Ex-mormon stories

[Pete Ahlstrom]

9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I have no patience with those turn-of-the-century Mormons who hadn't enough faith to realize that so-called polyandry and seerstones were no real threat to the faith, but those were defensive, paranoid times, and most of those in charge of teaching the Gospel had no knowledge of these matter anyhow.  There were no trained historians in those days, and the context could easily be lost.  Indeed, it is only in recent times that some of that context has been recovered.

As to "meat,"  one might compare young yeshiva students in Judaism.  They are not allowed to study the "mysteries" until they are much older.  The rabbis are explicit about that.  Why?  Because they will miss the basics and therefore miss the context of the mysteries.  This is true in any field, but particularly in religion.

I get that one teaches a child gradually. But the milk before meat seems to be misused for not disclosing historical facts that make the origin story problematic.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

10 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

No.  The examination must be freewheeling, and no one can predict the results.  In the case of Mike Quinn, for example, he has found his faith enhanced (as have I), and still bears his testimony of the truth of the Book of Mormon.

Very few people leave the LDS faith because of "hard facts" in conflict with what they were taught.  Loss of faith usually happens for other reasons, primarily due to being caught up with the things of the world.  Being a Mormon is not easy, and it is not meant to be.

I find that to be extremely narrow-minded. However, I don't expect you or any other believer to entertain that maybe it isn't true and that is the reason people leave. You and others believe, so in the believing paradigm, non-belief must necessarily be for some other reason than a lack of logic or hard facts.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I was first exposed to these troubling issues in 7th grade and was further exposed in high school by Grant Palmer.  I wasn't shocked because I was inoculated.  Palmer was demoted and had to move to another high school for doing what others are doing today.  However, it wasn't until I looked at it critically that I changed my mind.  It doesn't make any sense logically.  What does make sense is that man invented Christianity and the other religions.  Surely if one imagines a powerful god, that god should have the power to forgive "sins" without having to have his son murdered.  Further, it doesn't make any sense to me that there always has to be an authoritarian priest class that God favors over the masses.  Seems like man creating something in order to rule over others.   

I believe the latter is his effort to teach through those who at least try to follow Him. Do you expect Him to choose drunken wife beaters? He chooses those who seek after His truths. It really is just that simple. Why doesn't He come here in person? Well, He did do that in the best way He knew how - by sending His Son whom he had begotten in His own image to teach us how to become like Him.

Malachi 2:15

15 And did not he make ^aone? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a ^bgodly ^cseed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the ^dwife of his youth.

[stemelbow]

18 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I read many negative stories on ex-mormon reddit, including stories of divorce and abandonment. Readers without a strong testimony can easily come to the conclusion that the Church of Jesus Christ is harmful or dangerous.  I know someone that left the church for reading ex-mormon reddit, and I want to say that exmormon stories are making some impact.  

 I hope people can come to understand that negative stories are typically one-sided, I am sure exmos forget many positives experiences they had in church.  And of course places like Ex-mormon reddit  only attract people that have negative things to say about the church.  What can we tell a love one who reads negative stories of our church?  

I told my cousin that church leaders are not perfect, but he was too disappointed and emotional. I don't know what else to tell him, some suggestions are welcomed.    

There is tons to learn in listening to various voices from different perspectives.  Your cousin is likely able to bring something to the table of discussion that you might not know about or understand.  Try not to treat him as a lost soul, but as a healthy contributor.  Discussion is less about pointing out disagreements and more about allowing room for each to feel listened to and accepted, in my view. 

[RevTestament]

18 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I read many negative stories on ex-mormon reddit, including stories of divorce and abandonment. Readers without a strong testimony can easily come to the conclusion that the Church of Jesus Christ is harmful or dangerous.  I know someone that left the church for reading ex-mormon reddit, and I want to say that exmormon stories are making some impact.  

 I hope people can come to understand that negative stories are typically one-sided, I am sure exmos forget many positives experiences they had in church.  And of course places like Ex-mormon reddit  only attract people that have negative things to say about the church.  What can we tell a love one who reads negative stories of our church?  

I told my cousin that church leaders are not perfect, but he was too disappointed and emotional. I don't know what else to tell him, some suggestions are welcomed.    

