Why have many people left the Church after reading false things?

[Eve1991]

Just now, Sunday21 said:

No I am active. Yes Cardston is a hotbed of activity. I have not been..it is very expensive to travel within Canada, but if you look at the sessions for the temple, there are manny scheduled sessions. This is pretty amazing for a town with about 5k people out in the middle of nowhere!

I went to Cardston last year my brother married a 21 year old called Kayla and my brother and the rest of my family are English but Kayla has to stay in the UK for 5 years because she had trouble moving to the UK. 

[Sunday21]

1 minute ago, Eve1991 said:

I went to Cardston last year my brother married a 21 year old called Kayla and my brother and the rest of my family are English but Kayla has to stay in the UK for 5 years because she had trouble moving to the UK. 

I bet that was a lovely wedding! So sorry to hear that the young people will be separated! 

[Eve1991]

Just now, Sunday21 said:

I bet that was a lovely wedding! So sorry to hear that the young people will be separated! 

They are not seperated they are living together in the UK. She had trouble before they got married but she finally moved in September 2016 but after what happened she has to stay in the UK for 5 years. 

[mordorbund]

@Eve1991 What is your interest in why people leave (and homosexual issues and the Church)? Has someone you know left the Church over its history or social stances?

[Eve1991]

Just now, mordorbund said:

@Eve1991 What is your interest in why people leave (and homosexual issues and the Church)? Has someone you know left the Church over its history or social stances?

I have autism and I get curious about stuff

[mordorbund]

1 hour ago, Eve1991 said:

I have autism and I get curious about stuff

I suspect that you don't really want to know. Your questions so far have been phrased in a way to encourage an echo-chamber rather than a dialogue.

In @Maureen's defense, she has voiced the arguments used by those in your stated target demographic. You should note that the only scripture cited in these arguments is Article of Faith 2, which is a uniquely LDS belief. It could even be argued to go against some Old Testament teachings (the Lord will curse the disobedient to the 3rd and 4th generation). Despite this, you continue to hammer the same note, which is wholly irrelevant to the arguments presented.

I'll also add here a shoutout to @NeuroTypical for posting his experience with those disaffected.

[Eve1991]

2 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

I suspect that you don't really want to know. Your questions so far have been phrased in a way to encourage an echo-chamber rather than a dialogue.

In @Maureen's defense, she has voiced the arguments used by those in your stated target demographic. You should note that the only scripture cited in these arguments is Article of Faith 2, which is a uniquely LDS belief. It could even be argued to go against some Old Testament teachings (the Lord will curse the disobedient to the 3rd and 4th generation). Despite this, you continue to hammer the same note, which is wholly irrelevant to the arguments presented.

I'll also add here a shoutout to @NeuroTypical for posting his experience with those disaffected.

I do want to know

[Vort]

7 hours ago, Eve1991 said:

I think the policy is good. It says in the bible homosexuality is a sin so why would Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ want Gay marriage to happen and gay couples in the church they wouldn't. 

Eve, there appears to be a disconnect between your understanding of this policy and your questions about it.

The policy has nothing to do with the Church sanctioning homosexual "marriage" or encouraging homosexual couplings. Those have never been part of LDS practice, so the new policy doesn't touch that at all.

What the new policy DOES affect is whether minor children of homosexual couples are allowed to be baptized. Until the policy was put in place, children of homosexual "parents" could be baptized into the Church. I assume this was an extremely uncommon occurrence, but it could happen. After the policy announcement, it could not happen. Underage children of homosexual "parents" cannot be baptized until they reach the age of majority and disavow homosexual "marriage". In this respect, the new policy is almost identical with the existing policy prohibiting the baptism of minor children of polygamous couples, and requiring adult children of polygamous couples to disvow the polygamous lifestyle.

[Eve1991]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

Eve, there appears to be a disconnect between your understanding of this policy and your questions about it.

The policy has nothing to do with the Church sanctioning homosexual "marriage" or encouraging homosexual couplings. Those have never been part of LDS practice, so the new policy doesn't touch that at all.

What the new policy DOES affect is whether minor children of homosexual couples are allowed to be baptized. Until the policy was put in place, children of homosexual "parents" could be baptized into the Church. I assume this was an extremely uncommon occurrence, but it could happen. After the policy announcement, it could not happen. Underage children of homosexual "parents" cannot be baptized until they reach the age of majority and disavow homosexual "marriage". In this respect, the new policy is almost identical with the existing policy prohibiting the baptism of minor children of polygamous couples, and requiring adult children of polygamous couples to disvow the polygamous lifestyle.

I understand that. But I want to know why people get annoyed about the Church not accepting gay couples? 

[zil]

2 minutes ago, Eve1991 said:

... But I want to know why people get annoyed about the Church not accepting gay couples? 

They're annoyed about the Church not accepting (where accepting = baptizing) the children of gay couples.  That bit in red is crucial (and is the only new bit).

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, Eve1991 said:

I understand that. But I want to know why people get annoyed about the Church not accepting gay couples? 

That is a different matter altogether. People get annoyed about the Church not "accepting" gay couples for the same reason they get annoyed about the Church refusing to "ordain" women to the Priesthood, refusing to champion unmarried cohabitation, or refusing to accept abortion "rights": They do not believe the Church is God's kingdom on earth, they don't believe it is led by Jesus Christ through his anointed leaders, and they don't like that the Church's beliefs and practices contradict their own sociopolitical views.

[Eve1991]

1 minute ago, zil said:

They're annoyed about the Church not accepting (where accepting = baptizing) the children of gay couples.  That bit in red is crucial (and is the only new bit).

I know that but people know how the Church feels about gay marriage and the policy is good since it won't cause conflict in a home if a child who has gay parents want to be baptized at 18 without any conflict.

[Eve1991]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

That is a different matter altogether. People get annoyed about the Church not "accepting" gay couples for the same reason they get annoyed about the Church refusing to "ordain" women to the Priesthood, refusing to champion unmarried cohabitation, or refusing to accept abortion "rights": They do not believe the Church is God's kingdom on earth, they don't believe it is led by Jesus Christ through his anointed leaders, and they don't like that the Church's beliefs and practices contradict their own sociopolitical views.

What does cohabitation mean? I don't think abortion is right. I don't think women should get the priesthood. 

[Guest MormonGator]

14 minutes ago, Eve1991 said:

What does cohabitation mean?

Very good question. 

It means two unmarried people usually in a relationship living together without being married. 

Edited March 22, 2017 by MormonGator

[Sunday21]

6 hours ago, Eve1991 said:

I have autism and I get curious about stuff

Come be my research assistant!

[Eve1991]

On 23/03/2017 at 0:10 AM, Sunday21 said:

Come be my research assistant!

I live in the UK.

[Sunday21]

8 hours ago, Eve1991 said:

I live in the UK.

I live in Canada. No problem. We both spell colour with a 'u'! 

I have had a number of research assistant who are autistic. They were all great!

Edited March 25, 2017 by Sunday21

[Eve1991]

3 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

I live in Canada. No problem. We both spell colour with a 'u'! 

I have had a number of research assistant who are autistic. They were all great!

Where in Canada so you live. If I ever move to a different country I would move to Canada and live in Cardston. Why do so many people who have left the Church say Joseph Smith was a con man and and that the church is a lie?

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Eve1991 said:

Where in Canada so you live. If I ever move to a different country I would move to Canada and live in Cardston. Why do so many people who have left the Church say Joseph Smith was a con man and and that the church is a lie?

Given that the Church deals in absolute truths, people who leave for any reason (e.g., the relief society president hurt my feelings) kind of have to tell themselves and believe these things about the Church (that it is a fraud, etc.)  Otherwise, they have to face up to the fact that they are throwing away eternity over something petty and stupid, and most people do not want to face up to that, even if this is what is really going on.

Edited March 25, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[Eve1991]

5 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

Given that the Church deals in absolute truths, people who leave for any reason (e.g., the relief society president hurt my feelings) kind of have to tell themselves and believe these things about the Church (that it is a fraud, etc.)  Otherwise, they have to face up to the fact that they are throwing away eternity over something petty and stupid, anf most people do not want to face up to that, even if this is what is really going on.

Have lots of people your friends with left the Church then say the Church is a lie and that Joseph is a con man? 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Eve1991 said:

Have lots of people your friends with left the Church then say the Church is a lie and that Joseph is a con man? 

Of the ones who have actually left the Church?  All of them.

What else are they supposed to believe?  "The Church is true but I am walking away because, why not?"

Anyone who is angry enough at the Church to leave is going to have to convince themselves out of their testimony.  It is just too difficult to face up to the truth, that they are selling their birthright for a mess of pottage.

Edited March 25, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[Eve1991]

Just now, DoctorLemon said:

Of the ones who have actually left the Church?  All of them.

What else are they supposed to believe?  "The Church is true but I am walking away because, why not?"

Its sad that people think the Church is a lie and that Joseph was a con man, Why do they think Joseph is a con man and what do they think Joseph did to make them believe he was a con man? Do you think the people who leave usually become less active before they stop going and stop reading their scriptures and stop praying? 

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Eve1991 said:

Its sad that people think the Church is a lie and that Joseph was a con man, Why do they think Joseph is a con man and what do they think Joseph did to make them believe he was a con man? Do you think the people who leave usually become less active before they stop going and stop reading their scriptures and stop praying? 

 

13 minutes ago, Eve1991 said:

Its sad that people think the Church is a lie and that Joseph was a con man, Why do they think Joseph is a con man and what do they think Joseph did to make them believe he was a con man? Do you think the people who leave usually become less active before they stop going and stop reading their scriptures and stop praying? 

It is nothing Joseph did or did not do.  Rather, these people have to believe that Joseph was a con man or else their decision to leave the Church makes absolutely no sense.  They are trying desperately to justify to themselves that leaving the Church was the right choice.

I know a man who committed adultery.  He knew he was going to be disciplined.  So, instead of repenting, he left the Church.  It was only after committing adultery and being faced with church discipline that he started talking about the Church being a fraud and all that.  It is obvious to me he did not have some kind of epiphany where he discovered Joseph was a fraud.  Rather, he was leaving the Church to avoid repenting and had to convince himself out of his testimony.  

I think this happens a lot with people who have some sin in their lives that they do not really want to deal with through repentance.

Edited March 26, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[Sunday21]

3 hours ago, Eve1991 said:

Where in Canada so you live. If I ever move to a different country I would move to Canada and live in Cardston. Why do so many people who have left the Church say Joseph Smith was a con man and and that the church is a lie?

I don't live anywhere near Cardston, unfortunately! I am intriqued by Cardston especially when i look at the temple schedule online and see how well used their temple is. How does a town of 5k people do that? 

With respect to joesph Smith, he is either a prophet or a con artist. So if you do not believe the church is true, he is a con artist. 

I belive in God and also in Satan. I think that devils are all around us and try to influence us - how they do this without access to our thoughts, I do not know!

so glad, you are posting!

Edited March 26, 2017 by Sunday21

[Maureen]

2 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

I don't live anywhere near Cardston, unfortunately! I am intriqued by Cardston especially when i look at the temple schedule online and see how well used their temple is. How does a town of 5k people do that?

Southern Alberta has a large Mormon community. The Cardston Temple has a lot of history too, first dedicated in 1923. The Edmonton Temple is a mini-temple, the Calgary Temple is fairly new so I think the Cardston Temple provides that history and older style that the other two can't provide.

M.