Why do people leave the Church?

[NeedleinA]

14 hours ago, Eve1991 said:

If Jesus comes back tomorrow or next week or next month or next or in 2 or 5 or 10 years and he confirms the church is true and Joseph smith is a prophet of god then will you believe him?

 

14 hours ago, Godless said:

Yes.

@Godless 
This isn't meant to sound critical in any way, it is simply a personal observation. If you don't believe in God or the divinity of Jesus as an atheist, why would it matter what he came and told you at the second coming?  Why would Jesus have more credibility to vouch for the Church or Joseph Smith then than he already does now? 

The more I read your posts GL, the more I believe you are not really an Atheist at heart despite what you might try to convince yourself of.  This situation reminds me of a story in the Book of Mormon. As Korihor was approaching the end of his life, and despite his efforts to convince himself and others there was no God, he finally concedes the truth inside himself, "and I always knew that there was a God".

Again, only my personal observation as an outsider looking in wishing you the best.

[LeSellers]

5 hours ago, Eve1991 said:

How do you reach out to the inactive members and people who resigned from the Church over the new policy?

The "new policy" isn't the reason for their leaving, it's the excuse.

So, addressing the "new policy" isn't going to have any effect.

Lehi

[Guest]

48 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

 

@Godless 
This isn't meant to sound critical in any way, it is simply a personal observation. If you don't believe in God or the divinity of Jesus as an atheist, why would it matter what he came and told you at the second coming?  Why would Jesus have more credibility to vouch for the Church or Joseph Smith then than he already does now? 

The more I read your posts GL, the more I believe you are not really an Atheist at heart despite what you might try to convince yourself of.  This situation reminds me of a story in the Book of Mormon. As Korihor was approaching the end of his life, and despite his efforts to convince himself and others there was no God, he finally concedes the truth inside himself, "and I always knew that there was a God".

Again, only my personal observation as an outsider looking in wishing you the best.

If I may be allowed to give my take on his statements and what his general position is, I get the impression that Godless is on the fence about God in general.  Not really an atheist, not really agnostic, not really a theist.  I get the impression that he really doesn't know, but he'd like to.  So far he hasn't heard anything.

His first post was simply stating that he never received a witness from the Spirit that the BoM was true or that Joseph was a prophet.  He just doesn't know.  But if Jesus/God is standing right in front of you, then how can one argue with that?

This is quite a bit different than the militant atheist such as Christopher Hitchens:

Quote

Interviewer: So, when you die and meet God what do you do?

Hitchens: I'd ask,"So what's the deal with cancer in children?

Interviewer: So, you wouldn't go to him?

Hitchens: No.  I'd prefer hell than deal with that (epithet).

Interesting note: The first response was what he's said a dozen times.  It was practiced and came out easily.  But even with Hitchens, I saw physiological signs that he was lying in the second response.  Why on earth would someone lie about that?  Maybe to himself he doesn't really know and he's not that rebellious.  But he had to put on "the show".

Edited May 5, 2016 by Guest

[tesuji]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

If I may be allowed to give my take on his statements and what his general position is, I get the impression that Godless is on the fence about God in general.  Not really an atheist, not really agnostic, not really a theist.  I get the impression that he really doesn't know, but he'd like to.  So far he hasn't heard anything.

His first post was simply stating that he never received a witness from the Spirit that the BoM was true or that Joseph was a prophet.  He just doesn't know.  But if Jesus/God is standing right in front of you, then how can one argue with that?

This is quite a bit different than the militant atheist such as Christopher Hitchens:

Interesting note: Even with Hitchens, I saw physiological signs that he was lying in that response.  How on earth could he be lying?  Maybe to himself he doesn't really know and he's not that rebellious.  But he had to put on "the show".

Re: Hitchens

Our spirits are literally made up of intelligence, which the scriptures say is equivalent to light and truth. So at some deep level in our being we know when we oppose the light.

Plus we all have the light of Christ. Which may be the same thing.

