"Why some people leave the Church"

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

that is awesome. Now for culture to catch up.

I don't know if the claim below by Mitchell is accurate, though as director of Utah's CJCs, it seems likely if reporting rate was low in regards to cases she would be trying to draw attention to it (nor is Utah=LDS culture, but there is enough overlap it is a useful pointer for trends, imo).

 

Quote

Utah has a high rate of reported child sexual abuse, but Mitchell and Tracey Tabet of the Utah Attorney General’s Office said that is because of Utah's tougher child abuse laws, its more vigorous pursuit of abusers and the help of the LDS Church's child-abuse hotline.

"The reason our numbers are higher is because it's easier for a victim to be heard in Utah," Mitchell said.

For example, Tabet said, when the Attorney General's Office opened two new children's justice centers in Utah, the child abuse caseloads in those areas doubled over the next year.

"Do I think incidents of child abuse doubled?" Tabet said. "No. I think there was heightened awareness because these new centers opened."

 

[MustardSeed]

Awesome.

We all win when people report sexual abuse appropriately.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Tacenda was upset by the documentary. I wanted to validate her experience and also offer an explaination and a solution to what happened to that family. I believe that our tendency to “keep it in the (ward) family” be it business, or healing, or justice, has been and remains an issue. 

Im posting because I believe I have a point of view that is inclusive to people who are on their way out and people who are firmly in.  I like to think I can make a difference.  I also post to be part of a community that can provide answers to questions I occasionally have.  I don’t want to lurk without contributing . 

You sure have, thanks MustardSeed! It helped a lot & gave me some validation. 

Edited February 3, 2019 by Tacenda

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

You sure have, thanks MustardSeed! It helped a lot & gave me some validation. 

Oh, glad to hear.

[Bernard Gui]

On 1/31/2019 at 1:06 PM, SouthernMo said:

Why would bands be bad?  Am I misunderstanding your sarcasm?

I am old school when it comes to music in the church. Praise bands have thei4 place, I suppose, but not in a sacrament meeting.

I remember one time when I played in the orchestra for a Mozart Mass in a local Korean Presbyterian church. Before the Mass, the church’s praise band “warmed up” the audience. They were not so good...out of tune, loose rhythmically, sub-par instrumental and vocal chops, but they were enthusiastic. During this part of the service, the younger people in the congregation were grooving out with the band, but the older members sat silently staring at the floor. They perked up for the Mass which was done very well by the choir, orchestra, and soloists. I came away wondering if either one would really be appropriate for an LDS sacrament meeting. Probably not. I don’t think pop style music is suitable for that venue.

I have friends who are ministers of music, Christian music composers, and performers. I admire their skill, dedication and passion. I don’t see it fitting into the LDS way, but stranger things have happened. Scripturally, simple hymns are the prescribed mode.

[Hamba Tuhan]

39 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I don’t see it fitting into the LDS way, but stranger things have happened. Scripturally, simple hymns are the prescribed mode.

I suspect the new hymn book will broaden our repertoire somewhat in interesting ways, but I doubt we'll ever transition from music as simple worship to music as entertainment. The point is to invite the Spirit.

[Vellichor]

On 2/2/2019 at 2:28 PM, MustardSeed said:

Its been good in the last few years to see LDS social services even be willing to refer out to independent providers but still, bishops only pay for therapy done by LDS card carrying therapists.  

 

That's not true. Bishops can (and do) pay for therapy done by any therapist they believe is reputable, LDS or not.

[Bernard Gui]

19 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I suspect the new hymn book will broaden our repertoire somewhat in interesting ways, but I doubt we'll ever transition from music as simple worship to music as entertainment. The point is to invite the Spirit.

Indeed. We don’t currently have a provision for learning new hymns. How do you think we will learn them? With the old “new” hymn book we used to pick an unknown hymn and sing it two or three Sundays in a row. 

[MustardSeed]

33 minutes ago, Vellichor said:

That's not true. Bishops can (and do) pay for therapy done by any therapist they believe is reputable, LDS or not.

good to know.

 

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

I am old school when it comes to music in the church. Praise bands have thei4 place, I suppose, but not in a sacrament meeting.

I remember one time when I played in the orchestra for a Mozart Mass in a local Korean Presbyterian church. Before the Mass, the church’s praise band “warmed up” the audience. They were not so good...out of tune, loose rhythmically, sub-par instrumental and vocal chops, but they were enthusiastic. During this part of the service, the younger people in the congregation were grooving out with the band, but the older members sat silently staring at the floor. They perked up for the Mass which was done very well by the choir, orchestra, and soloists. I came away wondering if either one would really be appropriate for an LDS sacrament meeting. Probably not. I don’t think pop style music is suitable for that venue.

