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

[NeuroTypical]

9 minutes ago, Eve1991 said:

Do you think people who left the Church over the new policy were inactive anyway?

I have a buddy who tendered his resignation the morning he heard about the new policy.  He hadn't been inside a church in two decades, and has been loudly critical of the church and it's policies and members for a long time.

Despite what people want to think, only a tiny fraction of a percentage of people left the church over this policy.  It barely made the tiniest ripple in our membership numbers.  I would guess, hearing the online stories from dozens of these people, that the majority of them are like my friend - inactive and unbelieving for a long time, just finally got ticked off enough to do something about it.  

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I have a buddy who tendered his resignation the morning he heard about the new policy.  He hadn't been inside a church in two decades, and has been loudly critical of the church and it's policies and members for a long time.

Despite what people want to think, only a tiny fraction of a percentage of people left the church over this policy.  It barely made the tiniest ripple in our membership numbers.  I would guess, hearing the online stories from dozens of these people, that the majority of them are like my friend - inactive and unbelieving for a long time, just finally got ticked off enough to do something about it.  

I read somewhere that most converts in Canada won't bother to formally defect, they'll just stop going (any truth to that @Sunday21?). I think most people down in the states who have a serious problem with the homosexual issue will probably do the same. After all, if you don't believe in the church anymore why bother going though the formal resignation process? 

[yjacket]

Unfortunately many people miss IMO the reason on why children in homosexual families cannot be baptized. In this topic, too many progressive LDS members forget there is another group of people who's children may not be baptized, polygamists. IMO the Church came out with this policy to draw an unmistakable line in the sand, just as they did when Polygamy was done away with. To state unequivocally that while the Church certainly understands that the burdens of those who have SSA is tremendous homosexual behavior is not of God and will not be accepted in His Church, no ifs ands or buts.

I am glad they did and if someone leaves over this policy, I certainly wish they wouldn't but the parable of the wheat and the tares comes to mind.  

[Jane_Doe]

31 minutes ago, Eve1991 said:

How did you feel when the policy came out? In the bible it condemns homosexuality is a sin and it was God who says that. This is a good video. 

 

I'm actually a fan of that entire YouTube video series.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"How did you feel when the policy came out?"

My personal story: I actually first heard about it on this forum (this was about an hour after it had been leaked).  My first thought it was some anti-Mormon scheme thing.  Little bit of research proved that was not the case.  It sat inside me like a rock for about 2 days.  Not the part about practicing homosexuality being apostate (that's obvious to me), but the part about the kids.  I had questions about how this reconciles with the 2nd article of faith, the same questions I have heard many people ask since then.  I took it to a matter of prayer and study.  After about a week, I got my answer and am now actually a huge fan of this decision.  I feel that it is a great mercy to the kids of homosexual parents- it spares a poor 8 year old from having to choose between following the baptismal call of Christ right then (and acknowledging the sinfulness of her folks relationship) and refusing that call.  The kid's salvation is not threatened by having to wait, and they can still attend church and participate in the LDS faith (prayer, study, etc).  When they are then older and more stable on their feet, they then have the option of whether or not to accept Christ's call.  I find this to be very merciful to a child.  Still, I respect other people's journeys and realize that many people prayerfully have ended up in different positions. 

Edited March 20, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[NeuroTypical]

When I first hear the policy, I thought it was an attempt to protect children.  Here we have a kid in a family situation where nobody can be a member of the church.  I know!  Let's proselytize the crap out of him!  Let's invite him to church so he can hear about how his entire home life is in opposition to God's law!   Let's have well-meaning aunts and neighbors and stuff try to get him to get baptized!  See, that's the exact opposite of what God would want.  We're not in the habit of splitting apart families, even if we aren't down with the type of family.  

Those were my original thoughts.  Then I went online and found the smarter critics I knew.  I saw them saying stuff like "yeah, I get it - organizations have to do boundary maintenance every now and then."  

The loudest screaming I've heard have been from people who understand neither of these points.   (Please note, Maureen isn't screaming here, just trying her best to make critical hay without crossing a forum rule and getting the boot.)

[Maureen]

1 hour ago, Eve1991 said:

Do you think people who left the Church over the new policy were inactive anyway?

I think that members in different activity ranges were affected by this policy. But probably the majority were those who were already close to leaving. This policy was "the straw that broke the camel's back", as they say.

M.

[anatess2]

On 3/18/2017 at 10:23 PM, DoctorLemon said:

Has anyone else noticed that almost everyone who leaves the Church leaves for atheism and/or secularism, and not because they are "trading up" to a different religion they have found to be more true?

This kind of blows my mind.  I would like to think that, in the extremely unlikely event that I were to lose my testimony and leave the Church, I would run, and not walk, to the nearest Southern Baptist Church and become an evangelical (or, let's be honest, maybe even the nearest mosque to say the Shahada!)  But, I am not seeing this very much among my friends who have left the Church.  They just drift away from God altogether.  

