Some questions and thoughts about why people leave the Church.

[MrShorty]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

It all depends on one’s view of Priesthood keys and the Restoration. With those, it is exceptional. Without those, it’s just another of the many off-shoots of the Judeo/Christian tradition. 

Correct. And, considering the small number who obtain and retain a testimony of these points, it suggests to me that most people's path to salvation and exaltation go around the Church rather than through it. Sure they will "check the necessary ordinance" boxes by proxy, but their lived experience will be outside of the Church.

[Tacenda]

On 3/19/2022 at 9:26 AM, Navidad said:

I am not sure who the "they" is in your reply, but I think I agree with everything you said! Thanks.

The LDS leaders....

It seems the more vocal the leaders are, whether it's about gays, or those that leave, or how our church can be added on to others' faith as if theirs isn't complete, is a problem. ETA: Or that other faiths can bring all their beliefs and add on to the LDS belief for the total truth, something like that.

IMO, if the church left the gays alone, or those that doubt alone, or not compare religions, they'd be better off and not so divisive.

For one, I think it just makes people dislike the church. So I believe the church would look much better. I truly believe that the church causes more members to disbelieve when they bring up the issues in the church like the gospel topic essays and Fair. I sent in my questions to Fair when I was questioning the church but when going to their website I did see things I hadn't known before, so in the church's favor I think they should have left it alone.

And concerning gays, the talks about them caused so many problems, I won't say the "s" word, but it's on my mind.

I know saying this feels like a 180 from what you'd think a person who struggles would say. You'd think I'd want the church to be transparent, but honestly I think that's the problem, some people like safety of being in the bubble and not knowing the warts. Or in the case of other churches, I think they'd rather their church not be second fiddle to the LDS church, speaking of you Navidad. 

I do understand that the church needs to come clean with the correct narrative, but just saying it can cause members to leave, just as much as ex-LDS or anti information. Yesteryears anti-LDS information is today's Gospel Topic Essays now. 

 

Edited March 21, 2022 by Tacenda

[SwedishLDS]

well, we live in a fallen world. Problem is people put their politics before prophetic teachings. People want a church that adapts to them rather than them adapting to the churchs and Christ's teachings. Remaking God in their image or making Politics their religion. This is understandable and everyone does to their best to some degree.

But there are the philosophies of men regardless of where you go. people want an easy religion that demands nothing.

We live in a world that increasingly rejects the notion of sin and God. A true church doesn’t gain many followers 

Edited March 21, 2022 by SwedishLDS

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, SwedishLDS said:

 We live in a world that increasingly rejects the notion of sin and God. A true church doesn’t gain many followers

I think this last statement is very true.  We want to present the gospel in as favorable of a way as possible, but in the end, I don't know that it matters all that much who likes us and who doesn't because we live in a secular society that favors hedonism and other self-focused pursuits.

A church that is viewed favorably, but still rejected by the majority, is no better than a church that isn't viewed favorably and is also rejected.

[Meadowchik]

16 minutes ago, SwedishLDS said:

Problem is people put their politics before prophetic teachings. People want a church that adapts to them rather than them adapting to the churchs and Christ's teachings. Remaking God in their image or making Politics their religion.

there are the philosophies of men regardless of where you go. people want an easy religion that demands nothing. I am sceptical of teachings that are convenient  

We live in a world that increasingly rejects the notion of sin and God. A true church doesn’t gain many followers

I don't think religion exists without politics in its essence. Religion is a collective exercise of belief, a social creature which is inherently political.

You can't take the man-made out of religion. Man is the filter through which it comes.

Edited March 21, 2022 by Meadowchik

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

You can't take the man-made out of religion. Man is the filter through which it comes.

In a sense I agree, but in another sense there is a difference (from a theistic perspective) between a religion that is created by men and women and a religion that comes from God and is filtered through men and women.

 

[SwedishLDS]

32 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I don't think religion exists without politics in its essence. Religion is a collective exercise of belief, a social creature which is inherently political.

You can't take the man-made out of religion. Man is the filter through which it comes.

I think you are right, but I also think God fixes the path of the church so it doesn’t stray to much. Thats why prophets are necessary. Of course personal revelation is also important and an important tenet of our church

Edited March 21, 2022 by SwedishLDS

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, SwedishLDS said:

Of course personal revelation is also important and an important tenet of our church

I am not sure I know of a single church (meaning denomination or group within Christianity) in which personal revelation is not important and an important tenet.

[pogi]

48 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I am not sure I know of a single church (meaning denomination or group within Christianity) in which personal revelation is not important and an important tenet.

There was a member on this site who mocked our teachings of personal revelation and suggested that the heart is corrupt and cannot be trusted.  He was a sola-scripturian and I assume a Fundamentalist.   

