People leave the church because of a "trust gap"

[JulieM]

11 minutes ago, why me said:

But in the manual of 1981 there is much about emma and her lying about polygamy and how she claimed that it was brigham's idea.

The above was in a manual that contained information to use in teaching 14-15 year old boys? That seems very odd.

I've already asked you for the quote regarding what was in the manual about Joseph's polygamy.  Can you also now quote what it stated about Emma?

Thanks.

(Just quote the manual for both if you can.)

Edited April 20, 2017 by JulieM

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

It's odd, my wife and I notice the most engaged members in our ward have been those who are most prone to feel justified in condemning others for whatever reason they've figured it seems. 

I think gossip can be a huge problem as are cliques. We have them in our ward too. It's very unhelpful.

I wouldn't want to say it's common though. It's just hard to say that because I've been in wards where there weren't any. Further I think many people just look at the people doing it and roll their eyes. i.e. however these people view themselves, it's not how others view them.

Edited April 20, 2017 by clarkgoble

[why me]

7 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I believe it was more a feeling that the Church wanted to go main stream. Rather than trying to respond to critics which they probably felt would give critics an air of credibility, they were hoping people would overlook those issues in favor of a more main stream view. The general cry when I moved to Utah was to not read anti-literature. Well, I've always ignored that. I believe the Church will eventually need to learn to address those concerns in a way which disarms critics. If members are already familiar with the issues when they get brought up the power of "surprise" will be lost for critics, and feelings of "betrayal" of some members will fade.

Or they may have been more concerned with getting the saints to the celestial kingdom and as such, began to show how through lessons in the manuals and in church publications. History was put on the back burner. Is the catholic church concerned about their history? Are catholic critics? Not really. The catholic church ignores its history and concentrates on the here and now as do other churches. I just skimmed through about the antisemitism of Luther. It was published by a history scholar but not the lutheran church. And of course, it was put in the context of luther's time.

[clarkgoble]

39 minutes ago, why me said:

Interestingly, I have an old teacher's manual for the D&C. I was just reading section 132 in the manual and what should be taught. And sure enough, there is inforation about joseph smith and polygamy. The manual was published in 1981. It also details the problems that emma had with it. How can members claim that the church hid such history when it is in the 1981 addition of the teacher's manual?

I think the complaints are more with recent teachings. While things weren't perfect in the older era, there certainly was a lot more meat in lesson manuals and in the church magazines. However often the lessons were hard to teach and were problematic for wards with many converts. I think we've gone too far the other direction now though. Ideally you'd like a good balance of both. There's also the balance of lessons primarily being about motivating us and calling us to repentance verses more intellectual/history like investigations. Personally as I mentioned earlier today I think the motivation and application parts have to be the focus. That's the whole point of Church after all. If anything we're not doing those well enough which is why so many people are bored by Church. Yet we need some intellectual meat too or at least the resources. 

But reality is that if you want to learn, just type in simple searches to lds.org and there's lots of information including many of those older magazines. It's just that most people complaining "I was never taught that" didn't want to do personal study that goes beyond Sunday School.  Heck, most people won't even do the reading for Sunday School let alone personal study.

[Tsuzuki]

8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

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

And the untenable narrative of Jesus of Nazareth eliminates Christianity as an option for me, but that doesn't mean that I had to choose between Smith and Jesus. They are so inseparable that I had to throw both out.

[RevTestament]

5 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think the complaints are more with recent teachings. While things weren't perfect in the older era, there certainly was a lot more meat in lesson manuals and in the church magazines. However often the lessons were hard to teach and were problematic for wards with many converts. I think we've gone too far the other direction now though. Ideally you'd like a good balance of both. There's also the balance of lessons primarily being about motivating us and calling us to repentance verses more intellectual/history like investigations. Personally as I mentioned earlier today I think the motivation and application parts have to be the focus. That's the whole point of Church after all. If anything we're not doing those well enough which is why so many people are bored by Church. Yet we need some intellectual meat too or at least the resources. 

But reality is that if you want to learn, just type in simple searches to lds.org and there's lots of information including many of those older magazines. It's just that most people complaining "I was never taught that" didn't want to do personal study that goes beyond Sunday School.  Heck, most people won't even do the reading for Sunday School let alone personal study.

I believe a good way to address this concern is for lessons to have additional scriptures and issues to cover a topic more extensively. In other words at the end of the lesson there could be a section for "additional study." That way people may pick up on additional topics if they are interested. That way the lesson doesn't start out too meaty, but can become more meaty to suit tastes. I know it has been a long time since a lesson has really engaged me, but then I have studied the scriptures intensely for years.

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

My folks used to babysit my kids once in awhile...I would tell them ..now don't give them too much this or that..when they learned to talk..I could tell that Mom had said..now don't tell your mother... 

