Do you have any thoughts as to why people become inactive?

[Guest]

Bullying is another thing that should absolutely be addressed. But being accepted? No. I have rarely felt accepted...

 

Assumptions can be made from all sides, no?

 

True, I made an assumption about you never having experienced non-acceptance.  That was a quick and inaccurate subtext of my post.  But I still stand by my statement about sympathy in general.

 

Those who have never been bullied, or ostracized, or so forth may try to sympathize.  But without unearthly ability to empathize, they really don't fathom the flavor, the tenor, the depth of the actual experience.

 

And that is the statement I'll still stand by.

 

So, again, my previous comment was not to say that you were wrong about your statement.  But the statement lacked what I felt was an appropriate level of compassion toward the one who left that I thought should be injected into the discussion.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Guest

[estradling75]

Whose perspective are you accusing me of ignoring, exactly?

 

Anyone that says attending church should be about following God's commands no matter how much it might hurt to do so.

[RMGuy]

Eowyn,

That is a wonderful question.  I wish I knew the answer to that one.  I'm not sure that meeting each individuals need is possible, but I still think we should try in most instances.  I think that probably falls into at least two of those categories you mention: being a friend and nurturing with the good word of God.  I don't think we disagree on this at all.  I agree with you as well that covenants are more important than comfort.  

 

All I am saying is that if we want to reach out to rescue we need to understand what need that particular individual was not having met by their activity in the church.  If it was a situation where they were socially converted then felt like they had no friends, then until we meet that need they aren't likely to return to the fold regardless of how true it is.   There are times when we can't (and in some cases probably shouldn't) meet their perceived needs, but I really do think the reason people stop attending is because there is something that they are looking for from their church attendance (acceptance, love, help, forgiveness, knowledge, service, understanding, improvement) and when the bell rings after the 3 hour block they don't feel like they got that.  Do that too many weeks in a row and they leave.  

 

Did that help to clarify a bit?  

[unixknight]

Anyone that says attending church should be about following God's commands no matter how much it might hurt to do so.

 

Please humor me and show me where I said that or anything like it.

[Guest]

Ok then after what Eowyn just told us about her struggles I dare you to one again tell her that she has "always been accepted"

 

You were wrong about her...  And I can practically promise that everyone on the board had struggled to be accepted at some point... 

 

I think that you might need to look at your previous response to me.

 

My words you quoted:

 

 

It is a lot more difficult to withstand than you can imagine when you've always been accepted.

 

Your response to me.

 

That's a pretty big assumption...

 

 

I interpreted your comment to mean that it was a "big assumption" to believe <if you haven't experienced it, it is difficult to understand>.

 

If you're saying that I was automatically assuming no one here had ever been ostracized, that was a false interpretation of my words.

To say that I assumed Eowyn had never been ostracized, would be partially true.  I was speaking to her as if she had never been -- that statement is true.  But did I stop and think, "Gee, she sounds like someone who has never been ostracized.  OF COURSE!!! YES.  That's why she doesn't understand!"  No.  I never thought along those lines.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Guest

[The Folk Prophet]

Another thought I have had on the matter:  

 

Why do people stop going to church?  

Because their needs are not met.  We have had some discussion in this very thread about what those needs are.  For some it is social, for others spiritual, a sense of community, an ability to commune with the divine, the atonement, a testimony of a living prophet, revealed scripture, and a host of other reasons.  

 

I would like to hypothesize that the reason why an individual stops attending is because their needs (whatever those are) are no longer being met by attendance at church.  We can belittle individuals because their testimony isn't as strong as ours, isn't the same as ours, or isn't rooted in quite the same way ours is, but if the church isn't meeting their needs they will stop coming.  It really is that simple.   Now whether or not the church SHOULD address those needs is another question entirely.  But the reason people stop coming through the doors on Sunday is the same reason they stop shopping at Home Depot and switch to Menards.  The other place better meets their perceived needs...it could be price, it could be customer service, it could be location or any number of other things.  

 

We can blame the customer all we like.  We can chalk it up to them being offended, not being really converted, being influenced by bad advertising or anti-mormon websites etc., but if you want them to come back through those doors next Sunday then we better identify what their needs are and work to address those.  

