Uptick in GenZ / Millennial apostasy?

[Teancum]

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I agree, especially when he mentions that we were deceived by the devil. And not once does he address the issues. And my issue with the church at the beginning was learning of Joseph's way of living polygamy or even that he lived it. And that is a known fact in the LDS church, so not a lie at all. He does show the weight on the backs of those that struggle, but many of us don't just leave ASAP, it takes years of research, prayer, fasting, even attending the temple to find answers besides the podcasts with Dehlin or ?

This Jacob may think he's helping but he's not to the faithful person that sees the video and then checks out the podcasts by Dehlin and others. It will open up the door to doubt. I didn't immediately doubt when I learned of Joseph's polygamy, I just went on Fair, don't know how I even learned of it, something popped up online, like the information of Joseph's wives. And I researched and found more things no one told me. 

I see a sadness from Jacob, feel quite sorry for the guy. I hope he can move on, like he maybe thinks others need to move on. And I'm sure he misses his friend too. But just think this guy isn't a good example of the light of Christ. And that's not good for a faithful LDS to see. 

Like I mentioned elsewhere on the board today, it isn't good for faithful leaders or members to bring up those that leave or struggle, it just brings up difficult subjects for the faithful and may start their rabbit hole. 

I didn't see sadness. I saw false ooiie gooie piety.  What about the convert to the LDS Church. A Catholic apologist could make the same argument and appeal to emotions, feelings-which are couched as answers to prayers in the same way  And complain that the Catholic disaffecter to Mormonism is following the devil, betraying his promises, etc.  THe biggest lie really is what he is trying to defend.  And he disparages his enemies is greedy and just in it for the money. And his fake voice.  Come on.  Talk like a normal human.

[Teancum]

7 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

As Dr Hess points out, podcasts from Dehlin and his fellow travellers are no different in nature or desired outcome than podcasts claiming that Covid is a giant fraud. In neither case does exposure automatically result in being suckered.

Hess is wrong.

[Navidad]

Perhaps I could add another perspective to the conversation? Methinks that for every person who leaves the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, there are perhaps forty who look into it and never join. That is an arbitrary number, not the result of any particular data. I know those who leave, cause more pain and consternation for the faithful. However I wonder if the faithful wonder and are concerned about those who never join in the first place? It seems that if the church is to recapture its ROROG (rate of rate of growth), it must look into what about it makes people never join in the first place. I can comment, but only anecdotally about my thoughts about those who leave. But I would have much more to say about why folks don't join in the first place. Are there studies within the church missions effort about why adults "investigate" (I don't really like that word) and then move on? I think that would be quite interesting and challenging a discussion.

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Really it was not compelling at all and a enough lack of logic in his argument to drive a truck through.  But hey keep putting stuff like this out there and keep seeing the bleeding of the flock.

I think I agree. I watched the whole thing. I thought he missed the boat completely, but continued the mythology that folks leave the church because of something that the "others" do. This tendency to "otherspect" and inability to "introspect" seems to me to be a challenge for the faithful. 

[Senator]

7 hours ago, Teancum said:

 I saw false ooiie gooie piety. ...... And his fake voice.  Come on.  Talk like a normal human.

Yeah, something about his presentation that gave me the heebie jeebies.

[Calm]

I thought his voice was a bit slow, like how my dad would tell us to talk for talks as we tended to be fast speakers generally. Or my father in law who sometimes it seemed was moving in molasses and speaking the same. 
 

Anyone try it with speeding it up? I didn’t mind the lower tone, that worked for me. 

Edited September 28, 2021 by Calm

[Analytics]

I thought the video was weird, too. Some thoughts:

1. He repeatedly juxtaposed the idealized version of the Mormon experience with the worst stereotypes of critics, and repeatedly suggested that the truthfulness of the Church should be based on that comparison.
    
2. It has a weird post-modern vibe—the object wasn’t to address any actual issue and get to the truth of it. Rather, it was to insist that since the problems with the Church aren’t new, they must not really be problems. It’s all on how you choose to look at it.
    
