Why do people leave the Church?

[Vort]

36 minutes ago, bytebear said:

Brigham Young's position on priesthood and blacks.

Instituted of God, as far as we know and have any right to speculate.

36 minutes ago, bytebear said:

The Mountain Meadows massacre.

Murder. Pretty much cold-blooded.

37 minutes ago, bytebear said:

Polygamy.

Instituted of God.

37 minutes ago, bytebear said:

Children of gays not being allowed to be baptized until they are adults.

Instituted of God for the protection of his kingdom and its members.

I believe your point is that the occurrence of some historical events is irrelevant to the Church's claims to truth. I agree with this. But I note that your examples given are uneven and all over the map. If this by intent, that's fine. Just wanted it noted.

[Maureen]

1 hour ago, bytebear said:

...Do any of these things change the fact that Joseph Smith saw God or did not?...

If it's true that JS saw the Father and the Son, then that is an important historical event that was a catalyst for the existence of the LDS Church. When I took the discussions decades ago that event was the first thing the Sister Missionaries taught me. So to say that members don't have testimonies about history can't possibly be true since those historical events contributed to the church's existence. To not acknowledge those events as important to one's testimony makes me think that members see the Church as some magical entity that appeared out of thin air.

M.

[LeSellers]

4 minutes ago, Maureen said:

If it's true that JS saw the Father and the Son, then that is an important historical event that was a catalyst for the existence of the LDS Church. When I took the discussions decades ago that event was the first thing the Sister Missionaries taught me. So to say that members don't have testimonies about history can't possibly be true since those historical events contributed to the church's existence. To not acknowledge those events as important to one's testimony makes me think that members see the Church as some magical entity that appeared out of thin air.

Please re-read what I wrote about the meaning of "Church history" as I used it.

It isn't about the events in the chronology of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it's about the people involved in those events.

You are exploiting an ambiguity in the word "history", trying to force it to mean something I (and others) did not mean.

There is nothing in your own history to suggest lower-than-average intelligence or command of the English language. One must, therefore, look elsewhere for the motivation for your harping on the matter.

Lehi

[Maureen]

14 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

....You are exploiting an ambiguity in the word "history", trying to force it to mean something I (and others) did not mean....

However you or others are using the word "history" does not negate how the word can be defined.

History - the whole series of past events connected with someone or something.

To say you don't have a testimony of church history but do have a testimony of JS's first vision or the BofM seems to be contradictory.

M.

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, Maureen said:

However you or others are using the word "history" does not negate how the word can be defined.

History - the whole series of past events connected with someone or something.

To say you don't have a testimony of church history but do have a testimony of JS's first vision or the BofM seems to be contradictory.

M.

I don't have a testimony on the First Vision because I wasn't there. I accept it as historical on faith. 

Edited May 6, 2016 by MormonGator

[LeSellers]

10 hours ago, Maureen said:

However you or others are using the word "history" does not negate how the word can be defined.

It may be defined in any number of ways. And that does not stop my using it in the way I did (and then clarified). To try to force the connotation you prefer on my statement is putting words in my mouth, a wholly  unsanitary and impolite practice.

10 hours ago, Maureen said:

To say you don't have a testimony of church history but do have a testimony of JS's first vision or the BofM seems to be contradictory.

"Seems to be" isn't "is". There's no way I can force you to accept my words as meaning what I meant, but your inference does not change my implication.

Lehi

Edited May 6, 2016 by LeSellers

[Blackmarch]

On 5/4/2016 at 3:55 PM, Eve1991 said:

Why do so many people leave the Church? Some people say its because what a past prophet said about black people over 100 years ago and some people say its because they read things in the book of mormon ect and some people let over the new policy back in November. Why do people decide now they are leaving the Church because of something that was said 100 years ago? Also did the people ever read the bible where it says homosexuality is a sin and that marriage is only between a man and a woman?

People get their own ideas of what is and what was and what is supposed to be. and when reality doesn't mesh up they become offended, hurt, or feel betrayed.
This is where those who are humble will be seperated from those who are prideful.
It also helps to have a testimony from the Holy Spirit, at times like these.

[tesuji]

I ran across a scripture today that is relevant to the OP

Quote

31  Who am I, saith the Lord, that have promised and have not fulfilled?
32  I command and men obey not; I revoke and they receive not the blessing.
33  Then they say in their hearts: This is not the work of the Lord, for his promises are not fulfilled. 
--D&C 58

Lots of great stuff in that section 58

[tesuji]

15 hours ago, Vort said:

Instituted of God, as far as we know and have any right to speculate.

Murder. Pretty much cold-blooded.

Instituted of God.

Instituted of God for the protection of his kingdom and its members.

I believe your point is that the occurrence of some historical events is irrelevant to the Church's claims to truth. I agree with this. But I note that your examples given are uneven and all over the map. If this by intent, that's fine. Just wanted it noted.