I understand that a lot of people do this, I don't really get it though.  

[Johnnie Cake]

38 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Again, could you be more specific in the claims? The only explication I found was in the blog post I linked to which basically just noted not all missionaries went to the meeting and one set had to flee to the second floor. But no one was injured. Further the talk even seemed to acknowledge not everyone came. The faith promoting part was about listening to the spirit to open up a meeting that was originally just for leaders. 

If this is what being untrustworthy consists of it's frankly being pretty picky. I don't see any evidence of Dunn-like liberties in the talk.

Again I don't mind pointing to people I think were being somewhat deceitful, however well intentioned. Again McConkie on Adam/God is the obvious example. I just think it's pretty rare and further people go out of their way to avoid even exaggerations due to close scrutiny. 

 

 

01. the implication is that missionaries living in coastal regions were called safely inland and away from the tsunami...this was not the case

02. the story suggests for faith promoting purposes that missionaries near the Fukushima nuclear plant were safely called away as well

03.  Fact the City of Fukushima is no where near the Fukushima nuclear plant the missionaries were never in any danger from the nuclear plant melt down

04.  If God did somehow alert the mission pres...why didn't the mission pres call all missionaries on the coast to safety? Why only those in the southern zone?  Why if this story is true would God leave those in other coastal zone in danger?

05. 18,000 Japanese were killed...if the MP did receive this alert beforehand why didn't he alert the Japanese so that they could also benefit from the advanced warning?

06.  Why did God only care about the lives of Mormon Missionaries in the southern zone?...but if only Mormon missionaries in the southern zone why not all of them that could have been potentially injured and why not other coastal regions in the mission.  The story just doesn't add up

Edited April 20, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, JulieM said:

The above was in a manual that contained information to use in teaching 14-15 year old boys? That seems very odd.

I've already asked you for the quote regarding what was in the manual about Joseph's polygamy.  Can you also now quote what it stated about Emma?

Thanks.

(Just quote the manual for both if you can.)

And the section heading as I would like to know if it was in the main part or only to be used if the subject was brought up.

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, William Jones said:

Why do you think he was instructed not to talk about it?  If you look at the real history, it was because it was a mistake by Brigham Young and compounded by Franklin Richards, an apostle at the time.  It wasn't exactly the faith promoting story it's been twisted into today.  It was simply a tragedy that should have been avoided.  Humans make mistakes and this certainly was one.  But to make it into some faith promoting story out of the tragedy sure makes one question.

I think the histories of this were pretty accurate. The faith promoting part of the story was how people reacted to the difficulties, not the ignorance of leaders who got them into the trouble. Also I think when judging it you have to consider the poverty of the Church at the time. It's not like there were a lot of choices. The worst mistake was leaving so late of course. The claim of a whitewashing was of course the theme of books like Devil's Gate but I'm not sure I buy that. Certainly all the writeups in my life, such as the Ensign article on the subject, seem pretty balanced. My own ancestors involved in it considered it faith promoting. Since they lost limbs and family members in it I think they have the right to make that kind of judgment.

My own view is that there was no shortage of mismanagement by leadership to go around. On the other hand they were struggling to deal with things as best they can. 

Edited April 20, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

16 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I believe a good way to address this concern is for lessons to have additional scriptures and issues to cover a topic more extensively. In other words at the end of the lesson there could be a section for "additional study." That way people may pick up on additional topics if they are interested. That way the lesson doesn't start out too meaty, but can become more meaty to suit tastes. I know it has been a long time since a lesson has really engaged me, but then I have studied the scriptures intensely for years.

Yup. Given that nearly everyone these days is using tablets or phones for Church I think that provides them a lot of opportunity to produce these resources for members so everyone can study at their own rate. I rather appreciate how the home teaching lessons often have suggestions for different ages. Really we're just suggesting something similar for lessons too.

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think gossip can be a huge problem as are cliques. We have them in our ward too. It's very unhelpful.

I wouldn't want to say it's common though. It's just hard to say that because I've been in wards where there weren't any. Further I think many people just look at the people doing it and roll their eyes. i.e. however these people view themselves, it's not how others view them.

The clique in my Canadian ward centered around a woman who was pushing for Priesthood, but was careful about it.

I don't think establishing cliques are inherently more likely to occur with conservatives or with liberals or any other subgroup.  It is more about individual personality and the need to be in control imo, which is a quality that spans all types of humanity.  Even the 'underdogs' can create their own clique and spend most of their energy on talking down others in order to feel more secure.

I was not aware of extensive gossip in any of my past wards (some sharing of people's hardships in order to promote compassion and charity), but that might just be because no one thought to share it with me.  Was and am quite happy about that.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

Is it limited for Joseph Smith?