I have friends who are ministers of music, Christian music composers, and performers. I admire their skill, dedication and passion. I don’t see it fitting into the LDS way, but stranger things have happened. Scripturally, simple hymns are the prescribed mode.

I can't stand praise bands, that's just my opinion.  If they were added to our repertoire I should hope it would be better quality than the choir we've always had, (sorry) - .  But I don't see it happening.  We are ***in my opinion*** a very conservative lot and uncomfortable with anything new much less a drum set and bass.  A few years ago someone sang a solo in my ward and sang it very "pop" style, with scoops and what have you, and a few people were uncomfortable just with that.

I wish we could have mellow instruments play, though.  Nothing wrong with a beautiful trombone solo or an accousic guitar accompaniment.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

We have guitars in sacrament meeting all the time. 

[MustardSeed]

2 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

We have guitars in sacrament meeting all the time. 

lucky.  We were told several years back that violin was questionable.  I laughed.

[Hamba Tuhan]

26 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

We were told several years back that violin was questionable.  I laughed.

Always good to consult the Handbook:

Quote

Music in Church meetings should not draw attention to itself or be for demonstration. This music is for worship, not performance.

Organs and pianos, or their electronic equivalents, are the standard instruments used in Church meetings. If other instruments are used, their use should be in keeping with the spirit of the meeting. Instruments with a prominent or less worshipful sound, such as most brass and percussion, are not appropriate for sacrament meeting.

 

[Thinking]

I could start a thread about why the rest of the people leave the Church, but I believe that's against board rules.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 2/1/2019 at 10:10 AM, california boy said:

Like I said.  Some people are able to navigate through some of these issues.  Others are not.  They look at all of the paintings the church commissioned with Joseph actually using the Gold Plates to translate and find those representations deceiving as to what actually took place.   They ask themselves, would a church of God use deceit in portraying its history?  For them, the answer is no and they leave.  For you, you don't consider it deceitful, so you stay and continue in your belief.  No one should fault either group.

The key word here is "deceit," which assumes without evidence that it was deceit instead of ignorance.  LDS leaders know very little about actual history.  Indeed, becoming an LDS leader does not require any training in history or theology.  They typically have degrees in other disciplines, if at all.  What does indicate a lack of deceit is current efforts to make all the early documents available to the public.  What is more, LDS have long made such documents available for study by scholars.  If deceit had been in the equation, they certainly would not have done that.

[2BizE]

I think this article is very inaccurate, and does not address the primary reasons people leave the church today, which are a variety of items like church history, sexual abuse, sexism, and lack of trust in church leaders. Most people do not leave for social reasons or because they want to sin.

[california boy]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The key word here is "deceit," which assumes without evidence that it was deceit instead of ignorance.  LDS leaders know very little about actual history.  Indeed, becoming an LDS leader does not require any training in history or theology.  They typically have degrees in other disciplines, if at all.  What does indicate a lack of deceit is current efforts to make all the early documents available to the public.  What is more, LDS have long made such documents available for study by scholars.  If deceit had been in the equation, they certainly would not have done that.

That doesn't change the fact that is how they view how the church has portrayed its history.  You got to ask yourself, where did the myth start that Joseph used to Golden Plates to "translate" the Book of Mormon.  

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

That doesn't change the fact that is how they view how the church has portrayed its history.  You got to ask yourself, where did the myth start that Joseph used to Golden Plates to "translate" the Book of Mormon.  

Very few people ever reflected on that at all.  If they did, they likely followed the art work of several LDS painters who likewise knew nothing about LDS history.  Only a few specialists were even aware of the published sources, nearly all of which pointed directly to the use of the seerstone (some sources do have Joseph using the interpreters/spectacles early on directly over the plates).  I have RLDS friends who to this day deny that seerstones were used, and I have not gotten on their case about it.  They are not professional historians and do not need me to hector them.

So, how did the confusion/myth get started?  David Whitmer was at least partly responsible.  He said that, once, in a moment of arrogance, Joseph Smith spoke self-importantly about the plates, and the angel came and took both plates and spectacles in full view of those in the room (Cf. Times & Seasons, III:786,801 = Roberts, ed., History of the Church, I:21,23.).  David Whitmer said:

Quote

The plates were 8" x 4", thick as sheet tin and bound with three golden rings, a large portion well-sealed, and with hieroglyphics on loose pages; also a pair of spectacles set in silver bows.  A blanket divided the room for privacy.  The spectacles were silver rimmed.  Plates were deciphered at table, the volume open, one scribe after another taking dictation (a quartet of scribes in shifts). O. Cowdery’s biblical knowledge of immense aid in Smith’s stumbling over big words.