This suggests that maybe these friends have issues with God to begin with, and use the literature as an excuse and a way to justify their decision?

Not necessarily true.  Most of the people that left our ward joined the Universalist Church (non-denominational).  The Young Men President from our ward that left the Church is now a frequent speaker at the Universalist.

[Maureen]

1 hour ago, Eve1991 said:

this is a good read https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiR_unuseXSAhXCjpAKHZckDAMQFggrMAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gregtrimble.com%2Fso-you-think-the-book-of-mormon-is-a-fraud%2F&usg=AFQjCNEGxPtRB_qxJdIPeGfAQII5awcGWw&sig2=GirZPAT2OB6dtN5VfkRzbA

@Eve1991, did you read any of the comments? 

M.

[priesthoodpower]

On 3/18/2017 at 4:23 PM, DoctorLemon said:

Has anyone else noticed that almost everyone who leaves the Church leaves for atheism and/or secularism, and not because they are "trading up" to a different religion they have found to be more true?

This kind of blows my mind.  I would like to think that, in the extremely unlikely event that I were to lose my testimony and leave the Church, I would run, and not walk, to the nearest Southern Baptist Church and become an evangelical (or, let's be honest, maybe even the nearest mosque to say the Shahada!)  But, I am not seeing this very much among my friends who have left the Church.  They just drift away from God altogether.  

This suggests that maybe these friends have issues with God to begin with, and use the literature as an excuse and a way to justify their decision?

My wife is one of those that when she left the LDS church she was determined to find a better church somewhere else. She went to several and finally gave up because none of them felt right to her, she still has a relationship with God and our Savior Jesus Christ but no longer believes that any man (prophet, bishop, pope etc..) should get between you and God.

Her experience would be mine if I had left the LDS church too, except I would not visit any other church because I already know that there is nothing better that any other church could offer. I think that is the same reason many that leave dont continue else where because deep down they still do have a testimony of the fullness of the gospel but for some reason or another no longer are motivated to be active.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Maureen said:

@Eve1991, did you read any of the comments? 

M.

Why?

[priesthoodpower]

16 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Not necessarily true.  Most of the people that left our ward joined the Universalist Church (non-denominational).  The Young Men President from our ward that left the Church is now a frequent speaker at the Universalist.

I have no idea what anyother church does or how they worship. But my guess would be that for what ever reason a person leaves one church to join another, those same reasons will surface again and they will run again. The old saying....the grass is not always greener on the other side.

Edited March 21, 2017 by priesthoodpower

[Blueskye2]

19 minutes ago, priesthoodpower said:

I have no idea what anyother church does or how they worship. But my guess would be that for what ever reason a person leaves one church to join another, those same reasons will surface again and they will run again. The old saying....the grass is not always greener on the other side. Also the same reason why adults are on their 3rd or 4th marriage.

With UUs, maybe, maybe not. I knew UUs who were atheist, pagan and Christian. Each person having designed for themselves what those things meant to them. There being no doctrines or creeds, it's a loose bunch of people who are organized under humanists ideals. 

Edited March 20, 2017 by Blueskye2

[Sunday21]

7 hours ago, MormonGator said:

I read somewhere that most converts in Canada won't bother to formally defect, they'll just stop going (any truth to that @Sunday21?). I think most people down in the states who have a serious problem with the homosexual issue will probably do the same. After all, if you don't believe in the church anymore why bother going though the formal resignation process? 

 

7 hours ago, MormonGator said:

I read somewhere that most converts in Canada won't bother to formally defect, they'll just stop going (any truth to that @Sunday21?). I think most people down in the states who have a serious problem with the homosexual issue will probably do the same. After all, if you don't believe in the church anymore why bother going though the formal resignation process? 

Yes, most Canadians just stop going to church, we don't take our names off the records. We are not a very aggressive group of people. When I was stake singles rep, I called all the people listed as single that had not shown up for awhile, most had married and were not interested in the church. When I was inactive, I was not interested in the church. I did have a missionary try to force me to have my name taken off the church records but I did not want to get involved to the point of writing a letter, because I did not trust the church leadership. I did not want them to start annoying me, I just wanted them to go away. When they contacted me, I asked them not to bother me again and I felt this should be sufficient. 

[Guest MormonGator]

9 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

We are not a very aggressive group of people. 

I don't know about that @Sunday21. I've seen some pretty brutal hockey fights...

(playing, playing! I love Canada!) 

[Sunday21]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

I don't know about that @Sunday21. I've seen some pretty brutal hockey fights...

(playing, playing! I love Canada!) 

Yes, that's true! Many half battered, concussion addled young men with missing teeth in my high school. Poor souls! By the way, there was a study done that found a correlation between the severity and number of hockey fights and the hometowns of the fighters. The rowdiest fighters came from towns that were not originally settled with a strong RCMP presence. Our Motto is Law, Order, and Good Government. 