3. He seemed to be suffering a lot of angst over people rejecting the truth-claims of his religion. He doesn’t come across as being able to sleep well, which according to his own logic means he isn’t accepting the truth.
    
4. He gives critics way too much credit for getting people out of the Church. If somebody’s testimony crumbles because of a critical podcast, it just means the testimony was a house of cards to begin with.

[bOObOO]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

Perhaps I could add another perspective to the conversation? Methinks that for every person who leaves the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, there are perhaps forty who look into it and never join. That is an arbitrary number, not the result of any particular data. I know those who leave, cause more pain and consternation for the faithful. However I wonder if the faithful wonder and are concerned about those who never join in the first place? It seems that if the church is to recapture its ROROG (rate of rate of growth), it must look into what about it makes people never join in the first place. I can comment, but only anecdotally about my thoughts about those who leave. But I would have much more to say about why folks don't join in the first place. Are there studies within the church missions effort about why adults "investigate" (I don't really like that word) and then move on? I think that would be quite interesting and challenging a discussion.

The only catalyst that is needed to become a member of the Church is a personal testimony from God to assure someone that the Church is what it claims to be, the true church of Jesus Christ.  And I say needed because that is the only thing that will sustain a person through both good times and bad in the Church, as long as that is remembered and honored for what it is worth.  Someone might join the Church because of some other reason or reasons, the Church has a lot of good social programs and benefits, but there are some other churches with good social benefits too and if a person isn't really interested in knowing which church is the true church that may not be an important consideration.  It is the only reason I chose to become a member of it when all of the rest of my family was not willing to join it with me.  It was the only reason I broke rank from the church I had grown up with, because for me it was that important that I be a member of the one and only true church of Jesus Christ.  And because it is the true church of Jesus Christ it also does have all of the best benefits.

Edited September 28, 2021 by bOObOO

[Rivers]

Wokism is the new religion replacing Christianity.

I’ll just leave this video here.

 

Edited September 28, 2021 by Rivers

[Canadiandude]

25 minutes ago, Rivers said:

Wokism is the new religion replacing Christianity.

I’ll just leave this video here.

 

I mean you can, but I think it’d be better if you explained why you shared it and what your opinion on it is.

Eh, ‘woke’ has become a pejorative for certain political elements in and outside of the church.

I’m also curious about the phrase “is the new religion replacing Christianity” as that implies a lot of assumptions as to Christianity’s rightful predominance within whatever society one is referring to.

You might want to look up Christian Nationalism and the historicism/mythology that animates this kind of sentiment.

And a scholar or two studying it. 

Edited September 28, 2021 by Canadiandude

[Rivers]

2 hours ago, Canadiandude said:

I mean you can, but I think it’d be better if you explained why you shared it and what your opinion on it is.

Eh, ‘woke’ has become a pejorative for certain political elements in and outside of the church.

I’m also curious about the phrase “is the new religion replacing Christianity” as that implies a lot of assumptions as to Christianity’s rightful predominance within whatever society one is referring to.

You might want to look up Christian Nationalism and the historicism/mythology that animates this kind of sentiment.

And a scholar or two studying it. 

By “woke” I mean extreme leftism.  
 

And by Christianity as the dominant religion, I would broaden that to mean Jedeo-Christian values.

[california boy]

20 minutes ago, Rivers said:

By “woke” I mean extreme leftism.  
 

And by Christianity as the dominant religion, I would broaden that to mean Jedeo-Christian values.

Wow.  Would you like another glass of Kool aid?

Edited September 29, 2021 by california boy

[Canadiandude]

1 hour ago, Rivers said:

By “woke” I mean extreme leftism.  
 

And by Christianity as the dominant religion, I would broaden that to mean Jedeo-Christian values.

Crikey! Looks like we got ourselves here a Christian Nationalist. Let’s take a closer look.