I think Bytebear's point is that there are things in church history that try people's faith, that are stumbling blocks for some people. Especially if what they know about the church history all came from Sunday School. (It's not the purpose of Sunday School to get into these things.)

I have looked into all these "internet controversies" about church history, and have found there are reasonable explanations if you keep digging for them.

Part of the problem is that in the past, most Mormons (including me) have had a simplistic and naive view about the church. We thought Joseph Smith was pretty perfect. We still think our prophet is mostly perfect. The church would have always done the best possible thing in all cases.

This is how children think about the world. Now we are learning to think like adults. It's actually a major step forward in our progress as members.

Quote

11  When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

12  For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.

-- 1 Cor. 13

The church has some great Gospel Topics essays, which Elder Ballard has told seminary teachers that they should know by heart. I think the rest of us probably should too: https://www.lds.org/topics/essays

Is it possible God may have placed (or at least let happen) these difficult things in our church history to try the faith of members? And to give people an excuse to leave? God will force no one to heaven.

Edited May 6, 2016 by tesuji

[Guest]

Apparently, the Religion News Service is now claiming that Christopher Hitchens made a "deathbed" conversion to Christianity.  After further review I think they were jumping to conclusions.  Regardless of his final state I consider two things:

1) From an LDS perspective, a deathbed conversion to "accept God" absent the proper ordinances profits nothing.

2) When he was first diagnosed with cancer, he gave an interview where he stated,"I'm certain that in some drug-induced delerium, I may at one point give into emotion and fear and declare that I believe whatever.  But whatever pathetic creature remains in that state would not be me."

 

[tesuji]

53 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Apparently, the Religion News Service is now claiming that Christopher Hitchens made a "deathbed" conversion to Christianity.  After further review I think they were jumping to conclusions.  Regardless of his final state I consider two things:

1) From an LDS perspective, a deathbed conversion to "accept God" absent the proper ordinances profits nothing.

2) When he was first diagnosed with cancer, he gave an interview where he stated,"I'm certain that in some drug-induced delerium, I may at one point give into emotion and fear and declare that I believe whatever.  But whatever pathetic creature remains in that state would not be me."

 

Interesting.

Although, I think if a deathbed conversion is sincere, then it counts. I think people can learn a lot from illness and old age, even in the last few years, or days, of life. What matters is that your heart becomes right before God at some point.

Of course, yes, you still need baptism, whether in this life or after death by proxy. But the important thing is to get to where you accept it. 

The Laborers in the Vineyard - By Elder Jeffrey R. Holland
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-laborers-in-the-vineyard?lang=eng

Edited May 6, 2016 by tesuji

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, tesuji said:

Although, I think if a deathbed conversion is sincere, then it counts.

Yeah. Yeah.

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Apparently, the Religion News Service is now claiming that Christopher Hitchens made a "deathbed" conversion to Christianity.

Yeah, no.  I mean, yes they did, but no he didn't.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/author-larry-taunton-denies-claim-atheist-christopher-hitchens-accepted-god-before-death-162816/

 

Quote

One tweet posted by Religion News Service on Sunday that links to an article on the book written by freelance religion reporter Kimberly Winston states: "A controversial new book claims a dying Christopher Hitchens accepted God."

Taunton responded on Monday with with tweets of his own.

"The astonishingly bad journalism continues. I say no such thing," Taunton wrote. "Do any of these people read books?"

Edited May 6, 2016 by NeuroTypical

[Guest MormonGator]

58 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Yeah, no.  I mean, yes they did, but no he didn't.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/author-larry-taunton-denies-claim-atheist-christopher-hitchens-accepted-god-before-death-162816/

 

 The sad truth that believers must accept is that not everyone finds the light in life. Hitchens was a genius, a very smart man whom I agree with on several things. But he wasn't a believer. 

[Vort]

To clarify, my point was neither to criticize bytebear nor critique what he wrote. My suspicion is that he crafted his post exactly as he wanted it, with scattershot examples given to illustrate the encompassing nature of the disconnectedness between Church history and testimony. My only point was that the examples do not name things that are all false or wrong or bad or something like that. I wasn't suggesting that bytebear thought they were.

13 hours ago, Maureen said:

History - the whole series of past events connected with someone or something

The word "history" means what is known or believed about past events, not what actually occurred. Speaking of a book recounting past events, it can be a good (or true) history or a bad history. Many elements of our history are false. Of course, in common usage we often say "history" in reference to the actual occurrences of the past -- but this meaning of "history" means that the overwhelmingly vast majority of "history" is unknown and unknowable, forever out of reach of any possibility of recovery or knowledge in this sphere. In this context, it is not really a very useful way to use the word.

[Vort]

2 hours ago, tesuji said:

I think if a deathbed conversion is sincere, then it counts.