[Maureen]

1 hour ago, Eowyn said:

Why?

Because the comments would give her a wide range of thoughts from other readers. Some would agree with the essay, some would not.

M.

[Guest]

12 hours ago, Maureen said:

Because the comments would give her a wide range of thoughts from other readers. Some would agree with the essay, some would not.

M.

So, you're purpose here is to expand the minds and thoughts of the ignorant Mormons on the site -- not to be a thorn in our sides.  Let me write that down because it will be easy to forget.

[Maureen]

10 hours ago, Carborendum said:

So, you're purpose here is to expand the minds and thoughts of the ignorant Mormons on the site -- not to be a thorn in our sides.  Let me write that down because it will be easy to forget.

So your advice to @Eve1991 would be believe everything you read from fellow Mormons and definitely don't think for yourself?

M.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Maureen said:

So your advice to @Eve1991 would be believe everything you read from fellow Mormons and definitely don't think for yourself?

M.

Do you learn to twist people's words, or even invent them, in a class or something?

[Maureen]

@Eve1991, how do you feel about the new policy not allowing children of same-sex married parents to be baptized?

M.

[JohnsonJones]

13 minutes ago, Maureen said:

@Eve1991, how do you feel about the new policy not allowing children of same-sex married parents to be baptized?

M.

I think I explained this previously in another thread, but I'll do a short rehash here.  It is a double sided policy.

The LDS church tries to respect the rights of parents to raise their families.  In that light, it normally is not going to encourage children to be baptized if their parents are opposed to the policies and standards of the LDS religion.  Children are supposed to respect their parents, not hate and fight them about their lifestyle.  As the LDS church does not approve of Gay Marriage in it's standards, if it were to baptize children from those marriages, it would be encouraging those children to disrespect and disagree with their parents.  In most instances this should be self-evident.  The church in general has a policy where a child cannot be baptized if parents do not approve.

Some would question, what if the parents in this type of marriage DO approve?  There is a secondary problem that arises.  Though children of divorced parents can be baptized if one parent approves in many instances, in this instance, it has been shown in various other organizations that those involved in same sex marriages tend to be very angry and over wrought when something happens that they do not approve of.  This is NOT just in regards to Same-Sex marriage participants, and does occur with others, but overwhelmingly it seems to have occurred in the past in regards to the LDS church with children in these situations.

Furthermore, this policy is ALSO a safe guard to the LDS church.  In that way, it is a double sided policy.  Though they do not speak for every LGBT individual, those on the fringes of the LGBT groups tend towards legalistic antagonism, willing to use any and every legal means to force an organization to bend to what the LGBT audience feels it should.  This has been used in the past against the church.  It is being used today against the Boy Scouts of America and is largely responsible for many of the changes that have occurred (because the only other choice, as I've heard from the BSA is to be sued into obscurity and no longer exist).  It is highly likely that eventually without a policy like this a Same Sex Marriage couple will say they approve to have their children baptized and then utilize that as leverage to claim discrimination and uneven application of policies within the church, therefore insisting that they have the same rights as others inside the church that also have their children accepted.  These could involve things such as having a member of the home bear the priesthood, as the LDS doctrine says families should have a priesthood bearer and as a baptized child...they would assume this should apply to those in a Same Sex marriage as well, regardless of gender or sex.  This would NOT simply be a petition or trying to get into a priesthood meeting, this would be done via courts.  Other aspect could be insisting on being sealed as a family unit, and various other items that have been ensued in other nations as well (and one reason some hypothesize that the LDS church may do what it's done in other areas where sealings are distinctly different and in a different category than the Marriage Ceremony).

So, in short it is to safeguard the homes, but it is also to safeguard the LDS church.

Whether one agrees or chooses to see it that way, is there own prerogative.

[Eve1991]

On 20/03/2017 at 5:08 PM, Maureen said:

@Eve1991, did you read any of the comments? 

M.

No

[Eve1991]

On 20/03/2017 at 11:32 PM, Sunday21 said:

 

Yes, most Canadians just stop going to church, we don't take our names off the records. We are not a very aggressive group of people. When I was stake singles rep, I called all the people listed as single that had not shown up for awhile, most had married and were not interested in the church. When I was inactive, I was not interested in the church. I did have a missionary try to force me to have my name taken off the church records but I did not want to get involved to the point of writing a letter, because I did not trust the church leadership. I did not want them to start annoying me, I just wanted them to go away. When they contacted me, I asked them not to bother me again and I felt this should be sufficient. 

Are you still inactive. Cardston have lots of active Mormons.

[Eve1991]

12 hours ago, Maureen said:

@Eve1991, how do you feel about the new policy not allowing children of same-sex married parents to be baptized?

M.

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. 

[Sunday21]

10 minutes ago, Eve1991 said:

Are you still inactive. Cardston have lots of active Mormons.

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!

Edited March 22, 2017 by Sunday21