Here, this should be friendly territory enough:

https://www.deseret.com/indepth/2021/2/7/22254802/how-to-address-christian-nationalism-extreme-militant-white-pastors-citizens-deradicalize-democracy

Hard to tell anymore tho, as per the comments, my ‘comrades’ have apparently already infiltrated the paper with smashing success.

😅

Edited September 29, 2021 by Canadiandude

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Rivers said:

By “woke” I mean extreme leftism.  
 

And by Christianity as the dominant religion, I would broaden that to mean Jedeo-Christian values.

If the loud opponents of being “woke” embraced Judeo-Christian values they would probably be doing better in this conflict.

If they knew what being “woke” meant that would probably help them too.

[mfbukowski]

15 hours ago, Rivers said:

By “woke” I mean extreme leftism.  
 

And by Christianity as the dominant religion, I would broaden that to mean Jedeo-Christian values.

I went to Disney land yesterday and I read your typo as "Jedi-Christian" values!

as Charlie Brown might say, "AUGH!!"

But an interesting idea....

Today, maybe more influential than the original .... 

Incidentally, just for Mama and Papa just for tickets, parking, and meals, we are talking in the neighborhood of $500 nowadays!! Now that is a BIG AUGH!

12 pieces of meat on sticks, each 1 cubic inch, barbecued, from a stand, not a restaurant,- go find a place to sit= $25. Had to spend more just to not be hungry after walking 10 miles in circles all day!!

Edited September 29, 2021 by mfbukowski

[ttribe]

16 hours ago, Rivers said:

By “woke” I mean extreme leftism. 

If by "woke" you mean - Believing in equal rights to all people, regardless of their religion, their skin color, their gender, or their sexuality, then I guess that makes me "woke."  Never mind my fiscal conservatism and lack of party affiliation...I'm just an extreme leftist in your world, it seems.

 

Quote

And by Christianity as the dominant religion, I would broaden that to mean Jedeo-Christian values.

Margaret Atwood has a cautionary tale for you; I suggest reading it.

Edited September 29, 2021 by ttribe

[Chum]

36 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Believing in equal rights to all people, regardless of their religion, their skin color, their gender, or their sexuality, then I guess that makes me "woke."

Jesus was the wokeiest.

[Tacenda]

41 minutes ago, ttribe said:

If by "woke" you mean - Believing in equal rights to all people, regardless of their religion, their skin color, their gender, or their sexuality, then I guess that makes me "woke."  Never mind my fiscal conservatism and lack of party affiliation...I'm just an extreme leftist in your world, it seems.

 

Margaret Atwood has a cautionary tale for you; I suggest reading it.

I concur these statements! Wake up people!

[pogi]

21 hours ago, Rivers said:

Wokism is the new religion replacing Christianity.

I’ll just leave this video here.

18 hours ago, Rivers said:

By “woke” I mean extreme leftism.  
 

And by Christianity as the dominant religion, I would broaden that to mean Jedeo-Christian values.

What I gathered from this video - the secular left is too far gone, that we have "no common ground" with them.  That they are either a "wild and ferocious people" or a hardened group of "Gadianton robbers" who "are not redeemable" and that we have to "separate ourselves from".  When asked what our best defense will be, the answer was to "stigmatize" them.  Those are all quotes from the video.  

Now, can you please define "extreme leftism" for me so that I can know who I am supposed to cancel?  If we can just "stigmatize" them enough to where nobody dares touch them, Mormonism, nay, Christianity will be saved!  Genius! 

I will applaud Brad Witbeck, the only person with courage enough to push back against these dangerous ideas being brodcast in this video for his final comments on seeking to find common ground - that it exists - and that that is the best way to reach out and touch these people.  I am still unsure as to who "these people" are though.  Please define.     

Edited September 29, 2021 by pogi

[bOObOO]

34 minutes ago, pogi said:

Can you define "extreme leftism" for me so that I can know who to cancel?  

 

Extreme leftism is the opposite of extreme rightism.  Extreme leftists scoff at the idea that there is only one right choice for everybody.  They believe whatever feels good for each person is all that matters, as long as everyone stays out of each other's business or causes no obvious harm to other people.