So, when Smith became arrogant and spoke self-importantly about the contents of the plates, the angel came and took them and the spectacles in full view of those in the room. (Interview of Dec 15, 1885, “The Book of Mormon,” The Chicago Times, Dec 17, 1885, p. 3, col. 4; The Chicago Times, Jan 24, 1888, p. 8, col. 1; cf. The Chicago Tribune, Jan 24, 1888, p. 8, col. 4, and The Chicago Times, 20 (Aug 7, 1875), p. 1, cols. 3-4; Millennial Star, 48:36.).  Of course, Whitmer was not an eyewitness, and so told J. L. Traughber, Jr., October 13, 1879:

Quote

    With the sanction of David Whitmer, and by his authority, I now state that he does not say that Joseph Smith ever translated in his presence by aid of Urim and Thummim; but by means of one dark colored, opaque stone, called a “Seer Stone,” which was placed in the crown of a hat, into which Joseph put his face, so as to exclude the external light.  Then, a spiritual light would shine forth, and parchment would appear before Joseph, upon which was a line of characters from the plates, and under it, the translation in English; at least, so Joseph said.  Saints’ Herald, 26 (Nov 15, 1879), 341; 109 (Nov 15, 1962), 800; cf. E. B. Mullin and E. L. Kelly in Saints’ Herald, 27 (Mar 1, 1880), 76.

William B. Smith (Joseph's brother) also added to the confusion in the following account of the spectacles in response to the questions of J. W. Peterson and W. S. Pender:  

Quote

 We asked him what was meant by the expression, “two rims of a bow,” which held the former.  He said a double silver bow was twisted into the shape of the figure eight, and the two stones were placed literally between the two rims of a bow.  At one end was attached a rod which was connected with the outer edge of the right shoulder of the breast-plate.  By pressing the head a little forward, the rod held the Urim and Thummim before the eyes much like a pair of spectacles.  A pocket was prepared in the breastplate on the left side, immediately over the heart.  When not in use the Urim and Thummim was placed in this pocket, the rod being of just the right length to allow it to be so deposited.  This instrument could, however, be detached from the breastplate and his brother said Joseph often wore it detached when away from home, but always used it in connection with the breastplate when receiving official communications, and usually so when translating, as it permitted him to have both hands free to hold the plates.
        In answer to our question, William informed us that he had, himself, by Joseph’s direction, put the Urim and Thummim before his eyes, but could see nothing, as he did not have the gift of a Seer.  He also informed us that the instruments were too wide for his eyes, as also for Joseph’s, and must have been used by much larger men.  The instrument caused a strain on Joseph’s eyes, and he sometimes resorted to the plan of covering his eyes with a hat to exclude the light in part.  July 4, 1891,interview, The Rod of Iron, I/3 (Feb 1924), 6-7.

Joseph himself must have been the ultimate source for some of these stories and descriptions.  He wrote privately that  

Quote

 the Lord had prepared spectacles for to read the Book therefore I commenced translating the characters . . . .  Joseph Smith Letterbook, Kirtland, 1831-32, p. 5.

Even for his official history, Joseph allows simply that he translated the Book of Mormon by means of the Urim and Thummim, which his “Wentworth Letter” and the Book of Mormon described as two transparent stones set in the rim of a silver bow or bows.

Then too there is the testimony of Oliver Cowdery at the October 1848 Iowa Conference, recorded by Reuben Miller, Oct 21, 1848:  

Quote

 I wrote with my own pen the entire Book of Mormon (save a few pages) as it fell from the lips of the Prophet as he translated it by the gift and power of God by means of the Urim and Thummim, or as it is called by that book, holy interpreters.  I beheld with my eyes and handled with my hands the gold plates from which it was translated.  I also beheld the Interpreters.  Journal of Reuben Miller, Oct 21, 1848, in Ensign, 7/9 (Sept 1977), 80.

Joseph's wife Emma said that

Quote

Now the first that my husband translated, was translated by the use of Urim and Thummim, and that was the part that Martin Harris lost.  after that he used a small stone, not exactly black, but was rather a dark color, ..  letter from Emma Smith Bidamon to Mrs. George W. Pilgrim (from Nauvoo, Mar 27, 1870).

Joseph’s formal history began publication in 1842, and it certainly makes the case that he began copying and translating characters directly from the plates:

Quote

    . . . immediately after my arrival there I commenced copying the characters off the plates.  I copied a considerable number of them, and by means of the Urim and Thummim I translated some of them, which I did between the time I arrived at the house of my wife’s father, in the month of December [1827], and the February following.   Times & Seasons, III (May 2, 1842), 772 = Roberts, ed., History of the Church, I:19.

These and other sources seem to indicate that Joseph did use the plates early on, but that was not the case later, when he and Oliver were working together in 1829.  Thus, we have a mixed bag of information.   No wonder people were/are confused.