Other than those suggestions made by others, you may try the direct approach, and just ask him if he is willing to talk about  what is troubling him - that is if you feel you have answers. But if he becomes real emotional about it perhaps it is better just to try to refer him to fairmormon or maybe even here, or just offer to pray with him. I believe fairmormon does do a good job of responding to many common attacks on the Church. However, it is hard to help him in any direct way if you don't know specifics of what things are most bothering him.

[RevTestament]

7 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

This is what led me out. Hard facts showed me that the "true faith" wasn't what it claimed to be. I think this is the experience of a lot of people. So, is examination really the best method for the youth to follow? Or is it a question of examining until the presupposed result is reached?  

I returned to the Church for several reasons. I found there really is spirit-inspired evil in the world. I didn't find the spirit of the Church elsewhere. I found the answer I had been searching for, and the only Church which corresponded with that truth at all was the LDS Church. I was tried, and the result gave me a kick-start back to Church. Etc. "Hard facts" are usually not that hard, but are always a matter of interpretation when it comes to sciences such as archaeology, genetics, history, etc. Although I personally did not need to research Church history, I have spent considerable time doing so, and can confirm what most Christians believe is just not really so. It is tradition. It is what they have been taught. It is an interpretation of scripture, etc. All these things are subject to re-interpretation in a different light.

I have found a lot of "hard facts" which support the Church, and point to the unreliability of the "hard facts" critics use to attack the Church. Am I surprised that you found some things which do not support the traditional Church narrative? Not at all. It really should be no surprise to learn that Joseph Smith was not perfect, and was subject to some of the teenage foibles of the time, and therefore made to wait to receive the golden plates for translation purposes. That is just not the way the Church has traditionally taught about him tho.  Nor is it the way any church teaches about their leaders. If you believe Catholics the Roman pontiff is next to God in the place of Yeshua. Having replaced Yeshua, should it be any surprise that they find it necessary to pray to Mary?

So if anything, I believe all the challenges presented by the critics as "facts" have made my belief in the Church, and the gospel stronger, since they do not provide a basis by which I question the Church. My prayerful research into these issues have provided many "facts" which support the Church. This process is actually continuing since the early Church, rather than going the opposite way as is surmised with the advent of the internet. On the contrary I have found the internet an extremely powerful tool for research. I just have to ask different questions than the critics - or the same questions differently than they. I have to be willing to look where others have not. The internet makes this much easier. I can now research much more material than I used to be able to do.

In the early Church there was zero evidence to support many things in the BoM which seemed like anachronisms, but now we find there is support for them. The list has gotten quite extensive - starting with the practice of preserving writings on plates of gold, which critics used to scoff at. But now archaeology shows plain examples of this. The plates of Darius, the Etruscan plates, plates found in China, and other examples even here in the Americas have been found. The more time has passed the better the science, and the more it has found to support the BoM. So I believe the case for the Church is getting stronger - not weaker. To get out because things are not what the Church used to teach, is not very good reasoning imho. Of course they are not. Nothing is as clean and wonderful as that rosy picture presented to investigators or Sunday school classes.

I joined the Church because I found the truths of the gospel compelling. I still do. This is the only Church which teaches those who never heard of Yeshua can be saved, and teaches salvation from the spirit world. That just makes plain sense, but other churches just don't teach it. They have no adequate answer for 1 Corinthians on baptism for the dead, or 1 Peter, or for Jesus in John who taught that the dead would hear His voice and could be saved and rise with Him. Why speak to them if He is not teaching the gospel to the dead? The restored gospel lived in my soul, and lifted me up. That is the real reason to be in this Church. When you test it, does it give you life? Have you felt the Spirit in this Church? Do the scriptures speak to you? Do you see their prophecies coming true? I answer yes to all of these things. I now "feel for" those of other faiths, because I see them as so lost - flailing around looking for truth, and missing out on so much. But most will not even consider investigating the Church because of the teachings of men. 

[Bernard Gui]

It all comes down to agency. 

 

Quote

 

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

27 Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;

28 For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward.

 

Whatever we decide to do about some controversial issue, let's be sure we continue to do good.

[Avatar4321]

4 hours ago, mnn727 said:

Funny thing is that one of the reasons I converted was because of Anti-Mormon claims. You see I had been going to Church with the missionaries for months before I read an Anti-LDS book and my first thought was "We (notice the use of 'we') don't believe that". It proved to me that in order for people to feel they have to lie about what we believe. then there has to be truth to our actual beliefs.