[NeedleinA]

12 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

But if Jesus/God is standing right in front of you, then how can one argue with that?

 
I don't think you are suggesting, seeing = believing Carb

[Guest]

59 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

The "new policy" isn't the reason for their leaving, it's the excuse.

So, addressing the "new policy" isn't going to have any effect.

Lehi

THIS^^^.

While there are some whose stated reason for leaving is true, MANY leave for different reasons and just use something "flashy" as the excuse claiming it's the straw that broke the camel's back.

I have a relative that left the Church for "reasons".  But I was there the years before.  I saw the seeds had already begun and they were just biding their time to find "the excuse".  Well, they "found several".  But I could clearly see having been there that their real reasons were really though lack of spiritual nourishment..

But they can't claim that because that really means it's true after all, but they just need to work at it or get some help or...  In reality, they just want to leave.

Edited May 5, 2016 by Guest

[Guest]

1 minute ago, NeedleinA said:

 
I don't think you are suggesting, seeing = believing Carb

Sort of.  Remember that my post was my interpretation of Godless' position.  I believe that ^^ is something that HE considers to be true.

[Guest Godless]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Sort of.  Remember that my post was my interpretation of Godless' position.  I believe that ^^ is something that HE considers to be true.

 

Correct. I believe the things that can be observed rationally and objectively. If a time comes that Christ appears and affirms the truth of the LDS church, then I'll have ample reason to admit that I was wrong. As it stands now, I have no reason to believe in the existence of anything divine or supernatural. I am not on the fence. I am not wavering in my disbelief. I am an atheist. I reached that conclusion after a great deal of personal anguish and what you might call "soul-searching".

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

If I may be allowed to give my take on his statements and what his general position is, I get the impression that Godless is on the fence about God in general.  Not really an atheist, not really agnostic, not really a theist.  I get the impression that he really doesn't know, but he'd like to.  So far he hasn't heard anything.

His first post was simply stating that he never received a witness from the Spirit that the BoM was true or that Joseph was a prophet.  He just doesn't know.  But if Jesus/God is standing right in front of you, then how can one argue with that?

This is quite a bit different than the militant atheist such as Christopher Hitchens:

Interesting note: The first response was what he's said a dozen times.  It was practiced and came out easily.  But even with Hitchens, I saw physiological signs that he was lying in the second response.  Why on earth would someone lie about that?  Maybe to himself he doesn't really know and he's not that rebellious.  But he had to put on "the show".

"God doesn't exist, but man, I hate him." I have a nephew like this. All I can do is roll my eyes.

[Guest Godless]

1 hour ago, NeedleinA said:

 

@Godless 
This isn't meant to sound critical in any way, it is simply a personal observation. If you don't believe in God or the divinity of Jesus as an atheist, why would it matter what he came and told you at the second coming?  Why would Jesus have more credibility to vouch for the Church or Joseph Smith then than he already does now? 

If Christ were to return to Earth in the glory and splendor that church teachings (both LDS and Christian) says he will, then it will be perfectly obvious that my conclusions were incorrect, and every bit of reason in my brain would have to admit that. To say that I'm skeptical of this event ever taking place would be an understatement. And in the absence of that event, all I have to go on is the word of mortal men who claim to know the will of a god that I don't believe exists. That's not good enough for me. All of my study and life experiences point to one thing that I accept to be true: god does not exist. Any talk of a divine event changing my mind is extremely hypothetical, and frankly not something that I'm going to lose sleep over. Yes, an appearance from Christ himself would be enough to change my mind. I would also rethink my stance upon the appearance of Thor, Zeus, or Krishna.

[NeedleinA]

27 minutes ago, Godless said:

If a time comes that Christ appears and affirms the truth of the LDS church, then I'll have ample reason to admit that I was wrong. 

This is kind of my point. 
Believing in the LDS Church is a distant secondary concern to the fact that you don't believe in Christ or God. So if you don't believe in the divinity of Christ, why does it matter what he has to say on any subject? Plenty of people saw Christ in real life, saw his "power" and then turned around and either ignored/mocked/dismissed him, so... what is the difference? Why would you suddenly believe that Christ is the Son of God if you saw him in person? What would affirm to you that he was a God and that you should listen/believe in what he was saying? The visual?