The atonement is available to everyone, including Joseph Smith. I don't condemn or judge his eternal soul, I just try to do what we're all called upon to do: judge righteously the merits of the claim to being prophet. The Atonement can save his soul, but it won't turn lies into truth nor will it transform abusive behavior into doctrine.

[Meadowchik]

30 minutes ago, Tsuzuki said:

And the untenable narrative of Jesus of Nazareth eliminates Christianity as an option for me, but that doesn't mean that I had to choose between Smith and Jesus. They are so inseparable that I had to throw both out.

Do what ya gotta do!

Edited to add: so you eliminated Joseph as prophet becauseyou cannot believe in Christ, correct?

For me, there's still a space where Christ is possible and I choose to exercise faith in Him. It is an enormous relief to me that I can separate Joseph Smith from Jesus Christ.

Edited April 20, 2017 by Meadowchik

[Jeanne]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

I understand that a lot of people do this, I don't really get it though.  

Me neither...maybe it is a grandparent thing.  My kids made pictures with magic marker on Mom's white walls...her response??  Isn't that cute???

[Calm]

Just in case this hadn't be posted yet:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2014/03/unshaken?lang=eng

JC, there was no claim there was specific inspiration about the coming disaster or a sense that missionaries needed protection, just to expand who was attending the meeting.  Therefore your #4 and 5 are strawmen.

"A few days prior to the meeting, President Tateoka had an impression, a feeling in his heart, to invite all missionaries of that zone to the leadership meeting, instead of the prescribed small number of elder and sister leaders."

Edited April 20, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Me neither...maybe it is a grandparent thing.  My kids made pictures with magic marker on Mom's white walls...her response??  Isn't that cute???

No, this grandparent sees it as making life harder for parents.  I see working as a team includes sharing standards of treatment.

I am not condemning those who see it a different way, as allowing for needed fun, etc; I just couldn't operate that way myself.

Edited April 20, 2017 by Calm

[clarkgoble]

26 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

01. the implication is that missionaries living in coastal regions were called safely inland and away from the tsunami...this was not the case

02. the story suggests for faith promoting purposes that missionaries near the Fukushima nuclear plant were safely called away as well

03.  Fact the City of Fukushima is no where near the Fukushima nuclear plant the missionaries were never in any danger from the nuclear plant melt down

04.  If God did somehow alert the mission pres...why didn't the mission pres call all missionaries on the coast to safety? Why only those in the southern zone?  Why if this story is true would God leave those in other coastal zone in danger?

05. 18,000 Japanese were killed...if the MP did receive this alert beforehand why didn't he alert the Japanese so that they could also benefit from the advanced warning?

06.  Why did God only care about the lives of Mormon Missionaries in the southern zone?...but if only Mormon missionaries in the southern zone why not all of them that could have been potentially injured and why not other coastal regions in the mission.  The story just doesn't add up

I didn't take that implication from the talk. First off note that the account is second hand. He's relating what Reid Tateoka who was the mission president told him. So inherently that plays in. Second, the prompting was to invite all missionaries of the zone the meeting instead of just leaders. Thirdly he specifies that it was several coastal cities including Fukushima. He never claimed it was all. I'll grant you he appears to conflate the reactor site with the city name. He probably should have checked that although it's an innocent mistake I think. I don't know if Iitate Village had missionaries who were brought to the meeting. That was heavily contaminated and I believe quite a few other villages around the area were exposed to a lot of radiation. (Even Koriyama was exposed a little - but radiation isn't quite as deadly as people often make out)

The other points about what God ought to have done are a bit silly. It was someone listening to promptings who made a change. If you're point is God should have yelled out clearly to everyone, that's a perfectly fine position to take but really a separate issue from his talk. Really you're just raising the problem of evil issue. The only claim in the talk was a feeling to change who was invited to the meeting. So if you're criticizing the accuracy of the talk rather than the theology of warnings all you have is a conflation of the city of Fukushima with the reactor by a person telling someone else's story. Further it appears likely the areas near the plant did have missionaries who left.

Again if this is the best violation of trust out there it's a pretty problematic category.

Edited April 20, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Calm]

As to implying all missionaries from coastal areas were safe, it was specified by Elder Stevenson the meeting involved one zone and that it had an impact on missionaries assigned to several costal cities, not all:

"all missionaries of that zone"

"he invited all missionaries serving in several coastal cities"

"Tragically, many coastal cities—including those from which the missionaries had been gathered—were devastated and suffered great loss of life"

There is nothing in the talk that implies all missionaries from all costal cities or dangerous areas in the mission were called to the meeting.