Just part of my testimony.

mine as well.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I find that to be extremely narrow-minded. However, I don't expect you or any other believer to entertain that maybe it isn't true and that is the reason people leave. You and others believe, so in the believing paradigm, non-belief must necessarily be for some other reason than a lack of logic or hard facts.

My only reason for taking that position is that I have read the anti-Mormon literature extensively all my life.  I am even the one who made sure that a full corpus of the work of Jerald & Sandra Tanner was on deposit at the RLDS Archives.  I have spent many years and thousands of hours listening to former believers and have counted among my friends some of the very best anti-Mormons.  Some have been highly intellectual and well-trained (such as the late Rev Wesley P. Walters, who also had a great sense of humor), while others were self-taught.  In the case of former Mormon Tony Hutchinson, he became an Episcopal Priest.  I am very respectful of other belief systems, and I am prepared to carry on a full discussion of all of those belief systems.  I think that the world is a better place with such diversity, and I do not expect people to adhere to only one set of beliefs.  That isn't even true of Mormons, who seem to have a wide array of views on many religious issues -- as we see on this board.

When doing research as a Mormon at non-Mormon religious institutions, I have been very well treated, and am very grateful at the magnanimity of such people and institutions.

Why do people leave their religions?  As in Europe, it has nothing to do with any confrontation with the Bible or history (although those do sometimes play a role), but rather with rampant secularism and secularization.  Just so, in Mormonism, it is usually not the Book of Mormon or any scandals of LDS history, but a general malaise and the secular nature of larger American culture.  There are exceptions, Pete, but they only prove the rule.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

23 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Unless he seeks you out to talk or you are impressed to share something just love the guy.

I will, so sad he forgot all the blessings and positive experiences at church, he only talks about his negative experiences.   

Edited August 23, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In all such matters, the ordinary person has no way of knowing which claims are true and which false.  They are simply shocked, and typically assume that the anti-Mormon diatribes are true and correct as written -- obviously no need for any sort of perspective or caution in reading polemic attacks.  The motives of the attackers are never questioned, even though the terrible apologists are clearly the worst of the lot.  Even when a top evangelical, such as Dr. Richard Mouw, Pres of Fuller Theological Seminary, repeatedly confesses that his fellow evangelicals have lied about Mormons, it never seems to make an impact.

Yes exactly. 

15 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

We should all be cautious about forming opinions and taking hasty actions based on stories. Unfortunately, in the current climate of social media hysteria, people are more and more shooting first and asking questions later...if they even can be bothered to ask questions later.

True, but my cousin doesn't want to understand that. 

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Albanian ex-convicts I know. Got caught and convicted for an internet scam involving alpaca ranching and prostitution.

Okay, wanted to see how crazy I could go before you realized I was nuts. Guess this one did it. Fun experiment.  

[sunstoned]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Half truths. Out-of-context citation. Happens all the time.

Those who are wise recognize it for what it is.

 

I think you are judging a little harshly.  It recent years the church is doing much better at being more open.  I wouldn't call what they are now doing half truths.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, sunstoned said:

I think you are judging a little harshly.  It recent years the church is doing much better at being more open.  I wouldn't call what they are now doing half truths.

I was referring to critics, detractors and enemies of the Church. But you knew that already, didn't you. Thank you for giving me opportunity to clarify. 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

My only reason for taking that position is that I have read the anti-Mormon literature extensively all my life.  I am even the one who made sure that a full corpus of the work of Jerald & Sandra Tanner was on deposit at the RLDS Archives.  I have spent many years and thousands of hours listening to former believers and have counted among my friends some of the very best anti-Mormons.  Some have been highly intellectual and well-trained (such as the late Rev Wesley P. Walters, who also had a great sense of humor), while others were self-taught.  In the case of former Mormon Tony Hutchinson, he became an Episcopal Priest.  I am very respectful of other belief systems, and I am prepared to carry on a full discussion of all of those belief systems.  I think that the world is a better place with such diversity, and I do not expect people to adhere to only one set of beliefs.  That isn't even true of Mormons, who seem to have a wide array of views on many religious issues -- as we see on this board.

When doing research as a Mormon at non-Mormon religious institutions, I have been very well treated, and am very grateful at the magnanimity of such people and institutions.

Why do people leave their religions?  As in Europe, it has nothing to do with any confrontation with the Bible or history (although those do sometimes play a role), but rather with rampant secularism and secularization.  Just so, in Mormonism, it is usually not the Book of Mormon or any scandals of LDS history, but a general malaise and the secular nature of larger American culture.  There are exceptions, Pete, but they only prove the rule.