Edited March 21, 2022 by pogi

[pogi]

See:

Quote

The Canon Is Closed

The truth is, there is no fresher or more intimate revelation than Scripture. God does not need to give private revelation to help us in our walk with Him. “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16–17, emphasis added). Scripture is sufficient. It offers all we need for every good work.

https://www.gty.org/library/articles/A366/does-god-still-give-revelation

https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/13746/why-are-some-denominations-so-against-the-idea-of-personal-revelation-as-a-sourc

 

Edited March 21, 2022 by pogi

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, pogi said:

There was a member on this site who mocked our teachings of personal revelation and suggested that the heart is corrupt and cannot be trusted.  He was a sola-scripturian and I assume a Fundamentalist.   

I've been told this by multiple Christians of different denominations.  That we can't trust personal revelation.  

[SwedishLDS]

50 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I am not sure I know of a single church (meaning denomination or group within Christianity) in which personal revelation is not important and an important tenet.

I see your point, I will say though that I have been told that it is untrustworthy before by christians, but anyway during Joseph Smiths time it was viewed as such things didn’t exist anymore by many. I will also say that there are plenty of culturally religious people who doesn’t believe in the power of the spirit

Edited March 21, 2022 by SwedishLDS

[pogi]

45 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I've been told this by multiple Christians of different denominations.  That we can't trust personal revelation.  

This from a "Lutherangirl":

Quote

When attempting to proclaim the Gospel this subjective position creates several issues which cannot be taken lightly. If the Bible is interpreted based on what someone feels it means, then who is to say the “burning in the bosom” of the Mormon faith is truth when they read The Book of Mormon? How does the Pentecostal missionary disprove the excitements of Hinduism in their worship of Shiva or the mysticism of the Islamic Sufi sect who dance themselves into a spiritual frenzy relying upon feelings and experience to verify truth? The simple answer is that they cannot because they have placed their subjective views over the objective truths of the Scripture.  Also, how does one deal with the mentally ill who believe that God is giving them a personal, private and revelatory message? If feelings dictate truth then the strength of the  Gospel proclamation is lost. 

So, if you are in a church or group, or even if you personally think you are hearing God’s Voice (in your heart or head), you need to keep in mind that this was based upon teachings from the 1800’s, from those who longed to hear a “new word” and placed God’s Written Word aside. Of course they, and you, probably don’t do it intentionally but still you are guilty of placing the Bible secondary to your Direct Revelation from God. I’ve known many who have said, “God told me…” only to have their course reversed and say, “Well, God told me now to…” Duet. 18 is very strict for those who think God is speaking to them and they are telling others these things. It is a warning against this practice. In Revelation we have a similar warning that if anyone adds to these words the plagues will be upon them. That’s scary folks and needs to be heeded.

https://www.lutherangirl.org/post/direct-revelation-or-special-revelation-written-word-of-god

 

 

Edited March 21, 2022 by pogi

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

This from a "Lutherangirl":

 

 

Yes, this is what I've been told, in different forms.  I have two thoughts on her statements.  First, from my perspective, whenever someone starts talking about relying on "feelings" then it's usually a sign that they don't actually understand personal revelation all that well and second, from her description, it seems like she is putting the bible before God, or rather, that the bible is her god.

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

There was a member on this site who mocked our teachings of personal revelation and suggested that the heart is corrupt and cannot be trusted.  He was a sola-scripturian and I assume a Fundamentalist.   

And I will bet you $5.00 that he sought God's will on who he should marry and where he should go to college! Is he gone? Where is he? Let me at him! Ha!

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I don't think religion exists without politics in its essence. Religion is a collective exercise of belief, a social creature which is inherently political.

Could you elaborate on this?  I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.  How is religion "inherently political?"

That's not to say that religion cannot be political, or interwoven with politics, and so on.  Much of history has been affected by such things.

Let's begin with reviewing what "politics" means:

Quote

Politics (from Greek: Πολιτικά, politiká, 'affairs of the cities') is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations among individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status. The branch of social science that studies politics and government is referred to as political science.
...

Etymology[edit]

The English politics has its roots in the name of Aristotle's classic work, Politiká, which introduced the Greek term politiká (Πολιτικά, 'affairs of the cities'). In the mid-15th century, Aristotle's composition would be rendered in Early Modern English as Polettiques [sic],^[a][10] which would become Politics in Modern English.