While I don't disagree with the underlying idea, I think it's almost always irrelevant. "Deathbed conversion" simply doesn't occur. People are what they are, and that is what they have become over months and years and decades of thought and action. This does not change in a moment just because you're dying.

I also think that saying this or that "counts" signifies that one thinks of God as a celestial bean-counter or checklist-keeper. (To be clear, I don't necessarily think that's what you [tesuji] believe, but that seems to be the implication of the wording.) What "counts" is who and what we are, not necessarily whether we have checked off this or that item. Yes, some acts (such as covenant-making) are absolutely necessary, but having a complete change of heart right before dying seems unlikely to me.

[Jane_Doe]

Why are we even talking about whether or not a deathbed conversion is "valid"?  It's not like it's our place to judge tell a person's conversation status anytime in this life or the next.

[NeuroTypical]

Yep.  Should I reap my eternal reward, and find Mr. Hitchens there, any surprise or anger on my part won't be coming from a righteous place. 

[Vort]

14 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Why are we even talking about whether or not a deathbed conversion is "valid"?

Why do we talk about 90% of the stuff we do? Because it's a discussion list.

The idea of "deathbed conversion" is dangerous. It is an example of "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die, and it shall be well with us...and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God." For the same reason that Nephi included the teachings in 2 Nephi 28, I think it is well worth decrying the false and pernicious doctrine of "deathbed conversion".

[NeedleinA]

21 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Why are we even talking about whether or not a deathbed conversion is "valid"?  

Laying on my deathbed right now, this topic is super relevant to me. I have just enough time to change my m..i..n.........

Edited May 6, 2016 by NeedleinA

[pam]

Confession whether on a deathbed or not is merely a confession.  One must sincerely be repentant and go through the repentance process. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

While I don't disagree with the underlying idea, I think it's almost always irrelevant. "Deathbed conversion" simply doesn't occur. People are what they are, and that is what they have become over months and years and decades of thought and action. This does not change in a moment just because you're dying.

I also think that saying this or that "counts" signifies that one thinks of God as a celestial bean-counter or checklist-keeper. (To be clear, I don't necessarily think that's what you [tesuji] believe, but that seems to be the implication of the wording.) What "counts" is who and what we are, not necessarily whether we have checked off this or that item. Yes, some acts (such as covenant-making) are absolutely necessary, but having a complete change of heart right before dying seems unlikely to me.

Vort,

That's what I said with my much more concise and infinitely more eloquent "Yeah, yeah".  Why did you feel the need to repeat me?

[tesuji]

Re: Deathbed conversion

Hey, folks, I'm glad I could liven up a Friday afternoon...

To clarify, I did not mean that I believe in deathbed confessions or people suddenly saying "I repent!" when they are faced with imminent death.

I was talking about the situation where a person finally after a long illness or suffering ill effects of old age gets to the point where they realize their sinfulness and sincerely wants to follow God.

I think in some cases, God gives people the "blessing" of terrible suffering at the end of life, to teach them this kind of lesson. Similar to that pioneer story we keep hearing in Sunday School where people were criticizing that one handcart company for leaving ill-prepared, when so many died, and the guy who was in it stands up and says it was worth it, for what he learned.

My father made some serious mistakes, kind of a crazy midlife crisis. He spent his last years with Parkinson's in a care center, unable to talk or do much of anything. I think he had a lot of time to think and allow himself to learn and be humbled by his illness. He died recently, and I said at his funeral that he died with the heart of a saint, and therefore his death was a victory. That's the whole point of this life.

 

Edited May 6, 2016 by tesuji

[flameburns623]

I went inactive because work kept me out of Sunday services at the same time that my former ward was split and I was assigned to a new one. Where I was a complete stranger. 

I'm not certain if I ever saw a home teacher again. I got a postcard once or twice, and I got a letter one time.

But even when I attended regularly for a few months, even when I went to the Elder's Quorum President and got some home teaching assignments for myself, I don't recall seeing my own home teacher. He approached me in Church, got my phone #, but to my knowledge never called or came by.

Incidentally, my own home teaching companion ducked doing HT'ing visits for a couple of months. So I went put on my own and found several of those assigned to us wanted no visits, and none of my assigned folks were active or interested in Church.

When I stopped attending, I stopped hearing from the ward. A few years later I just started going to the Catholic Church. Their services fit better the lifestyle of someone with an erratic work schedule. Since I no longer identified as LDS, I eventually resigned.

[flameburns623]

Keep in mind that there are several books now out through LDS pubkishers dealing with the issue of "faith crises".

That even Church numbers reflect the smallest Church growth in many decades, despite record numbers of missionaries.

That the "Millennial Generation" are showing a tremendous decline in interest in religion.

And that church attendance is the lowest it has been for a very long time.

The rumors of high numbers of resignations of LDS may be exaggerated or untrue, but there seem to be reasons behind the talk.