Again, I ask these questions with the best of intentions GL, nothing more.

Edited May 5, 2016 by NeedleinA

[Guest Godless]

8 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

This is kind of my point. 
Believing in the LDS Church is a distant secondary concern to the fact that you don't believe in Christ or God. So if you don't believe in the divinity of Christ, why does it matter what he has to say on any subject? Plenty of people saw Christ in real life, saw his "power" and then turned around and either ignored/mocked/dismissed him, so... what is the difference? Why would you suddenly believe that Chris is the Son of God if you saw in the person? What would affirm to you that he was a God and that you should listen/believe in what he was saying? The visual?

Again, I ask these questions with the best of intentions GL, nothing more.

Again, my statement if based on the assumption that IF the second coming ever occurs, it will be in the fashion that scripture says it will. In that event, I believe the biblical assertion that "every knee shall bow" will be correct.

[NeedleinA]

9 minutes ago, Godless said:

in the glory and splendor ... then it will be perfectly obvious that my conclusions were incorrect,

 

9 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

What would affirm to you that he was a God ... The visual?

Sorry, it appears that our last responses were posted at the same time, but if I understand you correctly, it will be the "visual" awesomeness of his return that would convince you, correct?

[tesuji]

Back to that Hitchens quote about kids with cancer (and reiterating a lot of what has been said by others here) - I think Hitchens illustrates why people leave/don't believe.

1. Lack of understanding

Hitchens assumes he knows God's plan and his purposes. The following scripture comes to my mind again and again as I see what people say on the internet:

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. " - Isaiah 55:8

https://www.lds.org/new-era/1975/04/what-is-the-purpose-of-suffering?lang=eng

 

2. Pride and/or Understanding, but rejection anyway

Hitchens wants God to agree with his idea of how the world should be.

Plus, HItchens was a homosexual, so I assume he also rejected traditional Christianity for that reason too. God won't give him permission to do what he wants.

"They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world." - D&C 1:16

Some people do understand the gospel, but don't want to submit to God. Pride, again. Sad, because God's plan is there to help them become more than they imagine. But God will not force people to grow against their will.

Quote

 31 And also they who are quickened by a portion of the telestial glory shall then receive of the same, even a fulness.

 32 And they who remain shall also be quickened; nevertheless, they shall return again to their own place, to enjoy that which they are willing to receive, because they were not willing to enjoy that which they might have received.

 33 For what doth it profit a man if a gift is bestowed upon him, and he receive not the gift? Behold, he rejoices not in that which is given unto him, neither rejoices in him who is the giver of the gift.

 34 And again, verily I say unto you, that which is governed by law is also preserved by law and perfected and sanctified by the same.

 35 That which breaketh a law, and abideth not by law, but seeketh to become a law unto itself, and willeth to abide in sin, and altogether abideth in sin, cannot be sanctified by law, neither by mercy, justice, nor judgment. Therefore, they must remain filthy still.

D&C 88

 

[Guest]

16 hours ago, Eve1991 said:

Are there any other atheists on here?

Quote

I don't believe so ...

44 minutes ago, Godless said:

 I am not on the fence. I am not wavering in my disbelief. I am an atheist. I reached that conclusion after a great deal of personal anguish and what you might call "soul-searching".

Hmm?

[Vort]

I don't doubt Godless's sincerity in this, but I don't believe him, either.

If I were to see purple polka-dotted flying winged elephants, I would not believe my own eyes. Seeing would not be believing. It would take a great deal more than seeing that for me to believe it was real. I would assume it was a hallucination, or some sort of hologram or fakery, maybe a mechanical contraption. Eyes can be deceived.

There may -- indeed, I believe there will -- come a point where all will have to acknowledge reality, at least to some degree. But I do not believe their acknowledgement will always be permanent or soul-changing. People believe what they believe because they want to believe it. Relatively few actually want to know the truth of things. My opinion, at least.