Edited February 4, 2019 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, 2BizE said:

I think this article is very inaccurate, and does not address the primary reasons people leave the church today, which are a variety of items like church history, sexual abuse, sexism, and lack of trust in church leaders. Most people do not leave for social reasons or because they want to sin.

Sorry, 2BizE, but sociological research has shown consistently over many years that social reasons are the most common source of religious switching.  Very few people concern themselves with church history, and sexual abuse and sexism are not major issues of the LDS faith (as they definitely are for the Roman Catholic Church).  LDS leaders are generally held in high trust by most members of the Church.  If you have actual scholarly sources which say otherwise, please clue me in.  Thanks.

[california boy]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Very few people ever reflected on that at all.  If they did, they likely followed the art work of several LDS painters who likewise knew nothing about LDS history.  Only a few specialists were even aware of the published sources, nearly all of which pointed directly to the use of the seerstone (some sources do have Joseph using the interpreters/spectacles early on directly over the plates).  I have RLDS friends who to this day deny that seerstones were used, and I have not gotten on their case about it.  They are not professional historians and do not need me to hector them.

So, how did the confusion/myth get started?  David Whitmer was at least partly responsible.  He said that, once, in a moment of arrogance, Joseph Smith spoke self-importantly about the plates, and the angel came and took both plates and spectacles in full view of those in the room (Cf. Times & Seasons, III:786,801 = Roberts, ed., History of the Church, I:21,23.).  David Whitmer said:

So, when Smith became arrogant and spoke self-importantly about the contents of the plates, the angel came and took them and the spectacles in full view of those in the room. (Interview of Dec 15, 1885, “The Book of Mormon,” The Chicago Times, Dec 17, 1885, p. 3, col. 4; The Chicago Times, Jan 24, 1888, p. 8, col. 1; cf. The Chicago Tribune, Jan 24, 1888, p. 8, col. 4, and The Chicago Times, 20 (Aug 7, 1875), p. 1, cols. 3-4; Millennial Star, 48:36.).  Of course, Whitmer was not an eyewitness, and so told J. L. Traughber, Jr., October 13, 1879:

William B. Smith (Joseph's brother) also added to the confusion in the following account of the spectacles in response to the questions of J. W. Peterson and W. S. Pender:  

Joseph himself must have been the ultimate source for some of these stories and descriptions.  He wrote privately that  

Even for his official history, Joseph allows simply that he translated the Book of Mormon by means of the Urim and Thummim, which his “Wentworth Letter” and the Book of Mormon described as two transparent stones set in the rim of a silver bow or bows.

Then too there is the testimony of Oliver Cowdery at the October 1848 Iowa Conference, recorded by Reuben Miller, Oct 21, 1848:  

Joseph's wife Emma said that

Joseph’s formal history began publication in 1842, and it certainly makes the case that he began copying and translating characters directly from the plates:

These and other sources seem to indicate that Joseph did use the plates early on, but that was not the case later, when he and Oliver were working together in 1829.  Thus, we have a mixed bag of information.   No wonder people were/are confused.

Honestly, it sounds like even Joseph Smith couldn't decide how the Book of Mormon came forth.  I find that a bit weird. It is not hard to understand why some people are troubled by this.

Edited February 5, 2019 by california boy

[Hamba Tuhan]

13 minutes ago, california boy said:

Honestly, it sounds like even Joseph Smith couldn't decide how the Book of Mormon came forth.  I find that a bit weird. It is not hard to understand why some people are troubled by this.

Or maybe it was a complicated process that changed over time?  Being troubled by complexity is itself troubling.

[california boy]

28 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Or maybe it was a complicated process that changed over time?  Being troubled by complexity is itself troubling.

Maybe.  You have to admit it is confusing when it seems like it should be pretty straight forward.  Something as simple as a clear explanation on how such an important book came about, even if there were multiple processes used.  This sounds more like nobody could keep the story straight.  Personally, I have much bigger issues with the church than this.  But I think it would be perfectly understandable if some people struggle with this.

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

 You have to admit it is confusing when it seems like it should be pretty straight forward. 

My PhD was in history, and I worked as an editor of a university-based history journal until two yours ago. I think it's dangerously simplistic, often naïve, to expect any narrative to be 'pretty straightforward'.

[california boy]

2 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

My PhD was in history, and I worked as an editor of a university-based history journal until two yours ago. I think it's dangerously simplistic, often naïve, to expect any narrative to be 'pretty straightforward'.

There are many that would disagree with you.  Just saying.  

And perhaps if this was the only issue, you would have a stronger argument.

Edited February 5, 2019 by california boy

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

There are many that would disagree with you. Just saying.

I'm used to that; I've taught a fair few undergraduates.

Quote

And perhaps if this was the only issue, you would have a stronger argument.

Attempts to impose naïve simplicity across multiple issues only multiplies the inherent danger of the enterprise.

Edited February 5, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan