Why people leave the church

[lindsayjane]

That book you refer to is View of the Hebrews is an 1823 book written by Ethan Smith. There are parallels between the Book of Mormon and View of the Hewbrews.

* extensive quotation from the prophecies of Isaiah in the Old Testament

* the Israelite origin of the American Indian

* the future gathering of Israel and restoration of the Ten Lost Tribes

* the peopling of the New World from the Old via a long journey northward which encountered "seas" of "many waters"

* a religious motive for the migration

* the division of the migrants into civilized and uncivilized groups with long wars between them and the eventual destruction of the civilized by the uncivilized

* the assumption that all native peoples were descended from Israelites and their languages from Hebrew

* the burial of a "lost book" with "yellow leaves"

* the description of extensive military fortifications with military observatories or "watch towers" overlooking them

* a change from monarchy to republican forms of government

* the preaching of the gospel in ancient America.[12]

I had a theory to explain the similarities between this book and the BOM. I thought that perhaps Satan, being well aware of actual BOM history, could have inspired the author with enough glimpses of that history to generate a work of fiction based loosely on historical fact. Satan was aware of the impending coming forth of the BOM and he could have wanted to engineer something like this to work against it. I have never read the book, so anyone who has can feel free to refute this possibility. But regardless of the inspiration behind the book, I still have a hard time believing Joseph could have written something as complex and doctrinally transcendent as the BOM. And I would think if someone else wrote it or helped him write it, there's no way an author of something that brilliant would fade into anonymity and let God and/or Joseph take all the credit!

In my own struggles with the church and activity, I have actually had very different experiences than I've read in this thread. I never left because of doctrine or offenses or even the difficulty of requirement. In fact, despite all of the anti stuff I read over the years, actually trying to disbelieve the church, nothing I read ever disturbed me or affected my testimony. I regarded the peculiarities as interesting and unfortunate and knew I would understand them better eventually. When active I struggled to keep up and get it all right just like everyone else does, but my attitude was always humble and accepting--always "thy will be done," and "all my time and talents to the last tear and drop of blood." I felt that, to a greater extent, I wasn't living this life for myself and my own comfort in the first place. And I understood that the leaders of the church were human and fallible, but I also understood the principle that even if a bishop's counsel wasn't perfect, or an apostle's admonition veered a bit from revelation, my obedience would be counted as righteousness. I was respectful of their priesthood and calling as called of the Lord, even if their nature or opinion was lacking.

In any case, I suppose I experienced that elusive growth of testimony that many members seem to experience. I never felt that warm fuzzy confirmation. I have never felt very much during prayer, in general. However, I have felt the Spirit deeply along the way as I have lived the gospel. It's that sentiment I hear often, "I just know it's true." But we can't really describe why. It's embedded into the soul somehow. I wonder if members who doubt because they didn't have that singular moment of answer to that specific asking prayer are overlooking the moments of revelation and reassurance scattered throughout the faithful daily life.

[mike_uk]

I suppose Joseph could have had some scholar friend in yonder neighbor farm helping him. It certainly doesn't explain why the BofM has made such a difference in my life and my understanding of Christ. It also doesn't explain why certain members left the church yet never denounced the BofM.

You know, I can find fault with the church, and I can see weirdness in the various accounts of Joseph's life, but I can't argue the contents of the BofM. I can't deny the Spirit I feel and the variety of Spiritual experiences that have come to me because of my study and application of its teachings.

My quote was purely tongue in cheek when I wrote it. We have no way of knowing.

[mike_uk]

I had a theory to explain the similarities between this book and the BOM. I thought that perhaps Satan, being well aware of actual BOM history, could have inspired the author with enough glimpses of that history to generate a work of fiction based loosely on historical fact. Satan was aware of the impending coming forth of the BOM and he could have wanted to engineer something like this to work against it. I have never read the book, so anyone who has can feel free to refute this possibility. But regardless of the inspiration behind the book, I still have a hard time believing Joseph could have written something as complex and doctrinally transcendent as the BOM. And I would think if someone else wrote it or helped him write it, there's no way an author of something that brilliant would fade into anonymity and let God and/or Joseph take all the credit!

In my own struggles with the church and activity, I have actually had very different experiences than I've read in this thread. I never left because of doctrine or offenses or even the difficulty of requirement. In fact, despite all of the anti stuff I read over the years, actually trying to disbelieve the church, nothing I read ever disturbed me or affected my testimony. I regarded the peculiarities as interesting and unfortunate and knew I would understand them better eventually. When active I struggled to keep up and get it all right just like everyone else does, but my attitude was always humble and accepting--always "thy will be done," and "all my time and talents to the last tear and drop of blood." I felt that, to a greater extent, I wasn't living this life for myself and my own comfort in the first place. And I understood that the leaders of the church were human and fallible, but I also understood the principle that even if a bishop's counsel wasn't perfect, or an apostle's admonition veered a bit from revelation, my obedience would be counted as righteousness. I was respectful of their priesthood and calling as called of the Lord, even if their nature or opinion was lacking.

In any case, I suppose I experienced that elusive growth of testimony that many members seem to experience. I never felt that warm fuzzy confirmation. I have never felt very much during prayer, in general. However, I have felt the Spirit deeply along the way as I have lived the gospel. It's that sentiment I hear often, "I just know it's true." But we can't really describe why. It's embedded into the soul somehow. I wonder if members who doubt because they didn't have that singular moment of answer to that specific asking prayer are overlooking the moments of revelation and reassurance scattered throughout the faithful daily life.

I have no idea if Jospeph could have used this, I really don't and neither does anyone else. Its all speculation and theory. Evidence indicates that there is a good chance he had access to it though.

Edited July 31, 2008 by mike_uk

[Stacey_Jay]

I'll mention one here: the Adam God theory taught by BY. When I first ran across the doctrine, I read what the apologists said that BY was taken out of context, etc. I liked that because it supported the idea that a prophet can't lead the church astray (i.e., infallible, in my mind). When faced with the Adam God, I became an apologist and used teh same arguments I had read.

Several years later, I encountered the Adam God teachings again, and I found the arguments I had rehearsed were contradicting. I investigated it more and discovered that no, BY did teach that Adam was our God, others believed it, and BY labeled those who opposed his doctrine "apostate". The worst feeling was that I felt betrayed by the apologists. They had fed me a false argument and I believed it.

I'm convinced from historical records that BY taught the doctrine; I'm convinced by the Spirit of God that BY was wrong. Given that BY taught false doctrine, I had to readjust my notion of what a prophet is. Prophets are fallible. That is one of the tenets of Mormonism. God is not going to intervene and correct a prophet's every mistake just as God doesn't meddle with my poor choice. Since BY was not perfect and had flaws and sins, it gives me hope that I may overcome.

As has been stated before, one's conviction must be founded on the Rock of Salvation. When that is shaky, it is easy for these questions to drive a wedge in our faith between us and God.

I agree that BY was wrong in what he taught concerning the Adam-God theory, and all what you say. But in that case, this confuses me with the authorities-if BY was wrong, desperately wrong, who's to say that what the prophets teach us now is also wrong? Do we have to pray and ask for confirmation of every single little thing they say? Yet the scripture says that if it comes from the mouth of one of my servants its the same as God speaking himself? This is so confusing to me, it cannot be both. This is an example of the church contradicting itself. What to do?

Stacey_Jay

I believe it is said in scripture that we won't receive a witness until we've had a trial of our faith.

Lol, so I have to go through something hard to believe? I think I have had many trials of faith. Maybe its now.

[candyprpl]

I don't know much about the Adam-God theory -- I'm still more interested in learning how the scriptures help me in my life -- however, I got hungup on the word 'theory.'

Dictionary definition -- systematically organized knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances; especially, a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena. Abstract reasoning; speculation

I remember reading BY admonishing people when they were so quick to believe their leaders without praying about the truthfulness of what was being taught or asked of them. (I can't remember his exact words).

[Vanhin]

There were several things. One of the only examples I can think of off the top of my head is the Adam-God thing. What the missionaries didn't realize is that I researched the church for a long time before I had talks with them. I knew it wasn't doctrine, so I wasn't arguing that with them, but I wanted to know more about it.

They told me that such a theory never existed, Brigham Young never spoke or wrote about it, and that they didn't know what I was talking about.

Come on, seriously? Surely they didn't believe I was that stupid. Again, I was aware that it wasn't doctrine, I just wanted to discuss it with somebody more knowledgeable on the subject just to see where the church stood on it. Since missionaries are trained in this I thought it would be appropriate, but I guess not.

I also asked about dark skin being considered a curse at one point in time, and Christ being married. I was just curious, because I wanted to make sure that the information I was given was correct and not just slander that I had heard. It wouldn't have been difficult to tell me the truth, I wouldn't have run for the hills or anything. Instead they insisted that they didn't know what I was talking about.

Just for the record, I came across probably a dozen missionaries in my years as an investigator. They were the only two who did not answer questions fully. Most others tried their hardest to answer my questions and if they couldn't personally answer my questions, would find somebody who could answer them for me. This isn't an indictment of missionaries as a whole.

But as it were, i've had all of my questions so far answered since becoming a member so it doesn't matter now. I was more or less just sympathetic for those who felt lied to because they weren't given all the information they wanted up front. It's not a big deal or anything, I just understand why they would be frustrated. Not that I think it's any reason to leave the church.

Thanks. I guess I'm not in a position to judge one way or another about whether the missionaries lied to you or not. Having been a missionary, I guess I would go along with what FlaviusHambonius said. It's more likely that they really had no clue and really believed that some of that stuff must not be true. But it's hard to say.

My companion and I actually had a Pentecostal and a Baptist (who were street contacting together???) greet us once and bring the Adam-God theory up and they challenged us for an answer. I guess I had heard about it, but I really didn't know anything about it, but I answered them like this, "If Brigham Young said that and it went through the proper process and became official doctrine of the Church, then it must be true." They really didn't know what to say to that. My companion had never heard about it. Next we bore testimony that we knew of ourselves, by the Holy Ghost, that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and so was Brigham Young!!

I have personally never really known anyone to flat out lie about things like that. I have known plenty of people who were simply not informed or who were in denial. My mother, bless her heart, was convinced that polygamy was just a lie that anti-mormons made up about us. She had a testimony of the Church and rather than let accusations like that affect her, she simply refrained from even entertaining the possibility that there was truth to it... That was until one day my brother and I had her read D&C 132... That was a hard for her to accept, but it was important, because I believe we need to be prepared for things like that. We have nothing to be ashamed of.

In the Missionary Training Center, we are not trained on how to answer things like that. We prepare spiritually to teach the basic and simple truths of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. We are also trained on how to ask questions and listen to others and to try to really care about what others think and feel. You know things 19 year old boys should learn before attempting to teach others. We also learn how to listen to and teach by the Spirit, and how to help others learn by the Spirit. I think I would have been like the other missionaries who tried to find the answers for you.

Anyway, I'm glad those questions don't bother you anymore.

Sincerely,

Vanhin

Edited August 1, 2008 by Vanhin
I meant FlaviusHambonius not Stacey_Jay...

[RainofGold]

My husband says that he wont go back to church because he doesn't agree how our church wouldn't give the priesthood to black people until recently and why God would punish people this way. Personally I think he doesn't want to follow all the rules that we have in the church and is looking for excuses like so many other people do.

[StallionMcBeastly]

My husband says that he wont go back to church because he doesn't agree how our church wouldn't give the priesthood to black people until recently and why God would punish people this way. Personally I think he doesn't want to follow all the rules that we have in the church and is looking for excuses like so many other people do.

There are many great talks about the subject of blacks and the priesthood that has helped me overcome my problem with it. Perhaps he should listen to some. Does he know that Joseph Smith ordained blacks the priesthood?

[Palerider]

My husband says that he wont go back to church because he doesn't agree how our church wouldn't give the priesthood to black people until recently and why God would punish people this way. Personally I think he doesn't want to follow all the rules that we have in the church and is looking for excuses like so many other people do.

tell him to go to BlackLDS.org.........

[WANDERER]

There's probably no standard answer...and standard answers have a way of trivialising other people's experiences. What is easy for some is hard for others and what people can and can't deal with is always there.

[mike_uk]

There's probably no standard answer...and standard answers have a way of trivialising other people's experiences. What is easy for some is hard for others and what people can and can't deal with is always there.

Yea thats right. People here by now know my problems and that I cannot accept certain things from the past. Others can just totaly shelve them and not be affected. We are all different.

[Moksha]

I can see weirdness in the various accounts of Joseph's life...

I can see weirdness in the accounts of my own life.

[Guest HEthePrimate]

I think it would be very wise for the church to often discuss the controversial issues of the past, and not be so private about them. What happened happened, and we can't change it by ignoring it.

We are a church made up of, and run by, humans, and humans make mistakes. It's only natural that mistakes have been, and will continue to be made. It seems to me we have a choice. We can lock up the archives in an attempt to prevent research and do all kinds of mental acrobatics to try explaining things away, or we can open the archives and acknowledge the more unseemly aspects of our past. There is no need for us to bring up controversial topics when talking with investigators, but if they find things out on their own, there's no point in denying them, and isn't it better that they come to us for answers than rely solely on what antis have to say?

HE, DH the Primate

[Truegrits]

~~~Moksha~~~

I can see weirdness in the accounts of my own life.

..........

[california_ave]

Hey, I drive past California Ave. every day! How about that.

I used to live on California Ave--in California of course.

Yes, I am convinced BY really did teach the Adam-God doctrine. Reading Bro. Turner's Master's thesis at BYU helped a lot on that. Where we part is the "felt betrayed" part. ???? They may have fed you a false argument, but why feel betrayed, unless you knew they were lying to you?

Good point. Betrayed is a wrong word as I think the false argument was passed along in ignorance and never questioned--like I had later followed. I don't think there was intentional deception involved. I suppose a better word is duped--just as I had done to others.

As to the 'false doctrine', I suppose it could be, but I really don't think so. I've been going between studying this and shelving it for about 25 years now. I think I've got a good handle on it now, and I don't think I would if I hadn't been hanging around some Jewish mystics, like I have.

I think we both agree that BY taught the theory sufficient that others believed BY. SWK taught in GC that teaching such doctrine was an excommunicationable offense. I'll use that as my source that the church now considers BY teachings apostate. I write it off as BY speculation just as many other early church leaders liked to publicly speculate. Now doctrinal speculation is generally kept within local high priest group meetings:)

[RachelleDrew]

How many 19 year old LDS people (missionary or not) do you actually think has heard of The Adam-God Theory?

How many 19 year old LDS people do you think has read The Journal of Discourse books?

Do you think that the Adam-God Theory was taught in Jr. High or High School Seminary classes?

Do you think that they were taught this theory in Sunday School classes?

Unless they pound this into them at the Missionary Training Center in a crash course setting--I think most of them do not have a clue, regarding Adam-God--of course I never went on a mission, so I couldn't tell you one way or the other.

HB

I think that's a cop out. I was 18 when I first encountered the missionaries, I was not a member nor was I good friends with anyone who was, my experience with the church was at that time limited to books I had read at the library. I didn't even have internet at the time so I had very little to go off.

I at least had a vague idea of the issues you mentioned, and i'm not particularly bright by any stretch of the imagination. How is it that somebody who has grown up in the church hasn't at least heard the term used once in their lifetime? I can't believe that somebody would know so little about the history of the church they grew up in.

I think the reason why I perceived it to be a lie was because of the manner they approached it in. The moment the phrase "Adam-God" practically left my lips it was like they had to shut me down quickly and change the conversation. It was so strange, and I felt like I was being deceived. My mother is an investigator, she's taught me well on how to catch a lie. They were very poor liars.

I think the issue has more to do with my demeanor. I can come across as being confrontational when in reality i'm honestly just asking a question or trying to create a discussion. I think they were worried that they had met a critic of the church and didn't want to get into an apologetics discussion, so they tried to redirect the conversation.

As I mentioned before, this was only two of many missionaries i've met in my life and i've since had all my questions answered and i'm not too worried about it anymore. I can just relate to those who feel deceived.

[HiJolly]

I think that's a cop out.

Perhaps this is an endictment of the Church, but .... No, it's not a copout. It's real. I have always been very inquisitive, very interested in learning whatever I can about just about anything. When I was 10 or 11, I used to randomly open the encylopaedia and read out of it, just to learn something. BUT. I never heard of Adam-God until I was attacked with in whilst on my mission. Yup. I promise. Same thing with lots of other Church history stuff. I had NO CLUE.

The Church's view is that we don't need to know any of that stuff, since a testimony is not based on those things. True, but not that useful when you've just been bushwhacked by anti-s that know more about Church history than you do. (sigh). Bad memory. But not too bad, since I had tons of faith in the Church, and KNEW God lived. (Still do, not that it makes a diff in this post)

HiJolly

[Islander]

I am a convert and thus, I believe, to an extent familiar with the "wild side" of the world. One of the greatest issues is true conversion. If one has a true and solid testimony of the restoration and the coming forth of the BoM then the risk of returning to the world are reduced. It is impossible to understand fully the doctrine, teachings and history of the church in a few months or even a few years.

History can be complex and at times controversial. If one's faith is shaken by some strange historical fact (by the way, the bible contains plenty) or the lack of understanding of some obscure doctrinal issue, then it is not true faith or conversion. Most times, we can not learn or understand a principle until we exercise faith and obedience and live it. Knowledge is not required for the exercise of faith. Supposing that we are able to understand and comprehend ALL the things that God has said, done, commended or even allowed to happen is just a fallacy. And that holds true for just about everything under the heavens.

Other factors that contribute to converts becoming inactive relate to pressures from the social environment. Old family traditions that run counter to church tradition and teachings. Joining the church, many times, implies leaving behind friends and family in order to avoid the friction, animosity and peer pressure to conform. Lots of people also face pressure from their employers/supervisors as in certain companies corporate culture can include social behavior that now should be avoided.

In summary, as someone also pointed above in a previous post; the reasons are many and not necessarily tied to specific doctrinal disagreements.

[Snow]

I hope you all understand what I mean. I feel a lot of people leave the church because they stumble upon controversial issues from the churches past or mistakes recent prophets had made, and they have never heard of these things before so their whole world gets flipped upside down.

I think if the church was more open to discussing these issues the number of inactive members would decrease.

Let me put it this way... I've personally know a number of people who claim that the reason they have left the Church is doctrinal or historical but none of them, not a single one, has been living moral gospel principles... and not a one of them says that their failure to live moral gospel principles is the real cause of leaving the Church.

Oh - I know what people on the internet say, but people on the internet can and do say anything. I prefer to save my judgements for things I can see and verify.

[NateHowe]

Agreed, Snow. People give many nominal reasons for leaving, but the actual reasons boil down to these:

1. The person did not gain a solid testimony in the first place

and/or

2. The person is not actively living the commandments sufficiently to keep a testimony intact

and/or

3. Because of pride, the person is denying a testimony in favor of a seemingly more convenient way.

[mike_uk]

Agreed, Snow. People give many nominal reasons for leaving, but the actual reasons boil down to these:

1. The person did not gain a solid testimony in the first place

and/or

2. The person is not actively living the commandments sufficiently to keep a testimony intact

and/or

3. Because of pride, the person is denying a testimony in favor of a seemingly more convenient way.

Sorry, thats nonsense.

That may be the case for many but it is not the case for all so please don't judge.

[mnn727]

I feel a lot of people leave the church because they stumble upon controversial issues from the churches past or mistakes recent prophets had made

I disagree. People leave the Church because they lose the Spirit, everything else is just excuses.

[StallionMcBeastly]

I disagree. People leave the Church because they lose the Spirit, everything else is just excuses.

You don't believe that newfound facts about the church's past can effect someone's testimony?

Thats non-sense to me.

When someone has been taught that the church is almost perfect all their life and then anti's throws new information in their face about Joseph Smith and the church it can drastically effect your testimony. It makes you ask questions. It turns your world upside down.

Often, I believe, someone will leave the church because they are not living a righteous life...but I also believe occasionally people will leave the church because they can't get past issues with JS or the church's history etc...

[funkymonkey]

I totally agree with McBeastly.

Snow,

My grandmother was the most righteous living, Christlike person I EVER have personally come in contact with. She never drank or smoked, she took very well care of her family and her health, she had more integrity than most LDS people walking around nowadays.

It was plain and simple for her, she found out that blacks couldn't have the priesthood (chuch history). She couldn't find a feasible explaination for this descrimination and left the church.

It was NOT "just an excuse".

You are implyling that all people that leave the church are weak...and that is just not the case.

Many of them are searching for the complete truth...which is the same reason they were open enough to listen to the missionaries in the first place.

If they feel like there was information withheld, they're likely to question the integrity of the church or the leaders of the church.

It doesn't seem right to act like none of this stuff ever happened, but rather we should learn it and understand it so we can help others understand these things.

Doesn't it make sense that God wants to be completely honest with his children?

Don't you think new converts and others expect that same honesty from God and his church?

I have come to expect this honestly from the Lord, and search for truth in all things...which includes "controversial" church history.

-----------------------------------

I find it interesting that on this site there are some (both LDS and non) that tend to fit a whole group of people into these big boxes with general statements. It's kinda like saying "People of Asian desent are smart" or "Arabs are all terrorists". Doesn't make much sense to me.

[Moksha]

1. The person did not gain a solid testimony in the first place

and/or

2. The person is not actively living the commandments sufficiently to keep a testimony intact

and/or

3. Because of pride, the person is denying a testimony in favor of a seemingly more convenient way.

This seems much more like polemics designed specifically to discount those who walked away, rather than acknowledging the actual reasons.