The singular politic first attested in English in 1430, coming from Middle French politique—itself taking from politicus,^[11] a Latinization of the Greek πολιτικός (politikos) from πολίτης (polites, 'citizen') and πόλις (polis, 'city').^[12]

Definitions[edit]

• In the view of Harold Lasswell, politics is "who gets what, when, how."^[13]
• For David Easton, it is about the authoritative allocation of values for a society."^[14]
• To Vladimir Lenin, "politics is the most concentrated expression of economics."^[15]
• Bernard Crick argued that "politics is a distinctive form of rule whereby people act together through institutionalized procedures to resolve differences, to conciliate diverse interests and values and to make public policies in the pursuit of common purposes."^[16]
• According to Adrian Leftwich "Politics comprises all the activities of co-operation, negotiation and conflict within and between societies, whereby people go about organizing the use, production or distribution of human, natural and other resources in the course of the production and reproduction of their biological and social life."^[17]
• Politics is the sphere of activity involved in running a state. According to Max Webber, the "state can be defined as a human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory".
• In the view of Manjunath Hegde, politics is " the power, to rule the people."

I am more specifically interested in how you present this "religion ... {is} inherently political" concept relative to D&C 134:10, which states:

Quote

We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

Thougths?

Thanks,

-Smac

[MrShorty]

3 hours ago, SwedishLDS said:

I also think God fixes the path of the church so it doesn’t stray to much. Thats why prophets are necessary. Of course personal revelation is also important and an important tenet of our church

As a thought on why some people end up leaving is in the tension between personal revelation and prophetic revelation. Sometimes when you find your personal revelation calling you in a different direction than prophetic revelation, one chooses to follow ones personal revelation.

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Correct. And, considering the small number who obtain and retain a testimony of these points, it suggests to me that most people's path to salvation and exaltation go around the Church rather than through it. Sure they will "check the necessary ordinance" boxes by proxy, but their lived experience will be outside of the Church.

There’s that thing about a strait gate and a narrow way….and those many mansions…and the Sower…and the Tree of Life and…..

[Bernard Gui]

13 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I agree it can be comforting, surely.

Yet there is another way to see the result of it.  I personally think that assuredness of eternity that I held (until recently)  impeded me from experiencing joy and progression. 

Perhaps there'd be a healthy balance in considering it as a double edged sword, and being aware of the hazards of relying on an eternity belief. 

Thanks. I’m hard-pressed to think of a downside to relying on a belief in eternity when it is considered in the light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 

[Navidad]

9 hours ago, pogi said:

This from a "Lutherangirl":

 

 

I am not sure under which post to answer this and I don't know how to combine several quotes from different posts into one. So I have randomly, not through any form of revelation (smile) decided to reply to Pogi's post but the same answer applies to @bluebell @SwedishLDS and others who may have responded to my post and I missed.

First we are talking about two different things (at least). What you all mentioned coming from someone here in the past were comments about interpreting scripture via some type of feeling, burning in the bosom, or gut-instinct of the same. Having said that,  I do and I was taught and I have taught that the Holy Spirit is a direct aide in the practice of hermeneutics or scriptural interpretation. I have a ginormous library on hermeneutics and homiletics and don't know of anyone, except for the most strident Calvinists who would deny the leadership of the Holy Spirit in their life, especially in interpreting scripture and making personal decisions. I can safely say I have never met such a hardcore Calvinist as that. I have preached in lots of Presbyterian churches, especially of the PCA variety. Most Evangelicals would object to the "burning in the bosom" concept, but that is simply semantics. If they deny the LDS are Christians, then they would deny the role of the Holy Spirit in that person's life, and then would relegate any burning to the person's own feelings. That they would deny.

The idea of feelings being helpful is not big in lots of Fundamentalist circles. That is why they oppose psychology and counseling of most sorts that are not directly from the Bible. I have had my own share of debates on that particular issue since I was a psychology professor at a rather conservative Baptist college. I was an outcast from the Bible department there, but relished the opportunity to debate psychology versus Nouthetic Counseling, especially since psychology is the social science most interested in the soul (psyche). The famous Delitzsch of Biblical commentary fame also wrote the first book on Biblical Psychology, but I digress.
 

So, as a Christian I rely on guidance and direction from the Holy Spirit as my counselor, as does every other Christian I know, including most Calvinists. Most of my Calvinist experiences have been with very conservative (read Fundamentalist) Presbyterians. I never heard of Calvinist Lutherans, especially any who believe in predetermined damnation. That is an oxymoron for non hardcore Calvinists. I am convinced that LDS Christians have the availability of the Holy Spirit. I am also convinced they are wrong when they say they are the only ones who have it. So see, I upset lots of people! Many Evangelicals like me object to being stuffed in boxes.

When we get away from Biblical interpretation and talk about personal revelation, general revelation, and personal decision-making, I know of no Christians who aren't for those. As I said yesterday on one of my 5,348 posts (slight exaggeration) I grew up being encouraged to pray about and seek God's will for my life - marriage, vocation. college, job moves, purchasing decisions, etc. Any answer to any of those prayers was specific and to me only - directly from the Holy Spirit as a special revelation that is not in competition with the Bible because the Bible doesn't tell me Susy or Sally. I actually married Jeanne! Fifty-two years later I have lots of confirmation about the wisdom of that decision.