[rockpond]

19 hours ago, SamIam said:

Poppycock...People leave the church because they do not have a properly foundated faith based testimony of Jesus Christ.  We talk about in the last days the very elect will be deceived. However, that is a distant scriptural concept that we may not be good at associating the nebulous ideology against the backdrop of the actual events that fulfill the edict. Sometimes, in our lack of grasp, we read they "will be deceived" but we don't think it through to realize that it is no act of simple deception that we should be concerned about.  It will be compelling reasons. The arguments will be persuasive and will tug at the strings of reason and thought. Some will offend our sensibilities and perhaps create such cognitive dissonance that we struggle in the foundational applications of basic principles and it becomes, in simplified terms, a challenge of faith versus proof.  And when the proof is simply, at worst, the iteration that men are not perfect or the efforts of other men that warp the narrative to create compelling deceptions, why is a hundred ways of validating these known telestial sphere realities given such power to sway the hearts of men.  When at best it may be that men have trouble understanding the thoughts that are not our thoughts and the ways of deity that are not our ways we once again encounter the issue that faith is lacking among many and they entertain Satan's dialogue of deception to their destruction.

Of course when you approach those who have left the church for the reasons mentioned in the article you get some common and even standard responses. They always seem so sensible and targeted to the specific and seemingly reasonable issues-how tithing is used, trusting the brethren, acts of overt deception to hide our history, marriage of old men and little girls, and the unchristian attitudes of rejecting a class of people for lifestyle choices seem to be the more common ones I encounter.  However, again in simplified terms, it all comes back to they did not believe Christ when he cautioned that every man who walked in his own way and would reject his servants would be cut off from amongst the people. In the processes that the adversary uses are many contributors and the nature of the tone of the article you reference is only one more text seeking to create the spirit of distrust to further the cause of undermining the weak of faith.

At the time I am responding to this post it had 7 rep points.  Which is a fascinating demonstration of confirmation bias.

The people leaving are saying:  this is why we are leaving.  You don't have to agree but you don't get to tell them that they are wrong about their own reasons for leaving.

[why me]

53 minutes ago, JulieM said:

The above was in a manual that contained information to use in teaching 14-15 year old boys? That seems very odd.

I've already asked you for the quote regarding what was in the manual about Joseph's polygamy.  Can you also now quote what it stated about Emma?

Thanks.

(Just quote the manual for both if you can.)

https://si.lds.org/bc/seminary/content/library/manuals/institute-student/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual_eng.pdf

Just go to section 132. It is in the historical background and see page 334 for the emma problem.

[Calm]

This is the institute manual and not the teacher's edition.  Is this what you were referring to before?

[SteveO]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

At the time I am responding to this post it had 7 rep points.  Which is a fascinating demonstration of confirmation bias.

The people leaving are saying:  this is why we are leaving.  You don't have to agree but you don't get to tell them that they are wrong about their own reasons for leaving.

Again, I'll point out that social media is a pretty remarkable thing...some people post just about anything and everything about themselves.

When I see a person who, by their own public admission, not living the gospel, and then at the same time giving me their intellectual reasons for why the church isn't true...what am I supposed to think?  Do they get the benefit of the doubt?  Or are we allowed to believe that rebellion and poor choices adversely affect one's stance towards the church?  In other words, does sin deserve the warnings we learn in the church and scriptures or not?

Again, I'm not saying it's everyone, and I take the critics here at their word.  But surely no one thinks everyone who has ever left has ever done so for purely intellectual reasons.  I just know too many people who's intellectual reasons only came after some hard times/tragedy, being offended, failed addiction recovery, and even rebelling.

[bsjkki]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

As to implying all missionaries from coastal areas were safe, it was specified by Elder Stevenson the meeting involved one zone and that it had an impact on missionaries assigned to several costal cities, not all:

"all missionaries of that zone"

"he invited all missionaries serving in several coastal cities"

"Tragically, many coastal cities—including those from which the missionaries had been gathered—were devastated and suffered great loss of life"

There is nothing in the talk that implies all missionaries from all costal cities or dangerous areas in the mission were called to the meeting.

My instinct was this was much ado about nothing but thank you for studying it out.

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, why me said:

Interestingly, I have an old teacher's manual for the D&C. I was just reading section 132 in the manual and what should be taught. And sure enough, there is inforation about joseph smith and polygamy. The manual was published in 1981. It also details the problems that emma had with it. How can members claim that the church hid such history when it is in the 1981 addition of the teacher's manual?

Does your manual mention Fanny Alger or Helen Mar Kimball?  Or the Lawrence sisters?  Or Zina Huntington? 

Because when it comes to Joseph's polygamy, mentioning the woman Joseph was actually legally and publicly married to isn't the problem.