 

My $.02

 

The point is that their "needs" are the same as all our needs are -- which is to be given light and knowledge by the Spirit of God to a testimony of the truth of our Savior, Jesus Christ, and to be given the ordinances of His priesthood, by which means, and by faithfulness to the covenants therein, we travel upon the path to exaltation.

[estradling75]

 

I think that you might need to look at your previous response to me.

 

My words you quoted:

 

 

 

Your response to me.

 

 

I interpreted your comment to mean that it was a "big assumption" to believe <if you haven't experienced it, it is difficult to understand>.

 

If you're saying that I was automatically assuming no one here had ever been ostracized, that was a false interpretation of my words.

To say that I assumed Eowyn had never been ostracized, would be partially true.  I was speaking to her as if she had never been -- that statement is true.  But did I stop and think, "Gee, she sounds like someone who has never been ostracized.  OF COURSE!!! YES.  That's why she doesn't understand!"  No.  I never thought along those lines.

 

 

 

Fair enough I did understand you to be saying "Eowyn" and other didn't understand because they have never experienced it.

 

 

Because someone clearly can have had struggles with "jerks at church" and still be of the mind set that it is not a good enough reason to not go.

 

To greatly simply this we have "Jerks at Church" and those that "Leave because of the Jerks."  Both are wrong.  When they stand before God what ever reasons they give will not be good enough.  Both need to repent.  The Jerks need to stop being Jerks and those that leave need to come back.  Pushing the responsibility all to one group or the other is simply wrong

[The Folk Prophet]

If people were so great at that level of strength and faith completely on their own, then church is a waste of time anyway.

 

Your response does not address my question? Is it or is it not fair to expect others to adapt meekness, long-suffering, endurance to the end, and humility?

[unixknight]

If only everybody was a clone we wouldn't have these problems.

[The Folk Prophet]

I'm not prepared to write them off on the grounds that they just didn't pass muster when the going got rough.  

 

Who is advocating writing anyone off?

[unixknight]

Your response does not address my question? Is it or is it not fair to expect others to adapt meekness, long-suffering, endurance to the end, and humility?

 

Of course it is.  What isn't fair is to expect people to be perfect at it when access to the very resource that strengthens those traits is problematic.

[unixknight]

Who is advocating writing anyone off?

 

People like yourself whose response comes across as "Well it's their own fault for being too weak to carry on through."

[The Folk Prophet]

That's exactly what people do.  They absolve themselves of having to be introspective by laying blame elsewhere and the problem goes on.  Having responsibility fixes nothing if one doesn't acknowledge it.

 

It's easy to say exactly what people do. It's quite another thing to prove it.

 

Thanks for the snark, by the way.  Why bother trying to understand someone else's perspective when you can just use a little sarcasm to dismiss it, eh? 

 

I believe I quite well understand your perspective. I am dismissing it because it's silly. Inactive people are not faithful.

[The Folk Prophet]

If only everybody was a clone we wouldn't have these problems.

 

You mean if only everyone was like Christ we wouldn't have these problems? How true.

[Guest]

Pushing the responsibility all to one group or the other is simply wrong

 

That's why I started this side-thread with "I agree with the statement, I disagree with the sentiment."

 

I thought of her statement as one-sided.  I wanted to bring in the other side.  See my last post to Eowyn.

[The Folk Prophet]

People like yourself whose response comes across as "Well it's their own fault for being too weak to carry on through."

 

Show me where I or anyone said anything of the sort.

 

If you are going to throw out such offensive accusations you had best be able to back them up.

[omegaseamaster75]

 

 

 

I believe I quite well understand your perspective. I am dismissing it because it's silly. Inactive people are not faithful.

I disagree with this. We all sin, inactivity is a sin, but so is going to church thumping your chest and then going home and kicking your dog and slapping your wife. 

 

I wouldn't put them in the unfaithful bucket. Not to the degree that you seem to be implying 

[The Folk Prophet]

Of course it is.  What isn't fair is to expect people to be perfect at it when access to the very resource that strengthens those traits is problematic.

 

I don't expect perfection. I do expect action. Failure to act equates to loss of light. The only way to help anyone gain more light is to help them understand that they must act, in faith, despite the trials they face.

 

You are translating that to be a holier-than-thou demand for perfection with the consequence against it being a total write-off. But that is not the reality of what anyone is actually saying or believe.

[Guest]

I actually home-taught a man who repeatedly told me that he still believed and that he wanted to come back.  But he stayed away because he wanted to preserve harmony in the home.  His wife was an anti-Mormon.  

 

Whether you believe him or not, whether you agree with him or not, I felt as his home-teacher that in his heart he was still being "faithful" in his own way.  He just didn't feel he could come to church because of his wife.

[The Folk Prophet]

I disagree with this. We all sin, inactivity is a sin, but so is going to church thumping your chest and then going home and kicking your dog and slapping your wife. 

 

I wouldn't put them in the unfaithful bucket. Not to the degree that you seem to be implying 

 

What degree am I implying (or, rather, are you inferring)? Why do you presume my idea of faithful is black and white. Exaltation of perdition?

 

I perfectly well understand the nuances. But when someone states that inactivity is a sign of testimony being weakened and another responds with an up-in-arms, how-dare-you-suggest-such-a-thing sort of rhetoric, I think it fair to reply that seeing it this way is perfectly reasonable and obvious.

Edited October 22, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[RMGuy]

The point is that their "needs" are the same as all our needs are -- which is to be given light and knowledge by the Spirit of God to a testimony of the truth of our Savior, Jesus Christ, and to be given the ordinances of His priesthood, by which means, and by faithfulness to the covenants therein, we travel upon the path to exaltation.

TFP,

That is what many members of the church believe that the purpose of the church is, yet that may not be the reason that a particular individual is a member.  If you are willing to write them off because they don't hold to that same ideal then I suppose that is your right to do so.  All I am saying is that when we tell individuals that this is why they should attend church and their need or reason for belonging is different we should not be surprised when they choose to disassociate. 

[The Folk Prophet]

If you are willing to write them off

 

Please stop making unfounded, ridiculous accusations.

[Vort]

That is what many members of the church believe that the purpose of the church is, yet that may not be the reason that a particular individual is a member.  If you are willing to write them off because they don't hold to that same ideal then I suppose that is your right to do so.  All I am saying is that when we tell individuals that this is why they should attend church and their need or reason for belonging is different we should not be surprised when they choose to disassociate. 

 

I think you are correct in this assessment. However, I also think there are lesser and greater reasons for Church attendence. If people go to Church with the expectation to be welcomed as a sister or brother and spiritually fed, that is reasonable. If they go to Church because they expect those things, that is perhaps not as good. If they go to Church with the firm conviction that it is where they belong and with the determination to find spiritual nourishment and provide brotherly or sisterly companionship, I think that is best.

 

I also don't think TFP was writing anyone off. I am afraid this conversation has begun generating more heat than light.

[omegaseamaster75]

What degree am I implying (or, rather, are you inferring)? Why do you presume my idea of faithful is black and white. Exaltation of perdition?

 

I perfectly well understand the nuances. But when someone states that inactivity is a sign of testimony being weakened and another responds with an up-in-arms, how-dare-you-suggest-such-a-thing sort of rhetoric, I think it fair to reply that seeing it this way is perfectly reasonable and obvious.

My presumption is based on your statement "inactive people are not faithful"

 

that's a pretty black and white statement, made by someone who claims to understand nuance

 

We do not know or understand individual struggles, for some it could be a waning testimony for others it could be to keep harmony in the home. We just don't know because every individual has a different story 

Edited October 22, 2015 by omegaseamaster75

[The Folk Prophet]

My presumption is based on your statement "inactive people are not faithful"

 

that's a pretty black and white statement, made by someone who claims to understand nuance

 

Only if one doesn't understand that the nuance of the matter comes from understanding that "faithful" is, indeed, black and white as a status, but there are levels to how unfaithful one may be.

 

One might also argue that someone who only held hands with a woman who was not their wife wasn't unfaithful because there are leveled nuances to the word. The fact that sleeping with another woman would, indeed, be a significantly different level than only holding hands does not make it inaccurate to say that the holding hands was unfaithful.

 

There are degrees, sure. Someone who has gone inactive but isn't smoking and drinking (by choice of faith) is more faithful than one who has (by choice of lack of faith) given in and started drinking and smoking. I understand that nuance. It does not make the plain claim than someone who has gone inactive needs a bolster to their faith inaccurate.