what I want and what I think necessarily what is real?  Could I be wrong, and have a beam in my eye that obscures my vision, impairs my judgements?  Are human Fear and Desire just what Buddha found them to be, the temptations of Maya, the Illusion of the world through which he must pass to attain enlightenment?  The Biblical recommendations for seeing truth, turn out to involve a deliberate effort to offer up what we think and want, fear and desire, as potential sacrifices to enter into the Real, in fact, the sacrifices of a broken heart (my desire), and a contrite spirit (my preconceptions).

And I searched out a wide range of LDS scriptures that describe how the spirit communicates, both through the mind and through the heart, and sometimes through events.   It is most definitely not just feelings (though that is part of it), but also enlightenment, expansion of the mind, judgment, insight, understanding, study, and experiment.

Just somethings I notice.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited April 20, 2017 by Kevin Christensen
typo, word missing

[clarkgoble]

59 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Like I said in another post, people are getting so tired of the same thing over and over. I remember my oldest daughter saying years ago when she was in high school that she's heard the same lesson over and over. I never saw the problem at that time, thinking that it's all about reiterating things. 

The church needs to do some work on those lesson manuals definitely, like I posted elsewhere also, my husband teaches primary and the lesson manual wasn't current with Joseph's translation methods. 

I definitely think we need a shakeup in a lot of the structure of church meetings. I don't know anyone who really likes it.  I know the Church does do tests of different approaches. There even were some tests of a 2 hour block a few years back. Honestly I think the church magazines could use a huge update too. Starting in the 90's they became far more devotional and superficial. You go back to the 80's or 70's and while they weren't perfect there was a lot more content. Now it seems like most lessons and resources are oriented towards new members.

But again, the real issue is the teachers. And frankly often the best teachers are in other callings. The reason we make jokes about superficial sunday school answers and discussions is because of the teachers not the topics. I've had enough fantastic lessons by teachers to know how big a difference the teacher makes.

Edited April 20, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Jeanne]

Amen!  My reason and my experiences are mine.  No one on this board can possibly know more than I do about my own experience.

(This is to the last response of Johnny Cake)

Edited April 20, 2017 by Jeanne