I don't expect you to give any credence to people leaving because they think church narrative isn't supportable or sustainable.  That cannot be tolerated or legitimized as others may follow.  So, necessarily another reason must be the reason.  I believe that is why the church emphasized that Hamula wasn't disciplined for apostasy.

Edited August 23, 2017 by Pete Ahlstrom

[Tacenda]

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

My only reason for taking that position is that I have read the anti-Mormon literature extensively all my life.  I am even the one who made sure that a full corpus of the work of Jerald & Sandra Tanner was on deposit at the RLDS Archives.  I have spent many years and thousands of hours listening to former believers and have counted among my friends some of the very best anti-Mormons.  Some have been highly intellectual and well-trained (such as the late Rev Wesley P. Walters, who also had a great sense of humor), while others were self-taught.  In the case of former Mormon Tony Hutchinson, he became an Episcopal Priest.  I am very respectful of other belief systems, and I am prepared to carry on a full discussion of all of those belief systems.  I think that the world is a better place with such diversity, and I do not expect people to adhere to only one set of beliefs.  That isn't even true of Mormons, who seem to have a wide array of views on many religious issues -- as we see on this board.

When doing research as a Mormon at non-Mormon religious institutions, I have been very well treated, and am very grateful at the magnanimity of such people and institutions.

Why do people leave their religions?  As in Europe, it has nothing to do with any confrontation with the Bible or history (although those do sometimes play a role), but rather with rampant secularism and secularization.  Just so, in Mormonism, it is usually not the Book of Mormon or any scandals of LDS history, but a general malaise and the secular nature of larger American culture.  There are exceptions, Pete, but they only prove the rule.

That's not me Robert, I can't believe that God would have Joseph do the things he did. Joseph started the church and then included polygamy, taught that it would be the only way to live with God for an eternity, in the Celestial kingdom. This therefore started some pretty grim situations.

In my mind God is light, and that's not what happened with polygamy, it isn't of God. A false prophet is one that gives false predictions or false revelations. Joseph Smith has done this. 

I've been holding onto this religion/culture for so long, if I'd just wanted the easy life and to not be tied to religion, do you think I'd have still held on this long? I may be the longest lived faith crisis out there, over 10 years now and 9.5 of those years actively attended on Sundays. I guess I am the exception you spoke of to Pete.

[hope_for_things]

On 8/21/2017 at 6:46 PM, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I read many negative stories on ex-mormon reddit, including stories of divorce and abandonment. Readers without a strong testimony can easily come to the conclusion that the Church of Jesus Christ is harmful or dangerous.  I know someone that left the church for reading ex-mormon reddit, and I want to say that exmormon stories are making some impact.  

 I hope people can come to understand that negative stories are typically one-sided, I am sure exmos forget many positives experiences they had in church.  And of course places like Ex-mormon reddit  only attract people that have negative things to say about the church.  What can we tell a love one who reads negative stories of our church?  

I told my cousin that church leaders are not perfect, but he was too disappointed and emotional. I don't know what else to tell him, some suggestions are welcomed.    

Suggestions:

Try to put yourself into the other person's shoes (empathy) as much as possible.  Imagine what it would be like to lose something you hold so dearly.  I think losing faith is similar to losing a loved one for many people.  They are hurting and feeling an immense sense of loss.  Try to empathize. 

Think of this similar to someone joining the LDS faith.  You're so happy for them, and their new conversion story, but sometimes what isn't thought about as much as how much friends and family of that person may be mourning the loss of their loved one.  This person leaving the church is very much like a conversion story in reverse.  Stories are one sided from your perspective as someone in the group being left behind, but in truth, many stories are one sided on both sides of these conversion/deconversion stories.  That doesn't make them any less real to those people who are invested in those stories.

Validate the person, show them that your friendship is more important than their membership.  Be a true friend and listen and find things in common.  You will likely find the person has similar ethics as before.  Try to look for the good in their change of belief.  They may have had some very negative attributes that religion brought out in their personality, and now they are likely changing in ways that bring out some really positive things.  Focus on the positive, show lover and support.  Don't worry about what you perceive as a loss.  Let them know you care.  

[Robert F. Smith]

44 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

That's not me Robert, I can't believe that God would have Joseph do the things he did. Joseph started the church and then included polygamy, taught that it would be the only way to live with God for an eternity, in the Celestial kingdom. This therefore started some pretty grim situations.

In my mind God is light, and that's not what happened with polygamy, it isn't of God. A false prophet is one that gives false predictions or false revelations. Joseph Smith has done this. 

If polygyny isn't of God, then you must deal with it as a strong presence in biblical men of God.  Perhaps you only think in terms of modern times in America, where polygyny is not in fashion, and you find it repugnant.  So, are you saying that God's standards change through time?  To fit how we feel presently?  Likewise, if a false prophet is a liar, then all we need to do is claim that his claims were false and we immediately have a false prophet.  Even if he makes correct claims, we have only to deny it and we automatically have a false prophet.  Facts mean nothing under those circumstances -- even if Joseph's Civil War prophecy was correct, and even if the evidence for his Book of Mormon is strongly supportive, all we have to do is deny the facts and we have a false prophet.  And that denial need not be based on fact at all.  It is all a matter of personal preference.

44 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I've been holding onto this religion/culture for so long, if I'd just wanted the easy life and to not be tied to religion, do you think I'd have still held on this long? I may be the longest lived faith crisis out there, over 10 years now and 9.5 of those years actively attended on Sundays. I guess I am the exception you spoke of to Pete.

So is it the Mormon culture and religion which is objectionable, or all religion?  And do you base your evaluation on an intellectual set of notions, or is it based on a spiritual confirmation of some sort?  There is a vast difference between a testimony based on the witness of the Holy Spirit, and a testimony based on evaluation of facts.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I don't expect you to give any credence to people leaving because they think church narrative isn't supportable or sustainable.  That cannot be tolerated or legitimized as others may follow.  So, necessarily another reason must be the reason.  I believe that is why the church emphasized that Hamula wasn't disciplined for apostasy.

I guess you missed my point, which is that most of those leaving religion in general (including Mormons) are moving into general secularism.  You ignore the data since it doesn't fit your preferred narrative.  Scholars and statisticians see things quite differently, and you should adjust your apriori views to fit the facts, Pete.  Of course there are some few who leave religion (including Mormonism) due to intellectual appraisals, but they are a small minority.  Part of the problem is that the evidence doesn't support the anti-Mormon critique.  But making an accurate evaluation is fraught with the need to read widely and to acquire scholarly skills which most people simply don't have time for.

The upshot is that people most often go with gut instinct, which it is certainly their right to do.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Suggestions:

Try to put yourself into the other person's shoes (empathy) as much as possible.  Imagine what it would be like to lose something you hold so dearly.  I think losing faith is similar to losing a loved one for many people.  They are hurting and feeling an immense sense of loss.  Try to empathize. 

Think of this similar to someone joining the LDS faith.  You're so happy for them, and their new conversion story, but sometimes what isn't thought about as much as how much friends and family of that person may be mourning the loss of their loved one.  This person leaving the church is very much like a conversion story in reverse.  Stories are one sided from your perspective as someone in the group being left behind, but in truth, many stories are one sided on both sides of these conversion/deconversion stories.  That doesn't make them any less real to those people who are invested in those stories.

Validate the person, show them that your friendship is more important than their membership.  Be a true friend and listen and find things in common.  You will likely find the person has similar ethics as before.  Try to look for the good in their change of belief.  They may have had some very negative attributes that religion brought out in their personality, and now they are likely changing in ways that bring out some really positive things.  Focus on the positive, show lover and support.  Don't worry about what you perceive as a loss.  Let them know you care.  

A million times this!

 

[ttribe]

35 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I guess you missed my point, which is that most of those leaving religion in general (including Mormons) are moving into general secularism.  You ignore the data since it doesn't fit your preferred narrative.  Scholars and statisticians see things quite differently, and you should adjust your apriori views to fit the facts, Pete.  Of course there are some few who leave religion (including Mormonism) due to intellectual appraisals, but they are a small minority.  Part of the problem is that the evidence doesn't support the anti-Mormon critique.  But making an accurate evaluation is fraught with the need to read widely and to acquire scholarly skills which most people simply don't have time for.

The upshot is that people most often go with gut instinct, which it is certainly their right to do.

What data, Robert?

[Tacenda]

16 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I will, so sad he forgot all the blessings and positive experiences at church, he only talks about his negative experiences.   

I would let him tell you everything he's going through. He's probably afraid to, or using the ex-Mormon reddit forum as a way to bring it up in the first place. 

When I started having my faith crisis and quit having visiting teachers or attending Relief Society, no one asked why. They just left me completely alone. This is dangerous, and hopefully others will read this too. If you have loved ones or ward members/friends that quit coming to church, there is nothing wrong with asking why and how you can help, if only being a listening ear. If believing LDS are sure of their faith I don't know what the harm could be. It's no different than being a missionary in the mission field and having someone talk to you before their belief in the church. 

Love your cousin sure, but also let him tell you everything that is bothering him, it is a way of showing that love. Letting him keep it bottled up is harmful. Having you stand there loving him without this may be hurtful when he has to keep it to himself, not knowing if you'll still love him when he tells you what he's struggling over. 

You may be the crux to keeping him in the church, since to me, a religion can be someone's tool to God. It doesn't necessarily have to be the one true church, just a true faith. I've heard of members that were asked if they knew the church wasn't all it claimed to be would they stay. And they say yes, because it helps me to be a better person, or other things. 

If the members of this church want more people to stay, they need to be open to their questioning. Plain and simple. I read a meme today that fit this well, but I wasn't able to copy/paste it. I researched to make sure these quotes were legitimate. According to the meme, it's asking what happened between 1920 to 2016 to today.

From this:

James E. Talmage January 1920 Improvement Era https://archive.org/stream/improvementera2303unse/improvementera2303unse_djvu.txt

"The man who cannot listen to an argument which opposes his views 
either has a weak position or is a weak defender of it. No opinion that 
cannot stand discussion or criticism is worth holding. And it has been 
wisely said that the man who knows only half of any question is worse off 
than the man who knows nothing of it. He is not only one sided, but his 
partisanship soon turns him into an intolerant and a fanatic. In general 
it is true that nothing which cannot stand up under discussion and criticism 
is worth defending." 

To this:

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/l-whitney-clayton_getting-staying-connected/

Getting and Staying Connected 

L. WHITNEY CLAYTONApr. 21, 2016 • Commencement:

"The faithless often promote themselves as the wise who can rescue the rest of us from our naïveté. One does not need to listen to assertive apostates for long to see the parallels between them and the Korihors, Nehors, and Sherems of the Book of Mormon. We should disconnect, immediately and completely, from listening to the proselytizing efforts of those who have lost their faith and instead reconnect promptly with the Holy Spirit."

"A few of you may have run into some who have ceased to hold fast to the iron rod, have wandered off the strait and narrow path, and have become lost. They started sometimes with online tours of the territory of the faithless. This indiscretion is often accompanied by failing to earnestly study the Book of Mormon every day and by the companion problem of gradually becoming lax in keeping other commandments. This sometimes leads to listening and then hearkening to those who mock the Church, its leaders, or its history.

The faithless often promote themselves as the wise who can rescue the rest of us from our naïveté. One does not need to listen to assertive apostates for long to see the parallels between them and the Korihors, Nehors, and Sherems of the Book of Mormon. We should disconnect, immediately and completely, from listening to the proselytizing efforts of those who have lost their faith and instead reconnect promptly with the Holy Spirit."

 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

What data, Robert?

There is a veritable profusion of it, ttribe, and here is a sampling from my current files:

Ed Stourton, “The decline of religion in the West,” BBC News, June 26, 2015, online at http://www.bbc.com/news/world-33256561 , 

Quote

British Social Attitudes surveys, which suggest that the number of Anglicans here "fell from 40% of the population in 1983 to 29% in 2004 to 17% last year".
The decline among Roman Catholics is less marked - from 10% of the population to 8% over the same period 

the percentage of Americans who described themselves as Christian had dropped from 78.4% to 70.6% between 2007 and 2014.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtAR_OGzlcg (TED talk – “Why there is no way back for religion in the West” | David Voas | TEDxUniversityofEssex)

Dr Filip Uzarevic (Catholic University of Louvain, UCL, Belgium), "Are Atheists Undogmatic?" states that "irreligion has become normative" in some Western countries.  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/atheists-agnostic-religion-close-minded-tolerant-catholics-uk-france-spain-study-belgium-catholic-a7819221.html .

“Why People Leave the LDS Church,” Sunstone Review, 4/3 (Mar 1984), 10.

David G. Bromley, “Unraveling Religious Disaffiliation: The Meaning and Significance of Falling From the Faith in Contemporary Society,” Counseling & Values, 35/3 (April 1991):164-185, online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.2161-007X.1991.tb00989.x/abstract . 

Stan L. Albrecht and 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, online at http://www.jstor.org/stable/1385774?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents . 

H. M. Bahr and S. L. Albrecht,  “Strangers once more: Patterns of disaffiliation from Mormonism.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 28 (1989):180-200, online at http://www.jstor.org/stable/1387058?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents , commenting:

Quote

Most disaffiliates from Mormonism were always marginal members, and the metaphor of drift applies to their experiences. Among the minority of former fervent followers, factors associated with disaffiliation include family break-up, intellectual apostasy, and the "push" of unmet needs or exclusionary practices.

B. Altemeyer and B. Hunsberger., Amazing conversions: Why some turn to faith & others abandon religion (Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 1997). ---the power of socialization.

Here is a typical comment from  Agnostic Mormon Mom in June 2013:

Quote

What would have prevented my faith crisis? Mormon culture is very rigid. My hope testimony is all about avoiding absolutist thinking. It’s about flexibility and pragmatism— I do this because it makes me happier, it strengthens my family, and it enriches my life, not because I KNOW it’s true. I guess I would say that my faith crisis may have been averted if I had grown up with less rigidity and more room for doubt. As I’ve “come out” as an agnostic in my ward and on my blog, I’ve been floored by the response from people who have felt this way for years.   http://agnosticmormonmom.blogspot.com/2013/06/faith-crisist-stories.html . 

J. D. Barbour, Versions of deconversions: Autobiography and the loss of faith (Charlottesville, Virginia: University of Virginia Press, 1994),   https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=w0whChb6hFQC&oi=fnd&pg=PP15&dq=Barbour,+J.+D.+1994.+Versions+of+deconversions:+Autobiography+and+the+loss+of+faith.+Charlottesville,+Virginia:+University+of+Virginia+Press&ots=BPU275EDkE&sig=uAw7X_qW4ONnP9E2-LxbTFzcDBU#v=onepage&q&f=false .  
page 2, “In this century, secularization is probably the more common way that people lose their faith, but, in contrast to deconversion, it does not usually motivate or decisively shape the writing of autobiography.”

Lori L. Fazzino, “Leaving the Church Behind: Applying a Deconversion Perspective to Evangelical Exit Narratives,” Journal of Contemporary Religion, 29/2 (2014):249-266, online at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13537903.2014.903664?src=recsys .

Quote

The narrative data presented in this article depict Evangelical exits from a deconversion perspective where exiters emphasize breaking away from the constraints of hegemonic Christianity rather than turning to secularity.  * * * *

. . . the actual moment of moving from belief to non-belief—what I refer to as ‘cognitive deconversion’—was instantaneous. An example of this rapid shift comes from Adam (atheist) who decided to explore the arguments of one of the most influential atheists, Richard Dawkins, by reading his book The God Delusion. Adam’s goal was to inform his Evangelical agenda of debating with non-believers; however, he was unexpectedly confronted with the paradox of his religious beliefs:

I was reading through one of the arguments that he [Dawkins] made in his book. I accepted the premise and followed step by step through the argument. When I got to the end I realized that it was a correct argument. I go back in my head to look for an error, but I accepted the premise, and I accepted the arguments. I had no choice but to accept the conclusion, and I am like F***. I didn’t expect that, and I didn’t know what it meant. Eighteen hours ago I was leading a Bible study and now I just read this thing that says God doesn’t exist, and I believe it.

I could go on with this for another ten pages of the same

Edited August 23, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Calm]

"quit having visiting teachers or attending Relief Society, no one asked why. They just left me completely alone..."

You apparently moved away from the Church and yet are shocked when people respected that apparent move.  Seriously, what stronger statement could you make for "I want to be left alone" than to reject having two women in your community to come and visit with you?  There are a lot of women in my experience who have decided to informally leave the Church, but they still accept visiting teachers on the basis that lessons are not given, that it is only a friendly visit and their requests have, from what I have heard, generally been respected.  It doesn't have to be an all or nothing choice.  By choosing the "nothing" you sent a very powerful message of "stay away, I don't want to talk"....because talking is what visiting teachers do

I know of several women who have requested no visiting teachers at all and when any reach out is made, basically say 'how could you not get the message already!?'  You may be the exception to the rule, but how is anyone to know that unless you tell them and make that message as potent as the "no visitors" one?

The core of Visiting Teaching is friendship.  To say 'no' to that completely strongly implies you don't want friendship.  I know of disbelievers who still have visiting teachers come because they enjoy the friendship, including my daughter though her visits are limited to one good friend dropping by to say 'hi' and were specifically set up that way to meet her needs, knowing full well believing wasn't on the table.  

You may have not intended to give that message, not understanding the implications of your request, but you need to stop blaming others for responding in that way and if you want things to change, then you need to be the initiator because others in the ward are probably still respecting what they thought you requested.  And there may be a note in the RS Presidency's papers explaining that you don't want contact because that was the message they got and they don't want to offend you by not respecting that request, so you should go to the RS President and specifically explain your situation...and if you want friends, why not ask for VTs without a lesson?

Edited August 23, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

If the members of this church want more people to stay, they need to be open to their questioning. Plain and simple. I read a meme today that fit this well, but I wasn't able to copy/paste it. I researched to make sure these quotes were legitimate. According to the meme, it's asking what happened between 1920 to 2016 to today.

From this:

James E. Talmage January 1920 Improvement Era https://archive.org/stream/improvementera2303unse/improvementera2303unse_djvu.txt

"The man who cannot listen to an argument which opposes his views 
either has a weak position or is a weak defender of it. No opinion that 
cannot stand discussion or criticism is worth holding. And it has been 
wisely said that the man who knows only half of any question is worse off 
than the man who knows nothing of it. He is not only one sided, but his 
partisanship soon turns him into an intolerant and a fanatic. In general 
it is true that nothing which cannot stand up under discussion and criticism 
is worth defending." 

To this:

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/l-whitney-clayton_getting-staying-connected/

Getting and Staying Connected 

L. WHITNEY CLAYTONApr. 21, 2016 • Commencement:

"The faithless often promote themselves as the wise who can rescue the rest of us from our naïveté. One does not need to listen to assertive apostates for long to see the parallels between them and the Korihors, Nehors, and Sherems of the Book of Mormon. We should disconnect, immediately and completely, from listening to the proselytizing efforts of those who have lost their faith and instead reconnect promptly with the Holy Spirit."

"A few of you may have run into some who have ceased to hold fast to the iron rod, have wandered off the strait and narrow path, and have become lost. They started sometimes with online tours of the territory of the faithless. This indiscretion is often accompanied by failing to earnestly study the Book of Mormon every day and by the companion problem of gradually becoming lax in keeping other commandments. This sometimes leads to listening and then hearkening to those who mock the Church, its leaders, or its history.

The faithless often promote themselves as the wise who can rescue the rest of us from our naïveté. One does not need to listen to assertive apostates for long to see the parallels between them and the Korihors, Nehors, and Sherems of the Book of Mormon. We should disconnect, immediately and completely, from listening to the proselytizing efforts of those who have lost their faith and instead reconnect promptly with the Holy Spirit."

 

There is a difference between discussion and debate and proselyting.  The first quote deals with the first two, the second with the latter.

The first is allowed on this board, the second is not.

An example of the first would be spouses who talked to each other about their beliefs without either insisting the other had to accept the argument or they would be close minded, antiintellectual, faithless, etc.  An example of the second would be a spouse who insisted the other had to try wine to make an intelligent and reasonable decision about the WoW (real life example) or who required the other to participate in family prayers and church activities without being able to express their own reactions or without a comparable exchange of experiences (heard reports of this as well).

 

Quote

It's no different than being a missionary in the mission field and having someone talk to you before their belief in the church

It is actually very different if neighbours or family have actively separated themselves from the Church in some fashion because if they get offended, it is not someone you walk away from and never see again, but rather your kids may loose friends when the parents no longer let them play with them because they got invited to fun church activity or you may end up with neighbours who won't acknowledge your hellos because they see you as lacking respect for their choices even when you are new to the neighbourhood and are clueless to the background or very awkward family reunions where one family says they won't come if the other family is there.  I have had all happen to my family for no more than being friendly and not even mentioning the teachings of the Church or suggesting someone was wrong in their decision to stop going.  We have had more success being present in the neighbourhood and allowing a nonmember to make the first move beyond waving and saying hi while doing nothing.  

This sensitivity to neighbours is probably not as necessary outside of densely packed Mormon areas, though I suppose some former or inactive members even there assume the Mormon community is so tight that knowledge of others is just absorbed along with the water and bread of the Sacrament.

Edited August 23, 2017 by Calm