It's the "I'm okay, you're okay" mindset as long as there is no "you" who is trying to tell others what they should be doing, or believing, or promoting as the only right and proper way to live life.  Whether gay or any other version of LGBTQ, or Hindu, or person with black or yellow skin, or whatever.  The "I have a right to be however I want to be and it shouldn't bother you or anyone else paradigm personified by anyone and everyone is how everyone in this world ought to be" mindset.

For an extreme leftist, anyone who doesn't agree with their mindset is wrong,  and the truth is whatever everyone believes it is as long as nobody disagrees with other people, because whoever disagrees is the person who has it all wrong.  

But don't tell an extreme leftest that he or she is right or everyone is right because when they hear the word "right" they think of the right wing party, whether only moderately right or on the extreme right.  Just say yes to them, or that you agree with them, if you want to get along with them.

Edited September 29, 2021 by bOObOO

[pogi]

48 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

Extreme leftism is the opposite of extreme rightism.

So, they are pacifist angels? 

Nah, I think they are probably more alike than dissimilar in all of the same evil hate filled, idiocentric, violent, intolerant, ideologically oppressive, tribalistic, and divisive ways. 

I have my ideas of what extreme leftism is, but I want to hear Rivers definition and why he perceives this miniscule group as being a threat to Christianity - must be a pretty substantial and influential group in his mind, and not just some "extreme" minority sub-group.  I think he means the "secular left", and not the "extreme left".  

48 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

 Extreme leftists scoff at the idea that there is only one right choice for everybody. 

 I guess I am an extreme leftist then?

48 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

The believe what feels right for each person is all that matters, as long as everyone stays out of each other's business.

So they are libertarians?  Or, are they Mormons and just follow what they feel is right? 

48 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

For an extreme leftist, anyone who doesn't agree with their mindset is wrong...

So they are republicans and democrats?

 

Edited September 29, 2021 by pogi

[Kenngo1969]

On 9/27/2021 at 5:24 PM, Teancum said:

I pretty much take the same approach.

With due respect, you may take that approach with friends and family, but not on this board, you don't, it would seem.

[bOObOO]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

So, they are pacifist angels? 

Nah, I think they are probably more alike than dissimilar in all of the same evil hate filled, idiocentric, violent, intolerant, ideologically oppressive, tribalistic, and divisive ways. 

I have my ideas of what extreme leftism is, but I want to hear Rivers definition and why he perceives this miniscule group as being a threat to Christianity - must be a pretty substantial and influential group in his mind, and not just some "extreme" minority sub-group. 

 I guess I am an extreme leftist then?

So they are libertarians?  Or, is that just another thing they have in common?

So they are republicans and democrats?

 

I see you are trying to associate extreme leftists with a particular political party.  I think it is generally believed that Democrats and Libertarians are on the left side while Republicans are on the right side but that doesn't do much to define the left side.

And a person can lean to the left on some issues while leaning to the right on some other issues, which again doesn't say much to define the left side, or the right side either.

I think about it this way.  If a person doesn't believe in Jesus Christ and doesn't believe a belief in Jesus Christ is necessary to be a good person, and also doesn't believe it is necessary to accept so-called Judeo-Christian values, he may just be ignorant.

Or then again maybe he is on the left side.  Probably not the right side though. Most people who are right on most issues are on the right side.

[Chum]

29 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

For an extreme leftist, anyone who doesn't agree with their mindset is wrong,  and the truth is whatever everyone believes it is as long as nobody disagrees with other people, because whoever disagrees is the person who has it all wrong.  

This is also a fine description of modern r-wing ideologues. Was that intentional?

[ttribe]

8 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

With due respect, you may take that approach with friends and family, but not on this board, you don't, it would seem.

Oh, please.  Engaging in spirited discussion over doctrinal claims and practices on a board that is specifically for that purpose is hardly proselytizing people out of the church.  That seems to be a bit of a knee-jerk reaction on your part.