[tesuji]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

I don't doubt Godless's sincerity in this, but I don't believe him, either.

If I were to see purple polka-dotted flying winged elephants, I would not believe my own eyes. Seeing would not be believing. It would take a great deal more than seeing that for me to believe it was real. I would assume it was a hallucination, or some sort of hologram or fakery, maybe a mechanical contraption. Eyes can be deceived.

There may -- indeed, I believe there will -- come a point where all will have to acknowledge reality, at least to some degree. But I do not believe their acknowledgement will always be permanent or soul-changing. People believe what they believe because they want to believe it. Relatively few actually want to know the truth of things. My opinion, at least.

Yeah, this is why faith is the first principle of the gospel

https://www.mormon.org/faq/what-is-faith

[NeuroTypical]

This thinking about Godless' answer had me remember something.  A Jewish man once was asked what he'd do if Christ came back.  He gave what I thought was a pretty good answer.  Paraphrasing here, but:

"When the Messiah comes, we will ask him - 'have we seen you before?'.  If he says 'yes', then we will apologize for the misunderstanding, and move forward."

[tesuji]

18 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

This thinking about Godless' answer had me remember something.  A Jewish man once was asked what he'd do if Christ came back.  He gave what I thought was a pretty good answer.  Paraphrasing here, but:

"When the Messiah comes, we will ask him - 'have we seen you before?'.  If he says 'yes', then we will apologize for the misunderstanding, and move forward."

One of the most poignant passages in scripture, I think:

 48 And then shall the Lord set his foot upon this mount, and it shall cleave in twain, and the earth shall tremble, and reel to and fro, and the heavens also shall shake.... 

51 And then shall the Jews look upon me and say: What are these wounds in thine hands and in thy feet?

 52 Then shall they know that I am the Lord; for I will say unto them: These wounds are the wounds with which I was wounded in the house of my friends. I am he who was lifted up. I am Jesus that was crucified. I am the Son of God.

 53 And then shall they weep because of their iniquities; then shall they lament because they persecuted their king.

--D&C 45

 

[Guest Godless]

37 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Hmm?

LOL! I swear that was unintentional! And yes, I forgot about Soulsearcher, though it appears he hasn't been active here in about a year.

[Guest Godless]

52 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

 

, but if I understand you correctly, it will be the "visual" awesomeness of his return that would convince you, correct?

Yes. Vort is right, seeing isn't always enough. But the magnitude of such an event would leave no room for any further skepticism. If Christ were to return more quietly, more in the manner of his first visit, then further evaluation would probably be needed.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Godless said:

Yes. Vort is right, seeing isn't always enough. But the magnitude of such an event would leave no room for any further skepticism. If Christ were to return more quietly, more in the manner of his first visit, then further evaluation would probably be needed.

Couldn't it just be an alien race masquerading as Christ returned?

[NightSG]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Couldn't it just be an alien race masquerading as Christ returned?

I've got enough bits He can heal as proof.

Soon as He's established that, I'm loaning Him a striped shirt for Sacrament meeting.

[Jane_Doe]

15 hours ago, Maureen said:

Lehi, are you saying the events that have taken place that brought about the existence of the LDS Church do not need matter?

M.

The events themselves are not what a Testimony is properly founded on.  

For an example: Christ is the Son of God is a proper foundation for a testimony.  Which exact street Christ walked down on X day (an historical event) is not a proper foundation for a testimony.

[bytebear]

17 hours ago, Maureen said:

Lehi, are you saying the events that have taken place that brought about the existence of the LDS Church do not need matter?

M.

Example.  Brigham Young's position on priesthood and blacks.  The Mountain Meadows massacre.  Polygamy.  Children of gays not being allowed to be baptized until they are adults.

Do any of these things change the fact that Joseph Smith saw God or did not?  Or that Christ rose on the third day? And if so, how?

Edited May 5, 2016 by bytebear