I had a very good friend who wrote a terrific  book entitled "Decision-Making and the Will of God." He became famous on that book because in it he offered an alternative view, but only about the moral and sovereign will of God. No need to seek that knowledge - on the former the Bible is sufficient and on the latter God isn't telling. He never reveals his sovereign will, either via Scripture or any other form of revelation, nope - not to anyone - maybe a prophet, but none of us mortals. So again, I say this - I know of no Christian who believes that a Christian via the Holy Spirit should not seek and cannot  receive a. special revelation about non-Biblical things; general revelation about all the God reveals of himself via His creation, and the gifts that come with the fullness of the Holy Spirit. On that last one, various Christians disagree on which gifts are available to us in this dispensation. For some it is a big deal. For many it is not. For example - tongues and the interpretation of tongues is a biggy for some! I am in the "who knows? camp. I heard some things when I was on my mission in Africa that cause me to reject a strident position on either side of the definition of what the gift of tongues even was and if it is available today. Remember - I intensely dislike certainty.

I hope this quick epistle helps. I have to get back to proofing my citations for another project! Thanks to all.
 

Edited March 22, 2022 by Navidad

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Yes, this is what I've been told, in different forms.  I have two thoughts on her statements.  First, from my perspective, whenever someone starts talking about relying on "feelings" then it's usually a sign that they don't actually understand personal revelation all that well and second, from her description, it seems like she is putting the bible before God, or rather, that the bible is her god.

It reminds me of my bro who in sharing his conversion to a non-lds Christian stance worked to differentiate a “feeling”  from his experience of praying and experience a confirmation of being accepted by Jesus through a sense of something like protection or fulfillment….which still sounded a lot like a feeling to me. 😅

 

with luv, 

BD 

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, SwedishLDS said:

well, we live in a fallen world. Problem is people put their politics before prophetic teachings. People want a church that adapts to them rather than them adapting to the churchs and Christ's teachings. Remaking God in their image or making Politics their religion. This is understandable and everyone does to their best to some degree.

But there are the philosophies of men regardless of where you go. people want an easy religion that demands nothing.

We live in a world that increasingly rejects the notion of sin and God. A true church doesn’t gain many followers 

I think our church adapts to the needs of the times.

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, Navidad said:

Reaction number one - Very well said!   Reaction number two - Being one the "many off-shoots of the Judeo/Christian tradition isn't a bad thing - it is rather exceptional in and of itself. It brings joy, meaning, and yes, assurance of eternity with the Father to many, if not most of us who dwell quite contentedly as an off-shoot!

Reaction number three - In fact, I grow horse radish. After many years, out of many plants, I couldn't tell you which plant is the original and which is the off-shoot! I think that is the way it is with Christianity as a whole, including the LDS Church. There is no meaningful perceivable distinction between any of them! I guess I should also add to put things in perspective - horseradish is my very favorite food group! Just to get in more trouble - my guess is that if we took someone who is completely unfamiliar with Christianity into five (including LDS) Sunday worship services, each of a different Judeo/Christian off-shoot, he or she would probably pick the Pentecostal (assuming that is one of the five) experience to be the original. Oh, and remember, I am not Pentecostal!

Thanks. Grandma DePriest grew horseradish. I like it on prime rib and In seafood sauces. 

This still boils down to the one question: Did God the Father, Jesus, Moroni, John the Baptist, Peter, James, John, Moses, Elijah, Elias, and others restore the gospel and priesthood keys through Joseph Smith?

How do you respond to that question? How could you determine if it is true? What would you do if you knew it really happened?

[Bernard Gui]

15 minutes ago, Navidad said:

When we get away from Biblical interpretation and talk about personal revelation, general revelation, and personal decision-making, I know of no Christians who aren't for those. As I said yesterday on one of my 5,348 posts (slight exaggeration) I grew up being encouraged to pray about and seek God's will for my life - marriage, vocation. college, job moves, purchasing decisions, etc. Any answer to any of those prayers was specific and to me only - directly from the Holy Spirit as a special revelation that is not in competition with the Bible because the Bible doesn't tell me Susy or Sally. I actually married Jeanne! Fifty-two years later I have lots of confirmation about the wisdom of that decision.

I can think of no reason why God would not do this for all his children. 

[Meadowchik]

31 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks. I’m hard-pressed to think of a downside to relying on a belief in eternity when it is considered in the light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 

You're welcome.

It might be important to understand that there are downsides for some, and also for some the beliefs called "the Gospel of Jesus Christ" are no longer accessible, for reasons of conscience and conviction.

That said, there can still be tremendous common ground even in these cases.